I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Great Barrier Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 20 November 2018

1:00pm

Claris Conference Centre
19 Whangaparapara Road
Claris
Great Barrier Island

 

Great Barrier Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Izzy Fordham

 

Deputy Chairperson

Luke Coles

 

Members

Jeff Cleave

 

 

Susan Daly

 

 

Shirley Johnson

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Guia Nonoy

Democracy Advisor

 

9 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 301 0101

Email: guia.nonoy@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Environmental agency and community group reports                                             7

12        Approval for the deployment of Goodnature A24 trap devices on Aotea Great Barrier                                                                                                                           29

13        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                              35

14        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy     69

15        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                          87

16        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                   233

17        Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents       247

18        Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Great Barrier Local Board for quarter one                                                                                                                 257

19        Auckland Transport November 2018 update to the Great Barrier Local Board 277

20        Correspondence                                                                                                        299

21        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                      303

22        Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings                                               311  

23        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 


1          Welcome

 

Chairperson IM Fordham will open the meeting and welcome everyone in attendance.

Member J Cleave will lead a karakia.

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          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.

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 16 October 2018, as true and correct.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Environmental agency and community group reports

 

File No.: CP2018/20822

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for Aotea Great Barrier community groups and environmental agencies with interest or role in the environment or the work of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board, to have items considered as part of the board’s business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Environment Committee of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board has been discontinued from the start of this electoral term 2016/2019. To continue with the tradition of open and more direct interaction between the board, local groups and others, the local board has extended an invitation to either speak at the board’s business meeting via Public Forum or put items forward and have reports included in the agenda.

3.       Inclusion of items on the agenda is at the discretion of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Chairperson in discussion with the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Relationship Manager to ensure the material is appropriate and will not create any issues. Any items submitted will be included under a cover report which will have the recommendation that “item xyz be noted or received”.

 

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      note the following reports:

i)          Biosecurity local board general update September - October 2018

ii)         Biodiversity/biosecurity report September – October 2018

iii)        Department of Conservation operations report – November 2018

iv)        Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust Update – November 2018

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Biosecurity local board general update September - October 2018

9

b

Biodiversity/biosecurity report September - October 2018

13

c

Department of Conservation operations report – November 2018

23

d

Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust Update – November 2018

27

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Approval for the deployment of Goodnature A24 trap devices on Aotea Great Barrier

 

File No.: CP2018/21580

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve that the Goodnature A24 traps be deployed at Hirakimata in collaboration with the Department of Conservation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Goodnature A24 project commenced in 2016 and has been a collaboration between the Great Barrier Local Board, the Department of Conservation, Goodnature, Auckland Council Biosecurity and Windy Hill Sanctuary.

3.       The board funded the purchase of 300 Goodnature A24 traps and the council funded the cost of lures and gas canisters for the proposed duration of the project. 293 Goodnature A24 traps were deployed in the Big Windy Hill Pest Managed Area in February 2016.

4.       The Goodnature A24 project was discontinued in August 2018 as the traps were not achieving a low enough rat density. As a result, staff have developed the following options for the board to consider:

·    Option A: Deploy all of the traps at Hirakimata

·    Option B: Deploy some traps at Hirakimata, reserving some traps for community use

·    Option C: Deploy the traps around the outside of Glenfern Sanctuary

5.       These options were presented to the board and discussed at a workshop on 9 October 2018.

6.       Staff recommend that the board supports Option A, that all the Goodnature A24 traps be deployed at Hirakimata in collaboration with the Department of Conservation.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      approve that all 293 of the Goodnature A24 traps be deployed at Hirakimata in collaboration with the Department of Conservation.

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       The Goodnature A24 project has been a collaboration between the Great Barrier Local Board, the Department of Conservation, Goodnature, Auckland Council Biosecurity and Windy Hill Sanctuary. This project commenced in January 2016 and was envisaged to run for two years.

8.       The board funded the purchase of 300 Goodnature A24 traps at a cost of $39,064. A further $13,884 was funded from Auckland Council to cover lures and gas canisters for the proposed duration of the project. The total cost of equipment for the project from February 2016 to June 2018 is $60,890. This figure excludes field staff time and monitoring, which was funded by Windy Hill Sanctuary.

9.       293 Goodnature A24 traps were deployed in the Big Windy Hill Pest Managed Area between 22 February 2016 and 24 February 2016.

10.     Results have shown that rat densities have fluctuated around the 30 per cent mark for the duration of the two-year project. This is significantly higher than areas of the sanctuary which were managed through snap traps and toxin.

11.     In August 2017 the Goodnature A24 traps were moved from 100 by 50 metre spacings to 100 by 25 metre spacings aimed at lowering rat densities further by targeting kiore which have a smaller home range.

12.     No significant difference in rat abundance was observed after the traps were moved. Rat densities remained at the 30 per cent mark in the project area.

13.     The Goodnature A24 project was discontinued in August 2018 as the traps were not achieving a low enough rat density. The Goodnature A24 traps have been decommissioned and have been sent to the Claris service centre for temporary storage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14.     The Windy Hill Sanctuary submitted a final project report to the board in September 2017. The report recommended that the board:

·    continue to fund the Goodnature A24 project for a further 12 months to more fully assess the closer proximity of the Goodnature A24 traps

·    change the timing for the automatic lure pump changeover to four monthly intervals and the gas to eight monthly intervals

15.     These recommendations were not supported by the council’s Biosecurity team or the board due to the additional financial commitment required.

16.     Staff have investigated other options for the use of the Goodnature A24 traps, which are discussed below.

Option A: Deploy all of the Goodnature A24 traps at Hirakimata in association with the Department of Conservation (recommended)

17.     This option would involve collaboration between the Department of Conservation, the council’s Biosecurity team and the board.

18.     Through the natural environment targeted rate, the council has made a commitment to undertake pest control within more biodiversity focus areas on Great Barrier. Biodiversity focus areas are ecosystems that the council have identified as a priority for protection in the Auckland region.

19.     Hirakimata is a kauri, towai, rata, montane podocarp forest which is managed by the Department of Conservation. It has been identified as a biodiversity focus area.

20.     Hirakimata is home to threatened species, including a declining population of tomtit and robin and the only breeding population of black petrels.

21.     The Windy Hill Sanctuary is a podocarp-broadleaf forest, an ecosystem which characteristically supports high density rodent populations due to abundant food and optimal habitat.

22.     The Hirakimata is a podocarp-cloud forest which, due to high rainfall, lower temperatures and less abundant food resources, supports fewer mammalian predators than ecosystems like Windy Hill Sanctuary. It is therefore anticipated that the traps would have a higher efficacy on Hirakimata than at Windy Hill Sanctuary.

23.     Hirakimata currently has a very limited trap network. Extending this network would benefit the threatened species that inhabit the area and ensure council is taking steps towards achieving pest control outcomes as outlined in the natural environment targeted rate.

24.     The Department of Conservation have agreed to provide the staff and the equipment required to deploy and activate the 293 Goodnature A24 traps on Hirakimata.

25.     Option A is the recommended option as it enables the Goodnature A24 traps to be utilised for pest control in a different ecosystem type where the traps are likely to have a higher efficacy than at Windy Hill Sanctuary, due to the lower rat numbers present at Hirakimata. The traps would be particularly beneficial for the Hirakimata area which currently has very limited pest control.

Option B: Deploy 200 of the Goodnature A24 traps on Hirakimata, and have 93 available for community use

26.     Similar to Option A, this option would involve collaboration between the Department of Conservation, the council’s Biosecurity team and the board to deploy the Goodnature A24 traps on Hirakimata with the exception of 93 traps which would be reserved for community use.

27.     If traps are loaned to the community, they will require a coordinator to trace the traps and make sure they are being used and maintained. Community members would also need to purchase the gas canisters and lures which are essential to trap function.

28.     There is a risk that the loaned traps would not be effectively deployed and maintained, due to the expense of purchasing gas canisters and lures. If the loaned traps are not returned, then the asset would no longer be retained by the council.

29.     There is a high likelihood that the Goodnature A24 traps will be less effective when they are sparsely distributed across the island. Therefore, this community loan methodology is not likely to lower pest animal densities in any one area.

30.     This option may be viable if carried out in association with an ecology vision coordinator. The council could supply Goodnature A24 traps to absentee land owners within the Tryphena oasis and Okiwi community pest area.

31.     Option B is not recommended due to the anticipated limited efficacy of these traps when sparsely distributed across the island. 

Option C: Use the Goodnature A24 traps as a halo around Glenfern Sanctuary

32.     This option would be delivered in association with a Goodnature A24 trial that is being undertaken at Shakespeare Regional Park, supported by the council’s Parks team.

33.     The aim of the trial is to assess the use of Goodnature A24 traps in reducing the incursion rate of rats into a fenced sanctuary, by developing a trap network to act as a halo around the outside of the fence.

34.     Pest control inside the fenced Glenfern Sanctuary is managed by the Glenfern Trust and is not carried out by the council.

35.     The Parks team would be responsible for the funding of the deployment and activation of traps. This option has been discussed with the Parks team and they have confirmed their interest in supporting this option.

36.     The current density of rats within the Glenfern Sanctuary is at 16 per cent. Ideally, the rat density inside the sanctuary should be below 5 per cent before establishing a halo of pest control traps.

37.     Option C is not the preferred option as the Glenfern Sanctuary is a very similar ecosystem to the Windy Hill Sanctuary, where the traps had poor efficacy. Also, the rat densities inside the sanctuary would need to be significantly reduced before a halo trap network is implemented.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

38.     Hirakimata has been identified as a biodiversity focus area that is home to threatened species, including a declining population of tomtit and robin and the only breeding population of black petrels on Aotea Great Barrier.

39.     The Goodnaure A24 trap devices would be particularly beneficial for the Hirakimata area which currently has very limited pest control.

Local board views

40.     The board approved funding for Goodnature trap field trials at the business meeting in October 2015. The project commenced in February 2016 and project updates were provided to the board by Windy Hill Sanctuary.

41.     At the September 2018 business meeting the board received the Goodnature A24 trap project final report prepared by Windy Hill Sanctuary.

42.     Staff developed options for deployment of the left over Goodnature A24 trap devices, as detailed in this report. These options were presented to the board at a workshop on 9 October 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

43.     No specific consultation with Māori has been undertaken on the development of these options for the deployment of the Goodnature A24 trap devices.

44.     The Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Hapū Management Plan notes conditional support for biosecurity projects on Aotea.

45.     If successful, the deployment of the Goodnature A24 traps will help to enhance cultural values of Aotea Great Barrier through the preservation of native plant and animal species via pest animal control.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

46.     The board funded 300 Goodnature A24 traps at a cost of $39,064. The trap devices remain assets of the council regardless of the option chosen.

47.     There is no cost to the board associated with Option A or Option C. Costs associated with these options would be met by the Department of Conservation for Option A, or by regional budgets for Option C.

48.     There may be a cost to the board with Option B if the board funded ecology vision coordinator were to manage the lending and deployment of traps to members of the community.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

49.     If Option B is chosen, there is a risk that the loaned traps would not be effectively deployed and maintained, due to the high cost of purchasing gas canisters and lures.

50.     There is a risk that the Goodnature A24 trap devices will not achieve a low enough rat density to warrant continued use. If Option A is chosen, the Department of Conservation will work with Goodnature to develop improvements to the traps to increase their efficacy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

51.     If Option A or Option B is approved by the board, the council’s Biosecurity staff will manage the collaboration with the Department of Conservation and provide updates to the board through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services monthly workshop updates.

52.     If Option C is approved by the board, the council’s Biosecurity staff will manage the collaboration with the Parks team. The Parks team would be responsible for providing updates to the board.

53.     The community will be informed of next steps by the council’s Biosecurity staff via local communication channels and bulletin updates.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Miriana Knox - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/20970

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary of consultation feedback from local board residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, and to provide feedback on recommended changes to the document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is currently developing a new Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be managed in Auckland. It provides a framework to minimise the spread and impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach. Once operative, the Regional Pest Management Plan will provide a regulatory framework to support the council’s biosecurity activities, including those funded through the natural environment targeted rate.

3.       The Proposed Regional Pest Management plan was approved for public consultation by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167) and consulted on in February and March 2018 alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

4.       A workshop was held with the board on 11 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Residents of Aotea Great Barrier Island provided 24 submissions on the plan, representing two per cent of overall submissions. The views of these residents were similar to regional views, with support across all topics excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

6.       This report requests the board’s formal feedback on recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan arising from key submission themes. Submission themes and corresponding changes are summarised in Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      receive a summary of consultation feedback from the residents of Aotea Great Barrier Island on the Proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

b)      provide feedback on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan based on consultation feedback.

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy. The new Regional Pest Management Plan will prescribe the council’s approach to pest management to reflect best practice and changes to various pest plants and animals in the Auckland region. The review is also in direct response to, and compliant with, the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

8.       The review of the Regional Pest Management Plan began with an issues and options paper discussed with elected members, followed by a public discussion document which was used as a basis for engagement with mana whenua, stakeholders and elected members.

9.       At its November 2017 meeting, the Environment and Community Committee approved the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan for public consultation alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     Consultation on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan took place from February to March 2018 alongside consultation on the Long-term Plan and other statutory planning documents. A total of 1,262 submissions were received, which represents a significant increase on the approximately 400 submissions that were received on the 2015 discussion document. The breakdown by submission type is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan breakdown by submission type (Auckland-wide)

Submission type

Number of submissions

Percentage of submissions

Online form

1035

82%

Hardcopy form

183

15%

Non-form (e.g. email, letter)

44

3%

 

11.     Of the 1,262 submissions received, 23 were pro-forma submissions from Forest and Bird. The number of submission received by local board area is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan submissions by local board area

Local board

Number of submitters

Percentage of submitters

Albert-Eden

116

9%

Devonport-Takapuna

53

4%

Franklin

50

4%

Aotea Great Barrier

24

2%

Henderson-Massey

46

4%

Hibiscus and Bays

85

7%

Howick

52

4%

Kaipātiki

98

8%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

17

1%

Manurewa

18

1%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

51

4%

Ōrākei

64

5%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

7

1%

Papakura

21

2%

Puketāpapa

12

1%

Rodney

162

13%

Upper Harbour

41

3%

Waiheke

37

3%

Waitākere Ranges

87

7%

Waitematā

51

4%

Whau

41

3%

Regional

5

0%

Not Supplied

69

5%

Outside Auckland

55

4%

Total

1,262

 

12.     The consultation feedback form included eight questions relating to key programmes in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan that were described in a summary document (see Attachment B for details around each of the proposed approaches). The responses received for each question from residents of Aotea Great Barrier Island are summarised below in Table 3, and show support across all these topic areas.

Table 3: Feedback from Aotea Great Barrier residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

Question

Response

Percentage of submissions local board

Percentage of submissions regional

1. What is your view on the proposed approach to pest plant management in parks?

Full support

33%

26%

Partial support

33%

17%

Partial do not support

0%

3%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

33%

53%

2. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing kauri dieback?

Full support

17%

27%

Partial support

48%

29%

Partial do not support

13%

5%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

22%

37%

3. What is your view on the proposed approach to prevent the spread of pests to the Hauraki Gulf Islands?

Full support

17%

46%

Partial support

30%

19%

Partial do not support

9%

12%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

43%

21%

4. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Aotea/Great Barrier?

Full support

11%

44%

Partial support

41%

20%

Partial do not support

4%

4%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

44%

30%

5. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Kawau Island?

Full support

26%

43%

Partial support

39%

23%

Partial do not support

0%

7%

Full do not support

0%

4%

Other comments

35%

23%


 

Question

Response

Percentage of submissions local board

Percentage of submissions regional

6. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Waiheke Island?

Full support

15%

44%

Partial support

40%

21%

Partial do not support

0%

5%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

45%

28%

7. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of rural possums?

Full support

32%

38%

Partial support

32%

28%

Partial do not support

0%

7%

Full do not support

0%

4%

Other comments

37%

23%

8. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of freshwater pests?

Full support

29%

46%

Partial support

50%

23%

Partial do not support

0%

4%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

21%

25%

13.     In addition to the eight themed questions covered in Table 3, a further open-ended question elicited responses about a wide range of other topics covered in the proposed plan.

14.     The most commonly raised topic in the open-ended question was the issue of cat management. A wide range of views on this topic were expressed, including requests for increased cat management beyond that in the proposed plan. The majority of submissions on this topic voiced concerns about cats being included as pests. These submitters cited animal welfare issues and concerns that domestic cats throughout Auckland would be at risk under the proposed plan. Staff are exploring options for mitigating these concerns, which in many cases reflect a perception of more extensive cat control than was envisaged in the plan. Options for mitigating concerns include clarifying the spatial extent of the proposed approach in the final plan, and alternatives to the use of the term ‘pest cat’.

15.     Staff have worked through submissions to determine any changes to be recommended for the final plan. Attachment A identifies key themes where amendments to pest management programmes in the proposed plan were sought by submitters, along with proposed staff responses. Feedback themes have been grouped according to the questions in Table 3 (above), along with an ‘other’ category to capture feedback related to other topics.

16.     This report seeks formal feedback from the board at its November 2018 business meeting on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in response to consultation feedback.


 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

17.     During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. In addition to these regional issues, the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board provided feedback on locally specific issues of importance to the area, including pigeons, weeds on council land, rabbits, and the importance of education around pests.

18.     Proposed approaches to be taken in relation to these issues were workshopped with the board in July 2017. At its August 2017 business meeting the board provided formal feedback on these proposed management approaches. A copy of this feedback is appended in Attachment C.

19.     A recent workshop with the board was held on 11 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and the recommended amendments to the plan, as set out in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20.     Section 61 of the Biosecurity Act requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out the effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship between Māori, their culture, their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

21.     Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland region during development of the plan, and formal submissions were received from the mana whenua groups listed below. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species.

·        Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        Te Kawerau ā Maki

·        Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·        Te Uri o Hau

·        Te Tira Whakamātaki -  Māori Biosecurity Network

22.     Submissions were largely supportive of the approaches set out in the proposed plan, and key themes noted in feedback from mana whenua included:

·        the need to enhance rather than protect ecosystem function and resilience

·        the need to recognise ecological value outside Significant Ecological Areas

·        the need to identify performance measures to enable people to readily evaluate success

·        the need to adopt management strategies that incentivise good management approaches

·        the importance of community education and involvement in pest management

·        mana whenua participation in pest management in collaboration with Auckland Council.

23.     Staff have prepared a summary of mana whenua feedback, including proposed staff responses. This document will be circulated to mana whenua submitters for their consideration in November and December 2018. This content will be included in the final submission summary that is reported to the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019, alongside the final plan. This content will be made available to all local boards prior to the committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24.     The Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan presents a major change in pest management in Auckland, and therefore requires a significant increase in investment. As part of consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the council sought community views on two options for increased investment in the natural environment funded by a targeted rate.

25.     On 31 May 2018, the Governing Body approved the introduction of a natural environment targeted rate to raise $311 million for environmental initiatives. These initiatives include addressing kauri dieback and targeted ecological protection (resolution GB/2018/91).

26.     This level of investment allows substantial (approximately 80 per cent), but not full, implementation of the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. Some changes to the proposed plan will be made to fit the funding envelope, most notably reducing the spatial extent of parks supported by pest plant control in buffer zones, and removing the moth plant good neighbour rule from the Hauraki Gulf Islands. These changes are addressed in further detail in Attachment A.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     There are no significant risks arising from the board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the board chooses not to give feedback this would create a risk that their views will not be reflected in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

28.     If adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan is delayed, this will create significant risks to the council’s ability to achieve targets for protecting native biodiversity, through effectively regulating the control of pest plants, animals and pathogens.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29.     Attachment A has been prepared to facilitate local board feedback on the recommended changes to the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

30.     Staff will progress development of the final Regional Pest Management Plan in line with the process and indicative timeframes outlined in Table 4 below. A copy of the final plan and supporting information (including a full submissions analysis report and staff recommendations) will be provided to local boards for information prior to Environment and Community Committee adoption in March 2019.

Table 4: Timeframes for the finalisation of the Regional Pest Management Plan

Action/Milestone

Indicative timeframe

Mana whenua engagement to address changes proposed in submissions

September – October 2018

Local boards resolve formal feedback at business meetings

November – December 2018

 

Environment and Community Committee workshop

November 2018

Staff draft final plan

December 2018 – February 2019

Environment and Community Committee adopt plan

March 2019

 

Closing the loop with local boards and submitters

April – May 2019

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key submission themes and recommended amendments to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback

43

b

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document

53

c

Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

65

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21094

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

3.       In response to these challenges, the Environment and Community Committee approved the scope of a strategy for Auckland’s waters at its June 2018 meeting (resolution ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved management for water in all its forms. It will establish the outcomes needed for Auckland’s waters, as part of implementation of the Auckland Plan.

4.       Staff from across Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have started developing the draft Auckland Water Strategy by first identifying Auckland’s water issues.

5.       A comprehensive engagement programme has also commenced. This has included mana whenua engagement through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum as well as separate workshops with operational kaitiaki.

6.       Staff have also attended workshops with all 21 local boards, the governing body and subject matter experts to present the progress of the strategy, and to introduce key topics to be addressed in the strategy.

7.       A draft discussion document is now being developed. This document will set out the key water topics, and propose a framework for the water strategy, for public feedback. 

8.       This report provides an update on the development of the strategy and requests formal feedback from the local board on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (see Attachment A). A template to guide local board feedback has been included as Attachment B to this report.

9.       Feedback from local boards will be summarised as part of a report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of a water strategy discussion document, ahead of public consultation from February to April 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      note that local board feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy will be included in a report to the Environmental and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of the draft Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation in early 2019.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     The health of Auckland’s waters is a significant issue. Decades of pressure have had negative impacts on water quality, and on freshwater and marine environments. This pressure will continue to increase if changes are not made to the way that water is valued and managed. Population growth and climate change will further amplify the challenges, with greater demand for water services, and an increased risk of flooding and coastal inundation.

11.     The Auckland Plan notes a key challenge of ‘environmental degradation’ and identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions (focus area five of the Auckland Plan’s environment and cultural heritage outcome). Other focus areas of the Auckland Plan speak to the need to future-proof Auckland’s infrastructure, make sustainable choices, and fully account for past and future impacts of growth.

12.     The Environment and Community Committee agreed to the development of the Auckland Water Strategy at its 12 September 2017 meeting. The committee noted that water is often described and managed in categories, such as stormwater, wastewater and drinking water. An overarching strategy for Auckland’s waters, in all their forms, was identified as a way of ensuring the full range of desired outcomes for water are defined and achieved in an integrated way.

13.     Several drivers give weight to the timely development of this strategy. These include heightened public awareness of water quality risks, and strong support from the public for improvements to water quality through the ten-year budget, central government initiatives (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Department of Internal Affairs review of three waters outcomes) and the need to update existing strategies due to significant population growth. It also responds to mana whenua aspirations surrounding te mauri o te wai.

14.     Since the strategy’s initiation in September 2017, staff have undertaken preliminary analytical work and engagement across the council group. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council group’s current water-related activities, and analysing the public feedback on the proposed Auckland Plan and 10-year budget.

15.     An extensive local board and mana whenua engagement programme has been undertaken. In September and October 2018, staff presented the proposed topics to be addressed through the water strategy to all 21 local boards. Mana whenua have been engaged at both a governance and operational level. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum provided strategic direction while operational kaitiaki provided direction on the values. Subject matter experts from across the council group, local boards and the governing body have also provided feedback on the key topics.

16.     This report provides a progress update on the development of the strategy, and also provides an opportunity for the local board to provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Purpose and proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

17.     The Auckland Water Strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group in how meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

18.     The proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (see Attachment A) were developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council family, including Watercare and Auckland Transport.

19.     Attachment A describes the current strategic context, purpose, vision, values, issues, processes and principles that are proposed to inform the development of the discussion document for the draft Auckland Water Strategy.

Request for local board feedback

20.     Further to the workshops held with local boards in September and October 2018, local boards are formally requested to provide feedback on the draft topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, ahead of the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration in December 2018. Attachment B provides a template to guide local board feedback.

21.     The draft vision for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy is ‘Te mauri o te wai – the life supporting capacity of water – is protected and enhanced’. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether this vision is right for the communities they represent.

22.     The draft values for inclusion in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback around whether these values cover the aspects of water that are most important to the boards:

·    ecology

·    water use

·    culture

·    recreation and amenity

·    resilience.

23.     The draft issues to be addressed through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the issues that are of greatest concern to them:

·    cleaning up our waterways

·    meeting future water needs

·    growth in the right places

·    adapting to a changing water future.

24.     The draft processes to be worked on through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the processes that they are most concerned with:

·    creating our water future together

·    setting priorities for investment

·    achieving net benefits for catchments

·    applying a Māori world view.

25.     The draft principles to be included in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether or not they agree with these principles:

·    recognise that water is a taonga

·    work with natural ecosystems

·    deliver catchment scale thinking and action

·    focus on achieving the right-sized solutions with multiple benefits

·    work together to plan and deliver better water quality outcomes

·    look to the future.


 

26.     As the development of the strategy has progressed, it has become clear that it will need to be developed in stages. Many of the water challenges that have been identified require more analysis and public engagement before a strategy can be agreed. For this reason, the discussion document that is proposed to be released early 2019 will be focused on identifying and agreeing the water issues that Auckland faces within a proposed framework of vision, values and principles. From there, the governing body will be able to review and agree a staged programme that builds on the framework towards a final strategy.

27.     Local board feedback on the draft topics outlined in Attachment B will be summarised as part of the report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, requesting approval of a draft discussion document for public consultation. A further update on the Auckland Water Strategy will be provided to local boards in February 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

28.     Local boards have a strong interest in improving water quality across the Auckland region and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

29.     Staff attended a local board chairs’ meeting on 13 November 2017 to introduce the concept of the strategy and expected range of activities arising from the strategy. Board chairs indicated their interest in continued involvement.

30.     Staff presented the scope, summary and the progress on the strategy’s development to all 21 local boards between 30 August 2018 and 23 October 2018. Key themes in the feedback provided by local boards at these workshops included the need to:

·    acknowledge water as being a precious commodity that needs to be preserved as the population grows

·    increase the focus on the health of Auckland’s harbours

·    identify future drinking water sources

·    educate people around resilience, water usage, and the impacts of their activities on the environment

·    strengthen regulation and compliance to protect waterways.

31.     This report presents the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, and seeks a formal feedback from the local board ahead of Environment and Community Committee approval of a discussion document in December 2018 for public consultation in early 2019. Key questions to guide local board feedback have been included as Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32.     Mauri (life force) is a fundamental concept of the Māori world view. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

33.     Enhancing the mauri of waterways is of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s waters. Early engagement with mana whenua to promote kaitiakitanga and embed mana whenua values into this work will be critical to the success of the actions outlined in this report.

34.     The development of the Auckland Water Strategy has been guided by the strategic advice provided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Governance Forum. The forum has determined it will provide its own strategic advice, to ensure that core mana whenua principles and values are given the attention they need. The forum requested that one of their members be included on the governance group for the development of the strategy. This has been achieved with the Auckland’s Water Political Reference Group, and recognises the longstanding whakaaro and kōrero that mana whenua have provided on this kaupapa.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35.     The budget to develop the Auckland Water Strategy was included as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This budget covers operational expenses, primarily staff time, and will be used to support public engagement.

36.     The budget required to deliver any actions arising from the strategy will be sought through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process. 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37.     An initial risk assessment for the programme has been carried out, as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Auckland Water Strategy work programme risks and proposed mitigations

Risk type

Risk description

Consequence description

Rating

(High-Medium-Low)

Mitigation/Control

Scope expansion

Water is a broad subject, and the level of detail and number of topics to cover can grow and change rapidly

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Guidance from the Political Reference Group and Executive Steering Group

Central government changes to legislation and policy

There are several central government work programmes focusing on water underway such as the Department of Internal Affairs Three Waters review and the Office of the Auditor Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government.

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Anticipate where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders

Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy

The strategy is not adopted and reflected in the plans of the operational and delivery organisations of the council group

Outcomes of the strategy are not delivered, substantive actions to deliver the strategy are not undertaken

Medium

Ensure that the delivery teams of the council group are engaged in the development of the strategy

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38.     The next steps in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy have been outlined in Table 2:


 

Table 2. Timeframes for the development of the Auckland Water Strategy

Activity

Expected timeframe

Formal local board feedback sought on proposed topics of the Auckland Water Strategy for the discussion document

November 2018

Internal discussions on the topics for inclusion in the draft discussion document, and presentations to the Watercare and Auckland Transport boards

November-December 2018

Draft discussion document reported to Environment and Community Committee for approval ahead of public consultation

December 2018

Public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document

February-April 2019

Public engagement feedback presented to elected members

April 2019

Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee

June 2019

39.     Local boards will receive a further update on the Auckland Water Strategy in February 2019.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

75

b

Local board feedback template for proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

83

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20816

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       It is estimated that the Auckland region is short 45,000 dwellings to meet current demand for housing. A further 313,000 dwellings and work places to support 250,000 jobs will be required by 2050 to meet expected growth. To manage this growth the council has identified the:

i)        location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

ii)       location and type of infrastructure required to support growth - through the Development Strategy and structure plans

iii)      when and where it will invest $7.2 billion of growth-related infrastructure in the next ten years to support development - through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (10-Year Budget).

3.       Growth related capex has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget.  We have also updated our projection of development growth across the next ten years.  The council will repay the borrowing raised to pay for the investment in infrastructure through general rates, targeted rates, user charges, third party funding (like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidies) and development contributions.

4.       A review has been undertaken of the current contributions policy and the council has adopted a draft Contributions Policy 2019 (see Attachment A) for consultation which includes a number of changes.

5.       To recover the increased investment in growth related infrastructure the indicative urban development contribution price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excl. GST).  As a result, the development contribution revenue the council expects to collect will rise to $2.7 billion from $2.23 billion under the current policy.

6.       The demand placed on transport by different types of development has been reviewed.  The analysis shows that retail and commercial development place substantially higher demand on transport infrastructure than is reflected in the current policy.  The draft policy includes higher unit of demand factors for transport, and hence prices, for retail and commercial development with smaller decreases for other development types.  This would more fairly reflect the demand different development types place on the need to invest in infrastructure.

7.       The draft Contributions Policy 2019 also proposes:

·        extending the timeframe for the payment of development contributions on residential construction.  This will better align the time that residential builders pay their development contributions with the time when they sell their developments

·        refining and changing funding areas to better match investment with beneficiaries, including adding areas for:

i)    transport to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

ii)   reserves to provide more detail on projects and their location

·        minor amendments including changes to development types.

8.       Consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is taking place from 19 October until 15 November 2018 including:

·        Five have your say events held across the region

·        engagement with Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        opportunity for submitters to personally present their feedback to councillors on 23 November 2018.

9.       Local board November meetings will consider the draft Contribution Policy 2019 and resolve their feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision making in December.

10.     Consultation is supported by a Consultation Document and Supporting Information, Attachments B and C respectively, which set out:

·        an overview of how the council is responding to growth and how development contributions fit within this context

·        describes how we set development contributions charges

11.     Details the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why we have proposed them.

 

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     The current policy is known as the Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A) and reflects the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025. Development contributions have recovered approximately $400 million of funding for growth projects in the last three years.

13.     Auckland Council reviewed the current policy and recommended that it be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-Year Budget. At its meeting on 30 April 2018 the Governing Body agreed to consult on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018.

14.     Feedback from the development community requested more detailed supporting information and a longer period for consultation on the draft policy. In response, at its meeting on 27 June 2018 the Governing Body agreed to extend the current policy until 31 January 2019 so that additional supporting information for the policy could be prepared and further consultation on the 2019 policy undertaken.

15.     The policy has been reviewed in accordance with the following principles:

·        purpose and principles of development contributions under the Local Government Act 2002

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of the community having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the benefits

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different funding areas

·        revenue predictability for the council and cost certainty for developers

·        administrative simplicity

·        ensuring legislative compliance.


 

16.     Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of development contributions as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Our Revenue and Financing Policy sets out how the council will fund capital and operating expenditure for each of its activities including its decisions to use Development contributions to fund growth capital expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital expenditure and funding for Auckland’s growth

Capital investment and development contribution revenue

17.     The table below sets out the changes in development contribution revenue by activity between the current policy and the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Development contribution revenue by activity ($ billion)

Current development contributions policy

Draft development contributions policy 2019

 Transport

0.7

1.1

 Stormwater

0.5

0.5

 Parks and community infrastructure

1.0

1.1

Total

2.2

2.7

Contributions pricing

18.     The 10-Year Budget assumes that a Contributions Policy 2019 will be adopted reflecting the Revenue and Financing Policy position that growth-related infrastructure investment should be funded from development contributions.  The 10-Year Budget assumes that the policy will provide for Development contributions to recover $2.7 billion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

19.     The indicative urban development contributions will rise from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excl. GST).  Development contributions vary widely depending on the type of development and the infrastructure needed to support growth in different locations.

20.     Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth irrespective of location.  Under the proposed policy to recover these costs every development would pay $8,090 per Housing Unit Equivalent (HUE) for regional infrastructure.  However, the sub-regional and local requirements for infrastructure vary depending on the infrastructure required to support growth in that area and the capacity of existing infrastructure.  As a result, development contributions prices would vary across the region e.g.

·        Manurewa-Papakura - new development contributions price will be $42,182 to reflect increase in stormwater and parks investment

·        Manukau Central - new development contributions price will be $22,572 as there is capacity available in existing network infrastructure.

Impact of increasing development contributions price

21.     Raising the price of Development contributions:

·        better aligns development contributions with actual cost of infrastructure

·        increases certainty that infrastructure will be delivered

·        encourages developers to more accurately price land purchased for development to reflect future development contributions costs

·        negatively impacts developers who have paid for land based on current development contributions prices.

22.     Economic research indicates that increasing the development contributions price does not generally increase house prices.  House prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand.   Development is only cost plus where the value of land for housing is the same as its value in alternative uses i.e. agriculture.  The price of land that can be developed for housing or business use in Auckland is much higher than its value in agricultural use.

23.     Developers generally establish the price they will pay for land based on:

Expected sale price of finished house (as set by the market – supply and demand)

-    Land development costs

-    Construction costs

-    Council cost including Development contributions

-    Profit margin

=   Price paid for land

Alternative options considered

24.     There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in development contributions;

·        defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

·        increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

25.     The increase in development contributions price over period of the 10-Year Budget is forecast to provide an additional $500 million of revenue.  Without this revenue the council would need to reduce its planned capital expenditure by between $1 billion and $4 billion depending on which projects were prioritised.  This sum exceeds the loss in revenue because development contributions make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects[1].  This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

·        maintaining service levels in the face of growth pressures

·        supporting making land available for new development in both the greenfields and brownfields.

26.     To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing development contributions would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum.  This is equivalent to an additional general rates increase of between 3 and 13 per cent.  Land owners, developers and the owners of new construction are the beneficiaries of the portion of investment in infrastructure that supports growth.  This option was not proposed as it is appropriate that the growth share of funding comes from the beneficiaries via development contributions not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of Community Infrastructure

27.     Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the Council’s ability to use Development contributions to fund a broader range of community infrastructure (including, for example, public swimming pools and libraries).  If the legislation passes the council can consider changing its capital budgets and amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure.

Unit of demand factors

28.     Different types of development place different demands on infrastructure.  The council uses unit of demand factors to fairly share the cost of infrastructure across development types.

29.     Demand factors are set relative to the standard residential dwelling of between 100m2 and 249m2.  A standard residential dwelling is referred to as a household equivalent unit (HUE).  For example a retirement unit is charged 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

30.     Transport demand factors are calculated using data on the daily volume of trips generated from each development type.  For residential development the demand factor is adjusted for relative occupancy levels between residential development types.

31.     A review of the statistical trip generation data shows that retail and commercial developments generate substantially more trips than residential and other development types.  These results are consistent with staff’ experience of case by case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts of this type of development.

32.     The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the tables below.  Because non-residential developments are usually larger than residential dwellings the demand factors are translated into HUEs per 100m2.

Units of demand per 100m2

Development Type

Current Development Contributions Policy

Draft Development Contributions Policy 2019

Commercial

0.37 HUE

0.73 HUE

Retail

0.47 HUE

2.79 HUE

Education and Health

0.37 HUE

0.37 HUE

Production and Distribution

0.29 HUE

0.10 HUE

Other non-residential not specified above

0.36 HUE

1.00 HUE

33.     These transport demand factors are comparable with those for other councils. Hamilton sets the rate for high demand non-residential at 2.75 HUEs (which includes retail) and Queenstown 2.83.  Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

34.     The demand factors derived from the analysis above produce substantial price changes for retail and commercial development.  As this type of development represents a small proportion of overall development the price reduction for other development types is lower.

35.     As the transport component of development contributions varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area the exact price effects will vary.  In broad average terms the development contributions transport price for retail will rise by $18,000 per 100m2 and $2,900 for commercial if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors.  It will fall by $1,450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling.  The impact is illustrated with examples based on two recent developments below

·        5,000m2 retail mall development in the North would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors whereas they would have paid $224k under the current demand factors.

·        50,000m2 production development in the South would pay $410k under the proposed demand factors whereas they would pay $1.15 million under the current demand factors.

36.     Two alternative options to making the changes to non-residential transport unit of demand factors were considered:

·        retaining the status quo

·        move to the new factors in equal steps over a three year period.


 

37.     Retaining the status quo was rejected on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that transport demand is much higher for retail and commercial development than for other development types.  At present other development is effectively subsidising retail and commercial development.  Large developers operating nationwide will be aware of these differences in development contributions prices.

38.     As the price increases are substantial the council could consider a three year transition.  This option was rejected as it would extend the current subsidisation.  The price changes are substantial however the subsidisation is also large.  It is likely that developers operating nationwide will have been expecting this change for some time.

39.     It was also noted that a transition could create administration issues and present revenue risks that may be difficult to forecast.  Developers often lodge consents early when they become aware of pending changes to contributions prices.  A transition of this nature would create incentives for all development types around the staging of transitional price changes.  Retail developers may try to lodge consents prior to the date of changes and others may delay applications.  This is likely to have implications for both our revenue forecasts and our consenting and development contributions assessment teams.

Reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities

40.     The council’s unit of demand factors for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities are based primarily on the relative occupancy of different types of residential development compared to a standard residential dwelling.

41.     Officers are reviewing the relative use of reserves and community facilities by the occupants of different residential development types.  Part of this review involves undertaking an extensive survey of usage of reserves and community facilities by Aucklanders.  To ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

42.     The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year.  Officers will report the results of the review, including the survey data, in the first quarter of next year.  If the review suggests changes should be considered to the units of demand for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities the policy can be amended at that time following consultation, if appropriate.

Remissions for Māori development and social housing

43.     The current contributions policy does not provide for remissions or waivers of Development contributions.  Feedback from Māori and social housing developers is that the requirement to pay Development contributions is an additional challenge to overcome that presents a further barrier to development.  Iwi have raised the many difficulties associated with developing Māori land, as well as noting their recent gifting of land for parks and the historic confiscation of land for public works.

44.     Officers do not recommend the use of development contributions remissions.  Support for Māori development and social housing is better made transparently from a fixed grant budget or considered on a case by case basis.  Grants enable the council to make decisions on the relative merits of individual proposals rather than automatically supporting or rejecting applications on predetermined criteria.

45.     The council currently offers support for development contributions for Māori development through the Marae and Papakāinga grant made available through the Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund.  The policies governing the fund are currently being reviewed and will be considered by the Community Development and Safety Committee later this year.


 

46.     Council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of development contributions for social housing.  The council’s position to date has been that social housing is a government responsibility.  However, the council did provide a one-off grant of $475,000 to the City Mission for the development of the HomeGround facility.  The grant was based on an estimate of development contributions and consenting costs.  Officers recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for development contributions for social housing then this should be through the development of a grants scheme as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020.  A grant can be used to fund any development costs and not just council fees, as was the case with the HomeGround grant.

47.     Development contributions are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of development contributions would reduce revenue. The loss of revenue from a remission scheme cannot be recovered from other developers as they are only required to pay the cost of the demand they place on infrastructure.  Remissions of development contributions for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

48.     Revenue would instead need to be made up by reductions in expenditure or increases in general rates.  Remissions administered under the Contributions Policy would need to provide for automatic trigger tests and hence an unconstrained budget.

49.     Further discussion of remissions for Māori development and social housing is set out in Attachment D.

Payment timing

50.     Developers prefer to pay development contributions as close as possible to the potential realisation of their investment e.g. sale of land or buildings.  The current payment timing for the main development types (other triggers make up a very small proportion of development contributions) are at the issue of:

·        land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

·        building consent for residential development – around six to twelve months before sale

·        code compliance certificate for non-residential development – around time of sale.

51.     Development contributions invoiced on building consent for residential development are approximately 25 per cent of total development contributions revenue.  Residential developments are currently required to pay development contributions when the building consent is issued. Officers propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

·        a consent that creates five or more dwelling units will be treated as non-residential development. This will allow the development contributions to be invoiced at time the Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) is applied for. This will extend the time until the council receives payment by an average of 12 months.

·        all other residential consents will be invoiced six months after building consent is issued.

52.     This change will support residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay development contributions with developers’ cash flows. Reducing the amount of capital investment required prior to construction will make it easier for developers to finance and progress residential projects.  This proposal formed part of consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May and was supported by all of the 17 submissions that commented on it.

53.     The proposed changes will lead to a one-off reduction in the council’s development contributions revenue of $10 million for 2018/2019.  The council can manage this change within its present budget.  The change is not material over the 10-Year Budget period as all developments will still pay, just slightly later.

54.     The council includes the interest cost of the difference between the receipt of development contributions and the timing of investment in growth related projects.  The cost of receiving development contributions payments on residential building development slightly later will be factored into the development contributions price.  The proposal will increase the development contributions price by between $100 and $200 (or less than 1 per cent) on average depending on the units of demand used for transport.

55.     Considered was also given to retaining the status quo.  However, preference was given to the easing of cash flow demands on residential builders rather than land developers focusing on subdivision and non-residential builders.  Residential builders are often operating at a smaller scale with more limited access to capital.  Providing them additional time eases their cash flow demands and supports the dwelling construction the council is seeking.

56.     Neither the proposal or the status quo present any risk to the council in terms of payment security.  The council has statutory powers to recover unpaid development contributions, including registering a statutory charge on property where development contributions have not been paid.  While the council has some aged development contributions debt this is a very small proportion of the development contributions invoiced over the last eight years.  In this time the council has written off less than $100,000 of development contributions debt out of $740 million invoiced.

57.     Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement.  Developers who require a land use consent but cannot be assessed for development contributions on a resource consent or building consent will be required to pay on land use consent.  At present non-residential developments are required to pay on issue of a code of compliance certificate (CCC) or certificate of public use (CPU).  Some developments do not require a CCC or CPU to operate and are avoiding payment.  It is proposed that all non-residential developments will be required to pay at the latest 24 months of issue of a building consent.  This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for council.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

58.     The draft Contributions Policy 2019 includes seven additional funding areas for transport. These funding areas allocate the cost of transport infrastructure to the priority growth areas in Northwest, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure, solely, mainly road sealing, for the benefit of rural areas in the North, West and South.

59.     Changes have also been made to the funding areas for reserves to provide a more refined allocation of these costs to development areas.  The Greenfield, Urban and Rural funding areas have been replaced with Northern Greenfield, Southern Greenfield, Northwest Greenfield and Urban funding areas. As a result the development contributions costs better reflect the differences in investment required to meet the needs of future growth.  A new funding area has also been created for reserves and community facilities in Greater Tamaki to reflect the specific needs and plans for that area.

60.     Two new stormwater funding areas have also been added where investment is now planned Hauraki Gulf Islands and Omaha/Matakana.

Development Types

61.     Amendments are also proposed to the following development types to better reflect the demand they place on infrastructure or clarify definitions.  Maintaining the status quo for these areas was rejected to ensure an appropriate level of cost was recovered and reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.


 

Student accommodation

62.     Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (administered by schools/universities).  This category will have a lower price for transport and open space than a standard residential dwelling because of lower occupancy.

Small ancillary dwelling units

63.     Change the ‘size’ definition of small ancillary dwelling units to those with a gross floor area less than or equal to 65m². This aligns the Contributions Policy with the definition in the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Retirement villages

64.     Amend the definition of a ‘Retirement Village’ to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Accommodation units for short term rental

65.     Amend the definition of Accommodation Units to clarify that they include properties used for short term rental.  Long-term rentals will continue to be treated as dwelling units.

A long-term view of growth infrastructure costs

66.     The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of investment for Auckland including significant investment to support new development over the next 10 years. This investment is not, however, sufficient to enable all the future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

67.     The proposed contributions policy seeks to recover a fair share of the infrastructure costs currently planned from developments that are enabled by or benefit from this planned infrastructure. In areas that already have sufficient infrastructure, or it is planned within the next ten years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

68.     For areas where the infrastructure provision is not already provided or scheduled for the 2018-2028 period development cannot yet proceed due to the infrastructure constraints. We will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges for these areas included in the draft Contributions Policy 2019 do not yet fully reflect the true cost of providing infrastructure in those areas. For some of these development areas, particularly greenfield areas, the council infrastructure cost per house has been estimated at around $70,000. Once the costs and funding arrangements are clear growth charges will be updated to ensure they are paying their fair share when the areas are able to be developed.

69.     Limits on the council’s ability to borrow mean that additional investment, even if it is eventually funded by developers, would require new or alternative financing mechanisms. We continue to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If we can do this successfully this will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public Consultation

70.     Public consultation will run from 19 October to 4.00pm on 15 November.

71.     Five Have Your Say Events (HYSE) have been planned to take place during the public consultation period:

·        South - Manukau

·        North - Takapuna

·        Central – CBD

·        Retirement village developers - CBD

·        Western Springs Garden Hall (evening).

72.     The location and timing of HYSE are scheduled to provide for developers and the public to engage with the council at locations and timings organised to suit their needs and preferences.  These five HYSE events provide an opportunity for developers and other interested parties to learn more about the draft policy and provide feedback.  All comments will be captured and reported through to the Finance and Performance Committee to help inform decision-making on the final policy.

73.     It is planned to ask those providing written feedback if they would like to register their interest in personally presenting their feedback to councillors on Friday 23 November.  This will provide time for 30 presentations allowing 15 minutes for each presentation including questions.  Seventeen submitters expressed an interest to be heard following the May consultation.  The invitation will note that it may not be possible to make time to hear everyone if the event is over-subscribed given the need to manage costs and limitations on councillors’ available time.  If necessary, slots would be allocated on a “first come, first served” basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

74.     The development contributions price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The funding areas are set out in the attached policy documents.

75.     Officers provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October. 

76.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to give input on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

77.     Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the Contribution Policy 2019 in December.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

78.     Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers.  The impact on Māori will be similar to the impact on other developers.

79.     Feedback from Māori received in the May consultation has been considered as part of the development of the revised draft Contributions Policy 2019. Key issues raised were that the Contributions Policy should:

·        reflect the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome to support Māori identify and wellbeing, for example by exempting (remitting) development contributions for Māori developments 

·        include specific development types for Māori development.

80.     The remission of development contributions for Māori development is discussed in this report.

81.     Development types are created based on evidence that different types of development generate different levels of demand for infrastructure. The policy does not currently contain specific Māori development types. Māori developments are categorised under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae fall under community facilities. As more Māori developments occur, evidence of demand generation can be used to reclassify developments or create new development types.


 

82.     Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that includes new forms of development that may not fit into existing development types. Legislation provides for the reconsideration of development contributions assessments for individual developments where evidence is available to show that the demand it will generate is less than its classification under the existing policy. Council also proactively reviews the availability of evidence for demand, and amends the Contributions Policy for new or adjusted development types and demand factors as evidence becomes available.  Council will continue to work with Māori to ensure that the Contributions Policy, in its design and its application, appropriately reflects the realities of Māori development.

83.     Feedback from iwi on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 will be sought as part of public consultation and via engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum.  Mana Whenua will also be invited to present their feedback to the councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

84.     The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

85.     Investment in development contributions funded growth related infrastructure carries the risk of development projections, and therefore development contributions revenue, not being met. These risks will be managed through monitoring consent applications and development contributions revenue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

86.     Public consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is to be held from 19 October to 15 November 2018 as above.  Feedback would be reported to the Governing Body workshop on 29 November.  Officers would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December meeting of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Contributions Policy 2019

99

b

Consultation Document

185

c

Supporting information

207

d

Remissions of development contributions for Maori development and social housing

227

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Advisor Financial Policy

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Financial Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker – General Manager Financial Strategy and Planning Financial Strategy

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20819

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on:

·        the trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

·        the subset of voters to participate in the online voting trial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The postal system is declining. The frequency of postal deliveries is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. An alternative method to postal voting must be put in place to secure the future of local democracy over time. Following the overall trend of transactions and activities moving online, online voting is the natural progression. It will increase convenience and accessibility for voters and has the potential to increase voter turnout.

3.       Following the 24 May 2018 Governing Body’s in-principle support for an online voting trial at the 2019 local body elections, Auckland Council has entered into a collaborative agreement with eight other councils to work together towards the trial.

4.       The project comprises three phases. The first phase, from now to December 2018, includes a procurement process aimed at selecting a preferred provider and all participating councils, seeking their Governing Body’s approval to proceed with the trial based on a full business case.

5.       The security of the online voting solution is paramount. The participating councils are committed to offering a similar or higher level of security than postal voting. The solution will fulfil stringent security requirements and will be designed, implemented and tested with the assistance from external Information and Communications Technology (ICT) security experts.

6.       In the case of Auckland Council, only a specified class of electors (a subset) will be offered to participate in the online voting trial. The other eight councils are intending to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

7.       The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that the specified class of electors can be defined according to one or a combination of geographical areas or another common factor, like overseas residence or disability.

8.       The size of the subset is still to be confirmed by the Minister of Local Government, but will likely include between 10 and 30 per cent of Auckland’s voting population.

9.       The subset needs to be representative of the overall voting population. Staff have conducted an analysis of the population across the 21 local board areas based on a range of criteria. The preliminary results (refer Attachments A and B) show that no individual area is perfectly representative and that a combination of several areas will increase the representativeness of the sample of electors.

10.     Staff recommend also including in the subset, the voters that are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the sole postal method, i.e. the overseas and disabled voters.

11.     This paper seeks local board feedback on the participation of Auckland Council in the trial and on the subset of voters eligible to participate in the trial.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on:

i)        the trial of online voting at the 2019 elections

ii)       the subset of voters to participate in the trial.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     For several years, Auckland Council has been supportive of trialling online voting for local body elections. At its December 2016 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to ‘request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections’ [resolution number FIN/2016/164].

13.     On 27 July 2017, the Governing Body approved the council’s submission on the previous parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections (which has not concluded yet). The submission advocated for councils to be able to trial online voting [resolution number GB/2017/83]. Local boards provided feedback and input into the submission, with several boards expressing support for online voting.

14.     At its 24 May 2018 meeting, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an online voting trial for the 2019 local body elections, subject to the following conditions:

·        the costs being acceptable

·        the legislation and regulations being in place on time

·        identified risks being manageable

·        the council giving its final approval to proceed.

15.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill, which amends the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 to enable the conduct of trials of new voting methods is still before Parliament. Councillor Richard Hills and staff made an oral presentation to the Justice Select Committee on Auckland Council’s submission on the bill on 29 August 2018. The select committee is due to report back on 9 November 2018.

16.     The enabling regulations are being drafted. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) released an exposure draft of the regulations on 19 October 2018, which is open for consultation until 2 November 2018. Two engagement events for community representatives and stakeholders have been organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Why online voting?

Future-proofing local democracy

17.     The internet has become an integral part of everyday life. Many of the transactions that used to be carried out by post have long been replaced by online options, to the extent that people expect online facilities for their day-to-day activities. Online voting is therefore a natural progression and constitutes an opportunity to modernise the operation of local democracy in New Zealand.

 

 

 

18.     The current postal voting method relies entirely on New Zealand Post providing an effective and reliable service. It is a reality that the postal service is declining. Fewer New Zealanders choose to communicate via post, particularly first time and younger voters, many of whom have never posted a letter. The frequency of delivery is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. The postal cost for the 2019 Auckland local elections will increase by an estimated 77 per cent compared with 2016, because of a postage price increase of almost 60 per cent and an increase in the number of electors of approximately 70,000.

19.     It will become increasingly difficult to deliver postal voting effectively and affordably. Therefore, it is crucial to have a viable alternative to postal voting in place, and online voting is the obvious choice.

Online voting has the potential to increase voter turnout

20.     Voter turnout has been dropping in both national and local elections in New Zealand. In the Auckland 2016 local elections, the voter turnout was 38.5 per cent. This means that almost two out of three eligible electors did not vote.

21.     Online voting has the potential to enhance participation in elections. Auckland Council conducted voter awareness research after the 2016 local elections[2]. The results strongly indicate that if online voting was available, electors would be more inclined to vote.

22.     When asked ‘If you had the choice of online voting or postal voting in the future, which would you prefer?’, 74 per cent of the respondents across all age groups in the 2016 survey said they would prefer online voting to postal voting. Focusing on the non-voter group alone, 82 per cent of respondents said they would prefer online voting to postal voting and 25 per cent said online or app-based voting would make them more likely to vote.

23.     The results reflect an appetite for online voting, particularly when faced with the inconvenience of postal voting: 13 per cent of non-voters (four per cent of all respondents) completed voting papers but did not post them. Factors such as not knowing where to find a post box, the additional effort of physically taking papers to a post box and the confusion caused by the postal deadline and the actual close of the voting period a few days later, created further barriers to voter participation. Removing these barriers alone would potentially have pushed the overall voter participation in Auckland’s 2016 local elections from 38.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent.

24.     International experience and research demonstrate the positive effect that online voting can have on voter turnout. Some non-voters and infrequent voters are drawn to internet voting in Canada and European countries such as Estonia and Switzerland. This means that some electors who have not voted previously voted for the first time, or on a more regular basis, because online voting was an option.

25.     In Estonian parliamentary elections, turnout has increased by 2.3 per cent since online voting was introduced in 2005. Post-election surveys in Estonia show a large proportion of people indicated they wouldn’t have voted if online voting wasn’t offered.

26.     At the municipal level in Canada, researchers examining online voting over time found that internet voting increased voter turnout by 3.5 per cent.

27.     The introduction of electronic voting for overseas military voters in various United States (US) jurisdictions has resulted in significant improvements in turnout. In Cook County, one of the largest electoral jurisdictions in the US, turnout increased from 11 per cent to 53 per cent after the introduction of internet voting in 2012.


 

Online voting improves accessibility

28.     Currently, a large part of the disability community requires support to complete and post voting papers. People with vision impairment, for example, cannot vote secretly and without the assistance of a support person. Online voting, coupled with screen-reading technology, would allow them to vote unaided.

29.     International postal timeframes can make it difficult for overseas voters to submit their votes in time. For them as well, online voting would make it easier to participate in the New Zealand local elections.

Online voting offers a better voting experience

30.     Online voting will make the voting process easier and faster, increase the speed and accuracy of results and reduce costs of local elections over time.

31.     Estonia, where online voting has been used in elections from 2005 and is now well established nationwide, has attempted to quantify the efficiency gain for using online voting as opposed to booth voting. It calculated that, in the Estonian parliamentary elections of 2011, the cumulative time savings in online voting were 11,000 working days, or €504,000 ($890,000) in average wages.[3]

32.     Online voting offers the potential to reduce voter errors. Technology can help prevent a voter from accidentally spoiling their ballot or submitting an incorrect or invalid vote.

33.     International experience suggests that a real tangible benefit of online voting is to substantially improve the voting experience of voters, making it more convenient to vote when, where and how they want.

34.     Online voting also offers potential for greater information and engagement. It provides end-to-end verifiability so that a voter is able to verify that their vote was received. These benefits will improve the experience of those who were already intending to vote and has the potential of addressing some of the barriers for non-voters.

Booth voting is not a viable option

35.     Booth voting is provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001 and is authorised under regulations. However, reverting to booth voting on a single election day as an alternative or complementary option to postal voting is not a viable solution.

36.     Election day is increasingly losing its meaning for people as they want the convenience to vote when it suits them, as shown by the growth in advance voting in recent years’ general elections, with a significant 47 per cent of advance voting at the 2017 general election compared with 29 per cent in 2014 and 15 per cent in 2011.[4]

37.     A third argument against using booth voting for local elections is the complexity of the local election voting process. Compared with parliamentary elections, voting in local government elections takes more thought and more time, making booth voting impractical.

38.     In Auckland for instance, electors need to vote for the Mayor, one or two councillors for their ward, between five and eight local board members, as well as District Health Board (DHB) members and, in some cases, licensing trust members. Using an actual example from the 2016 local elections, a Waitākere Ward/Henderson-Massey Local Board elector had to make a choice between 74 candidates standing for 21 positions, as follows:

·        Mayor: 19 candidates for one position

·        Waitākere Ward: nine candidates for two positions

·        Henderson-Massey Local Board: 24 candidates for eight positions

·        Waitākere Licensing Trust (Ward 2): six candidates for three positions

·        Waitematā DHB: 16 candidates for seven positions.

Making the trial happen

39.     To organise the trial, Auckland Council is partnering with eight other councils. They are Gisborne District Council, Marlborough District Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hamilton City Council, Tauranga City Council and Wellington City Council.

40.     The nine councils have obtained in-principle political and executive approval to trial online voting at the 2019 elections, have formally entered into a participation agreement and have formed an Online Voting Working Party.

41.     The working party is working closely with the DIA to ensure the necessary legislative and regulatory framework is in place on time to enable the proposed trial in 2019.

42.     The working party is following a three-phase approach to organise the trial, as detailed below.

Phase 1 – July to December 2018

43.     The working party is currently developing a business case, which will define the scope and costs of the proposed trial, and explain how any risks to the security and integrity of the solution will be managed. The business case will also outline how the nine councils will share the costs of the trial.

44.     As part of the business case development, the working party issued a request for a proposal to potential suppliers in September 2018. Responses are being evaluated by a panel of representatives from the working party and ICT experts. A preferred provider will be selected by mid-November 2018.

45.     Based on the business case, the governing bodies of the nine councils will be asked to confirm their participation in the trial in December 2018.

46.     In the case of Auckland Council, the business case and paper seeking the approval of the Governing Body will be presented at the 13 December 2018 meeting and will include feedback from local boards.

47.     During this phase, the participating councils are also engaging with the parties that will be involved in the trial, including regional councils, DHBs and licensing trusts. Auckland Council staff have started engaging with representatives from all Auckland DHBs and licensing trusts. Overall, their reaction to the trial has been positive but the additional costs will ultimately be a decisive factor in securing their support.

Phase 2 – January to ‘go/no-go’ date

48.     After the list of participating councils has been confirmed, the councils will enter into an agreement with the provider and start developing the online voting solution.

49.     The trial can only proceed if the regulatory framework is in place on time, otherwise there will be insufficient time to be ready by October 2019. The working party and the supplier will agree the date by which regulations need to be in place for the trial to proceed – the ‘go/no‑go’ date.

50.     If the decision is ‘no-go’, the working party will negotiate with the supplier how to proceed. Options will be to either continue to develop a system to use for any by-elections, or shelve the work for a future trial.

Phase 3 – ‘Go’ date to October 2019

51.     If regulations are in place on time, phase 3 will include:

·        development, testing and audit of the online voting solution

·        deployment of the solution for the elections

·        evaluation of the trial after the elections. 

How it will work in practice

52.     Full details of how the online solution will work and how it will integrate with the election providers’ systems to ensure the integrity of the whole election process is maintained will only be available once the tender process is completed and a vendor has been selected.

53.     The chart below provides an overview of the experience of an elector choosing to cast their vote online:

Security and integrity

54.     No information technology (IT) or voting system is 100 per cent secure, but the Online Voting Working Party is committed to developing an online voting solution that will guarantee a similar or higher level of security than currently offered by postal voting.

55.     The request for proposal to vendors includes stringent requirements to ensure that the integrity and security of the online voting solution will be maintained at all times.

56.     The solution will be independently audited by international IT security experts.

57.     The participating councils are assisted by the former Chief Information Officer for the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which has been using online voting in their state elections, as well as ICT security experts from the Government Chief Digital Office. The participating councils have also enlisted additional external ICT security resources to assist with the evaluation of the vendors’ proposals and, in a later stage, with the design, implementation and testing of the online voting solution.

Selecting a subset of electors eligible to vote online

Why a subset, and what subset

58.     Any new voting system must meet the test of being free, fair and regular, provide for universal, equal and secret suffrage, and be fully trusted by voters. It therefore needs to be robustly tested and trialled.

59.     A trial will also increase public awareness of online voting and enable users to become familiar with the new technology, thereby building trust and credibility in the system. Building trust and gaining support is one of the most critical parts of the process. Without trust, the system will be unusable, and the integrity of the whole electoral system could be called into question.

60.     The Government considers that trialling online voting for the whole Auckland electorate, equalling approximately a third of the New Zealand electorate, is too big a risk. Auckland Council will only be allowed to trial online voting with a specified class of electors (a subset). Choosing a representative sample of eligible voters is therefore important to ensure that evaluation of the trial is robust.

61.     The other eight councils participating in the trial intend to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

62.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that it is the regulations that will authorise the use of online voting by a specified class of elector for the trial. The bill defines a class of electors as:

·        an area or subdivision in which the specified class of electors is eligible to vote, or

·        any other characteristic that makes online voting suitable for the specified class of electors.

63.     The recommendation to the Governing Body will be to ask the Government that the subset of Auckland electors eligible to vote online be made of:

·        overseas voters

·        people with a disability

·        voters in specific local board areas.

Selection parameters for the subset

Size

64.     The first consideration for defining the subset is its size. The subset should be of reasonable size for implementation and risks to be manageable, but significant enough to enable testing, research and a robust evaluation.

65.     The initial thinking presented to the Governing Body was to include in the sample approximately 110,000 voters, or 10 per cent of the voting population. Estimating the potential uptake based on overseas experience with online voting, it is believed a maximum of 30 per cent of voters within the subset would actually use the solution and vote online. This means an online voting solution would be built for a potential 33,000 voters using the solution; only 3 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

66.     It is now being considered to increase the size of the subset to approximately 330,000 voters, or 30 per cent of the voting population. With the same estimated uptake of 30 per cent, approximately 99,000 voters would use the online voting solution; about 9 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

67.     Confirmation is pending from the DIA as to how large a subset the Minister of Local Government would allow Auckland Council to include in the trial.

68.     For comparison purposes, the other larger participating councils are the Wellington city and Hamilton city councils, with respectively an approximate 153,000 and 103,000 voters eligible to participate in the online voting trial.

Accessibility

69.     It is considered the trial should benefit those who are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the single postal method. Therefore, it is recommended having overseas and disabled voters as part of the subset. This group constitutes an estimated 30,000 voters.

70.     Because overseas and disabled voters will be enrolled across the Auckland region, they will potentially vote online for all the wards and local boards.

Representativeness

71.     The subset must be defined in such a way that it cannot call into question the neutrality and integrity of the electoral process or of the elections results.

72.     It needs to be representative of the Auckland voting population, based on a range of criteria that correlate with voter turnout. These include:

·        age

·        ethnicity

·        income

·        education level.

73.     Having a representative sample will also help conduct a more robust evaluation of the trial.

Other considerations

74.     The cost and ease of implementation of the solution must also be considered. The more voters take part in the trial, the higher the cost. Offering online voting as an option to a subset of electors will also require a targeted communication campaign. A complex subset will make communication and logistics costlier and has the potential to confuse voters. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid geographical areas where the boundaries between wards and local boards are no longer aligned, following the review of representation arrangements which is to be implemented for the 2019 local elections.

75.     It was considered whether internet accessibility needed to be a criterion. The most recent data available, which comes from the State of the Internet report released by Internet New Zealand in 2017, shows that 93 per cent of New Zealanders have access to the internet, either at home, work or both. Therefore, it is not a belief that internet accessibility will be an issue for Auckland, except for Great Barrier Island.

Selecting the geographic area(s)

76.     The council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) has conducted in-depth statistical analysis of the population across Auckland’s 21 local boards. The analysis compares the population in each local board area against the overall Auckland population using age, ethnicity, income and qualification levels. The results of the analysis are included in Attachments A and B.

77.     The analysis considered the average voter turnout in each area compared to Auckland overall, but this added parameter did not impact the results, so it was removed from the graphs provided for simplicity purposes.

78.     The analysis shows that certain local board areas have a more diverse population make up than others, and that no single board is perfectly representative of the overall Auckland population. The subset will therefore need to be made up of a combination of local board areas, allowing larger discrepancies to cancel each other out and making the sample representative as a whole.

79.     The final combination will depend on the total number of voters allowed in the subset and will be finalised once DIA confirms that number.

80.     The final recommendation on the subset will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting. As part of this paper, local board feedback is being sought on the possibility of this local board area being included in the final subset, to be reported to the Governing Body when they are considering the final recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

81.     Trialling online voting will impact elections in all local boards areas.

82.     Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for consideration when making its final decision regarding the selection of the subset and the continued participation in the trial.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

83.     Voting turnout has historically been lower among Māori than non-Māori. Māori who are younger and less well-off are the least likely to vote.

84.     Findings from a recent qualitative research project focusing on Pacific and Māori revealed that online voting was popular among a large majority of participants. Participants did not express concerns about online voting and some saw the solution as more secure than postal voting.

85.     A representative sample of the Auckland Māori population will be included in the subset to participate in the trial as Māori ethnicity is one of the criteria used to choose the geographic subset.

86.     At this stage, no formal engagement has been conducted with Māori groups and community.  Staff will engage with communities and stakeholders, including Māori, as part of the development of an online voting system should a trial be confirmed to proceed for the 2019 local elections.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

87.     The full costs of implementing an online voting solution will be known after the tender process is completed and a vendor selected.

88.     The budget for the online voting trial is not included in the long-term plan and will require approval from the Governing Body, as the financial decisions relating to election costs is part of its responsibilities. A business case detailing the costs and benefits of participating in the trial will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

89.     Risks and mitigation measures are covered in the analysis section of this paper.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

90.     Feedback from the local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Governing Body on 13 December 2018.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards A-M

243

b

Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards O-W

245

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/20882

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order, or

·        random order.

3.       Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4.       Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5.       The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013 and 2016 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6.       Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

 

 

Horopaki / ContextOptions available

7.       Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1)       The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2)       Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3)       If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4)       If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5)       In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8.       In 2013, the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order.

9.       In 2016, there was only a minimal additional cost to use random order due to changes in printing technology. An analysis of the 2013 election results was conducted to assess whether there were any effects due to being listed first. The analysis showed there was no compelling evidence of bias towards those listed first. Most local board feedback was to continue listing candidates alphabetically and the Governing Body resolved to use alphabetical order.

10.     All district health boards in the Auckland Council area decided to use random order of names. In the voting pack that Auckland electors received, voting documents for Auckland Council elections were alphabetical and voting documents for district health board elections were random.

11.     The following table shows the order decided by city and regional councils for the 2016 elections:

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Invercargill City Council

Alphabetical

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Upper Hutt City Council

Alphabetical

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Canterbury Regional Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Otago Regional Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Waikato Regional Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

Wellington Regional Council

Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

12.     Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13.     A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter from taking part.

Alphabetical order

14.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar, easier to use and to understand. When there is a large number of candidates competing for a position, it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15.     It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16.     The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

17.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013 and 2016 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

·        impact on vote share (did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected?)

·        impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18.     The analysis shows that for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately one percentage point above that which would be expected statistically if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19.     There is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last three elections.

20.     Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of previous election results show does not exist. 

Online voting

21.     Auckland Council intends to offer online voting to specified classes of electors for the 2019 elections. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

22.     Online voting should present the same voting document to users as the paper equivalent. If names are in random order on the voting document, then the same random order will need to be presented to the online user. This could increase the complexity of the voting solution.

23.     On balance, staff consider that alphabetical order of names is preferable for an online voting trial.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

24.     Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when the Governing Body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25.     The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26.     There are no financial implications associated with the options for order of names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     If names are ordered alphabetically, there is the risk of perceived bias. If names are randomised, there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28.     The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Order of names on voting documents

251

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Great Barrier Local Board for quarter one

 

File No.: CP2018/21628

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.         To provide the Great Barrier Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

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 2018/2019 work programme.

3.         The work programme is produced annually and aligns with the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan outcomes.

4.         The key activity updates from this quarter are:

·          The finalised Great Barrier Visitor Strategy was presented to the board in September. Next steps will be agreeing implementation.

·          The concept design phase for the Claris Cemetery is complete. Next steps are to lodge the resource consent, reclassification notice and begin public engagement.

·          The One Local Initiative (OLI) project to develop a solar energy system at the service centre and board office has begun. The contractor has been secured and equipment sourced.

·          The Aotea Great Barrier Area Plan project is underway with the establishment of a project team and political working party.

5.         All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track) and one activity with a status of amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) as below:

·          Iwi responsiveness activity is on hold until Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust is ready to appoint a representative to the coordinator role.

6.         The financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is attached (attachment B).  Key points for the local board to note:

·          Overall, the net operational financial performance of the board looks to be tracking above the revised year to date budget (156 per cent). However, this is due to prior year costs incorrectly showing in 2018/2019 and this will be rectified in quarter two.

·          Revenue is favourable to budget for the year to date and has achieved the target for the full financial year. 

·          From the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year. 

·          Capital projects underway include cemetery development, seating and picnic tables at Gooseberry Flat, and various parks asset renewals.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      note the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2018

 

Horopaki / Context

7.         The Great Barrier Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme for the following operating departments:

·          Arts, Community and Events;

·          Parks, Sport and Recreation;

·          Libraries and Information;

·          Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration;

·          Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew;

·          Community Leases;

·          Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

·          Local Economic Development;

·          Plans and Places.

8.         Work programmes are produced annually, to meet the Great Barrier Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan. The local board plan outcomes are:

·          Our people thrive and life is good

·          Our environment is protected and enhanced

·          Our infrastructure is future-proofed

·          Our economy is sustainable and prosperous

9.         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: Great Barrier work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

10.       The work programme activities have two statuses; RAG status which measures the performance of the activity (amber and red show issues and risks); and activity status which shows the stage the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

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

Graph 2: Great Barrier work programme by RAG status

12.       The graph below identifies work programme activity by activity status and department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

Graph 3: Great Barrier work programme activity by activity status and department

 

Capital expenditure carry forwards

13.       The Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards were approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 October 2018. A list of the carry forwards has been provided (see attachment C) however as this was after the end of quarter one commentary was not able to be provided. Commentary on these will be included in the quarter two update.

Key activity updates from quarter one

Great Barrier Visitor Strategy Implementation

14.       New Zealand Tourism Research Institute finalised the visitor strategy in August 2018 with local board feedback included. The final version was presented to the board in September. Next steps will be to agree implementation of the strategy.

Claris Cemetery

15.       The concept design phase is complete including the preparation of specialist reports. The next steps are to lodge the resource consent, reclassification notice and undertake the formal public engagement process.

One Local Initiative (OLI)

16.       The OLI for Great Barrier is to develop a solar energy system for the service centre and local board office including electric vehicle with infrastructure. The service contract has been signed with the contractor. The project is ready to start, equipment has been sourced and the container will be purchased.

An area plan for Aotea Great Barrier

17.       The project team has been established and background research is underway. The political working party has been established in accordance with the Planning Committee resolution PLA/2018/63 on 5 June 2018. The first working party meeting is scheduled for 15 October 2018.

Activities with moderate or significant issues

Iwi responsiveness - Respond to Maori aspirations: Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea coordinator

18.       The activity is on hold until Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust is ready to appoint a representative to the coordinator role. It has been reported in the work programme as amber status which indicates there is some risk or issues but not significant enough to be red status. This activity was originally deferred from the financial year work programme 2017/2018.

19.       There are no activities reported as red status, which indicates having significant issues, for this quarter.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.       This report informs the Great Barrier Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September.

Key performance indicators

21.       As most of the LTP key performance indicators are annual measures and do not change quarterly, staff have removed them from the quarterly performance report and will present the key performance indicators only once in the annual report at the end of the year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22.       The local board intend to engage with Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust and discuss Maori aspirations for the area and how they can be progressed. However, this activity is on hold until Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust is ready to appoint a representative to the coordinator role.

Financial Performance

23.       Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) looks to be tracking above budget by $506,000 for the year to date. However, this is caused by prior year costs incorrectly showing in the first quarter. This will be corrected for quarter two.  The LDI operational projects are currently $108,000 below budget, which is due to a number of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations. 

24.       Capital spend of $28,000 represents investments in cemetery development, seating and picnic tables at Gooseberry Flat, and various parks asset renewals.

25.       Operating and capital projects that have been carried forward from 2017/2018 will be added to the revised budget in October and will be monitored closely to ensure they are completed in 2018/2019.

26.       The complete Great Barrier Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in attachment B.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

27.       This report is for information only and therefore there are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28.       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.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30.       The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two, December 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Work programme 2018/2019 Quarter 1 report

263

b

Financial summary

269

c

Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards

275

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Jacqui Fyers – Senior Local Board Advisor Great Barrier

Authoriser

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 



Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport November 2018 update to the Great Barrier Local Board

 

File No.: CP2018/20823

 

  

Te take mō Te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to the Great Barrier Local Board on transport related matters in their area including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report covers:

a)      general summary of operational projects and activities of interest to the board

b)      update on the board’s transport capital fund

c)      update on local board advocacy

d)      update on local board transport enquiries and

e)      other Auckland Transport news of interest to the board.

 

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport November 2018 update report.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

3.       This report addresses transport related matters in the local board area and includes information on the status of the LBTCF.

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

5.       The LBTCF is a ring fenced capital budget controlled by local boards and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. Criteria for projects are determined by the Governing Body and include that the project:

·   be safe

·   not impede network efficiency

·   be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).


 

Report on Auckland Transport projects and activities

6.       Please see below for information on Auckland Transport’s activities:

Activity

Update

Great Barrier Airfield Transfer

No update this month, Previous update:

The AT Board have supported the recommendation to transfer the Great Barrier Airfields from Auckland Council to Auckland Transport. The process now is for Community Facilities to advise Council of this recommendation and get approval to engage with the Ministry of Transport to commence legal transfer of the airport authority status. We understand that Council (Community Facilities and Legal) intend to take this to a Council committee meeting. Community Facilities will be providing an update to the Local Board on this process.

Shoal Bay Wharf upgrade

No update this month, previous update:

Works were completed by the end of August. Divers will return in due course to wrap and install additional under-wharf cross bracing.

Shoal Bay new dingy ramp and rack

No update this month, previous update:

Consent approved 10 September. Physical works planned to take place after Christmas. Auckland Stonemasons are not available to undertake works prior to Christmas as originally planned.

Shoal Bay new mooring pile

No update this month, previous update:

Consent approved 7 September. AT’s wharf contractor is no longer on site, so installation will be undertaken in January/February by contractor commissioned to undertake improvement works on the Glenfern Sanctuary wharf.

Cowshed Bridge

Update: Investigation still to be carried out.

Previous update: A Bailey Bridge has been installed to allow safe access underneath the original bridge. Our contractors will now be able to determine if our original assessment of the damage and the necessary repairs is correct. If the damage is greater than originally determined, it may be necessary for further investigation.

Reconfiguration of Intersection of Whangaparapara / Gray Road

 

The top 150mm of the existing pavement has been taken out and replaced with newly crushed metal in readiness for sealing/road marking.  The last of the subsoil drain will be installed and the berm area reinstated.   The road will be opened to general traffic.

Karaka Bay Road

Update: this is now expected to happen in November.

Previous update: Auckland Transport’s Road Safety team engineers will be over in September to do a detailed evaluation of the road and plan safety improvements with our contractors.

 

Activity

Update

Fish passage at Akapoua culvert / ford at Kaiaraara

No update this month. Previous update:

Auckland Transport is looking into permanent structures that are fish friendly, such as the arched bridge design which the local board indicated would be preferred. However, there is no immediate funding to replace this temporary structure. Currently our asset management team is determining what the timeline around permanent replacement would be.

Auckland Transport Wharf H&S Review

Auckland Transport is currently reviewing its wharf facilities and operations at Tryphena and Whangaparapara. Auckland Transport’s Facilities Operation Manager briefed the board on the progress of this review in August and confirmed that:

·    The Wharf Operator’s role will be expanded to include additional responsibilities, specifically around H&S on the landside of the Wharf.

·    That the new Operating Plan for the wharf is nearly complete.

·    That we are working with stakeholders, like Sealink, to finalise details.

Puriri Bay Road

No update this month. Previous update:

The seawall is being monitored. Consultants are working on designs for repairing the sections with storm damage. Work will proceed when the necessary consents and coastal consents are obtained.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

7.       As of the new electoral term Great Barrier Local Board had $328,104 in their Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

8.       Following the proposal to increase the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the allocation to the board has increased by $189,732 and is now $517,836.

9.       From this the board has committed:

·    $68,000 for a dust seal on Sandhills Road.

·    $20,000 for remediation of fish passages in the culverts on the island.

This leaves $429,836 unallocated.

10.     The local board has requested that Auckland Transport focus on potential road sealing projects, including the rough order of costs for sealing:

·    Kaiaraara Road for $350,196

·    Puriri Bay Road for $409,453.50

·    Whangaparapara Road for $852,425.50

11.     The board asked if Auckland Transport would be able to contribute to any of the costs for these sealing projects and unfortunately at this point there is not the funding available to do so.


 

12.     Auckland Transport has completed investigations into rough orders of costs for the following projects:

·    To provide a walkway on Whangaparapara Road from the Cross Road to the Hot Pool access, for a cost of $63,000

·    To complete the remaining sections of the Hector Sanderson from Claris Café to the Cross Roads for $287,624.

13.     Auckland Transport has been requested to investigate into rough orders of costs for the following projects, but at the board’s request has suspended them to focus on road sealing projects:

·    For solutions in the road corridor to address Claris shopping centre carparking safety and congestion issues.

·    Shoal Bay footpath (from Mulberry Grove School to Shoal Bay wharf).

14.     Auckland Transport has determined a rough order of cost for Port Fitzroy traffic calmers as outlined by the local board for $48,000. Auckland Transport’s Road Safety team has agreed to fund this proposal, so it will not require local board funding.

Customer service centre update

15.     Please see attachment A for a monthly update from the Auckland Transport customer services team with regards to enquiries from Great Barrier Local Board area.

Quarterly Report

16.     Please see attachments B and C for updates on general activities by Auckland Transport on Great Barrier Island and across the regions, and for an update from Auckland Transport’s School Community Transport team on Great Barrier Island.

Local board advocacy

17.     Summary of Auckland Transport’s response to local board advocacy initiatives. Please note that many of these issues are of a long term nature and while this section is reviewed every month to ensure it is up to date it is not subject to regular change.

Advocacy Initiative

Status

Continue to minimise agrichemical use by using alternative methods and advocate to Auckland Transport to follow suit.

No update this month. Previous update:

Auckland Transport’s maintenance contractors currently use chemical’s during road maintenance.

The agreed process is that our contractors will: 

·    Notify residents accordingly with spray notification register held by Auckland Transport

·    Advertise on Barrier Bulletin in advance to notify the local residents

·    Have correct signs up warning the pedestrians and road-users of our spraying operations and signs to remain on site during the withholding period for minimum of 24 hours.

·    Do no spraying around schools unless schools are closed.

Advocacy Initiative

Status

Investigate smart energy systems that allow island communities to have their own power systems and pave the way for electric vehicles

No update this month. Previous update:

Auckland Transport is happy to work with the Local Board to facilitate this initiative. Our Sustainability Team are looking at potential ways AT could support the Board with this point.

Improving and linking existing walkways and cycleways and investigating further opportunities to fill gaps in the network, including horse trails

No update this month. Previous update:

Auckland Transport currently has no programmed works for walkways or cycleways on Great Barrier. However, AT is investigating several options for use of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Advocating to Auckland Transport to continue investigating the use of dust suppressant products on populated roads.

No update this month. Previous update: Auckland Transport is not currently funded for dust suppressant products and it the Local Board Transport Capital Fund cannot currently be used for this purpose.

However, AT is undergoing an investigation of different products, you can find out more information here: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/rodney-dust-supression-trial/

Identify key coastal infrastructure needing protection from erosion and develop environmentally sensitive ways to address this

No update this month. Previous update:

An inspection of the erosion issues affecting Shoal Bay Road, adjacent to Pa Beach in Tryphena, was carried out in May 2017. A report was created that outlines the erosion that has occurred, an assessment of the main cause of the erosion, and a range of options for addressing the erosion.

Further investigation is required, and Auckland Transport is currently reviewing the report to determine the appropriate response.

Advocate to Auckland Transport to follow Auckland Council’s new procurement approach and directly manage the island’s roading contractor.

No update this month. Previous update:

The current contract covers Rakino, Waiheke and Great Barrier Island and budget is allocated to this contract not to specific Islands. This contract expires on 30/06/19 and has the potential to roll over for one further term of 2 years. AT will be taking into account Great Barrier Local Board feedback when reviewing the next contracts.


 

Advocacy Initiative

Status

Fish passages

No update this month. Previous update:

The Local Board has agreed to fund $20,000 for remediation of fish passages in the culverts on the island. Auckland Transport is in discussion with Auckland Council Healthy Waters to see if they can supply additional funding and expertise to implement this.

Auckland Transport is not currently funded to provide fish passages. Working closely with Auckland Council Environmental Services team we have developed indicative costings for the work, both one off and an ongoing basis, to maintain fish access.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a Te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.

19.     Auckland Transport will attend a workshop on 13 November 2018 with the local board.

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

20.     There were no Traffic Control Committee resolutions pertaining to this local board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for all of their projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24.     Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport customer service centre report for Great Barrier Local Board area

285

b

Auckland Transport activities from July - September 2018 Quarter

287

c

Auckland Trasnport report on School Community Transport, Great Barrier Island

297

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Ben Halliwell, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Team Leader, Elected Member Relationship Management Team Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Correspondence

 

File No.: CP2018/21088

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To inform the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board of the correspondence sent and received for the month of October 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The attached correspondence has been received and sent for the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board’s information.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      note the correspondence received for the month of October 2018:

i)    Letter of 22 October 2018 from Malcolm Harre, Great Barrier Island Golf Club.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter of 22 October 2018 from Malcolm Harre, Great Barrier Island Golf Club

301

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/20826

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board with its updated governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff for reference and information only.

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·        ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·        clarifying what advice is expected and when

·        clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar as at November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Great Barrier Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - November 2018

305

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings

 

File No.: CP2018/20827

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To note the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board proceedings taken at the workshop held on 2 October, 9 October and 23 October 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Under the current Standing Orders of the Great Barrier Local Board 12.1, workshops convened by the local board shall be closed to the public. However, the proceedings of every workshop shall record the names of members attending and a statement summarising the nature of the information received, and nature of matters discussed.  No resolutions are passed, or decisions reached but are solely for the provision of information and discussion. This report attaches the workshop record for the period stated above.

 

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      note the record of proceedings for the workshop held on the 2nd, 9th and 23rd of October 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 2 October 2018

313

b

Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 9 October 2018

315

c

Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Record - 23 October 2018

317

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Helgard Wagener – Relationship Manager - Great Barrier and Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



[1] The proportion of DC funding differs for different projects i.e. reserve acquisitions are primarily DC funded whereas transport projects have a mix of general rates, NZTA and DC funding.  Lower DC funding for parks would reduce capex by a similar amount.  Lower DC funding for transport would remove projects of a higher value as we would lose access to the associated NZTA funding.

[2] Awareness of and attitudes towards voting in the 2016 Auckland Council elections, by Auckland Council, Citizen Insight and Engagement, 2017. Available on http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1657&DocumentType=1&

[3] Frequently Asked Questions on i-voting, https://e-estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/faq-a4-v02-i-voting-1.pdf

[4] Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2017 General Election: Provided in accordance with section 8(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 (April 2018) p.13