I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 13 December 2018

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

Amended and updated on 11 December 2018 at 6.30pm

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Bill Cashmore

 

Councillors

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Mike Lee

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Item 12 – Contribution Policy 2019

 

Attachment B has been added to.  Pages 505-525 (17 pages) are available at the end of this agenda and should be read after Page 238.

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

10 December 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8152

Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



 

Terms of Reference

 

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

 

(a)        the power to make a rate

(b)        the power to make a bylaw

(c)        the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term plan

(d)        the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report

(e)        the power to appoint a chief executive

(f)        the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

(g)        the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

 

(a)        approval of long-term plan or annual plan consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation

(b)        approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

(c)        resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d)        adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e)        relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees

(f)        approval of the Unitary Plan

(g)        overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·         Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·         Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·         Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                                                      7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

5.1     Hayden Donnell - Petition relating to Auckland’s Giant Santa                       7  

6          Public Input                                                                                                                    8

7          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

8          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

9          Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Quarterly Health and Safety Performance Report - Quarter One FY 2019/20                                                          9

10        Adoption of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Maunga  o Tāmaki Makaurau Operational Plan 2019/2020 and summary                                                                                     21

11        Annual Budget 2019/20 item for Public Consultation                                           119

12        Contributions Policy 2019                                                                                        121

13        Review of the Auckland Council Code of Conduct                                               265

14        Order of names on voting documents for the 2019 elections                              383

15        Online voting trial at the 2019 elections (Covering report)                                   395

16        Recommendations from the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee - Value for Money ICT Review                                                  397

17        Recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee - Annual Report on the performance of the Audit and Risk Committee                                                      475

18        Approval of delegation to transfer responsibility for Aotea/Great Barrier Island airfields to Auckland Transport                                                                               483

19        Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings - 13 December 2018                                                                                                                                     491  

20        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

21        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               503

C1       Update on Auckland Council's Guarantee of Eden Park Trust's $40 million ASB bank facility (Covering report)                                                                                 503  

 


1          Affirmation

 

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

 

 

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 Governing Body:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 22 November 2018, including the confidential section and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 6 December 2018, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Petitions

 

5.1       Hayden Donnell - Petition relating to Auckland’s Giant Santa

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present a petition to the Governing Body.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Hayden Donnell will present a petition to the Governing Body.  The prayer of the petition is as follows:

“We must reinstall the winking eye and beckoning finger of Auckland’s Giant Santa. Through exhaustive journalistic efforts, I have secured the original winking eye. I also know the location of a beckoning finger. But I need to convince the authorities in charge of Santa to put both the eye and finger back in their rightful place. For that, I need your support. Please sign this petition and show Auckland mayor Phil Goff, Auckland Council, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and Heart of the City that there is overwhelming public demand to bring the real, canonical giant Santa back to its rightful place at the heart of Auckland's CBD. It’s time to restore Santa to his former glory, and in doing so, restore Christmas in Auckland to its former glory.”

3.       Council’s Standing Orders (7.6) allow for the presentation of a petition to the Governing Body and its committees.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      thank Hayden Donnell for his attendance

b)      receive the petition in relation to restoring the winking eye and beckoning finger of Auckland’s Giant Santa

 

 

6          Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

 

 

7          Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

 

8          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.”


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Quarterly Health and Safety Performance Report - Quarter One FY 2019/20

 

File No.: CP2018/23266

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Quarterly Health and Safety Performance Report referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At a meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee on 5 December 2018, it was resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2018/72

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      receive the report on Auckland Council’s health and safety performance for the first quarter of the 2018/2019 financial year

b)      refer this report to the Governing Body and draw the attention of elected members to their duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

c)      note that this report will be provided to all local boards for their information.

3.       Clause b) of the above resolution refers the report to the Governing Body, in its role as the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking and is in line with duties outlined in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

4.       The Quarterly Health and Safety Report is appended as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Quarterly Health and Safety Performance report appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      note its duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

c)      note that the report will be referred to all local boards for their information.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Quarterly Health and Safety Performance Report to the 5 December 2018 Audit and Risk Committee

11

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Adoption of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Maunga  o Tāmaki Makaurau Operational Plan 2019/2020 and summary

File No.: CP2018/24310

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To adopt the Draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority Plan 2019/2020 and summary.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Section 60 of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority) and Auckland Council to annually agree an operational plan as part of the annual or long-term plan process.  This requires the council to consult on a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operational Plan (the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan).  A joint meeting of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the council will be scheduled in April 2019 to consider feedback relating to the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan.

3.       The Tūpuna Maunga Authority met on 3 December 2018 to approve and adopt the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan and a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan.

4.       A summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan will be included in the consultation material for the Annual Budget 2019/2020 that will be presented for adoption by the Governing Body on 13 February 2019.

5.       The Tūpuna Maunga Authority will meet on 6 May 2019 to adopt the final Tūpuna Maunga Plan before the Governing Body meets in June 2019.  The Governing Body is also required to adopt the final Tūpuna Maunga Plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      adopt the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2019/2020 and summary for the purposes of community consultation through the Annual Budget 2019/2020 process.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

6.       Auckland Council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority must agree the Tūpuna Maunga Plan each year pursuant to section 60 of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.  A summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan must be included in the annual plan consultation material.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7.       Each year a Tūpuna Maunga Plan is developed to provide a framework in which the council will carry out its functions for the routine management of the tūpuna maunga and administered lands for that financial year.  The Tūpuna Maunga Plan must be prepared and adopted concurrently with the council’s annual or long-term plan and must be included in summary form in the annual or long-term plan consultation documentation.


 

8.       The Tūpuna Maunga Authority met on 3 December 2018 and adopted the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan (Attachment A) and a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan (Attachment B). Content relating to the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan will be referred to in the consultation document and the summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga plan will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/2020 supporting information.

9.       Two consultation streams will be undertaken during the consultation period.  An event for Tūpuna Maunga Authority members to receive spoken feedback on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan will be held by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority in March 2019.  For its part the council will receive submissions during the consultation period.  The various consultation feedback to the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the council will be reviewed and reported to a joint workshop of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and council in April 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera /

Council group impacts and views

10.     The organisations that are part of the council group will have an opportunity to comment on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan prior to the final plan being presented for adoption, and any feedback received will be presented to the Maunga Authority and the council for consideration.

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

Local impacts and local board views

11.     The work of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority spans many local board areas, but the adoption of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan is a Governing Body decision pursuant to Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, therefore the views of local boards have not been sought.  The local boards will have an opportunity to provide their views on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan during the consultation process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority is a tangible expression of a Treaty of Waitangi-based partnership between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and Auckland Council. It is a vehicle through which the mana whenua worldview and historical, cultural and spiritual connections with the maunga will be given visibility and guide decision-making for the health and wellbeing of these important taonga.

13.     A feedback event will be held by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority focusing on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan.  This event may be attended by Tūpuna Maunga Authority members including councillors on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

14.     The Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan budget is provided for in the council’s 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga / Risks and mitigations

15.     The final Tūpuna Maunga Plan 2019/2020 is necessary to support the council’s routine management of the tūpuna maunga under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.  There is a moderate reputational risk to Māori outcomes and relationships if the council did not approve funding for the tūpuna maunga in the Auckland area. This could seriously affect council’s ongoing relationships with mana whenua organisations of Tāmaki Makaurau.  If the final Tūpuna Maunga Plan 2019/2020 is approved there is a minor reputational risk in relation to sections of the community opposed to co-governance entities established by Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

16.     A recommendation to adopt the consultation material for the annual plan will be presented on 13 February 2018 at Governing Body. The summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan 2019/2020 will be included in that material.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2019-2020

25

b

Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2019-2020

113

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dominic Wilson - Head of Co-governance

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Governing Body

13 December 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


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Annual Budget 2019/20 item for Public Consultation

File No.: CP2018/24164

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

2.       To consider the recommendations of the 12 December 2018 Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Annual Budget 2019/20 items for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The recommendations will be provided after the Finance and Performance Committee meeting concludes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      consider the recommendations of 12 December 2018 Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Annual Budget 2019/20 items for public consultation.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Contributions Policy 2019

File No.: CP2018/24409

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To consider feedback on the draft Contributions Policy 2019, assess options for modifications to the proposal and adopt a Contributions Policy 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       In response to the challenge of significant population growth and its implications the Auckland Council 10-year Budget 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of infrastructure investment. A key funding source for this investment is the recovery of growth-related expenditure through Development Contributions (DCs).

3.       The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 assumes the council will adopt a Contributions Policy 2019 that sets out the programmes and projects to be funded by DCs.  The policy would also set out how these costs will be shared between different development types in different parts of the region.

4.       The council consulted on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 from 19 October to 15 November 2018.  61 responses were received including 44 submissions from developers.  23 developers presented to the Governing Body workshop on 23 November 2018.  A report summarising all the feedback is included as Attachment A.  The key changes proposed by council and the feedback on these and other issues is discussed below.

Increased growth capital investment and DC price

5.       The draft Contributions Policy 2019 proposed an increase in the capital expenditure to be funded by DCs and a rise in the indicative average urban DC price from $21,000 to $26,000 (excl GST).  The majority of feedback supported the increased investment and higher DC prices but sought review of some of the capital expenditure included.

6.       Officers have been undertaking an ongoing review of the capital expenditure schedule incorporating the feedback.  The schedule has been adjusted to provide additional detail and remove some smaller projects that don’t have a strong connection to growth.

7.       The 10-year Budget included some transport programmes committing funding to facilitate residential development in the period 2021-2028.  Projects were to be specified over time to ensure council’s investment would be in locations where there was the greatest certainty that development would deliver housing outcomes.

8.       In the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the programme was to fund small projects across the region primarily in Special Housing Areas.  In the future the focus is likely to be on larger projects to expedite growth in a smaller number of locations. Officers recommend that the programmes be removed from the Contributions Policy 2019 but retained in the 10-year Budget. Future cost recovery will be sought through DCs or other funding tools, like targeted rates, applied in the local areas benefiting from the investment.

9.       The indicative average urban DC price across the region in the revised Contributions Policy 2019 will be lower than the draft policy by around $1,000.

Transport unit of demand factors and DC price for retail and commercial development

10.     The draft policy proposed higher unit of demand factors for transport and hence higher prices for retail (500 per cent) and commercial (100 per cent) development with smaller decreases for other development types.


 

11.     The proposed changes to transport unit of demand factors and the DC prices were based on trip generation data and moved Auckland Council’s demand factors to a similar level to those of other cities.  Feedback from developers, particularly those undertaking retail and commercial development, strongly opposed these changes.  They were concerned the prices rises:

·        would stop or delay retail and commercial development

·        would discourage the co-location of retail and residential development sought in the Unitary Plan

·        didn’t fairly reflect that transport demand was driven by population growth and hence residential development should bear more, or all, of the cost

·        ignored the transport system benefits of development near where residents lived.

12.     Data shows that retail and commercial development generate more trips than residential and other development.  However, feedback raised several important issues as noted above. To make a decision on the appropriate sharing of transport costs between development types further information is required on key factors such as:

·        impact on incentives to invest in retail and commercial development near new residential areas

·        transport system benefits of retail and commercial development near new residential areas

·        transport economies associated with retail and commercial development.

13.     Officers therefore recommend that the demand factors in the Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A) be retained for now and further investigation undertaken including engagement with developers.  That could lead to a policy change on this matter, following further consultation.  Officers will report on a timetable for that work once it has been scoped.

Other proposed changes and feedback

14.     The draft Contributions Policy 2019 also proposed:

·        extending the timeframe for the payment of DCs on residential construction

·        refining funding areas and a range of other minor amendments.

15.     The changes to payment timing, funding areas and minor amendments were generally supported by feedback.  Officers have reviewed that feedback and included some adjustments in the draft policy.  These are discussed in the report.

16.     Feedback on a range of other issues was also received.  Officers are recommending some further modifications to the proposal in response.  The key change is to lower the unit of demand factors for reserves and community facilities for retirement villages for now until a review currently underway is completed.

17.     Alongside these policy changes officers are reviewing, as part of the Annual Budget 2019/2020, funding of the Maori Cultural Initiatives Fund which provides grants for marae and papakainga development including to support payment of DCs.

18.     Officers are addressing feedback from Housing New Zealand and social housing developers by committing to undertake case by case assessment of the:

·        DCs for Housing New Zealand developments of housing for the elderly

·        payment timing for social housing development by non-government organisations.


 

Conclusion

19.     The overall impact of the changes to the proposal recommended above is to lower the weighted indicative average urban DC price from $26,000 in the proposal to $25,000, compared to $21,000 under the 2015 policy.  Officers recommend that the Contributions Policy 2019, Attachment B, which includes the changes noted above and detailed in this report is adopted.  The new policy will come into effect from 1 January 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note and has considered the feedback received

b)      agree to the amendments to the draft Contributions Policy 2019 recommended in this report

c)      adopt the Contributions Policy 2019 appended in Attachment B of the agenda report

d)      delegate the authority and responsibility for agreeing any required changes to the Contributions Policy 2019 to the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and the Group Chief Financial Officer.

 

Horopaki / Context

20.     In response to the challenge of significant population growth and its implications the Auckland Council 10-year Budget 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of infrastructure investment. A key funding source for this investment is the recovery of growth-related expenditure through Development Contributions (DCs).

21.     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 DCs to recover from developers a fair and equitable proportion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

Consultation process

22.     The current policy, Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A), reflects the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025.  Council reviewed the current policy to update it to reflect the changes to capital expenditure in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028. The council consulted on a draft Contributions Policy 2018 in May 2018.

23.     Feedback from the development community requested more detailed supporting information and a longer period for consultation. 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 could be prepared, and further consultation undertaken.

24.     Between 19 October and 15 November 2018, Auckland Council undertook public consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.  To support consultation the council provided a Consultation Document and Supporting Information, which set out:

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

·        how we set development contributions charges

·        the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why we have proposed them

·        the capital expenditure projects and programs which will be funded by DCs in detail (850 lines).

25.     61 submissions were received, and 52 people attended one of the six Have Your Say or community events.  23 developers presented to councillors at a governing body workshop on 23 November.

26.     All the submissions are available on the council’s website.  A report summarising the responses to the proposed changes and other key themes raised by correspondents was presented to the combined workshop of local board chairs and the Governing Body on 28 November and to a Governing Body workshop on 29 November.  This report is included as Attachment A: Submissions Report.  The key issues raised in the feedback are discussed in the following sections.

Legal requirements and analytical criteria

27.     Officers advice to you, and your decision making on the Contributions Policy, is made in the context of highly prescriptive provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) which cover the setting of a policy and the assessment of contributions. These provisions are the only source of the council’s power to exact development contributions and must be strictly complied with.

28.     Officers reviewed the existing policy and considered the matters raised in submissions having given consideration to legislative requirements in the LGA, including specific content requirements for development contributions policies, and the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

29.     The draft policy included 4 key areas of change.  Respondents also raised a number of other issues in their feedback.  The following sections set out analysis of the council’s proposals and the feedback received on these and other issues. It also sets out officers’ suggestions for modification to the proposals.

Increased investment and price changes

Proposal

30.     The draft policy set out the growth related capital expenditure projects and programmes where the council was proposing to use DCs to provide a proportion of the funding.  In response to the concerns identified during consultation in May substantial detail was added to the schedule of capital expenditure.  The schedule set out the total cost of the projects, third party funding and the proportion to be funded by development contributions.

31.     As a result of the increase in investment, the indicative urban DC price in the draft policy increased from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excl GST).  The actual DCs in a particular area depend on the type of development and the infrastructure needed to support growth in different locations.

Feedback

32.     52 per cent of respondents supported the proposed change and 34 per cent were opposed.  Feedback indicated general support for the need for additional infrastructure investment and a consequent rise in total DC revenue and prices.  At the presentation to the Governing Body workshop on 23 November representatives of retail and commercial developers indicated comfort with the overall policy and only concerns about the transport units of demand and hence price proposed for them.


 

33.     While there was support for the underlying principles of funding growth infrastructure with DCs, respondents (both in support and opposed) shared a concern that the proposal schedule included some programmes and projects:

·        without enough detail or description to allow scrutiny

·        with only a weak connection to growth

·        that appeared to be 100 per cent growth without supporting explanation

·        of a historic nature that could not be supported

·        where future expenditure would be local but would be funded regionally initially.

34.     Some developers were also concerned about the price changes in the areas in which they were operating.

Modification of proposal in response to feedback

35.     During the consultation period, and subsequently in response to feedback, officers have been reviewing the capital expenditure schedule.  The focus of the review has been to ensure that all the expenditure to be funded by development contributions:

·        was clearly described

·        would provide benefits to growth or was required to allow growth to proceed.

36.     As a result of the review officers have made adjustments to the schedule to provide additional detail and to ensure that it only includes projects with a connection to growth.  Some small historical projects have been removed where the information to support a connection to growth is no longer available.

37.     The Local Residential Growth Fund (LRGF) was established in 2015 to allow the council to quickly respond to the market and commit to the projects required to facilitate growth, particularly with respect to the 84 Special Housing Areas (SHAs). Those projects were smaller and well spread across the region allowing for a regional funding approach.

38.     The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 includes $391 million of expenditure for the LRGF, with $146 million recovered from DCs within the first decade. Moving forward these projects are likely to be more significant and specific to local development areas. Officers recommend that this programme is retained in the capital expenditure budgets but removed from the Contributions Policy. As individual projects are identified special funding areas can be created to recover the costs from development in the local area using DCs or other funding tools such as targeted rates.

39.     Through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, and the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, $300 million of investment was identified to fund transport infrastructure to support greenfields housing development. $228 million of this fund has been allocated to specific projects and the growth-related portion is recovered in local areas through the proposed Contributions Policy 2019. Officers recommend that, similar to the LRGF, the remainder ($72 million of expenditure with $18 million of assumed DC funding in the 2018-2028 period) is retained in capital expenditure budgets but removed from the Contributions Policy. Again, special funding areas can be created to recover the costs in the future.

40.     Removing these programmes and the other adjustments to the schedule will reduce the DC revenue by an average of $16 million per year in the first three years of the plan.  Officers expect that the full cost of the projects will still be recovered but over a longer time. Removing the programmes will reduce the weighted average DC price to $25,000 in the revised Contributions Policy 2019 from the $26,000 indicated in the draft policy.


 

41.     The proposed DC policy and review of the capital expenditure schedule in accordance with legislative principles produces a more accurate allocation of projects and cost to funding areas.  Developments in these funding areas are driving the need to invest and receiving the benefits of that investment.  This has led to some price increases in excess of the broad average for the region.  For developers who have purchased land recently this will put pressure on their margins.  While officers acknowledge the impact, we do not consider that it is reasonable or within the scope of the legislation to require other developers to meet this cost when they are neither the beneficiaries nor driving the need for investment.  For similar reasons the costs should not be borne by ratepayers.

Impact on house prices

42.     Several respondents expressed concern that higher DC prices might increase the cost of housing.

43.     Economic research[1] indicates that increasing the development contribution price does not generally increase house prices as these are set by the market and not by developers. Increasing the contribution charge will likely lower the price of developable land as the true cost of infrastructure is incorporated into the value of land to developers.  Raising the price of development contributions will:

·        better align these costs with the actual cost of infrastructure

·        increase certainty that infrastructure will be delivered

·        encourage more accurate pricing of land purchases for development to reflect future development contribution prices

·        impact developers who have paid for land based on current development contribution prices.

44.     Officers are confident that the above analysis will hold true in the medium term.  However, the broad change in DC prices and the more substantial changes in some areas reflecting the more accurate allocation of infrastructure costs sought by many respondents, will impact on those who have purchased land based on the current policy.  For these developers and land owners the proposed changes will impact on their margins.  Officers consider that this is one of the risks associated with land purchasing and should be borne by the investor and not passed to ratepayers.

45.     While the DC price is higher in some areas this is because growth costs have now been identified to specific areas, and the LGA states as a principle that funding these costs regionally (i.e. a region-wide funding area) should be avoided wherever practical.

Alternative options considered

46.     The council has already determined how it will fund growth infrastructure.  The 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 DCs to fund growth capital expenditure.  Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 sets out the council’s consideration of the appropriateness of development contributions as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of section 101(3) of the LGA.

47.     As noted above the Revenue and Financing Policy makes provision for the use of targeted rates to fund growth infrastructure.  While targeted rates can spread the costs normally associated with DCs over a longer time period they also involve an element of compulsion as they may fall on land owners who don’t wish to develop.  Accordingly, their application requires careful consideration on a case by case basis.  The council is continuing to look for the right opportunities to use this funding tool in conjunction with land owners, developers and the Crown.

48.     Some feedback also suggested we had failed to consider Crown financing.  Crown financing, like that used in Milldale, needs to be paid back with an appropriate funding source.  This can either be DCs or targeted rates, or tools of a similar nature.  Crown financing is not an alternative to these funding mechanisms.

49.     Officers have considered two alternatives to the proposed increase in development contributions;

·        defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

·        increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

50.     Without some or all of the additional DC revenue provided in the Contributions Policy 2019 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[2].  Officers do not recommend this option 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.

51.     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.  Land development also creates the need for this investment in growth-supporting infrastructure.  Officers do not recommend this option as it is appropriate that the growth share of funding comes from those causing and benefitting from this infrastructure investment via development contributions, not general ratepayers.

Unit of demand factors: DC price for transport

Proposal

52.     The draft policy proposed changes in the unit of demand factors for transport which would increase the share of growth related transport capital costs paid by retail and commercial development and lower the share paid by other development types.

53.     The council used trip generation data for different types of activity to provide a basis for assessing the impact that different development types have on the transport network.  For residential development the demand factor reflects the relative occupancy levels of different residential development types.

54.     The trip generation data used is the same data sets used by other councils to set their DCs.  This data is the primary source of information used by the development industry for the transport assessment required for resource consents.

55.     A review of the statistical trip generation data showed that retail and commercial developments generate substantially more trips than residential and other development types. These results are consistent with officers’ experience of case by case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts of this type of development.  The analysis on which the proposal was based is set out in Attachment C: Contributions transport unit of demand factors.


 

56.     The proposed unit of demand factors are comparable to the average number of HUEs allocated by other large metropolitan councils noting that some council’s set their factors at different, both lower and higher levels, for different types of development.  Some examples are included in Attachment C: Contributions transport unit of demand factors.  The actual DC prices will depend on the transport investment costs each council is experiencing.  The impact on development economics will also vary depending on the price of land in each area.

57.     The DC prices varies across the region.  The price for different development types in each area is set as a proportion of the charge for a standard residential dwelling, a Household Unit Equivalent (HUE).  As other development types vary greatly in size the DC proportions are expressed as a proportion of a HUE per 100m2.

58.     The proposed unit of demand factors are set out in the table below.

Units of demand per 100m2

Development Type

Current DC Policy

Draft DC 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

 

59.     The transport component of DCs varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area so the exact price effects vary.  In broad average terms the changes in DC transport prices based on the proposed demand factors are set out in the table below.

Development Type

DC Price change

Retail

increase by $18,000 per 100m2

Commercial

increase by $2,900 per 100m2

Production and distribution

decrease by $1,450 per 100m2

Residential

decrease by $500 for a standard dwelling

 

Feedback

60.     Of the 55 direct responses received 21 per cent were in support and 55 per cent opposed.  All the developers who provided feedback were opposed to the proposal.

61.     Feedback was received from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. The Forum was opposed to the increased transport demand factor for non-residential development due to the impact on marae. The Forum is concerned that increased DC charges are a barrier to Māori development.

62.     Retail developers noted that the proposal would increase the unit of demand factor by nearly 500 per cent and in combination with the change to the DC price add significantly to the cost retail developments.  Stride Property Group provided the example of a development in Silverdale where the cost of DCs under the current policy would be $550k and under the draft Contributions Policy 2019 would increase to $5.3m.  DCs for a Bunnings store in Westgate was stated as $402k under the current policy.  Bunnings Limited have estimated the cost under the draft policy to be $1.7m.  Commercial developers expressed similar concerns.

63.     Concern was expressed that the result of the price increase would be to delay or stop retail and commercial development.  This affect was considered likely to be particularly strong in areas of the city the council had identified for residential growth.  It was argued that this would be counter to the intention in the Unitary Plan for residential development to occur around locations where residents had access to jobs and retail opportunities.

64.     Developers said that the price increases would also discourage some of the mixed use development sought by the plan.  The change to the relative cost of retail and commercial development would make residential space more attractive for development.

65.     The feedback considered that the primary driver for growing demand for transport is population growth.  They argued that as residential development has the strongest connection to population growth it would be more appropriate to retain the current lower demand factors for retail and commercial development or to shift all the costs to residential.

66.     Feedback considered that developing commercial and retail near new residential development reduces demand on the transport network.  These developments are also important to provide attractive lifestyle opportunities to those settling in newly developed residential areas.  Without these developments residents of the new development would have to travel further for work and shopping, increasing demand on the transport network.

67.     The feedback noted that the trips taken to retail destinations tend to be off peak.  As the majority of transport investment is to manage peak demand developers consider the impact of retail development is lower.  It was also noted that commercial development around transport nodes and in particular public transport nodes was concentrating peak demand where the cost of serving it was lower.

68.     Feedback noted that the use of a single factor for retail did not recognise the wide variation in trip generation that different types of retail development place on demand for investment in transport.

69.     Concern was also expressed about the age and source of the data that the council had used in its review.  Some of the data had been reported in 2002, used source material dating back to the 1970s and was from other countries.  The data also did not distinguish between trips using motor vehicle, public transport or other modes.  The nature of the data and its collection was also challenged.  Feedback noted that data was often collected at times of peak use rather than measuring average demand.

Analysis

70.     In considering the appropriate demand factors for transport and the feedback received officers have focused on the following three key criteria in the legislation and revenue and financing policy:

·    benefits of transport investment to different development types

·    cost causation, demand created for transport investment by different development types

·    overall affordability impact on different development types of the proposed changes.

71.     Officers note that any decision on how the growth costs are shared between different development types will not impact on the overall level of DCs recovered from developers.

Benefits of transport investment

72.     All types of development (residential, production and distribution, commercial and retail) benefit from the council’s investment in infrastructure that allows growth to occur. All land rises in value as the city and its population grows and as the council makes investments in infrastructure to facilitate development. The provision of transport infrastructure allows residents to access work and move around the city for leisure including to go to retail areas.  Transport infrastructure also connects retail and commercial premises with their customers and employees.

73.     Most trips start and end at residential development with work (commercial and other development) and retail being some of the intermediate destinations.  Judgement is required to determined how the costs of transport investment should be shared between residential development and other development types.  The exercise of that judgement may be able to be better informed with further investigation of this issue.

Cost causation

74.     The council needs to invest in transport infrastructure to efficiently connect new developments to the city.  Investment is also required to accommodate the impact of the additional movements on the wider transport network and manage the congestion effect on existing residents.

75.     The primary driver for additional transport investment is new residents demand for connection across the city.  New residents are more directly linked to residential than other development types. However, officers note that new residents come to the city for the job opportunities created by commercial development and the lifestyle Auckland offers which is in part provided by retail development.  Residential and non-residential activity are interdependent.  Residential development seeks connection to work and retail whilst non-residential development needs access to consumers and employees.

76.     More than 80 per cent of trips start or end at a residential dwelling.  The council’s proposal recognised this by reducing the relative demand for all non-residential activity by 50 per cent and pass by trips (stopping on route to another destination) by 25 per cent.

77.     To better consider the balance of the costs of meeting transport demand between different development types further information is required on the:

·        benefits to the transport network of locating commercial and retail development near new residential development

·        relative costs of meeting the demand from developments given the timing of trips i.e. peak or off peak.

78.     Further investigation would also provide an opportunity to consider the other data sources available to contribute to this work.

Overall Impact on Affordability

79.     Increasing the units of demand for retail and commercial development raises the DC price to be paid by retail and commercial developers.  The proposed increase for retail and commercial is a lot higher at on average $18,000 per 100m2 than the reduction for other development types e.g. on average $500 for a standard residential dwelling.  If the status quo is retained other development types will not benefit from the reductions in the proposal.

80.     This will increase the cost for this type of development.  Changes in price may impact on developers’ decisions on the timing, location and quality of development.  These decisions will also be influenced by movements in the price of land over the time, competition and the potential returns from their investment. To inform council decisions on the transport unit of demand factors further work is required to determine the scale and impact of the price changes on:

·        land zoned for commercial, retail and mixed use

·        pace, form and location of development

·        comparative cost of development in Auckland other centres.


 

Modification of the proposal based on feedback

81.     The key options for the council to consider in determining how to set the demand factors for transport are:

·        retain the status quo

·        adopt the proposal

·        retain the status quo and undertake further work.

82.     Further work would involve building on the work that the proposal was based on including investigating the merit in using other data sources and analysing in more depth the issues that have been raised in feedback.

83.     Trip generation data clearly shows that retail and commercial development generates substantially more trips per day than other development types.  The proposed changes are also comparable with the demand factors used by other councils over many years and where retail development has continued.

84.     However, feedback also shows that there are a number of other factors that need to be considered.  These include the size of the change, the scale of retail development and its location within the city. Without further work it isn’t possible to assess with confidence the degree to which the matters raised in feedback should be weighted.

85.     After considering the matters noted above officers recommend that the council retain the current unit of demand factors in the 2019 policy that comes into force on 1 January 2019 and undertake further work on this issue with the aim of incorporating results of that work into subsequent policies.

86.     Officers considered amending the proposal to reflect the affordability issues raised in feedback whilst still reflecting the underlying differences in trip generation of the different development types.  However, decision making on an option of this nature would still require the exercise of judgement on the appropriate balance to strike between the different issues.  As noted above the weighting of these issues is better undertaken with the benefit of the further investigation proposed.

Unit of demand factors: DC price of parks and community facilities for retirement villages

Proposal

87.     The draft policy did not propose any changes to the unit of demand factors for retirement villages for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities.  The consultation materials noted that officers were reviewing the relative use of reserves and community facilities by the occupants of different residential development types including retirement villages.  The results of that review, which includes a survey, were expected early next year.  If the review suggested changes should be considered to the units of demand the policy was to be amended at that time following further consultation.

Feedback

88.     Feedback pointed out that the residents of retirement villages and in particular those serving an older population group and providing a continuum of care made less use of reserves and community facilities.  They maintained that as a result the DC price for these facilities should be lowered.  Reference was made to the outcome of a recent objection hearing which found in favour of the applicant and determined a much lower demand factor should be charged for the development in question.

89.     Respondents also provided recent statistical evidence showing a lower occupancy rate for single bedroom retirement village units.  This supports a lower demand factor for this type of development.

90.     Feedback also noted that the unit of demand factors for aged care rooms for reserves and reserve development had been mistakenly set at 0.4.

Modification of proposal in response to feedback

91.     The council acknowledges the points raised in feedback and considers that the appropriate response is to undertake further work to resolve the appropriate unit of demand factors for retirement villages for reserves and community facilities. 

92.     Officers recommend that for now, the unit of demand factors for retirement villages be lowered for reserves and community infrastructure from 0.5 to 0.2 and lower the aged care community infrastructure factor from 0.4 to 0.1.  Officers will continue work on the review of demand factors informed by the survey noted above.  The review will also consider the evidence supporting a proposal for a new development type for single bedroom retirement units.  Once the results of the survey are available and the review complete, officers will report the results to councillors and recommend any appropriate changes to demand factors, either up or down.  The demand factor for reserves acquisition and reserve development for aged care rooms will be corrected to 0.0.

Payment timing

Proposal

93.     The draft policy proposed extending 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 DCs to be invoiced at time the Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) is applied for. This will extend the time until council receives payment by an average of 12 months.

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

94.     This change supports residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay DCs with developers’ cash flows. The change leads to a one-off reduction in the council’s DC revenue of $10 million for 2018/2019 which is not material over the 10-year Budget period as all developments will still pay, just slightly later.

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

96.     Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement.  Developers who require a land use consent but cannot be assessed for DCs 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 not paying as required.  It is proposed that all non-residential developments will be required to pay no later than 24 months after issue of a building consent.  This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for council.

Feedback

97.     The majority of feedback supported the change noting that it would assist developers with their financial constraints and helping enable development to be realised.  Respondents suggested the extension should be for 24 months and accompany title transfer. Developers also sought the extension of payment timing to apply to residential subdivision as well as building consents.

98.     Feedback also noted that the council had previously allowed provision for developers to enter into deferral agreements at the council’s discretion.  These agreements extended the time period for payment in blocks of 12 months secured with a statutory land charge and the payment of interest and legal costs.  The council is no longer offering these agreements in order to better manage its cash flows.

99.     Several respondents sought the reinstatement of these arrangements to further support development.  Developers who were using this facility previously argued that its removal is affecting the pace and economics of their development.  They also suggest there is no demand for council services until construction is complete and new residents have occupied dwellings.

Analysis

100.   Officers do not recommend any change to the proposal.  The amendments proposed balance the council’s cash flow needs and payment security with a better matching of developers cashflows and payment timing.  Providing additional time eases their cash flow demands and supports the dwelling construction the council is seeking.  Officers rejected retaining the status quo in order to treat those required to pay at building consent sometime after consent issue to make their payment as is the case with residential sub-division and non-residential development.

101.   Officers do not recommend the inclusion of provision for further deferrals in the policy.  Like developers the council has significant pressure on its cash flows.  The management of cash flows is important part of the council’s strategy to stay within its debt limits and ensure it has the capital available to meets its planned infrastructure investment commitments.

102.   The demand for infrastructure to support growth occurs in part before construction of development proceeds.  Roads and stormwater investments are required before subdivision can proceed and land for parks is often acquired at the early stages of development.

103.   The council has statutory powers to recover unpaid DCs, including registering a statutory charge on property where DCs have not been paid.  While the council has some aged DC debt this is a very small proportion of the DCs invoiced over the last 8 years.  In this time the council has written off less than $100,000 of DC debt out of $740 million invoiced.

104.   Officers do not recommend that deferral agreements be used.  Where developers are experiencing payment difficulties our debt recovery team will negotiate payment arrangements where appropriate.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

105.   The draft Contributions Policy 2019 included 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, mainly road sealing, for the benefit of rural areas in the North, West and South.

106.   Changes were also proposed 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 DC 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.

107.   Two new stormwater funding areas were also proposed where investment is now planned; Hauraki Gulf Islands and Omaha/Matakana.


 

Feedback

108.   A few respondents supported the refinement of funding areas to more closely align the costs of infrastructure to support development with the beneficiaries or those causing the costs.  In contrast others suggested the use of less funding areas to smooth out the costs of development across the region.  Concern was also expressed that the higher costs in some areas might drive development to areas where the costs of infrastructure are lower.  Questions were raised in the feedback about the allocation of projects to particular funding areas.

Modifications to the proposal in response to feedback

109.   Officers recommend the changes to funding areas be adopted.  In reviewing the funding areas consideration was given to a range of considerations including the:

·        area of benefit for the projects identified

·        locality of development that was driving the need to invest

·        affordability of the additional DC charges for developments in the area

·        equitable sharing of the investment costs between developers in other parts of the region

·        practical and administrative efficiency (which relates mainly to having a workable number of funding areas)

110.   In each of the above cases the new funding areas have been created to allocate the costs of investments required to allow growth to proceed to the properties that will be able to develop and will benefit from the services provided.  The additional costs are substantial in some cases.  However, as they only benefit the proposed areas it would be inequitable to average them over a broader development area to be funded by developers not benefiting from the investments.

Development Types

111.   The draft policy also included the following changes to the definitions of development types. The changes in the table below were proposed to ensure an appropriate level of cost was recovered and reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Development Type

Change proposed in draft policy

Student accommodation

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

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

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

Accommodation units for short term rental

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.

 


 

Feedback

112.   Feedback was generally in support of the proposed changes to development type definitions. Other comments included:

·    definition of student accommodation should:

include staff or guests of a tertiary education facility as users

specify living areas to be lounges, study areas, laundries or kitchens

·    unmanned infrastructure development type should be reinstated as it provided clarity to runways and other unmanned infrastructure

·    Gross Floor Area definition in the unitary plan should replace the Gross Development Area in the policy and be used in the DC policy as the unit of measure

·    The retirement village development type shouldn’t require registration under the section 10 of the Retirement Village Act 2003 as registration isn’t an indicator of demand.  Housing New Zealand also asked that this requirement be removed as the protections in that act for residents aren’t required for HNZ developments.

Analysis

113.   Officers recommend that the proposals be adopted.  In response to feedback, the definition of student accommodation was amended to specify living areas to be lounges, study areas, laundries or kitchens.

114.   Consideration was given to the other feedback points, but no changes were to the policy are proposed because:

·    the inclusion of staff or guests of a tertiary education facility as users is an operational issue for the universities

·    there is insufficient differentiation between categories to justify the inclusion of the unmanned infrastructure development type. Categories that have a substantial difference can be dealt with by private developer agreement

·    Gross Development Area (GDA) is used in the policy because it recognises those developments where outdoor space is developed for commercial use, such as garden centres and hardware stores

·    The Retirement Village Act requires that developments include specified amenities which lower demand on council services and also provides certainty that the use of the development won’t change over time. Officers accept that in some cases HNZ developments of housing for the elderly will generate lower demand.  Where this is the case the council will negotiate private development agreements with them.

Double dipping

Feedback

115.   A consistent theme in many responses was a concern that the council was charging developers twice for infrastructure.  Many developments require works to be undertaken as part of consent conditions.  To meet consent conditions developers may have to invest, for example to ensure that stormwater flows from their site are maintained at pre-development levels.  Developers may also offer the council land for use as reserves.  Developers are concerned that they are then asked to pay DCs for stormwater or reserves.

116.   Feedback also noted that on some occasions investment required to meet consent conditions may also provide benefits to other developable land or to existing developed properties. Developers are concerned that they aren’t being compensated for this.

 

 

Analysis

117.   Council’s plans for infrastructure investment assume that developers will make the required investments to meet resource consent conditions.  The infrastructure investment required to support growth only includes projects and programmes in addition to those required for consent.  DCs are therefore only charged for infrastructure required in addition to what the developers have to provide under resource consents. The council will work to ensure this is clearly communicated when staff are engaging with developers in consent processes and when DCs are assessed.

118.   Council officers advise that there may be some rare occurrences where overlaps in investment occur.  When they do occur, we review the contribution payment for the development and adjust it accordingly.

Affordable housing

Feedback

119.   Submissions on the issue of affordable housing were concerned that increases in DC prices would increase house prices, reducing affordability. There was also a request to charge smaller houses lower DCs by creating an additional size band for properties 70 sqm or less.

Analysis

120.   The proposed average change in DCs of $4,000 makes up only a small proportion of the cost of a house in Auckland.  For example this change represents less than one per cent of the price of a $600,000 house.

121.   The present scale of DC prices for residential dwellings is based set out below:

Dwelling size

Relative charge per property

0m² - 99m²

0.8 HUE

100m²  – 249m²

1.0 HUE

1 250m² and over

1.2 HUE

 

122.   Statistical data shows that larger properties have more occupants and hence will place more demand on services.  The data does not show a major variation in occupancy over wide bands of house size.  Officers do not recommend introducing any more size bandings at this time.  Fresh data is expected from Statistics New Zealand in March.  If this shows a different distribution of occupancy, then officers will advise on the merits of adjusting the bandings at that time.

123.   The use of grants to support some social housing is discussed below.  This is not recommended to support affordable housing.  As the relative value of DCs to house prices is low it would be very difficult to establish that the benefit of ratepayer funded grants was flowing through to house buyers and not being captured by land owners or developers.

124.   The council’s primary contribution to affordable housing is the major increase in investment in infrastructure to support growth discussed earlier in this report.  DCs are a significant contributor to the funding need to support that investment.


 

Social housing

Feedback

125.   Responses were received from four organisations and one individual associated with the social housing sector. Concerns were raised that DCs were barrier to the development of social housing, and requested greater assistance from council, either through grants, remissions or deferrals of charges. Feedback also requested the creation of new size bands for residential houses, so smaller houses pay lower DC charges. A request was also made that emergency housing developed by Community Housing Providers should fall within the Emergency Housing Development type.

Analysis

126.   To differentiate social housing from affordable housing officers have assumed that social housing providers are not-for profit non-government organisations who will retain ownership of properties that will be used to provide accommodation for members of vulnerable communities.  Lower DCs for smaller houses is discussed in the section above.

Payment Timing

127.   Consideration will be given to offering extended payment timing to social housing developers on a case by case basis.

Grants and remissions

128.   Officers do not recommend remissions for DCs. DCs are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of DCs 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.  Revenue would instead need to be made up by reductions in expenditure or increases in general rates.

129.   Support for 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.

130.   Council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of DCs 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 DCs and consenting costs.  Officers recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for DCs 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.

Emergency Housing

131.   The Emergency Housing development type covers temporary developments undertaken by Housing New Zealand (HNZ). It enables HNZ to build temporary dwellings on land set aside for purposes such as future roading projects. These dwellings will be demolished or removed when the land reverts to its planned used.

132.   The draft Contributions policy removes the Emergency Housing development type. The issue of temporary developments will instead be addressed through development agreements with Housing New Zealand.

133.   Officers recommend allowing Community Housing Providers to enter into similar development agreements for any temporary social housing developments they are undertaking.

Māori Development

Feedback

134.   Feedback was received from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. The Forum:

·    opposed the increase in transport charges for non-residential development which would impact on marae, considering there was insufficient evidence to support this change (for officer’s analysis see transport unit of demand section earlier)

·    opposed to increased DC charges for papakāinga and marae in general. These were viewed a barrier to development and as such were inconsistent with the objectives of the Auckland Plan

·    sought the creation of specific development types for papakāinga and marae

·    sought further analysis of the ways DC policy can support Māori development and mitigate further land loss

·    requested that the Cultural Initiatives fund be appropriately sized to support Māori development.

Māori development types

135.   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.

136.   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 DC 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.

Supporting Māori outcomes

137.   The Contributions Policy is a mechanism for recovering the cost of growth related infrastructure from developers. A reduction of DC charges for developments which is not based on evidence of demand generated by those developments cannot be funded by increasing DC charges for other developers. Any shortfall in DC revenue due to remissions, waivers, or the creation of special development types, that are not based on demand generated, would need to be funded through general rates.

138.   For this reason, officers do not support the use of the DC policy to achieve Māori outcomes identified in the Auckland Plan. Support should instead be provided through grants to ensure transparency of expenditure and alignment with Māori outcomes.

Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund

139.   The council currently offers some support for DCs for Māori development through the Papakāinga and Marae Grant fund. In relation to DCs, this grant is only available for papakāinga development on Māori land, and for marae undertaking papakāinga development on Māori land. It does not support DCs for new marae. It does not support development of new marae. The policies governing the grant are being reviewed and will be considered by the Community Development and Safety Committee in 2019.

 

 

140.   The grants fund is currently fully subscribed. If further support is to be provided for Māori development consideration will need to be given to the size of the fund. This would require a full analysis of the types of development to be supported, the best mechanisms for support council’s outcomes, and the likely volume of applications. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera /

Council group impacts and views

141.   The analysis in this report was prepared in conjunction with Auckland Transport and Panuku.

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

Local impacts and local board views

142.   The DC price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The funding areas were set out in the draft policy documents provided to support consultation.

143.   Officers provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board clusters and the local board chairs’ forum meetings in October.  At their November meetings, local boards were asked for their views on the draft policy.  Local board members were invited to the Have You’re your Say Events held around the region.  Timing meant that most local boards were required to form their views without the benefit of a briefing on feedback received from consultation.

144.   The majority of local boards who addressed each of the issues were in support of the changes proposed in the draft Contributions Policy 2019.  A summary of local board views and the full resolutions are set out in Attachment D: Local board views.  Key themes from the views expressed by local boards were:

·        concern that vested assets are transferred at a satisfactory standard

·        agreement with further consideration of how the council can support development of marae and papakāinga

·        desire for greater investment in parks.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

146.   Feedback from Māori received in the May consultation was considered as part of the development of the revised draft Contributions Policy 2019.

147.   Consultation on the draft Contributions Policy sought views from iwi and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. Feedback was received from the Forum. This feedback and officer’s response is included in the body of the report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga / Risks and mitigations

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


 

150.   A number of submissions raised issues of legal compliance of the draft policy, and on some particular issues (notably the increase in transport units of demand for retail developments) judicial review proceedings have been threatened.  The recommendation to undertake further work on development of revised transport units of demand addresses this issue.  Other recommended changes to the policy address other concerns of a legal nature expressed in submissions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

151.   The Contributions Policy 2019 will come into effect on 1 January 2019.  Officers will write to all those who provided feedback advising them of the council’s decision. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Contributions Policy 2019 – Analysis of feedback received

141

b

Contributions Policy for Adoption

167

c

Contributions Supporting Analysis - Transport Unit of Demand Factors

239

d

Local Board Views

251

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 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


Governing Body

13 December 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


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

13 December 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


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Review of the Auckland Council Code of Conduct

 

File No.: CP2018/22461

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present a revised code of conduct and related policies and protocols for adoption by the Governing Body.

2.       Make a minor amendment to terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       The council’s initial code of conduct (code) was prepared by the Auckland Transition Agency prior to Auckland Council commencing.  It was last reviewed in 2013.  The code has worked well but there have been several issues identified.  The Governing Body agreed that the code be reviewed through the Joint Governance Working Party (Working Party).

4.       Presentations were made to local board cluster meetings earlier this year. A draft code was presented to the Working Party and then reported to local boards for their feedback.  The working party considered local board feedback and agreed to amendments to the draft code, which is now presented for adoption.

5.       A comparison of the draft code with the current code can be summarised as follows:

i)          the draft code is more concise

ii)         the draft code is based around two key principles: trust and respect

iii)         it distinguishes between material and non-material breaches, with material breaches being defined

iv)        there are separate complaint processes depending on whether a complaint relates to a non-material breach, a material breach or a conflict of interest

v)         the current independent review panel is replaced by a Conduct Commissioner, who can impose sanctions

vi)        findings of the Conduct Commissioner (for material breaches) may be made public to assist compliance with sanctions imposed by the Conduct Commissioner

vii)       there is no political involvement in determining a complaint.

6.       The following associated policies and protocols are attached to the code and are adopted with the code:

a)      Conflict of Interest Policy

b)      Access to Information Protocol

c)      Election Year Policy

d)      Communications Policy

e)      Media Protocols.

7.       The Working Party considered this draft code on 31 October 2018, as did the Governing Body at a workshop on 26 November 2018. Through those two discussions, the following additional points were raised for consideration at today’s meeting, those being:

a)      whether the review of a decision made by the chief executive under the Access to Information Protocol should be undertaken by either the:

o   Audit and Risk Committee which is made up of a mixture of independent members and councillors under the Governing Body Terms of Reference

o   chair of the Audit and Risk Committee who is independent.

b)      whether additional sanctions should be included in the draft code.

8.       Staff have subsequently considered both of those matters and conclude that there is merit in the full Audit and Risk Committee reviewing a decision made by the chief executive under the protocols because the independence of the appointed members can be usefully balanced with considerations from an elected member perspective.

9.       An additional sanction is proposed for inclusion in the draft that allows for matters relating to staff concerns to be addressed if warranted.

10.     A change is also proposed to clarify that the governing body or local board are not prevented from passing a resolution of censure or no confidence in an elected member on receiving a report from the Conduct Commissioner.  This would not be an additional sanction but a political reflection on the findings of the Conduct Commissioner.

11.     A 75 percent majority vote is required to change a code of conduct and to change standing orders.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the draft code of conduct that has been approved by the Joint Political Working Party for consideration at today’s meeting provided as Attachments A and B of the agenda report

b)      amend the draft code of conduct by replacing under 4.9 (Material breach):

“The chief executive will provide the report to the complainant, respondent, and the relevant local board or governing body for information purposes only.”

with

“The chief executive will provide the report to the complainant, respondent, and the relevant local board or governing body for information purposes.  This does not prevent the local board or governing body passing a vote of disapproval such as a censure or a vote of no confidence, which is commensurate with the findings in the report.”

c)      amend the draft code of conduct by adding to the list of sanctions under 4.9 Material breach (addition underlined):

i)        a requirement to apologise and, if applicable, withdraw remarks

ii)       a requirement to make a public statement correcting previous remarks which misrepresented the facts

iii)       a requirement to undertake specified training or personal development

iv)      suspending the elected member from committees or other representative bodies

v)       seeking guidance from the chairperson, mayor or other mentor

vi)      for a nominated period, restrict the member’s access to council staff (other than the chief executive or his/her specific nominees) and/or to council offices or parts of council offices.

d)      note that by replacing the current code of conduct with the revised draft code of conduct the Governing Body is also adopting the:

i)        Conflict of Interest Policy

ii)       Access to Information Protocol

iii)      Election Year Policy

iv)      Communications Policy

v)      Media Protocols

e)      delegate to any Conduct Commissioners appointed under the code, the power to suspend a member from committees or representative bodies they have been appointed to by the Governing Body following a determination that the member has materially breached the code

f)       agree that members on the list previously approved by the Governing Body, for calling on to form an independent review panel, may be called on to perform the role of Conduct Commissioner until a new list is approved

g)      confirm that if a review of a decision made by the chief executive under the Access to Information Protocol is sought, that review will be undertaken by the full Audit and Risk Committee

h)      agree that the implementation of the Access to Information Protocol is reviewed in 18 months

i)        amend the terms of reference of the Audit and Risk Committee:

i)     by adding the following under ‘Committee’s responsibilities’:

Access to Information Protocol

·    Perform the committee’s responsibilities set out in the ‘Access to Information Protocol’ attached to the Auckland Council Code of Conduct.”

ii)       by amending the frequency of meetings to read ‘Quarterly, or as required in order to undertake its responsibilities under the Access to Information Protocol’.”  

iii)      by setting the committee’s quorum at two Governing Body members.

j)        amend the standing orders to provide for electronic attendance by the external members of the Audit and Risk Committee as follows (addition underlined):

“3.3.3     Conditions for attending by electronic link

The governing body or its committees may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Situations where approval can be given are: 

a)   where the member is representing the council at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable

b)   to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity

c)   in emergencies.

The member who is seeking to attend by electronic link may not take part in the vote to give approval to attend. The only exception is where there is an emergency, in which case the member seeking to attend by electronic link can take part in the vote of approval.

An external member of the Audit and Risk Committee may attend and vote at meetings of that committee by electronic link without any further approval.

k)      replace the current code of conduct with the draft code of conduct as contained in Attachments A and B of the agenda report and as amended by the resolutions above.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

What is the Code of Conduct?

12.     A code of conduct sets out a council’s expectations about how members will conduct themselves in their capacity as elected members.  Every council is required to adopt a code of conduct (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 15).  It must set out:

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

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

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

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

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

(b)     a general explanation of—

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

(ii)     any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.”

13.     Once adopted, a code of conduct requires a 75 percent majority to change it.

14.     Members of local boards must also comply with the code of conduct that is adopted by the Governing Body (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 36B).

Reasons for reviewing the Code of Conduct

15.     In working with the current code, the council has experienced a number of issues, those being:

i)          it is not easy to follow.  It includes principles, descriptions of roles and responsibilities and statements about relationships and behaviours.  However, a complaint about a breach can only relate to the section on relationships and behaviours

ii)         although a positive aspect of the current code is a focus, initially, on resolving complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant, it is not appropriate for an allegation about a conflict of interest to be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Conflict of interest allegations need to be tested against the law

iii)         the code does not distinguish between non-material and material breaches.  All allegations of breaches are treated the same

iv)        the final point of escalation of a complaint is to the independent review panel which comprises three members.  This process is valuable but is underused because it can be expensive with three members being required

v)         there needs to be a requirement that a complainant has tried to resolve their complaint prior to submitting it to the formal complaint process in the code 

vi)        the code is under-used because it is seen to ‘lack teeth’. 

16.     PricewaterhouseCoopers were commissioned to review the current code and the Governing Body agreed at its February 2018 meeting that the code should be reviewed through the Working Party.


 

Engagement to date

17.     Staff made presentations to local board cluster meetings and a Governing Body workshop earlier this year.  Among the issues discussed, was whether a revised code should be concise and principles-based or prescriptive.

18.     The approach to the draft code was discussed with the Working Party, whose guidance included that there should be no political involvement in the determination of complaints and the imposition of sanctions.

19.     A draft code was presented to the Working Party on 12 September 2018. The draft had a principles-based approach, based on the expectation that elected members will act appropriately, and that they know how to act, but providing a process for dealing with complaints. The working party approved the draft code for reporting to local boards for their feedback.

20.     On 31 October 2018, the Working Party considered local board comments, agreed amendments and recommended the draft code for presentation to the Governing Body following a workshop held on 26 November 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21.     This report provides advice on the key matters in the draft code of conduct and builds on advice given at the November 2018 Governing Body workshop.  The advice is divided into the following sections:

a)   the draft code (Attachment A).  The attached version is that which was approved by the Working Party for discussion at today’s meeting.  Two changes are proposed to this version as a result of the discussion at the Governing Body workshop in November 2018

b)   the attachments to the code (Attachment B) including a new ‘Access to Information Protocol’.

The Code of Conduct - complaints process

22.     The draft code contains a definition of ‘material breach’.  A material breach is defined as conduct of a specific type (such as bullying, or misuse of council resources) and which meets a materiality threshold.  Material breaches are the ‘bottom line’ behaviours, which are of such seriousness they need to be treated differently to other breaches of the code. 

23.     A complaint is lodged with the chief executive, by an elected member, member of the public, or by the chief executive on behalf of staff (where the code refers to ‘chief executive’ this includes a nominee of the chief executive).  A complaint must set out which part of the code has been breached, must provide evidence of the breach and evidence of attempts to resolve the breach.

24.     If the complaint relates to a conflict of interest, the chief executive will arrange for the member to receive advice from either the Legal Services or Internal Audit departments.  The complainant has no further role. If the member does not comply with advice, the matter may be referred for investigation by the Conduct Commissioner as a material breach.

25.     In other cases, the chief executive refers the complaint to an ‘Investigator’.  An Investigator is appointed by the chief executive and may be a staff member or external person. The Investigator will be external for any complaint lodged by the chief executive on behalf of staff.

26.     The Investigator conducts a preliminary assessment of the complaint and has the discretion to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or vexatious or without substance or if it is outside the scope of the code.

27.     If the Investigator determines that the complaint relates to a non-material breach, the Investigator will inform the chief executive and may make non-binding recommendations, including a recommendation to apologise or undertake voluntary mediation.

28.     If the complaint relates to a material breach, the complaint is referred to a ‘Conduct Commissioner’.  A Conduct Commissioner is a person of the calibre of a retired High Court judge and is selected from a list of such persons which has been approved by the Governing Body following consultation with the Local Board Chairs’ Forum.

29.     The Conduct Commissioner may direct mediation or conduct an investigation to determine whether a material breach has occurred, and the seriousness of it.  An investigation may include a hearing. 

Code of Conduct - Sanctions

30.     The draft code proposes that the Conduct Commissioner has the power to impose sanctions, including a requirement to apologise, withdraw remarks or make a public statement.  The report of the Conduct Commissioner is formal and may be proactively made public, to promote compliance with the sanctions imposed by the Conduct Commissioner. 

31.     The Conduct Commissioner replaces the current independent review panel, which is not used frequently due to the cost associated with it having three members.

32.     Staff had been asked to investigate whether there could be financial sanctions. The Remuneration Authority was asked whether it would agree to a reduction of salary paid to a member who breached the code.  The reply included:

The Authority is often asked whether the performance of an individual or individuals is considered when making a determination.   Performance does not feature in the list of criteria that the Authority is required to take into account.  Therefore, it has no mandate to consider performance. 

Section 14 (implementation of determinations) of the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 says that every determination issued by the Authority must be implemented according to their tenor and it is unlawful to act contrary to a determination.   This prevents a council from making deductions from an elected member’s salary.  

33.     At the Governing Body workshop in November 2018, there was discussion whether the proposed sanctions in the draft code were sufficient, and the appropriateness of the code for raising concerns from council staff. 

34.     Since then, staff have reviewed the sanctions in the Local Government New Zealand ‘model code of conduct’ and advise that a further sanction should be considered; that for a nominated period, a member’s access to council staff (other than the chief executive or his/her specific nominees) and/or to council offices could be restricted

35.     The Working Party had given staff strong guidance that the code should limit political involvement. Staff consider the sanctions proposed in the draft code of conduct are suitable to be imposed by an external Conduct Commissioner. 

36.     The draft code provides for the findings of an investigation by a Conduct Commissioner to be reported for information to the Governing Body or local board.  There could be an addition to the draft code to clarify that, although the report is for information this does not prevent the governing body or local board from passing a vote of censure, or disapproval, as a consequence of the findings. Sanctions such as a vote or letter of censure (which is an expression of disapproval), or a vote of no confidence, are appropriately made by a political body rather than an external Conduct Commissioner.

Delegations

37.     The sanctions that can be imposed by a Conduct Commissioner include suspending a member from committees or other representative bodies to which they have been appointed.  The ability to do this currently lies with the Governing Body and each of the local boards.  To exercise a sanction to suspend a member, the Governing Body and each local board need to make delegations to the Conduct Commissioner.

Attachments to the code

38.     The attachments include:

i)        policies and protocols that are adopted along with the draft code:

·        Conflict of Interest Policy

·        Access to Information Protocol

·        Election Year Policy

·        Communications policy

·        Media Protocols

ii)       a description of legislation that is required by the Local Government Act 2002.

iii)      documents that are external to the code but are included because they are relevant to conduct, those being:

·        a guide to governance roles and responsibilities

·        a guide to working with staff

·        Expenses Policy

39.     The Conflict of Interest Policy has been rewritten and the ‘Access to Information Protocol’ is new.  All other documents attached to the code are from existing sources and are not new.

Attachments to the code - Conflict of Interest Policy

40.     The Conflict of Interest Policy has been updated to reflect the current legal position relating to conflicts of interest and pre-determination, as the legal position has evolved significantly since the previous version of the policy was adopted.

41.     It is also appropriate for the policy to provide more context on the importance of managing conflicts of interest and pre-determination to protect the probity and integrity of council’s decisions.

Conflicts of interest

42.     The policy has been revised to reflect the legal test for conflicts of interest and to remedy the inconsistency in the previous version of the policy relating to the treatment of financial and non-financial interests.

43.     In particular, the revised policy requires elected members to assess their financial or non-financial interests to determine whether or not they have a conflict of interest in any matter being discussed or voted on.  The revised policy sets out the test for whether an interest may constitute a conflict of interest (as derived from Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd and the Office of the Auditor-General Guidance on the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968), namely:

Would a fair-minded observer reasonably think that a member of the decision-making body might not bring an impartial mind to the decision, in the sense that he or she might unfairly regard with favour (or disfavor) a particular position due to his or her financial or non-financial interest?

44.     The revised policy requires that where an elected member has a financial or non-financial conflict of interest, they must declare the conflict and must not participate in discussion or voting on the matter.  It is a breach of the revised policy if an elected member has a conflict of interest and does not manage it in accordance with the requirements of the revised policy.

45.     Where an elected member has a financial interest, the revised policy also makes clear that elected members must consider their personal obligations under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968. 


 

Pre-determination

46.     The revised policy includes a separate section on pre-determination, as it is a separate legal concept to conflicts of interest with a separate legal test.

47.     The revised policy makes clear that the test for pre-determination, as set out in Save Chamberlain Park Inc v Auckland Council, is an “actual closed mind”, which is assessed based on evidence which is capable of objective assessment (such as things that the elected member has said or done). 

48.     An elected member must not participate in discussing or voting on a matter which they have pre-determined.  It is a breach of the revised policy if an elected member does not approach a decision with an open mind.

Register of Interests

49.     The revised policy requires elected members to make annual declarations of interest and requires elected members to advise if new interests arise during the year.

Attachments to the code – new ‘Access to Information Protocol’

50.     Included in the policies and protocols attached to the draft code of conduct is a new ‘Access to Information Protocol’. This protocol puts a framework around elected members legal right to council information under the ‘need to know’ principle. This protocol is in addition to the existing ways that elected members can gain access to information.  It is aimed at addressing circumstances where there has been lack of clarity over requests for information where it is not clear if the information is confidential or not.

The need to know principle for elected members

51.     In addition to rights under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), elected members have a legal right to council information under the ‘need to know’ principle established by the common law.  Under this principle, a good reason to access council information exists if an elected member shows that access to the information is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their statutory functions as a member of the council.  In some limited cases, elected members may be able to establish the ‘need to know’ for council information relevant to their representative duties.

Why we are proposing a protocol

52.     The purposes of the draft protocol are to:

i)          give effect to the legal ‘need to know’ principle

ii)         enable elected members to properly perform their statutory functions as democratically elected local decision-makers; and to facilitate them in fulfilling their representative duties. This promotes democratic and effective local government 

iii)        provide elected members with better and more efficient access to council information than is provided for by LGOIMA, by reducing the number of withholding grounds that can apply to the information and the timeframes for response

iv)        provide for transparent and impartial chief executive decisions on requests under this protocol, and a democratic mechanism for the reconsideration of such decisions

v)         provide that confidential council information will be made available to elected members in a manner that reflects the council’s legal duty to protect the confidentiality of the information and does not prejudice the interests protected by LGOIMA.

53.     We have agreed with the Chief Ombudsman that we will develop a protocol to better manage elected member access to information.


 

Summary of suggested process in draft protocol

54.     The protocol sets out a framework and process for elected member requests for council information. In summary, the process in the protocol is:

i)          elected members make a request for information held by the council and explain why they need the information

ii)         the chief executive makes a decision on whether the information is reasonably necessary for the elected member to exercise their statutory functions or performance of their representative duties, and whether any of the limited reasons to withhold may apply (for example if personal information should be redacted for Privacy Act 1993 reasons)

iii)        a decision and the information is provided to the elected member (with conditions if necessary, for confidential information) within 5 working days

iv)        If an elected member is not happy with the chief executive’s decision, they can ask for it to be reconsidered by the Audit and Risk Committee.

55.     The Working Party noted that the ability to challenge a decision of the chief executive under the protocol was to the Audit and Risk Committee, which was not consistent with the general guidance from the Working Party that there should be no political involvement.  It is important to note that the Audit and Risk committee has both external independent members as well as elected members and the terms of reference for the committee provide that the chair is an independent member. 

56.     The Working Party recommended that the Governing Body consider whether an alternative to the full Audit and Risk Committee reconsidering a decision by the chief executive under the protocol, might be limited to the chair of the Audit and Risk Committee in order to ensure independence. Staff consider that the advantages of having the full committee undertake any review of a decision by the chief executive under the protocol would provide independence from the appointed members balanced with elected members understanding of the need for information.

57.     If the full Audit and Risk Committee has the responsibility of undertaking a review of the chief executive’s decision under the protocol, it is desirable to provide for electronic attendance by the independent members, who live outside Auckland.  The council’s standing orders currently provide for electronic attendance but limit it to situations where a member is attending to council business outside Auckland, or to accommodate illness or in an emergency. 

58.     To provide for the external members of the Audit and Risk Committee who live outside Auckland to undertake this responsibility if necessary, it is recommended the standing orders are amended by adding the underlined words:

“3.3.3          Conditions for attending by electronic link

The governing body or its committees may give approval for a member to attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting. Situations where approval can be given are: 

d)   where the member is representing the council at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable

e)   to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity

f)    in emergencies.

The member who is seeking to attend by electronic link may not take part in the vote to give approval. The only exception is where there is an emergency, in which case the member seeking to attend by electronic link can take part in the vote of approval.

An external member of the Audit and Risk Committee may attend meetings of that committee by electronic link without any further approval.”

59.     The legislation prohibits members who are attending by electronic link from being counted towards the quorum.  The minimum quorum a committee may have is two members.  The quorum of the Audit and Risk Committee is three members.  It is recommended that this is reduced to two members to ensure the committee will have a quorum if the external members attend by electronic link.

Review of the protocol

60.     The Access to Information Protocol is a new protocol.  The Working Party recommended that the implementation of this protocol be reviewed in 18 months to ensure that it is working effectively.

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

61.     The draft code was reported to all local boards.  The local board feedback is contained in Attachment C.  The key common concerns raised by local boards, and consequential amendments to the code, are as follows:

 

Concerns

Response

Introduction

Clarity sought around legal obligations and scope.

 

Included complete clause from the Local Government Act 2002, which is clear that:

-      the code applies to elected members of the governing body and local boards while acting in their capacity as elected members

-      all elected members must comply with it

-      a breach does not constitute an offence

Added a comment under “Application” as follows:

Although the code does not apply to non-elected persons appointed to committees by the governing body or local boards the council expects their conduct to demonstrate the principles of trust and respect contained in this code”.

This does not apply to the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) members who are appointed to committees.  These appointments are made by the IMSB and not by the Governing Body.

Principles

Clarity that the expectation to maintain the confidentiality of information applies to confidential information

 

This change has been made

Material breaches

Some boards felt there should be more definition around material breaches to ensure consistency of application of the code.

 

Rather than prescribing the behaviours which constitute a material breach in more detail, a statement about assessing materiality has been inserted.

Investigator

Some boards felt that the Investigator should always be external. 

 

There have been situations which have been resolved efficiently and expeditiously without requiring external intervention.  This change has not been made, an amendment was made to state that in the case of a complaint on behalf of staff, the Investigator should be external.

Conduct Commissioner

A couple of boards stated that boards should have some input into the list of people who are approved to be called on as Conduct Commissioners

 

A requirement to consult the Local Board Chairs’ Forum has been added.

Sanctions

There was concern about members potentially being suspended from a local board.

 

The draft was amended to make it clear that members cannot be suspended from bodies to which they have been elected.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Some expressed concern that non-compliance with advice provided would become a material breach and asked for this to be termed a “potential” material breach

 

This is not necessary.  All matters referred to the Conduct Commissioner are ‘potential’ breaches until investigated.

Access to Information Protocol

An issue raised by local boards relates to difficulty accessing information held by council-controlled organisations. 

 

The protocol does not apply to council-controlled organisations.  Staff will invite council-controlled organisations to adopt the protocols.

Access to Information Protocol

Some boards expressed concerns about the protocol, which were discussed by the Working Party. A specific issue was whether involving the Audit and Risk Committee was compromising the position of the Working Party to limit political involvement.

 

The Working Party agreed the protocol should be reviewed in 18 months.

The matter of the Audit and Risk Committee is raised in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

62.     The Code of Conduct is an internal procedural document. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

63.     There are no financial implications attached to changing a code of conduct.  The changes in the draft code include replacing the independent review panel with a single Conduct Commissioner.  The panel was not used very frequently due to the cost (approximately $10,000 for a complaint requiring a hearing).  The savings resulting from replacing the panel with a Conduct Commissioner may be reduced if a Conduct Commissioner is used more often than the panel.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

64.       The risks and mitigations associated with this report are:

Risk

Mitigation

Reputational risk associated with not updating the Code of Conduct

The draft code has been revised based on the most up-to date information on appropriate content and has been workshopped with both the local boards and Governing Body so that it is robust and will work well in the Auckland Council context.

Service delivery risk associated with a new Access to Information Protocol.  Five working days has been proposed so that elected members have timely information, but it is recognised that this will require staff to prioritise providing information over other tasks.

The report proposes that the implementation of the Access to Information Protocol is reviewed within 18 months to ensure that any implementation issues are addressed.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

65.     The final revised code will be used for any new complaints.  A report will be presented to local boards advising them of the final code and requesting they make the appropriate delegations to any person acting as a Conduct Commissioner.

66.     Staff will write to council-controlled organisations, inviting them to adopt the Access to Information’ Protocol.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Auckland Council Code of Conduct

277

b

Draft Auckland Council Code of Conduct - Attachments

295

c

Local board feedback

361

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Order of names on voting documents for the 2019 elections

 

File No.: CP2018/22360

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To decide the order of names on voting documents for the 2019 Auckland Council elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order

·        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 candidates’ names on voting papers has been alphabetical by order of surname for the 2010, 2013 and 2016 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted by council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) 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 retention of the current approach of alphabetical order of surname printing for the 2019 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias.  This approach is supported by the majority of local boards.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the feedback from local boards

b)      resolve that the candidates’ names on voting papers for the 2019 Auckland Council 2019 elections will be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

Options 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 surnames. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order.

9.       In 2016, there was a minimal additional cost to use random order due to changes in printing technology. An analysis of the 2013 election results was conducted by RIMU 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 by order of surname 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

 

Other election issues on the voting document

12.     The voting document include the district health board and licensing trust elections. These bodies make their own decisions about the order of names of candidates for their own elections.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

13.     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 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.

14.     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

15.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar and easier to use and 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.

16.     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.

17.     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

18.     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?).

19.     The analysis shows that for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be statistically expected if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

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

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

Online voting

22.     Auckland Council supports online voting. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

23.     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 voting.

24.     On balance, staff consider that alphabetical order of names is preferable for the online voting experience.

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

25.     All local boards were invited to provide their feedback on the options available.  The following table summarises the feedback received.

Albert-Eden

Alphabetical

Devonport-Takapuna

Alphabetical

Franklin

Alphabetical

Great Barrier

Alphabetical

Henderson-Massey

Alphabetical

Hibiscus and Bays

Alphabetical

Howick

Alphabetical

Kaipātiki

Alphabetical

Mangere-Ōtāhuhu

Alphabetical

Manurewa

Alphabetical

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Alphabetical

Ōrākei

Alphabetical

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Alphabetical

Papakura

Alphabetical

Puketāpapa

Full random

Rodney

Alphabetical

Upper Harbour

Alphabetical

Waiheke

Alphabetical

Waitākere Ranges

Full random

Waitematā

Alphabetical

Whau

Alphabetical

26.     The Kaipatiki Local Board added a recommendation that on alternate years the order should be reverse alphabetical.  The legislation does not provide for this option.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27.     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

28.     Up until the 2016 elections a barrier to ordering names randomly had been additional printing costs.  This is not the case now, and there are no financial implications associated with the order of names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

29.     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

30.     The Electoral Officer will be advised of the council’s decision.  He will arrange for district health boards and licensing trusts to make their decisions about the order of names on voting documents for their elections.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ballot order effects on Auckland Council elections

389

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Online voting trial at the 2019 elections (Covering report)

File No.: CP2018/24222

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on the online voting trial for the 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 13 December 2018 Governing Body meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.

 

 

 

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Recommendations from the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee - Value for Money ICT Review

 

File No.: CP2018/23238

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the recommendations from the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee and approve the terms of reference for the ICT services value for money review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 6 December 2018, the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee considered the attached report and resolved as follows:

Resolution number APP/2018/86

That the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee:

a)      endorse the recommendations set out in clause c) below and recommend that the Governing Body approve the reports and their recommendations

b)      recommend that the council’s chief executive collaborate with the chief executives of the council-controlled organisations to:

i)       develop and implement a group approach to governing Information, Communication and Technology for items of common group interest.  It is anticipated that this will include:

A)      key guiding principles balancing each organisation’s needs and current Information, Communication and Technology expertise with the benefits of collaboration mandate to participate and use

B)      consideration of appropriate operating models including centres of expertise and other shared arrangements to reduce duplication and improve efficiency

C)      an implementation plan

ii)       design and implement a consistent group-wide approach for managing data centres. It is anticipated that this will include:

A)      appropriate service levels required from a data centre segmented, where appropriate, by organisation and service requirement, including an appropriate assessment of risk

B)      an assessment of current data centre providers and any options that may be part of the All of Government contracts

C)      a framework to manage supplier relationship(s) and develop a strategic group approach to deliver future benefits

D)      an agreed plan on approaches to reduce, if applicable, future demand for data centre capacity


 

 

iii)      build on the collaborative approach in the Group Procurement Policy by building an Information, Communication and Technology Procurement Strategy and Category Management Plan.  It is anticipated that this will include:

A)      Information, Communication and Technology services which are common across the group and where a collaborative approach to procurement would be beneficial

B)      suppliers who are shared across the group where a collaborative approach to ongoing supplier management would be beneficial

C)      Information, Communication and Technology services where the All of Government procurement contracts will be used.

3.       The original report to the Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee is included as Attachment A of this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      approve the terms of reference for the ICT Services value for money review (included in Attachment A of the agenda report).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

6 December 2018 Original Value for Money (s17A) Review proframmer report to Appointments, performance Review and Value for Money Committee - ICT Services

399

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 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


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee - Annual Report on the performance of the Audit and Risk Committee

 

File No.: CP2018/23439

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Annual Report on the performance of the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 5 December 2018, the Audit and Risk Committee considered the attached report and resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2018/75

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      receive this annual report on the Performance of the Audit and Risk Committee.

b)      recommend that the chief executive place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

3.       The original report to the Audit and Risk Committee is included as Attachment A of this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the report on the performance of the Audit and Risk Committee included in Attachment A of the agenda report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original agenda report to the Audit and Risk Committee, 5 December 2018

477

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Approval of delegation to transfer responsibility for Aotea/Great Barrier Island airfields to Auckland Transport

 

File No.: CP2018/17827

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve in principle, the delegation to Auckland Transport of all of Auckland Council’s responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers relating to the operation, management, control, improvement and maintenance of Claris and Okiwi airfields on Aotea/Great Barrier Island (Aotea airfields), subject to legal authorisation being obtained.

2.       To approve seeking legal authorisation for Auckland Transport to become an airport authority (by way of an Order in Council) so it can be the legal operator of the Aotea airfields. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       Claris and Okiwi airfields form a strategic part of the Hauraki Gulf Islands’ transportation network. Aotea/Great Barrier community is highly dependent on regular air transport for island access. Airfreight volumes and passenger numbers to the island are increasing annually, particularly in the summer months. 

4.       The current on-site management of the Aotea airfields is fragmented.  Responsibility for management of the various airfield facilities and operational activities lies with:

·    Auckland Council Community Facilities department

·    Panuku Development Auckland Limited (Panuku)

·    Auckland Transport

5.       The Auckland Transport staff are seconded to council to provide aviation safety, maintenance, and operational compliance requirements of the air transport facilities of the Aotea airfields for Council. 

6.       Staff propose that Auckland Council approaches central government to enable Auckland Transport to be authorised to exercise the powers, functions and responsibilities of an airport authority. Once that occurs, staff propose that council formally delegates its responsibilities, duties, functions and powers relating to the Aotea airfields to Auckland Transport. 

7.       Other options considered include continuing the current arrangements, or council developing its own capacity, neither of which would not resolve current fragmentation of responsibilities. 

8.       While essentially an administrative change in the short term, longer term Auckland Transport would be able to enhance the island’s access capability through efficient management of the island’s airports and ports.  This would align with its general role in the region of ensuring efficient and effective movement of people and freight. 

9.       Auckland Transport has the operational capacity and expertise to manage the Aotea airfields within the standards set by the Civil Aviation Authority.

10.     Auckland Transport’s Board resolved on 21 August 2018 to endorse Auckland Council making a recommendation to the Ministry of Transport to approve the transfer of powers, functions and responsibilities of an airport authority to Auckland Transport for the Aotea airfields. 

11.     The Great Barrier Local Board supports the proposal for Auckland Transport to perform the role of airport authority for the Aotea airfields (resolution GBI/2016/5) and informally re-confirmed its support for the proposal at a workshop with staff on 27 November 2018.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      approve delegating to Auckland Transport all of Auckland Council’s responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers relating to the operation, management, control, improvement and maintenance of Claris and Okiwi airfields on Aotea/Great Barrier Island, subject to legal authorisation being obtained as described in clause b)

b)      approve seeking authorisation for Auckland Transport to become an airport authority (by way of an Order in Council) so it can be the operator of the Aotea/Great Barrier airfields.

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     Auckland Council owns and operates the two public airfields on Aotea/Great Barrier Island; namely Claris (picture below) and Okiwi. Council is an airport authority under the Airport Authorities Act 1966. An airport authority is a local authority authorised to establish, maintain, operate or manage an airport, and set charges and acquire land for these purposes.

13.     Airport operations include:

·    airport authority functions (operate, manage and maintain, set charges)

·    Civil Aviation Authority requirements (compliance with rules governing the use of aerodromes)

·    administrative functions (airport safety and operations, recover charges, security, monitoring, reporting)

·    management of terminal buildings and parking areas (maintenance, leases, operations).

 

 

 

 

14.     The island’s main airfield is at Claris.  This comprises typical aerodrome infrastructure such as both a sealed and a grass runway, sealed taxiways and aprons, a terminal building, office and storage facilities, and carparking. It provides a helipad equipped with pilot activated lighting for use by the Auckland and Northland rescue helicopters.

15.     Claris has regular commuter flights operating to and from the mainland, with (on average) eight daily scheduled flights to and from Auckland Airport. These flight numbers increase substantially during the summer months, long weekends, and school holidays.

16.     Okiwi Airfield, in the northern part of the island, is more remote and comprises a recently constructed (2014) all-weather sealed runway. Whilst not as busy as Claris, Okiwi provides important air access to the northern part of the island and is an alternative point of contact with the island in the event of closure of the main facility.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17.     The current on-site management of the airfields is fragmented.  Responsibility for management and responsibility of the various airfield facilities and operational activities lies with Auckland Council Community Facilities and Panuku.  An Auckland Transport staff member, on a seconded, part-time basis, provides aviation safety, maintenance, and operational compliance requirements of the air transport facilities of the Aotea airfields for council.  This staff member has been managing the maintenance and operations of these airfields since 2006 and has comprehensive knowledge of these facilities. Auckland Transport also manages the island’s ferry facilities, as well as road infrastructure and parking.  Council staff manage the airport facilities (primarily the terminal). 

18.     Given the long-term secondment of Auckland Transport resource to council, and the increasing demands for services at the Aotea airfields, Auckland Transport proposes that council delegates airport authority functions to it so that it can integrate operation of the Aotea airfields within the rest of Aotea and Auckland’s transport system.

19.     Three options are available:

i)        continue with status quo (do nothing). 

ii)       Auckland Council develops internal resource to undertake the management and administrative functions currently being undertaken by an Auckland Transport employee seconded to Auckland Council, and run the airfields without a secondment arrangement.

iii)      Auckland Transport formally assumes the regulatory role of airport authority and carries out all airfield functions and duties (recommended option).

20.     Option (i) - While the status quo has functioned successfully since amalgamation, it is maintained by the part-time secondment of a staff member who is at all other times working for Auckland Transport.  The arrangement has arguably continued long enough that a more formal arrangement should be considered.  The status quo also does not allow Auckland Transport to fully consider integration of the airports within its business and seek efficiencies in operations and with other parts of the Aotea/Great Barrier transport system. 

21.     Option (ii) - The option of Auckland Council assuming the functions would entail some structural change for council, in order to create a team capable of managing and operating airports.  This is not something council currently does and would require developing or transferring capability from Auckland Transport.  It would then result in a situation where council had a transport function on Aotea/Great Barrier, but it would be operationally divorced from other parts of the island’s transport system.  Considerable work would have to go into ensuring it did not become siloed from these other parts of the system.  This option is not recommended.


 

22.     Option (iii) - While an essentially administrative change, this recommended option of transferring to Auckland Transport the airfields’ various functional components provides an opportunity for Auckland Transport to clarify the operating and regulatory responsibility for stakeholders and customers who use these airport facilities. Consolidation of the various aerodrome functions supports the Minister of Transport’s expectation of an airport operator to provide a consistently safe and secure aviation environment. The Auckland Transport Operations Centre has operational and incident management systems for response. Opportunities exist to develop and extend these systems to include the Aotea airfields. Therefore, staff consider that Auckland Transport has the capability to undertake these functions.

23.     If approved, the immediate impact would be minimal.  Longer term, there may be opportunities for Auckland Transport to also take over the terminal leases and manage these.  This is not proposed at this time, however.  Additionally, long term succession for the current staff resource would be easier if the role was consolidated within Auckland Transport.

24.     Staff note that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (Act) omits airfields in its definition of the Auckland transport system (section 37(1)(b)(iv)).  However, legal advice is that section 45(d) of the Act makes it possible for Auckland Council to delegate transport functions to Auckland Transport where lawful, and that this can include airport authority functions. 

25.     The Auckland Transport board has considered this proposal on several occasions in the last few years.  This included consideration by the board’s Customer Focus committee on 14 April 2016, which requested staff to produce an operational safety and risk review of the airfields.  This was obtained through aviation specialists Astral and provided to the board in mid-2016.  An additional short item was considered as part of the business report on 5 December. 

26.     A final detailed consideration occurred on 21 August 2018.  The board resolved that it:

“Confirms its support, in principle, to Auckland Council delegating to Auckland Transport all of its responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers relating to the operation, management, control, improvement and maintenance of Claris and Okiwi airfields on Great Barrier Island (Great Barrier airfields).”

27.     The August 2018 board report was prepared in consultation with Auckland Council staff, and staff consider that the board has considered carefully the implications of becoming airport authority for the Aotea airfields. 

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

28.     The local board has a positive working relationship with the current seconded staff member from Auckland Transport. 

29.     As noted earlier, the immediate impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal.  However, as air traffic to Aotea/Great Barrier is expected to continue to increase, having clear and coherent operational responsibilities will mean that these increases can be managed in a safe and effective way and efficient services for travellers can be maintained. 

30.     The Great Barrier Local Board resolution GBI/2016/5 supports the proposal for Auckland Transport to assume the role of airport authority for Aotea/Great Barrier.

31.     Staff additionally met with the Great Barrier Local Board on 27 November 2018 to discuss the proposal and confirmed its support.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32.     The transfer of administration of the Claris Aerodrome to Auckland Transport will have no impact on the question of future use and enjoyment of Treaty settlement properties by Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea.

33.     On 19 December 2016 Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea initialled a deed of settlement with the Crown. Under the deed, the Crown will transfer two parcels of land to Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea immediately adjacent to the Claris Airfield (Waipareira Site A and Site B in Attachment A). The transfer will provide ownership of culturally significant areas to Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea, as well as providing a commercial opportunity (GB2016/228).

34.     For a number of reasons, the Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea deed has not been finalised. It is anticipated the deed will be signed in 2019 and settlement legislation introduced.

35.     The current Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the Unitary Plan is being reviewed.  An area plan process is underway which will include consideration of the land-use pattern at Claris and enable zoning which best reflects the future needs of Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea for the settlement properties.  Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea aspirations for the properties will enhance role of Claris as a transport and commercial hub for the island.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36.     The proposal is cost neutral.

37.     Auckland Council currently funds a portion of the annual operating cost of the Aotea airfields to Auckland Transport, and additional budget transfers from council to Auckland Transport will be required, if this proposal is approved.  The airfields generate revenue through landing fees and tenancies, against costs incurred from airfield maintenance, maintenance of GPS equipment, and other operational and compliance costs. 

38.     It is noted that in the next 3-5 years the Claris runway and taxiway will need to be re-sealed at an estimated cost of $400,000.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

39.     As with all delegations, in general, liability will ultimately still rest with the delegator.  However, as liability under the Civil Aviation Act attaches to the holder of aviation documents and, if approved, this will be Auckland Transport, liability for offences committed under that Act will attach to Auckland Transport. 

40.     Advice to Cabinet on the capability of Auckland Transport to carry out functions as an airport authority would be provided as part of the Cabinet paper so that council could be assured that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure a safe handover.

41.     Legal staff advise that liability under the Civil Aviation Act 1990 in case offences will rest with the holder of the aviation documents.  If approved, this will be Auckland Transport.  Staff note that the Auckland Transport Board’s consideration of the transfer proposal included taking on the ‘responsibilities’ of being an airport authority.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42.     Council’s Legal Services department will engage with the Ministry of Transport to progress the Order in Council needed to give Auckland Transport the legal status of an airport authority.  Ministry of Transport has advised that it cannot give a timeframe for this process.  However, typically the relevant central government processes (briefing the Minister, Cabinet paper, preparation of Order in Council and approval, gazetting) mean that the transfer would take effect no earlier than May 2019.  Given the need budget transfers, a logical target for the transfer would be at the start of the 2019/2020 financial year. 

43.     Council and Auckland Transport staff will develop an implementation plan for Auckland Transport to exercise the powers, functions and responsibilities of Auckland Council in relation to the Aotea/Great Barrier airfields from an operational perspective. 

a)          

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Treaty settlement land parcels adjacent to Claris airfield

489

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings - 13 December 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21146

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To note the progress on the forward work programme (Attachment A).

2.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to Governing Body members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to Governing Body members via memo-briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

·    21/11/18 – Apologies Workshop

·    23/11/18 – Development Contributions Stakeholder Presentations Workshop

·    26/11/18 – Review of the Code of Conduct Workshop

·    29/11/18 – Development Contributions Workshop

·    4/12/18 – America’s Cup Briefing

·    6/12/18 – Development Contributions Discussion Workshop

5.       This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top of the page, select meeting “Governing Body” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the progress on the forward work programme (Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      receive the Summary of Governing Body information memos and briefings –13 December 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

493

b

Apologies Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Development Contributions Stakeholder Presentations Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Review of Code of Conduct Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Development Contributions Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

America's Cup Briefing Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Development Contributions Discussion Workshop Minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

 

TIRA KĀWANA / GOVERNING BODY FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2016 – 2019 TERM

The Governing Body deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee

The Mayor may require any matter that would otherwise be reported to a committee, to be reported to the Governing Body.  If that matter is already on a published agenda for a committee meeting, that meeting will not consider that matter unless invited by the mayor to make a recommendation to the Governing Body.

 

Lead

Area of work

Reason for work

Governing Body role

(decision or direction)

Budget/ Funding

Expected timeframes

Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known

FY18/19

Jul-Sep

26 Jul

23 Aug

27 Sep

Oct-Dec

25 Oct

22 Nov

13 Dec

Jan-Mar

28 Feb

28 Mar

Apr-Jun

2 May

30 May

27 Jun

Chief Financial Office

Annual Budget 2019/2020 (Annual Plan)

The Local Government Act 2002 requires each local authority to consult on and adopt a long term plan every three years.  In each intervening year local authorities are required to consult the community on any significant or material changes to the relevant year of the long term plan through the Annual Budget consultation document. 

Legislation also requires that the council’s consultation document include a summary of key matters from Local Board Agreements and the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan for the Annual Plan year.

Adopt consultation document and supporting material

Approve Annual Budget

 

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

(Jun)

Chief Operating Office

Americas Cup 2021

Location, infrastructure and funding

Approve preferred location

Agree strategy for progressing resource consent applications

 

Progress to Date:

Report considered 14/12/17 and approval of  Wynyard Basin option GB/2017/172 and agreed single hearing process through direct referral

Report and revised decision and approval of Wynyard Hobson proposal 29/3/18 GB/2018/63

Workshop – 6/12/18

Report and decision on additinal funding 6/12/18 GB/2018/199

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

Chief Executive’s Performance Objectives

The Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee has the delegation to set performance objectives.

The Governing Body must then consider the recommendations and make a decision.

Approve performance objectives.

 

Progress to Date:

Recommendations considered 22/11/18 in confidential, open decision GB/2018/193

 

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

City Rail Link

Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city

Approve City Rail Link Heads of Agreement

Note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project

 

Progress to Date:

Heads of Agreement approved 14/9/16 Conf

Appoint chair of City Rail Link 15/12/16 Conf

Note sponsors agreement and establishment of new entity City Rail Link Limited 29/6/17 Conf

Report confirming role of Audit and Risk Committee 25/10/18 GB/2018/175

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Chief Financial Office

Annual Report

Statutory requirement

Adopt Annual Report

 

Q1

27 Sep

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

Review of Code of Conduct

The experience of working with the current Code of Conduct indicates that it could be further improved. In particular, it could be clearer about complaint, investigation and resolution processes, as well as available sanctions

Adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct

 

Progress to Date:

Initial report was considered 22/2/18

Approval 22/2/18 for review GB/2018/37

Workshop – 15 March 2018

Workshop – 26 November 2018

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Financial Strategy and Planning

Contributions Policy

The Local Government Act requires Council to review the policy every three years.

Consultation and adoption must be done by 1 July 2018

Adopt policy

 

Progress to Date:

Agree to consultation 30/4/18 GB/2018/79

Agree extension until new policy in place 27/6/18 GB/2018/96

Workshop – 15/10/18

Report for consultation 18/10/18 GB/2018/166

Stakeholder Submissions Workshop – 23/11/18

Feedback Session – 28/11/18

Workshops – 29/11/18 and 6/12/18

 

Q1

Q2

(13 Dec)

Q3

Q4

Mayoral Office

Governance

Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels.

Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.

Adopt the Terms of Reference

Adopt changes to Terms of Reference

 

Progress to Date:

Amend due of disestablishment of ACIL and two committee amendments 26/7/18 GB/2018/115

Amend to add Cr Paul Young to Committee’s 22/11/18 GB/2018/190

 

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

Accountability Review of council-controlled organisations

The accountability review are to increase the accountability and value for money of CCOs by:

•     increasing the transparency of CCO decision-making

•     increasing the responsiveness of CCOs to the public and council

•     improving the recognition of ratepayer funding for CCO activity

•     increasing the ability to align CCOs to the direction set by the council.

Reporting on a quarterly basis

 

Approve objectives as basis of review

Approve scope and timing

 

Progress to Date:

Approve objectives, scope and timing 23/2/17 GB/2017/17

Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors with an update

 

Within timelines and budgets

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

Independent Māori Statutory Board funding

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, sub-clause 1, LGACA)

 

Approve 2019/2020 funding agreement

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

People and Performance

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.

Receive the quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report

 

Progress to Date:

August 2018 report received GB/2018/147

 

 

Q1

Sep

Q2

Dec

Q3

Mar

Q4

Jun

Social Policy and Bylaws

Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review bylaw within five years. Committee resolution to “commence the review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 at an early date”.

Approve statement of proposal.  #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Length of time required to draft the statement of proposal will depend on the scope of amendments requested following the review findings.

 

Progress to Date:

Report to Approve the statement of proposal 27/9/18 GB/2018/148

 

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Dog management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Health and Hygiene Bylaw

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

 

Progress to Date:

Approve the statement of proposal 26/7/18 GB/2018/120

Hearings Panel Report and confirm the bylaw 22/11/18 GB/2018/187

 

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Solid Waste Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Signage Bylaw

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Alcohol Control Bylaw Review

Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

Freedom Camping

Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland

Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot

If regulatory response required:

Approve statement of proposal

Make the bylaw

 

Progress to Date:

Approve the statement of proposal 22/11/18 GB/2018/188

Review is within current baselines.

Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Mayoral Office

Mayoral Housing Taskforce Steering Group

Oversee the progress and implementation of the June 2017 Mayoral Housing Taskforce report.

Setup, agree and approve membership of group

Receive six-monthly updates

 

Progress to Date:

Taskforce setup 27/7/17 GB/2017/79

Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors updating progress

Progress report 25/10/18 GB/2018/172

 

Q1

27 Sep

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

Auckland Council Top Risk Register

The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the risk register to the Governing Body every quarter.

Note the top risk register and risk heat map

Receive quarterly reports

 

Progress to Date:

September 2018 report 25/10/18 GB/2018/173

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governance

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi

The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views.

The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.

Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required

Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

Advisory Panels

The Governing Body appoints members to advisory panels, as required.

Approve appointments to advisory panels

 

Progress to Date:

Replacement members appointed to Youth Advisory Panel open process report 25/10/18 GB/2018/177 decision made in confidential

 

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

2019 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

The Governing Body sends representatives to the conference and as delegates to the Annual General Meeting

Appoint presiding delegate to Annual General Meeting

Appoint three other delegates to Annual General Meeting

Approve councillors to attend conference

 

Q3

FY18/19

Q4

Q1

Q2


 

COMPLETED

Governance

2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference  and Annual General Meeting

The Governing Body sends representatives to the conference and as delegates to the Annual General Meeting

Appoint presiding delegate to Annual General Meeting

Appoint three other delegates to Annual General Meeting

Approve councillors to attend conference

Progress to Date:

Report was considered 22/3/18

Approved the above GB/2018/47

Q3

FY17/18

Q4

Q1

Q2

People and Performance

Remuneration Policy

The current Remuneration Policy was adopted in 2014. The policy provides high-level guidance for all remuneration decisions made by the council. The policy is also supported by operational guidelines and policies.

Under the Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, section 36A) the policy must be reviewed every three years.

Approve the change to the policy.

Progress to Date:

Report considered 22/3/18

Approved 22/3/18 GB/2018/42

Q3

FY17/18

Q4

Q1

Q2

Chief Planning Office

Auckland Plan Refresh

The Auckland Plan was approved in 2012 and a commitment made to a refresh within six years.  A refresh will ensure that the Auckland Plan remains current and will inform Long-term Plan 2018-2028 prioritisation and budget decisions.

Approve refresh of Auckland Plan

Progress to Date:

Various workshops throughout 2017/2018

Adopted summary information 21/2/18 GB/2018/25

Adopted by Planning Committee 6/5/18 PLA/2018/62

Q3

Q4

FY17/18

Q1

Q2

Chief Financial Office

Long-term  Plan 2018-2028

Statutory Process

·    Consultation process – including hearings for community to be heard and local board engagement meetings (Have Your Say events).  Approach to communication of investments in local board areas to be considered

·    Elected members consideration of feedback

·    Decision-making for Long-term Plan 2018-2028

·    Long-term Plan 2018-2028 adoption

Adopt consultation document and supporting material

Adopt Long Term Plan and set rates

Progress to Date:

Various workshops throughout 2017/2018

Adopted consultation document and supporting material 21/2/18 GB/2018/24

Agree recommendation for adoption 31/5/18 GB/2018/91

Adoption report 28/6/18 GB/2018/108

Q3

Q4

FY17/18

Q1

Q2

Chief Financial Office

Regional Fuel Tax Proposal

Auckland Council consulted on its 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (LTP), part of which asked if there was support for a Regional Fuel Tax.  A report on the consultation undertaken is required by legislation to be submitted to the Ministers of Transport and Finance.

 

Approve a Regional Fuel Tax for Auckland

Progress to Date:

Approved 31/5/18 GB/2018/90

Q3

Q4

FY17/18

Q1

Q2

Governance

Advisory Panels

The Governing Body appoints members to advisory panels, as required.

Approve appointments to advisory panels

Progress to Date:

Initial appointments to demographic panels 23/3/17 Conf

Appointments to the Youth Advisory Panel 25/5/17 Conf

Replacement members appointed to Youth Advisory Panel 22/3/18 Conf

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

People and Performance

Chief Executive’s Employment Review Process

Under the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority Chief Executive is appointed for a five year term.  Schedule 7 of the Act gives the option of a two year extension if Council undertakes a formal employment review at least six months before the expiry of the current contract.

The Governing Body is responsible for the review.

Approve performance objectives

Agree to the review of the chief executive performance before 30 June 2018

Delegate the review if desired

Decision on chief executives contract

Progress to Date:

Objectives approved and released 23/11/17 GB/2017/153

Process approved 19/4/18 GB/2018/71

Re-appointment confirmed 27/6/18 GB/2018/103

Q3

Q4

FY17/18

Q1

Q2

Governance

Independent Maori Statutory Board funding

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, sub-clause 1, LGACA)

Approve 2018/2019 funding agreement

Progress to Date:

Report received 27/6/18 and funding approved GB/2018/94

Q3

Q4

FY17/18

Q1

Q2

Governance

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi

The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views.

The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.

Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required

Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements

Progress to Date:

Submission on Point England Development Enabling Bill 23/2/17 GB/2017/8

Submission on Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlements Bill 27/7/17 GB/2017/85

Report Upper Mangatangi-Mangarawhiri Catchments Co-governance Arrangements 24/8/17 GB/2017/99

Submission on Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill 22/2/18 GB/2018/36

Open Report Te Akitai Waiohua – Treaty Settlement Redress Conf 19/4/18 GB/2018/69

Open Report Ngāti Paoa – Treaty settlement redress Conf 24/5/18

Open Report on Maungauika – transfer of administration 27/6/18 GB/2018/97

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Chief Financial Office

Annual Report

Statutory requirement

Adopt Annual Report

Progress to Date:

Adoption 27/9/18 GB/2018/153

 

Q1

27 Sep

Q2

Q3

Q4

Mayoral Office

Governance

Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels.

Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.

Adopt the Terms of Reference

Adopt changes to Terms of Reference

Progress to Date:

Initial adoption 1/11/16 GB/2016/237

Review report 14/12/17 GB/2017/177

Review after by-election 22/3/17 GB/2018/57

Amend Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money 19/4/19 GB/2018/71

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

People and Performance

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.

Receive the quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report

Progress to Date:

March 2018 report received GB/2018/55

June 2018 report received GB/2018/119

Q1

Sep

Q2

Dec

Q3

Mar

Q4

Jun

Governance

Accountability Review of council-controlled organisations

The accountability review are to increase the accountability and value for money of CCOs by:

•     increasing the transparency of CCO decision-making

•     increasing the responsiveness of CCOs to the public and council

•     improving the recognition of ratepayer funding for CCO activity

•     increasing the ability to align CCOs to the direction set by the council.

Reporting on a quarterly basis

Approve objectives as basis of review

Approve scope and timing

Progress to Date:

Approve objectives, scope and timing 23/2/17 GB/2017/17

Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors with an update

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Governance

Representation Review

The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires all local authorities to undertake a review of representation arrangements at least once every six years.

Auckland Council is required to undertake a review for the 2019 elections.

Council’s decision must be issued no later than 11 April 2019.

Approve the process for conducting the review of representation arrangements

Approve final decision

rogress to Date:

Report and approval of process 14/12/17 GB/2017/175

Workshop – 16 October 2018

Recommendations report 18/10/18 and decision GB/2018/157-165

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Social Policy and Bylaws

On-site Wastewater Bylaw

Legislative requirement to review legacy bylaws by 31 October 2020.

Approve statement of proposal #

Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw.

# public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.

Progress to Date:

Approve the statement of proposal 26/7/18 GB/12018/121

Hearings Panel report 25/10/18 and decision GB/2018/174

Within current baselines.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

 

     

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Governing Body

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Update on Auckland Council's Guarantee of Eden Park Trust's $40 million ASB bank facility (Covering report)

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains sensitive information, the disclosure of which may disadvantage Auckland Council's position in future megotiations.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   

 

 


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuation of Attachment B

 

Item 12 – Contributions Policy 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Please read these pages after Page 238 of this agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

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


Governing Body

13 December 2018

 

 

 



[1] https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/business-in-auckland/docsoccasionalpapers/unshackling-growth%20-%20April%202018.pdf

 

[2] 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.