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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 23 September 2021

10.00am

This meeting will be held remotely and can be viewed on the Auckland Council website
https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 

 

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

Councillors

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Richard Hills

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

17 September 2021

 

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:

 

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

(i)         approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

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

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

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

(m)       overview of and decisions relating to any CCO review including the implementation of any resulting changes to CCOs

(n)        oversight of work programmes of all committees of the governing body.

 

 

 

Code of conduct

 

For information relating to Auckland Council’s elected members code of conduct, please refer to this link on the Auckland Council website - https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/elected-members-remuneration-declarations-interest/Pages/elected-members-code-conduct.aspx

 

 


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

23 September 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                7

2          Apologies                                                                                 7

3          Declaration of Interest                                          7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                         7

5          Petitions                                                                 7  

6          Public Input                                                           7

7          Local Board Input                                                 7

7.1     Local Board Input:  Waitākere Ranges Local Board - flooding, land slips and clean up in Waitākere Ranges after the August 2021 storm                                      8

8          Extraordinary Business                                       8

9          Northwest Auckland Floods                                9

10        COVID-19 briefing and Auckland Emergency Management status update                               11

11        Three Waters Reform: Feedback on government's reform proposal                         13

12        Significance and Engagement policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation                       117

13        Proposal to make a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw                                                  159

14        Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Review findings and options for the Wharves Bylaw                                           293

15        Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Review findings and options for the Legacy Bylaw Provisions for Construction in Public Places 2015                                       295

16        Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015         297

17        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Enterprise Risk Update - September 2021     365

18        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance                        393

19        Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update                                          415

20        Wiri Prison - Appointments to Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee                           425

21        Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 23 September 2021                                                431

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                         443

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Appointment of Conduct Commissioners                                                 443


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:

confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 26 August 2021, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Petitions

 

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

 

 

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.

 


 

 

 

7.1       Local Board Input:  Waitākere Ranges Local Board - flooding, land slips and clean up in Waitākere Ranges after the August 2021 storm

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Waitākere Ranges Local Board chair, Saffron Toms will address the Governing Body regarding flooding, land slips and clean up in Waitākere Ranges after the August 2021 storm.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive the Waitākere Ranges Local Board input regarding flooding, land slips and clean up in Waitākere Ranges after the August 2021 storm.

 

 

 

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

23 September 2021

 

 

Northwest Auckland Floods

File No.: CP2021/13925

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To Waitākere Ranges Local Board chair, Saffron Toms will address the Governing Body regarding flooding, land slips and clean up in Waitākere Ranges after the August 2021 storm.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Phil Wilson, Director Governance and CCO Partnerships and Acting Controller Auckland Emergency Management will give the Governing Body a verbal update on the Northwest Auckland floods.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      riro / receive the report and thank Phil Wilson, Director Governance and Acting Controller Auckland Emergency Management for the update on the Northwest Auckland floods.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

COVID-19 briefing and Auckland Emergency Management status update

File No.: CP2021/13924

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To enable the Governing Body to be briefed on the COVID-19 pandemic, Auckland Emergency Management status and council’s response.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Phil Wilson, Director Governance and CCO Partnerships and Mace Ward, General Manager Parks, Sport and Recreation will provide a verbal briefing.

3.       The briefing will focus on the activities supporting community and welfare activities.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      riro / receive the report and thank Phil Wilson, Director Governance and CCO Partnerships and Mace Ward, General Manager Parks, Sport and Recreation for the briefing on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Auckland Emergency Management status update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Three Waters Reform: Feedback on government's reform proposal

File No.: CP2021/10998

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To outline the implications of the government’s Three Water Reform (the Reform) for Tāmaki Makaurau and Auckland Council and agree the key elements of the Council feedback to government.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Over the past four years central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater) – Three Waters Reform. 

3.       The Government has concluded that a national case for change[1] to the three waters service delivery system has been made and during June and July 2021 it released information and made announcements on:

·    the direction and form of Three Waters Reform, including proposals for new Water Service Entities (WSE), their governance arrangements and public ownership

·    individual Council data based on the information supplied by councils under the Request for Information (RFI) process and Water Industry Commission Scotland (WICS) analysis of that data

·    a package of investment for councils ($2.5b, Auckland’s share would be $509m half funded by debt from the new WSE) to invest in the future for local government, urban development, and the wellbeing of communities, attempt to ensure no council is worse off as a result of the reforms, and to provide funding support for transition

·    an eight-week process for councils to understand the implications of the reform announcements, ask questions and propose alternative solutions and for government to work with councils and mana whenua on key aspects of the reform (including governance, integrated planning and community voice)

4.       While the government and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) consider that a national case for change has been made, each council will ultimately need to make a decision based on its local context.

5.       There is no expectation that councils will make a decision to opt-in (or out) or commence community engagement or consultation over the eight-week period.  Councils at this stage are simply being asked for feedback on the government’s proposal, identify areas of concern, and suggest ways to improve the government’s proposal.

6.       Government decisions on entity boundaries, governance and transition and implementation arrangements will occur after the eight week-process ends on 30 September 2021. 

7.       To inform the Governing Body’s response to the government at the end of the eight-week period, this report provides staff analysis of the government’s proposal.  It also provides advice on three outstanding issues which government has asked councils to provide feedback and solutions on, namely to ensure:

·    all communities have both a voice in the system and influence over local decisions

·    there is effective representation on the new WSE’ oversight boards, including preventing future privatisation

·    there is integration between growth planning and water services planning.

8.       The council has previously stated [ENV/2018/135] its support for the reform’s objectives to retain water assets in public ownership and the need for careful consideration of whether stormwater should be included in changes to service delivery.

9.       We also agree that economies of scale and greater efficiencies can be achieved by amalgamating the 67 different water authorities, and the need to determine alternative funding arrangements for capital expenditure. Staff also support the introduction of an economic regulator to protect the interests of consumers.

10.     We do not support the governance model proposed. It is overly complex, with no direct democratic accountability and we are concerned that it will not achieve the efficiencies anticipated, or represent Auckland’s size, inputs or unique governance structure with local boards.  Auckland Council requires a genuine governance role for council and an ownership model where ownership comes with accountability and direction, the WSE having a level of democratic accountability to communities through council.

11.     In assessing the impacts of the Reform, it should be noted that there is no ‘status quo’ option. A water quality regulator (Taumata Arowai) has already been established, and along with a proposal for an economic regulator, this will necessitate increased investment in water services across the country. Whether or to what degree the advent of an economic regulator would require further investment in the Auckland region (beyond that already provided for in the 10-year Budget) is unclear.

12.     The government proposal is to manage the additional costs by creating the WSE to cover large population bases with the ability to borrow more than local councils. Their modelling states that there is an economic benefit for Auckland residents, and a larger economic benefit to residents of smaller councils.

13.     In reviewing the government’s modelling, however, staff have little confidence in the conclusions drawn by the government due to the flaws in the assumption used. We would further note that the benefits of creating a new Water Service Entity whose balance sheet is separated from Auckland Council does not create any additional borrowing capacity for Council, but it would do for Watercare and Healthy Waters.

14.     We believe that there are alternative models which could meet both the government’s outcomes for water service delivery in New Zealand and deliver benefits to Tāmaki Makaurau. These require a willingness by government to partner with local government. Watercare is a lead performer and provides a proven model for the rest of New Zealand to follow. It can provide a centre of excellence and learnings in the establishment of water service entities, based on a CCO model.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to approve Auckland Council’s feedback to government based on resolutions b) to j):

b)      support the following aspects of the government’s Three Water Reform proposal:

i)       the need to reform the water sector in Aotearoa to lift the standards of water supply quality and wastewater treatment across New Zealand

ii)       the need to genuinely partner with local government to achieve reform of the sector

iii)      the need to introduce an economic regulator to improve efficiency and productivity and ensure there is appropriate oversight of the new WSE, but notes that this can apply to Watercare without amalgamation

iv)      the need to develop alternative funding and financing arrangements to enable greater investment in water service infrastructure

v)      the need outside of Auckland to achieve greater scale and capability in the delivery of water services

c)       does not support the government’s proposed ownership and governance arrangements which remove democratic accountability and the loss of direct control by councils over water service entities

d)      agree that there are alternative governance and financial models to that proposed which will achieve most of the government’s water reform outcomes than that proposed

e)      agree that Auckland Council continues to work with the government to consider these alternative options that meet both the government’s and council’s objectives and desired outcomes

f)       agree that water service entities should have the same accountability mechanisms (e.g. ability to approve and modify Statement of Intents and directly appoint and remove directors) as provided under the Local Government Act for council controlled organisations

g)      agree that Auckland Council supports a water service entity model, like the CCO Watercare model, where real ownership continues to reside with Councils and where the WSE is required as Watercare is currently, to give effect to the relevant aspects of Councils’ long-term plan and growth strategies

h)      agree that the governance arrangements of any Water Service Entity that includes Auckland reflect the proportionate investment in the assets made by the people of Auckland and the proportionate size of Auckland’s population

i)        agree that the set-up of the new entities should specify the requirements or principles for consultation, for example as they are set out in the Local Government Act 2002

j)        seek further engagement and information on the following aspects of the water reform proposals

i)       representation from and on behalf of mana whenua

ii)       integration with other local government reform processes

iii)      integration with spatial and local planning processes and growth

iv)      the nature, role and timing of economic regulation

v)      process for and decision-making regarding prioritisation of investment

vi)      the transfer of stormwater assets and functions

vii)     process for local authority decision-making on ‘opting in or out’ of the Three Waters Reform

viii)    conditions associated with the Government’s package of funding for local government 

ix)      transition arrangements, including for the council group workforce, information sharing and due diligence for asset transfers

k)       support local authorities being able to make the final decision on whether to ‘opt-in’ to or to ‘opt-out’ of the government’s final Three Water Reform proposal, and that the Reform is not made mandatory

l)        note that the final letter to the government outlining Auckland Council’s feedback will be provided to the Governing Body for information.

m)     note these recommendations were formed with the government’s advice on stormwater yet to be received

 

Horopaki

Context

15.     For the past four years, the government has been exploring the challenges and opportunities facing the three waters system. They are seeking to address a complex set of issues relating to the regulation, funding, financing, and provision of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services (the three waters), and to deliver better outcomes for New Zealand’s people, environment, and economy. The reform proposes a comprehensive, system-wide change that aims to improve the safety, quality, and environmental performance of three water services.

16.     In June 2021, the government released its case for change, the key design features of a new water services system (including the number of entities, boundaries, the regulatory environment and governance arrangements) and information and analysis specific to individual councils.

Key elements of the government’s three waters reform proposal

17.     Government’s modelling indicates that New Zealand will need to invest between $120 billion to $185 billion in three waters infrastructure over the next 30 years to meet drinking water and environmental standards and provide for future population growth. This equates to an average household cost for most councils on a standalone basis to be between $1,910 and $8,690 by 2051. Government’s modelling also estimated these average household costs could be reduced to between $800 and $1,640 per household and efficiencies in the range of 45% over 15-30 years if the reform process went ahead.  An additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and an increase in GDP of between $14b to $23b in net present value terms over 30 years were also forecast. 

18.     The government proposes to:

·    establish four statutory, publicly-owned water services entities that own and operate three waters infrastructure on behalf of local authorities

·    establish independent, competency-based boards to govern these entities

·    set a clear national policy direction for the three waters sector, including integration with any new spatial / resource management planning processes

·    establish an economic regulation regime

·    develop an industry transformation strategy.

19.     The government has proposed safeguards against privatisation of the entities, and these can be found on page 26 of the DIA’s summary of the case for change

20.     Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generatedBoth DIA and LGNZ have produced two-page national overviews, available on the DIA website[2] and LGNZ websites[3] respectively. 

21.     The key elements of the reform that impact Auckland are:

·    Auckland, along with the Far North, Kaipara and Whangārei councils form Entity A (connected population 1.7m)

·    Auckland Council will be listed as an owner, on behalf of our community, in statute

 

·    Auckland Council, the other northern councils and mana whenua will have a joint overseeing role on a Regional Representative Group (RRG). This group will have some influence but not control of the new WSEs and will be responsible for:

appointing (and removing) an Independent Selection Panel (ISP) that appoints and removes the WSE board

issuing a Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations, and

monitoring the performance of both the ISP and the entity Board.

22.     The new water services system is depicted in the diagram below.

 

23.     These arrangements are anticipated by government to make water services more affordable, safe and efficient through:

·    Additional debt financing capacity through balance-sheet separation from debt-constrained councils

·    the ability to bring capital investment forward and spread its costs across larger areas and over longer timeframes

·    operational efficiencies

·    developing and maintaining more sustainable career pathways in the water industry into the future.

24.     The new entities would come into effect 1 July 2024 and a transition agency would be established to manage the transition process.

25.     Detailed proposals for consumer protection and economic regulation are to be developed over a slightly longer timeframe – the Ministry of Business and, Innovation and Employment are expected to consult publicly on these proposals later in the year. The proposals will include:

·    the ability for a regulator to mandate and monitor service quality standards (for example so consumers can be sure their drinking water is safe)

·    the process for setting prices, including requirements for pricing transparency 

·    options for how to facilitate consumer advocacy, including for those who are vulnerable due to their age, health, disability, or financial position. This will include the establishment of a consumer advocacy council (or the extension of an existing body) to provide expert advocacy on behalf of consumers

·    the design of an appropriate dispute resolution process.

Other announcements and process from here

26.     In July, the government in partnership with Local Government New Zealand announced a financial support package to support transition to the new three waters system, and to position the sector for the future. It consists of three broad elements:

·    A ‘better off’ element: an investment of $2 billion into the future for local government and community wellbeing, consistent with the priorities of both central and local government. Allocation of this fund is based on a nationally consistent formula, reflecting population (75%), deprivation (20%) and land area (5%). Auckland can expect to receive $509 million. Half of this will be debt financed by the entities and half will be a direct transfer payment from NZ taxpayers.

·    A ‘no council worse off’ element: an allocation of up to around $500 million to ensure that no local authority is in a materially worse position financially to continue to provide services to its community as a direct result of the reform. This will be funded by WSE. According to the DIA’s Funding Impact Tool, Auckland Council doesn’t qualify for a share of this package.

·    Cover of reasonable transition costs: package of $0.3 billion, intended to make sure council service delivery (including of water services) during transition is not disrupted.

27.     In addition to the funding announcements, government committed to further discussions with local government and iwi in the eight-week period concluding 30 September on:

·    the boundaries of the WSE

·    how local authorities can continue to have influence on service outcomes and other issues of importance to their communities (e.g. chlorine-free water)

·    ensuring there is appropriate integration between the needs, planning and priorities of local authorities and those of the WSE

·    how to strengthen the accountability of the WSE to the communities that they serve, for example through a water ombudsman.

28.     Next steps are expected to be announced after 30 September 2021, which would include the timeframes and responsibilities for any community or public consultation.

29.     As a result, the original timetable for implementing the reform and for councils to consult on a decision to opt out (or not), no longer applies. 

30.     It is also important to note that the government has not ruled out legislating for an “all-in” approach to reform to realise the national interest benefits of the reform.

 

 

 

31.     On the assumption that the reform goes ahead, it is anticipated that councils will continue to deliver water services until at least early 2024 and council involvement in transition will be required throughout. 

32.     In addition to the Three Waters Reforms discussed above, the government has also announced further wide-ranging reforms of freshwater, resource management, climate change and zero carbon, all of which have potential to have significant impacts on the delivery of three waters services.  These additional reforms may have regulatory, operational and cost impacts.

Council workshops and decisions

33.     In October 2018, council’s Environment and Community Committee agreed an early position on reform of the three waters sector [ENV/2018/135, refer Attachment A]

34.     On 27 August 2020, the council agreed to participate in the first stage of the water delivery services reform programme. That agreement represented a commitment to assess reform options in good faith, including the government’s preferred option. It did not commit the council to any change. This agreement expired in June 2021.

35.     In March 2021, the government at a series of workshops presented to Council and local board chairs on their reform proposals. The meetings also raised a number of areas that council and DIA staff have been working together to address. These are:

·    credit rating – how to achieve access to capital without reducing accountability and protect ownership and interests of Aucklanders

·    strategic alignment – what mechanisms are needed to ensure that council can plan and coordinate infrastructure for growth

36.     In June 2021 the government released information and cabinet papers providing the business case and design elements of the three waters service delivery entities.

37.     Two meetings between elected members and the Minister took place on June 18 and July 9 to discuss the Reform.

38.     Briefing memos have been provided to elected members and LGNZ has made available briefings and held workshops to ensure elected members are informed and have a chance to express their concerns.

39.     On the 20 August, a briefing with local boards was held on the matters that government and LGNZ are seeking feedback on.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

40.     Staff have considered the information provided to determine:

a)   whether a full assessment of opting in versus opting out can be undertaken

b)   what aspects of the Reform we can agree with

c)   what aspects of the government’s modelling/business case we have concerns with

d)   opportunities and challenges of including stormwater

e)   what aspects of the reform proposal could be improved

f)    where further information is required

a)  Assessing ‘opting in’ versus ‘opting out’ has not been undertaken due to insufficient information

41.     It has not been possible to undertake a full analysis of the reform proposal as there are still a number of areas where further information was expected and is needed (e.g. stormwater and the impacts of water quality standards and regulation settings for Aoteraoa/New Zealand out to 2051).

42.     Within the timeframe available, staff have been able to undertake a high level of analysis of the reform proposal, including the business case and modelling assumptions underpinning this. Staff have used the information made available by the government to consider the likely benefits and risks with the government’s proposal for council and Tāmaki Makaurau, and to suggest areas where improvement could be beneficial.

43.     Auckland Council, along with Whangārei, Far North and Kaipara District councils also engaged PWC to review the information to develop an understanding of the assets and financial position. This joint work is still in progress and will be shared when completed.

44.     It is important to note that regardless of whether the government’s current proposal proceeds, there will be other changes to the regulation of water services so ‘opting-out’ does not continue the status quo.  The government has already established Taumata Arowai (the new drinking water regulator) and if the reforms proceed, it is highly likely that there will be economic regulation of the provision of three waters services.  This means that regardless of whether Auckland is part of the reform process or not, the regulatory environment for three waters will change, and with that it is likely that increased investment will be required. Other government reforms (Resource Management Act, Future for Local Government) may also impact on water service delivery.

45.     To assess whether the proposed better off ($509m) and no worse off funding to Auckland Council is sufficient, further information on the conditions that will be associated with that funding and how the debt will be apportioned on the new entities is needed.

The aspects of the government’s water reform proposal we agree with

46.     There are a number of aspects of the reform that council could agree with. These being the need:

·    to address the long-standing problem of inadequate investment in water infrastructure across Aotearoa

·    to achieve economies of scale by amalgamating the 67 different water authorities (to at least a similar scale as Watercare in Auckland)

·    to determine alternative funding/financing arrangements for capital expenditure (by separating council’s balance sheet from Watercare’s) that provide greater financial flexibility

·    to ensure water assets remain in public ownership and are not privatised

·    to introduce economic regulation to protect and enhance the long-term interests of consumers and to ensure high-quality performance information

·    Watercare provides a good starting point upon which to build a new model.

The aspects of the government’s water reform’s ‘case for change’ we have concerns with

47.     The benefits of the government’s reform scenario arise from three assumptions used in their modelling:

·    that significant investment is required to raise (and match Scottish and European) levels of water sector capital per resident

·    that 50 per cent capital savings and 53 percent operational savings (efficiency) can be achieved, with efficiencies arising from economies of scale, clear governance and policy settings, economic and environmental regulation and strong management capability.

·    that Watercare as an opt-out entity under council control will not have access to the capital needed to improve its efficiency significantly over the next 30 years. Critically, this assumption is not reflected in the WICS modelling, which shows a lower level of investment by the new amalgamated entity than has been funded in our 10-year Budget.

Independent reviews of the government’s modelling

48.     The government’s proposal and the DIA/WICS price modelling have been independently reviewed by Farrierswier (review of WICS price model) and Beca (comparison of the standards applied in the EU/ UK with New Zealand). Whilst generally supportive of the model scope and direction of reform and the benefits anticipated, they both raised a range of issues with the model application, which whilst technical in nature, could have large impacts on the currently published price model results. They urged caution when using these price figures for decision-making and note that the quality of management of the future water entities will have a critical impact on the achievement of the expected efficiency savings. Scottish Water is also a two waters entity. It is not known whether they would have been able to achieve the 50 percent efficiency savings if they were a three waters entity and if, therefore, it is reasonable to expect reform in New Zealand to achieve similar efficiencies.

49.     Both the Farrierswier and Beca reviews outline the similarities and differences between Scotland and NZ and discuss the risks of assuming the countries are similar. While Scotland and NZ have similar populations (5.46 million versus 5.11 million), New Zealand has 3.44 times the land area of Scotland and our population is more dispersed. Scotland has also not experienced the level of population growth that Auckland has over the last 20 years.

50.     Farrierswier also noted that the use of English 2003-04 econometric models presented a number of problems when applied to NZ that required a range of scaling, fitting of models and special adjustments, all based on further indeterminate assumptions.

51.     The Beca report states that, on balance, the forecasts from the WICS modelling may underestimate the necessary investment costs as they may not accurately assess the impacts from new regulation standards, iwi/Māori interests, or Aotearoa’s seismic and resilience risks.

52.     The Chief Economist unit has reviewed the publicly available material. Similarly, their key concern is whether Auckland will gain efficiencies through the reorganisation, translating into lower costs to Auckland residents. For many of the other regions in Aotearoa, the benefits arise from scale.

53.     Auckland is different to the rest of New Zealand. Having already amalgamated, Watercare provides scale benefits and is run by an independent, competency-based board. While further efficiency improvements can be achieved in Auckland, these are not primarily driven by amalgamation, and the benefits expected from the reform for Auckland are likely to be less than for other parts of Aotearoa. Almost 99 percent of the total population of proposed Entity A live in urban areas (Auckland and Whangarei, with 93 percent of this in Auckland). This means that the “asset optimisation” (that is, the ability to consolidate water networks between towns) is likely to be much lower than as claimed by WICS. 

54.     Further efficiencies in Auckland are possible, but they will mainly be driven by greater access to capital and economic regulation rather than from amalgamation or the Government’s proposed WSE governance structure.

55.     While every region is expected to be positively impacted by the reform proposal in terms of GDP and employment growth, relative to current regional GDP, metropolitan areas see the smallest relative

A comparison of council’s investment with the modelled investment

56.     A summary of council’s planned investment over the period of the current long-term plan, and the WICS modelling for the period 2021-2051 for an ‘Auckland-alone’ scenario (no reform) and ‘Entity A’ scenario (reform proceeds) is provided in Attachment B. The graphs below illustrate the projected capital and operational expenditure and revenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


57.     The modelling undertaken shows capital and operating expenditure would be significantly lower for Entity A than Auckland-alone in the outer years, due to the efficiency savings discussed below. These efficiency savings mean that Auckland-alone revenue (the cost to its customers) needs to be significantly higher than Entity A’s in the outer years.

58.     In response to questions raised by council staff following a review of the Auckland alone and Entity A models, WICS have modelled a number of different scenarios, reflecting different phasing of capital investment and debt to revenue ratios.  All of WICS’ models produce a similar result – Entity A delivers investment at a lower average household cost compared to Auckland ‘going it alone’. These outputs all rely on the same assumptions that staff have concerns with, for the reasons outlined below.

What are the modelled levels of efficiency expected?

59.     WICS’ modelling projects that if reform proceeds estimated average household three waters costs in 2051 will be $803.  If Auckland is not part of the reform process, WICS estimates this cost will be $2,076 per household.

60.     WICS’ modelling assumes a level of capital and operational efficiency will be achieved by the new water entities (up to 50 percent) over the next 30 years.  WICS indicated to council that these efficiencies are a combination of spend-to-save, scale, quality management and procurement savings. The number of assumptions built into WICS’ modelling make it difficult to determine whether the expected degree of efficiency for Entity A is realistic. 

61.     The WICS modelling only includes provision for improvements in Watercare and Healthy Water’s performance and efficiency of around 10% over the same 30-year period. 

62.     In all of the financial models prepared by WICS, it is this difference in expected efficiencies that leads to the conclusion that average household bills will be significantly lower in 2051 if Auckland opts into the reform process.

 

 

63.     Some of the factors that DIA asserts will lead to improved efficiency, such as economies of scale, competency-based boards, and professional management, already exist within the current Auckland environment. Watercare is a lead performer in New Zealand and is already a water entity of significant scale and maturity. It has been operating for 10 years under a legal obligation to be a least-cost provider. As such, Watercare has already achieved significant efficiencies, although it is expected that greater efficiencies can be achieved. Watercare is currently working with WICS and aim to achieve 1-2 per cent annual operating efficiency improvements over the next 10 years. [4]

64.     Watercare has also implemented an enterprise model framework, which aims to reduce the cost to deliver its infrastructure programme by 20% from 2024.  Watercare is able to do this due to its pipeline of projects and secure funding model.  However, it is acknowledged that access to more capital would allow “invest to save” initiatives to be brought forward, leading to greater efficiencies.

65.     Similarly, the Strategic Procurement Committee recently approved a procurement plan for a new capital programme delivery model for Healthy Waters. The programme delivery model will allow the council to engage the same supply partners for a programme of work. This will reduce project delivery timeframes and costs through efficiencies in design, consenting and procurement, enabling better risk management and improved health and safety outcomes alongside other desired outcomes such as social procurement and Māori outcomes. The continuity of work will enable suppliers to develop dedicated teams, which will also improve efficiency and result in cost savings.

66.     Given the initiatives already underway within Watercare and Healthy Waters, it seems unrealistic for the WICS modelling to only allow for improvements in Watercare’s performance and efficiency of around 10% over the next 30 years. Staff, therefore, have significant doubts and concerns regarding the assumptions that underpin the WICS modelling and, as a result, the conclusions drawn from that modelling.

67.     It is noted that an economic regulator is proposed as part of the three waters reforms and will apply to Councils whether they opt-in or opt-out of joining a WSE. The intention is that an economic regulator will drive a more efficient delivery of water services, both in terms of operating costs and the cost of delivering capital investment. The WICS ‘Auckland alone’ model contains no economic regulator, which staff consider structurally creates an unequal comparison. DIA, however, consider that economic regulation and amalgamation are all part of the reform proposal.  Staff note that Watercare has already directly engaged WICS to provide advice around improving efficiency.

What are the benefits of balance sheet separation?

68.     The benefits identified by the government are predicated on the new WSE being financially independent and able to raise debt. Internationally, water entities are considered lower risk and have much higher debt-to-revenue ratios than other utility or network entities. The entities proposed are estimated to have debt-to-revenue ratios ranging between 400-800 per cent.  To achieve these levels of debt, the WSEs’ balance sheets will need to be separated from councils. This separation is likely to imply that ownership in the traditional sense is also separated from councils as otherwise balance sheet separation is unlikely.

69.     Auckland Council has credit ratings from S&P Global and Moody’s. These agencies use different methodologies, with S&P including Watercare when it looks at the council group’s results and Moody’s eliminating them as a self-sustaining entity. Under S&P’s methodology, separating Watercare’s debt and revenue from the group improves the council’s debt-to-revenue ratio. DIA estimate this at $1.2billion, which does not appear to be materially inaccurate.

 

 

70.     However, as Moody’s already eliminates Watercare from its calculation, the separation of Watercare from the group has no impact on Moody’s credit rating analysis of the council. Therefore, the separation of Watercare does not create any additional borrowing capacity for Auckland Council. [5]

71.     The main advantage in separating Watercare from the council group’s balance sheet is that it would allow Watercare or a new entity to borrow more, and to spread this cost over a longer period. This, in theory, allows additional capital projects to be brought forward without increasing costs to households in the short term.

72.     It is not clear, however, what the priorities of a new water service entity would be with regard to Auckland. It may, for example, prioritise new water assets to meet regulatory requirements in Northland in the short term.

73.     An advantage of the Reform proposal is that there would be reduced risk to council with the new water entities being held responsible for meeting the costs of small water suppliers defaulting on their ability to meet the new water quality regulations. Staff have not been able to quantity this cost or estimate this potential benefit.

74.     Regardless of whether Entity A is established, council and the new entity will face increased costs as a result of regulation.

Other financial issues

75.     The Government has announced a financial package to support councils that opt-in to transition through the reform process.  This contains two main components.

76.     Auckland Council would be entitled to funding of $509 million to invest in projects that support the three waters reform objectives and other local wellbeing outcomes.  Half of this funding will come from the Crown, with the other half to be funded via debt from the new water entities.

77.     Councils will be required to demonstrate that the use of this funding aligns with the priorities of central and local government, through meeting some or all of the following criteria:

·        supporting communities to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy, including by building resilience to climate change and natural hazards

·        delivery of infrastructure and/or services that enable housing development and growth, with a focus on brownfield and infill development opportunities where those are available, or support local place-making and improvements in community well-being.

78.     The Crown as also announced that funding will be available to ensure councils are “no worse off” due to the reforms.  This funding is intended to address the costs and financial impacts on territorial authorities directly as a result of the three waters reform programme and associated transfer of assets, liabilities and revenues to new water services entities. It includes funding to support councils to meet unavoidable costs of stranded overheads, which could include the duplication of resource required due to the transfer of Healthy Waters to the new water entity.

a)     Broader aspects of the government’s water reform proposal we have concerns with

79.     The government and LGNZ have specifically asked for feedback on three areas that the local government sector has already raised some concerns with: governance arrangements, aligning strategic planning and funding directions and ensuring community voice. These are discussed below.

Complex governance arrangements

80.     The ownership and governance model proposed is a bespoke model, with councils listed in legislation as owners, without shareholdings or financial interests, but an advocacy role on behalf of their communities. The proposed model has the entities variously accountable to their board, Taumata Arowai for water quality, an economic regulator for price, regional/unitary authorities for discharge consents, mana whenua for responding to Te Mana o te Wai statements, and a consumer body.  Board performance is reviewed by an independent selection panel, appointed by the Regional Representatives Group. The key concerns with this model are:

·        the complexity of arrangements

·        a lack of democratic accountability for the WSE

·        representation on the Regional Representative Group will not be proportionate to Auckland’s size and input

·        the lack of accountability means the entity will not be driven to achieve the efficiencies anticipated

·        direction and policy setting

·        timing of entities corporate and planning processes and ensuring these align to council’s legislative and compliance timeframes

81.     Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (2009), which established the council and Watercare, Watercare are solely and simply accountable to the council and council’s key governance role is to:

·    appoint directors

·    approve Watercare’s statement of intent, which requires Watercare to give effect to Council’s Long-Term Plan and align with council’s strategic plans

·    monitor Watercare’s performance

·    modify Watercare’s Statement of Intent

82.     The government’s proposal appears to treat 3-waters services as comparable to other network utilities such as electricity and telecommunications, and therefore that direct political accountability is not necessary. Three waters services are different in many respects from other network utilities. Water and wastewater are catchment based and therefore “local” not national. Stormwater is integral to land use and operational activity of local authorities generally, including consenting, roading, amenities and public open space.

83.     Under the reform proposals these accountability mechanisms are intentionally removed to reduce council’s level of ‘control’ in order to meet credit rating agencies requirements for the new water services entities. The more control that councils have over the water entities, and the higher the degree of accountability to councils, the more likely the rating agencies are to consolidate the water entities debt onto the councils’ balance sheets. 

84.     The table below provides a summary of the accountability mechanisms proposed. Council’s primary role will be to elect members on to the Regional Representative Group (RRG), which has no decision-making powers over the proposed entities. Their primary role is to appoint the Independent Selection Panel (who are responsible for appointing, monitoring and any removal of board members) and developing the Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations.


 

 

Key documents

Role of Crown

Regional Representative Group (RRG) role

Councils’ role

WSE board / entity responsibilities

Interface with community

Government Policy Statement (GPS)

Develop and issue

None

None

A regulatory instrument to which the entity will give effect via the SOI

Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations (SSPE)

None

Develop, issue and monitor performance against (but not approve or modify)

Feed into RRG

Respond to via the Statement of Intent and report against expectations annually

Published

Te Mana o te Wai

None

None

None

Respond through a Statement of Response

Published

Statement of Intent

Direct via GPS

Influence via the SSPE.

Monitor performance against SOI

Engage with

Requirement to produce in response to GPS and SSPE. The entity is required to deliver against this document

Published

Asset Management Plan

Influence via GPS review

Engage with

Engage with

Requirement to produce in accordance with SOI and consult appropriately. The entity is required to deliver against this document

Engage with

Funding and Pricing Plan

Influence via GPS review

Engage with

Engage with

Requirement to produce in accordance with SOI and consult appropriately. The entity is required to deliver against this document

Engage with

 

Representation does not reflect Auckland’s size or inputs

85.     Auckland Council will contribute 94% of the assets, 91% of revenue, 97% of debt to Entity A. The Regional Representative Group overseeing the entity will have equal representation from mana whenua and local authorities. Auckland Council’s representation on this group would be less than 50 percent.

86.     It should be noted that members selected for this group would be required to consider the interests of the relevant jurisdictions within an entity area when exercising their functions. This means Elected Members on the RRG will have to consider Northland’s interest along with Auckland’s when making decisions.

87.     Given the public ownership of the water entities, there should be democratic accountability.  Auckland Council should therefore request a genuine governance role for council and an ownership model, similar to the CCO model, where ownership comes with accountability and the ability to set direction. The entity would then have a level of democratic accountability to communities through council.

Aligning infrastructure planning and funding processes across multiple agencies

88.     The government’s proposal is that local government will continue to have primary responsibility for urban and land use planning. The intention is that local authorities will collaborate with the new water entities to achieve integration and alignment of infrastructure provision with land use planning processes and that there will be a “reciprocal obligation” on the water entities in the legislation to ensure this occurs.

89.     Currently Council’s decisions across water, transport and community infrastructure are guided by the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and Auckland’s 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy, and implemented through 10-year budget and RLTP decision-making processes. These enable us to align investment with future growth requirements in terms of location, sequencing and timing, and plan and provide for all the major infrastructure needs of these areas.

90.     Alignment and coordination of infrastructure investment will be made more difficult with separation of water infrastructure. In particular, it is questionable under current financing and funding arrangements whether council would have the ability to match the water entity’s spend with respect to transport and community infrastructure. Without clear agreements over the timing and staging of growth with the water entity. Council would face significant challenges in delivering transport and community infrastructure in all areas of development capacity that the entity could enable through its investment, including private plan changes. There is also a question about how the water entities would be impacted by council’s obligations to meet responsiveness requirements under the NPS Urban Development.

91.     How the entities determine the level of investment or priority given to maintenance, renewals or investment for growth across council boundaries is unclear. There are likely to be a number of factors which could make alignment with Auckland priorities challenging for the water entity, including:

·     the economic regulator’s oversight of investment and pricing decisions

·     in early years, the entities will likely focus on bringing poor quality infrastructure in Northland up to standard. This will change over time as the most urgent infrastructure upgrades are completed

·     post resource management system reform the areas covered by a single water entity will be subject to multiple regional spatial strategies and natural and built environment plans (at least two strategies and two plans – Auckland and Northland - in the case of Entity A).

92.     While the “reciprocal obligation” is intended to apply in the current planning framework, consideration also needs to be given to how this will play out under the resource management system reforms, in particular the proposed regional spatial strategies.

93.     DIA is working with the Ministry for the Environment with the intention that the proposed Strategic Planning Act provides a framework for an integrated planning approach. DIA’s “current position” is that the water entities will need to act consistently with the proposed regional spatial strategies. However, this position is dependent on further policy work and decisions over the next 12 months in parallel with the resource management reforms. Spatial strategies alone will not provide sufficient detail to guide prioritisation and alignment. As such, the Ministry for the Environment is also considering joint implementation agreements for the spatial strategies which would involve funding commitment from central government and these could include water services entities.

94.     To complement the above potential approaches a range of mechanisms has been proposed by DIA for discussion including:

       requirement to identify and align interdependencies between regulatory strategies (and responses) and land use/growth planning through the prioritisation methodology applied by the WSE

       a “Regulatory Charter” to describe expectations and requirements on regulators to develop a collective view on longer term strategic priorities.

95.     It is too early and there is insufficient information to assess the effectiveness of any of these possible mechanisms. However, it appears that some of them may be at odds with the financial and operational separation objectives of the reforms. In particular, it is unclear how a requirement on water entities to act consistently with regional spatial strategies is reconciled with adherence to its prioritisation approach and economic regulation. 

96.     While not a statutory instrument, the Auckland Water Strategy could be helpful to the Regional Representatives Group in performing their duties such as in developing the Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations, and in exercising oversight of the independent selection panel.

Ensuring community voice

97.     The government has indicated that the role of local authorities will include ensuring new water entities are responsive to local communities’ needs. In considering ensuring all communities have both a voice in the system and influence over local decisions, we have focused on three aspects: 

·    community engagement on key strategies and plans

·    community voice and influence over local decisions

·    consumer rights.

98.     The current proposal notes that the new water entities will be required to engage with consumers and communities on key strategies and plans that affect them. However, there is limited detail on what this would entail. We suggest that at a minimum, the set-up of the new entities should specify the requirements or principles for consultation, for example as they are set out in the Local Government Act 2002. Individuals and communities should be able to participate effectively in decision-making on strategies and plans, to ensure decisions are well informed. It would be helpful for Entity A to recognise Auckland’s unique governance structure and the respective roles of the governing body and local boards.

99.     The current proposals do not specify how communities will be consulted or involved in local decisions and projects. This is important because the new entities will be covering large geographic areas with bigger populations and there is a reasonable concern that community voices will be lost. Local three water projects have a variety of local impacts from smaller-scale traffic disruption to larger-scale impacts (for example the impact on sensitive environments, such as when replacing the treatment facilities at Huia). The proposals should therefore specify how communities can input into these projects at appropriate levels. Doing so, will ensure community voices are considered, including possible co-ordination of work in particular locations to reduce disruption. Note that there is likely to be high community interest in stormwater projects on local parks and governance of these projects also needs to be clarified.

100.   Local boards and CCOs have recently developed “joint engagement plans” which outline key projects in each local board area and agreed engagement levels (with both local boards and the community). The joint engagement plans are agreed annually at public meetings and therefore provide a transparent mechanism for the public to understand key projects in their area and how they will be consulted on them. While these plans are still being refined, this is a model that could be considered for the new entities.

101.   The opportunity for the community to influence a larger water entity will be less than at present under the proposal. We agree that to protect consumer rights, the proposals need to be clear how service standards and prices will be set and monitored, consumer advocacy ensured, and complaints processes and mechanisms set up for dispute resolution.


 

 

102.   Councils already have statutory requirements to consult the community on many issues that will impact on the proposed water entities, such as land use, and infrastructure strategies.  Councils can also develop non-statutory strategies relevant to water entities which require public consultation, such as Water Strategies.  The government should recognise that councils already have a significant role in representing the views of their communities, and that councils are well placed to represent the communities’ views.

103.   Even if consultation processes are provided for, consultation does not mandate negotiation or consensus-based decision-making. Having a voice heard is not the same as having an influence on outcomes. When local authorities consult, their actions are influenced by electoral accountability elected members face. Corporate consultation does not have this accountability.

Protections against future privatisation

104.   A number of protections against future privatisation are specified. These include local authorities being listed in statute as the owners of the entity and any serious future privatisation proposal needing to firstly achieve a 75 per cent majority vote from the Regional Representative Group and then be put to a referendum (all eligible voters in the area served by the entity), where a 75 per cent majority is also required.

105.   While this a high bar, there is currently no provision under the Local Government Act (S130) for a local government organisation to divest its ownership or interest in a water service except to another local government organisation. We suggest that no provision for any future privatisation be made within the reform.

a)  The opportunities and challenges with including stormwater

106.   The government’s current proposal to reform water services delivery is that responsibility for all three waters is transferred to the proposed water services entities.  At the timing of writing, the government had not released its advice in relation to the scope of the stormwater transfer.

107.   The scope of stormwater transfer is particularly important for Auckland, as stormwater is managed differently to most other parts of New Zealand.  In most locations, the stormwater element of reform would relate to district council stormwater assets and functions. However, in Auckland, we carry out a number of freshwater functions, including stormwater, flood management and quality, together within our Healthy Waters Department.  This means that the scope of a ‘stormwater’ transfer is less clear.

108.   We understand that the government’s stormwater working group (established March 2021) noted there are significant benefits to be gained through integrated three waters delivery, and increased investment to make progress on challenging issues like improving stormwater quality. These benefits have not been quantified or supported with evidence that has been provided to councils. They have also highlighted that there are a range of existing and future challenges that will need to be addressed to support any transfer, including:

·    the lack of consistent national standards and approach to management and delivery of stormwater services

·    the complexity of the legislative, policy, and planning framework for stormwater

·    the lack of clarity around accountabilities, responsibilities, and ‘powers to act’

·    the complex and variable nature of stormwater arrangements around Aotearoa

·    the need to ensure that stormwater systems continue to contribute to the delivery of multiple outcomes not just for the stormwater, but also for transport system, recreation, urban amenities, and the environment. 

 


 

 

109.   The report when released will set out a high-level framework for the proposed transfer of stormwater functions. These will cover the transfer of territorial authority stormwater assets to the water service entities, the future regulatory interfaces to maintain and operate the stormwater network and managing the interfaces between agencies, land, and infrastructure. Further detailed work and engagement will be required to implement the framework if the reform proceeds. This work (and engagement) would be carried out through the transition phase at both national and local levels.

110.   To guide the proposed transfer of stormwater functions to new WSE, we understand the working group identified some key principles:

·    that WSE should adopt a ki uta ki tai (Mountains to the Sea) perspective, applying an integrated catchment management approach that considers both stormwater quantity and quality

·    it must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai and work in partnership with tangata whenua and mana whenua

·    existing ownership of the land and/or stormwater assets should be retained where possible

·    stormwater management should be transferred at the same time as drinking water and wastewater functions

·    that the transfer of responsibilities should not leave “stranded” stormwater responsibilities with local authorities 

·    the WSE will have technical and operational capacity and capability which should be leveraged to support regional and territorial authorities

·    that the civil defence emergency management roles and responsibilities should remain at a local, regional, and national level, but new WSE should have the obligations of lifeline utility operators

111.   There is no information in the government’s proposals to date on how water service entities will fund stormwater functions if transferred. Currently stormwater is funded through rates (general rates and the Water Quality Targeted Rate) and through development contributions.

112.   In the absence of this detail, staff from across the council group have considered the potential risks and opportunities of stormwater transfer to the new entities.  Further detail, including case studies, can be found in Attachment C.

113.   The stormwater system is fundamentally different from the other two waters proposed for management by the entities, because:

·    stormwater is an open system; subject to outside influence from the many activities that take place in each catchment.

·    stormwater is but one part of the management of land, freshwater, and ecosystems which Auckland Council undertakes as a unitary authority

·    ownership and management of the stormwater system is complex and fragmented – key owners include Council (Healthy Waters, Community Facilities), Auckland Transport and private owners. 

114.   The nature of the stormwater system highlights the importance of integrated land and water management. This also supported by a clearly aligned expectation of integrated land and water management set out in Auckland Council policy, existing legislation and through resource management reform.


 

 

 

The opportunities and risks of transferring stormwater to a new water service entity

115.   Under the government’s proposal the transfer of stormwater functions could provide the opportunity for greater funding of stormwater which, if leveraged well, could deliver improved stormwater asset management. There are, however, unknowns in relation to this opportunity. These include:

·    the level of investment priority afforded to stormwater - driven by the legislation and Taumata Arowai, the new entities’ immediate focus could be on drinking water and wastewater

·    what additional procurement and other scale efficiencies would be gained through a shift to a new water entity. Some economies of scale for the delivery of stormwater services have already been achieved in Auckland

·    the need for stormwater investment in excess of that planned in the 10-year budget has not been connected to strategic outcomes sought by Council, nor has it been quantified. Thus, the value that additional investment will provide for the communities who will bear the cost, is unknown.

116.   The key risks of a general transfer of stormwater functions to WSE relate to:

·    Auckland’s ability to drive an integrated land and water response to big challenges such as climate change and growth.  The need for a coordinated approach between the entity and Council is recognised by the government. However, the government proposal for alignment of strategies and planning is on the basis of the entity’s priorities. A wider, more connected, view of issues and solutions is necessary to respond effectively as a region. 

·    Auckland Council’s ability to carry out regional council functions.  Some of the work and expertise within Healthy Waters is in service of these functions.  There is a risk that ‘stormwater’ is defined in a way that encroaches on regional functions and results in a transfer of capability and tools necessary for carrying out our statutory responsibilities. This loss could require duplication of resources and break connections between freshwater planning, monitoring and implementation.

·    An optimised response to Auckland’s natural hazards. Auckland Council would retain responsibility for land management in order to avoid or mitigate hazards, while stormwater infrastructure interventions would sit with the WSE.  Without a clear mechanism for directing and aligning responses between organizations, it will be more difficult to identify the most efficient and effective set of interventions for hazard management.

·    Connected and consistent stormwater regulation. Environmental and infrastructure regulation is carried out using a closely connected set of tools (Auckland Unitary Plan, Stormwater Bylaw etc). A transfer of some of the existing web of stormwater regulatory tools to the WSE would make the delivery of consistent infrastructure and environmental outcomes more complex. 

117.   In the absence of information about the scope of a stormwater transfer to the WSE, staff have considered what the transfer of assets might mean in relation to the risks above. 


 

 

Activities that if transferred present a low-medium risk to remaining council functions

Assets that, if transferred, present a higher risk to remaining council functions

·    Piped and constructed network

·    Stormwater ponds and quality devices

·    Asset management planning

 

These activities are sufficiently self-contained and focused on implementation of stormwater management so as to present a lower risk to Council’s functions.  Though these assets present a lower risk, strong coordination between the council and WSE would still be required to deliver optimal outcomes for Auckland.

·     Stormwater assets where the primary function is transport (eg, kerb and channel, and catchpits) or community (eg. vegetated channels and dry detention ponds located in public open space).  These primary functions would be put at risk if delivered through an entity with water service delivery at its core.

·     Data/intellectual property.  Influence over key data sets and tools (identified in Error! Reference source not found., Attachment C) are necessary in enabling Council to exercise regional council functions effectively and in an evidence-based way. 

·     Natural assets such as streams, lakes and their vegetated edges provide services for our communities that are much broader than stormwater. A transfer of controls around these assets could make the integrated delivery of ecological services, recreation and amenity more challenging.

·     Development and implementation of infrastructure standards.  Transfer of infrastructure standards would generate risk for the outcomes sought through Council’s environmental regulatory role.

 

118.   Further consideration will be given to mitigation measures as stormwater reform proposals are released.  However, mitigation may generally include:

·    Auckland Council retention of stormwater

·    retention of the capabilities, tools, assets and funding that present the highest risk to the council’s remaining functions

·    mechanisms to agree working arrangements between Auckland Council and the WSE such as Memoranda of Understanding or Service Level Agreements.  This should include establishment of key stormwater roles and boundaries prior to transfer of assets and functions.

·    agreed mechanisms for influence that ensure an integrated view of land and water directs coordinated decision-making across the council and WSE.

·    ensuring that WSE data and models will be freely available to the council

·    strengthen the council’s remaining regulatory tools

·    ensuring that the funding streams required to support the assets and functions that will remain with Council are maintained.   

b)  What improvements could be made to the government’s water reform proposal

119.   Recognising Auckland’s specific issues, DIA have worked with council staff on the governance arrangements and offered the following amendments for additional oversight:

120.   One of Auckland Council’s overriding concerns is that the Government proposal seeks to implement a “one size fits all” solution to New Zealand, with no acknowledgement that Auckland is in a very different starting position to the rest of the country.  Auckland already has many of the attributes the government’s proposal is trying to achieve for the rest of New Zealand. There are other options available that could meet the government’s objectives. For example, there is an opportunity to evolve Auckland’s existing governance arrangement as opposed to a whole new arrangement.

121.   The government’s option aims to achieve complete balance sheet separation to allow the water entities greater access to borrowing for increased investment.  Some of the options previously considered by council and government may have resulted in a contingent liability on councils’ balance sheets.  Those options may be acceptable to Auckland Council, depending on how the contingent liability is calculated (i.e. its size).  Given that water entities have very stable cashflows, and will be operating in a highly regulated environment, a contingent liability is likely to be an acceptable solution if it achieves greater investment in three waters infrastructure. 

122.   Auckland Council asked the crown to explore a scenario whereby the Crown provides some form of explicit financial support to Watercare (either guaranteeing Watercare debt or providing a liquidity facility) to help achieve greater levels of investment whilst maintaining a strong credit rating and consequently a lower cost of borrowing.  This approach could see a model developed that includes potential shareholdings for the Northland councils (proportionate to their asset value), and potentially a shareholding or step-in rights for the Crown.  The overall framework could then retain the current CCO arrangements and accountability mechanisms, with appropriate modifications to reflect any additional shareholding interests and mechanisms for Iwi input. It would have sufficient scale to create strategic capacity across the region and support the areas where that is currently lacking. Importantly, the capacity and capability is shared across the region in an ongoing and sustainable way. This option would also retain direct accountability to shareholders. Leaving to an independent WSE board the power to determine the price of water, within the constraints set by the economic regulator, should provide comfort to the credit rating agencies’ concern that there might be political interference in price setting.

123.   The view of the Department and the Minister is that council’s proposal falls outside of the government’s reform model as agreed by Cabinet and the Heads of Agreement with Local Government New Zealand. We believe that this option should still be pursued with government.


 

 

124.   DIA staff have committed to further investigating two alternatives, these being:

a)    Variation to the governance arrangements (refer paragraph 119). However, this scenario does not provide direct accountability or responsiveness to councils or reflect the size and scale of Auckland’s input into the new water service entity.

A short-term indemnity to Watercare/Auckland Council. The indemnity would facilitate an additional circa $350m of borrowing for Watercare to undertake ‘invest to save’ projects and bring forward a number of capital projects in the lead up to reform that were deferred/not included in the current LTP.

However, we do not believe it is prudent to explore this option further, as it is unlikely to provide Watercare and its supply chain with sufficient time to respond to the additional investment (the indemnity would ideally need to be in place by the end of this calendar year). Further, this option is conditional on Auckland Council opting-in to the reform process and it would be subject to some form of external (“voluntary”) regulation. Council may therefore have no say in where the additional investment is directed, potentially resulting in the council having to consult on an amendment to the long-term plan.

125.   In addition to the additional arrangements noted in the table above, Auckland Council may wish to advocate for:

·    greater representation on the Regional Representative Group

·    the right for councils to directly appoint board members

·    approval and modification rights to the Statement of Intent

·    advocate for the government to explore other mechanisms to allow for greater investment in water infrastructure by the proposed entities, including other mechanisms for achieving balance sheet separation such as explicit government financial support (which result in a greater degree of control and accountability of the water entities)

·    a benefit cost assessment of the final proposal

·    assurances that should reform proceed, an ongoing commitment to work with council on transitional and operational matters. There are many operational matters (such as legislative commitment or other mechanisms to ensure the sharing of information to assist in each entity’s performing their legislative functions) that will require further work and mitigation measures to be developed.

d)       Areas where further information is requested

126.   There are still issues that need to be resolved and areas where further information is needed, including:

·    representation from and on behalf of mana whenua

·    the transfer of stormwater assets and functions

·    integration with other local government reform processes

·    integration with spatial and local planning processes and growth

·    the nature, role and timing of economic regulation

·    process for and decision making relating to the prioritisation of investment

·    what will a Government Bill cover and whether the reform will be mandatory

·    conditions associated with the government’s package of funding for local government

·    transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

127.   It is not clear from the information provided what impacts the water reform proposals will have on climate. The government’s objectives for the reform include building resilience to natural hazards and climate change, but how this will be addressed by each individual water service entity is unclear at this stage. It is also unclear what direction will be provided to WSE by the Government Policy Statement. It is intended that the proposed model would have more funding available for investment to address climate and resilience issues.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

128.   Watercare staff have been working with council staff to understand the impact of the government’s proposal for Auckland (both on an opt in and opt out basis). Watercare staff are part of the council’s internal steering group considering the impact of the reforms. This group includes staff from Healthy Waters, legal, finance, strategy and planning and the Māori outcomes lead for Infrastructure and Environmental Services.

129.   Watercare has established a centre of excellence to understand the reform proposals and have been aligning key processes with Healthy Waters.

130.   Auckland Transport have been involved in considering the potential impacts, risks and benefits of transferring stormwater to a WSE.

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

Local impacts and local board views

131.   A briefing to the local boards was provided on 20 August, 2021, followed by a memo on the three waters reform being circulated to local boards. Due to timing constraints, 19 of the local boards have used urgent decision-making process to allow their input to be considered by the Governing Body, with the remaining two discussing them at their business meetings. Local board feedback is provided in Attachments D-G.

132.   Many local boards acknowledged the need for three waters reform and the need to ensure adequate future investment into water infrastructure. But they were not convinced by the government’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ proposal and felt it did not reflect Auckland’s unique governance arrangements, its relationship with Auckland Transport (in relation to stormwater) and its scale and size.

133.   Regarding the proposed entity A (Auckland and Northland), most of the local boards expressed concern about linking Auckland with Northland. Many noted that the scale of existing challenges faced by Auckland Council and Watercare in the Auckland area raises concerns around the balance and focus that Entity A could provide to a joint area. Concern was also raised that the new entity were being asked to do too much, and trialing or a more staggered approach may be more appropriate.

134.   Several expressed concern about the ongoing utilisation of water from the Waikato River to support Auckland’s water supplies and relationship with Entity B. Franklin was concerned about the interrelationship with the southern boundary and how joint assets (Pukekohe Wastewater plant) would be dealt with.

135.   The local boards were unanimous in expressing concerns about the potential loss of local accountability and oversight with the proposed governance and representation arrangements. Many highlighted that the proposed governance structure would not reflect asset contribution in a fair or equitable way. Some acknowledged that while the current Watercare and Healthy Waters are not perfect for our communities, the CCO model is a better alternative than the proposed water entities.

 

136.   There was also a strong support for the role of Mana Whenua in water reform, in accordance to our obligations under Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of partnership. Some local boards commented that mana whenua should have a representative on both the entity board and the entity management, beyond a mere seat at the regional representative group. 

137.   Regarding the integration of land-use/growth planning and water services, many local boards expressed concern over how the management of stormwater would be separated from local planning, and potential misalignments with other regulatory reforms underway. There was also concern that the proposal would create further layers of complexity and bureaucracy.

138.   Local boards also wanted a stronger emphasis on climate change and environmental outcomes in environmental and/or economic regulation. There was also some concern about the potential financial impacts on consumers and on Auckland Council.

139.   Most local boards were also concerned about ensuring there were robust mechanisms in place to prevent privatisation, and wanted specific mechanisms for meaningful communication and engagement at local level, and for local matters to be raised to and considered by the proposed entity.

140.   Many local boards requested more time to consider the implications of Three Waters and further engagement on such a significant reform proposal

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

141.   The issues covered in this paper are important for Māori. The government has stated that it was to ensure it delivers on Treaty-related obligations, including by improving outcomes for iwi/Māori in relation to three waters service deliver. The Crown is currently leading the engagement with iwi/Māori, mana whenua. We understand DIA is preparing a discussion document to provide visibility to council on this work.

142.   Council is in the process of engaging with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (MWKF), the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and various operational mana whenua forums (I&ES Healthy Waters and Watercare have agreed to work together on the Reform).

143.   Feedback from the Independent Māori Statutory Board is attached (Attachment H). The Board is advocating for greater clarity and representation of mana whenua in the governance structure of the WSE. This representation should include decision-making powers.

144.   At the time of writing the MWKF’s feedback was still being finalised and it will be circulated separately.

145.   The operational mana whenua forum has established a technical reference group to review and assess available information. This group will not make decisions on behalf of mana whenua but are considering issues and providing information to mana whenua to help inform them and aid them in any decision-making. Many of the issues this group are discussing are similar to those raised by the IMSB and we understand are of interest to the MWKF:

·    the co-governance and representation arrangements - the total number of mana whenua members proposed is not considered adequate

·    the complexity of the proposed governance arrangements and lack of accountability to Regional Representative Group and to mana whenua (no direct line accountability or influence)

·    the lack of clarity, information and understanding around the government’s three water reform proposal

·    the reform process is siloed from other reform processes going on

·    the process for responding to Te Mana o Te Wai Statements is dislocated from the Regional Representative Group and SOI process, which may make it less effective

 

·    equity concerns around iwi/hapū participation across such a large geographic area (Entity A)

·    capacity and capability issues impacting ability of mana whenua to participate appropriately

·    concern with how Entity A’s southern boundary has been established. In particular, the splitting of the rohe of Ngāti Whanaunga and disconnecting Auckland from the Waikato River (its significant source of its water)

·    the inadequate timeframe to provide input to the council and government’s processes

·    the government’s proposal does not respond to allocation concerns, which are fundamental to te mauri me te mana o te wai.

146.   Due to the short timeframes and the impact of COVID-19, further updates on how this engagement is progressing and mana whenua interests will be provided verbally at the meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

147.   There are no financial implications arising from this report. There will be financial impacts if the water reform proceeds and these will be reported on once further clarity on the process and the reforms is provided by the government.

148.   The government has provided the council with financial support of up to $2 million to support iwi engagement, and any legal, operational or consultancy work. The majority of the work being undertaken, however, is by internal staff.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

149.   Significant risks, legal responsibility and financial implications have been identified in analysing the reform proposals and investigating alternatives for this report.  The table below summarises these risks along with mitigation opportunities through the next stages of the reform.

Issues

Risks with government proposal

Opportunities/Mitigation

Strategy

·     Direction is set by national GPS and may not reflect Aucklanders’ interests (e.g. a compact quality city, environmental restoration and enhancement, water consumption targets)

·     Council continues to work with the Crown to influence key strategy elements (e.g. climate resilience)

Land use planning

·     Fragmented and uncoordinated planning and provision of infrastructure leading to higher costs and poor community outcomes

·     Inability for council to fund transport / community infrastructure to match water investment

·     Lack of alignment of WSE work programme with Council’s policies and plans

·     Reputational risks

 

 

·     Council continues to work with Crown to determine the mechanisms available to councils to influence land use and management of growth

·     Council provides leadership and examples of how to coordinate in areas of growth

Investment and levels of services (LOS)

·     LOS are determined by economic regulator/WSE and may result in lower LOS for Aucklanders

·     Auckland could be deprioritised to meet greater operational obligations / service levels outside Auckland

·     Stormwater could be deprioritised, at least initially, while regulation focus is on water supply and wastewater

·     Council advocates for ensuring that there is no reduction in current levels of service

 

Economic regulation

·     Economic regulation starts with information disclosure and price quality path

·     May reduce council’s ability to influence and direct WSE’s activities

·     Council undertake work on areas of focus for economic regulator to help inform government’s proposal and response to consultation document.

Industry capacity / supply chain / efficiency

·     There is not sufficient industry capacity to undertake all investment required

·     Potentially a loss of efficiency due to disruption associated with transition and competition for key staff between WSEs

·     Potential for duplication of functions within council and WSE

·     Potential loss of clarity between council roles and WSE roles

·     Continue to build understanding of potential areas of duplication of function in Auckland. This work, would better prepare Council to limit the inefficiencies and capability challenges generated by transition.

·     Gives key Auckland based staff certainty

Costs of reform

·     The costs of water reform to council are unknown[6] but are expected to increase as a result of proposed economic and water quality regulation.

·     The responsibilities and therefore costs with the transfer of stormwater to the new WSE are unknown but may relate to the need to duplicate capability and tools in order to satisfy remaining council functions

·     Work with transition arrangements to identify the functions, capabilities and costs required to serve each organisation and that these are allocated appropriately. Likely bespoke series of agreements between organisations will be needed

·     The government has made funds available to cover reform costs. Council would need to quantify these costs.

Integrated land and water management

·     Decoupling of stormwater and land management functions will make developing and implementing efficient and effective responses to big challenges such as climate change, hazards and growth more challenging.

·     Loss of capability and tools needed to carry out Council’s statutory responsibilities as a regional council.

·     Potential loss of ability to coordinate and direct the management of natural assets (such as urban streams) so that multiple outcomes can be realised for communities (ecology, amenity, bio-diversity, recreation and stormwater conveyance)

·     Retention of capability and tools required to satisfy Council’s regional council responsibilities.

·     Retain control of natural assets such as urban streams where located on public open space.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

150.   The future of water services delivery is a significant issue.  This report however does not commit the council to a decision relating to that reform. The government is expected to outline the next steps in the process following feedback from councils in October 2021.

151.   Once a concrete proposal has been put forward by government and prior to making an opt in / opt out decision, the council will need to consult on that proposal. Cabinet has indicated that bespoke statutory consultation provisions will be included in reform legislation but if they are not, consultation will be required to comply with council’s existing statutory obligations. The costs for consulting are not currently budgeted for and given the significance of the proposal are likely to be in the order of $1 million.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Environment and Community Committee Resolutions

41

b

Table comparing Auckland Council's three water investment with government's modelled investment

45

c

Stormwater advice and case studies

47

d

Consolidated Local Boards feedback on three waters

57

e

Devonport Takapuna Local Board's feedback on government's three water reform proposal

101

f

Upper Harbour Local Board's feedback on government's three water reform proposal

107

g

Kaipatiki Local Board feedback on government's three water reform proposal

109

h

IMSB Memo Three Waters Reform

113

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Gomas - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Significance and Engagement policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation

File No.: CP2021/11673

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the draft Significance and Engagement policy (the draft policy) as the basis for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Significance and Engagement Policy, adopted in 2014, is undergoing a policy refresh to make it more contemporary and user-friendly.

3.       The goal of the policy refresh is to provide for a simplified decision-making process through a high-level guiding document that allows for case-by-case assessments.

4.       Minor updates are needed in both the significance and engagement components of the policy.

5.       Updates around the significance component of the draft policy focus on the assessment of significance, looking at significance in terms of a continuum, from low to high, and taking a cumulative approach to a package of proposals or decisions. Adjustments to the list of strategic assets are proposed to only include assets critical for the delivery of services and to clarify that most strategic assets are identified as groups, or networks of assets to reflect the way in which they deliver services. Some new guidance for assessing the significance of decisions for assets that do not meet the criteria for being strategic is proposed to promote more fit-for-purpose engagement and consultation for these types of decisions.  

6.       Updates around the engagement component of the draft policy include:

·    simplifying existing text to make the policy more user-friendly

·    ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

·    capturing the need to safeguard staff, elected members and the community during consultation and engagement

·    giving more visibility to the connection between the policy and the forthcoming and separate refresh of the Engagement Guidelines, which will support staff to operationalise the policy.

7.       Public consultation is proposed to run from 27 September to 18 October 2021 with adoption of the new policy in February 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

That the Governing Body:

a)      approve the draft Significance and Engagement Policy (Attachment A) for public consultation from 27 September to 18 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

8.       The Significance and Engagement Policy (the 2014 policy) was created and adopted in 2014 to fulfill the legislative requirements outlined in section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

9.       The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key document for decision-making and the consultation process. It is comprised of two interrelated sections on significance and engagement.

10.     The significance section sets out how and when communities can expect the council to engage before making decisions, describes the council’s approach to determining the significance of proposals and decisions, and lists the council’s strategic assets.

11.     The engagement section provides high-level principles on how to engage most effectively and inclusively with the diverse communities of Tāmaki Makaurau. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     Staff have undertaken a policy refresh as the 2014 policy has not undergone changes since its initial adoption.

Assessment of 2014 policy

13.     An internal assessment found that the 2014 policy remained largely fit-for-purpose. This was reinforced by the assessment of significance and the consultation and engagement processes which have been found to have been relatively smooth.

14.     Staff reported that the highly technical and legal content of the 2014 policy could make it difficult to use. A refresh presents an opportunity to simplify.  

15.     Staff reported that the flexibility of having the 2014 policy as a guiding document instead of being prescriptive helped cut down on staff resources required for lengthier decision-making and that this was something to continue in the draft policy.

16.     Staff have identified that the list of strategic assets in the 2014 policy included a number of groups of assets for which ownership or control by the council was not essential to the delivery of services. Additionally, as a consequence of this classification, decision-making around changes to ownership or control of these assets was required to be provided for in a long-term plan and this resulted in specified consultation and engagement processes that were not appropriate or fit-for-purpose.

Proposed policy-wide updates

17.     General changes are being proposed for the draft policy to:

·    respond to changing communities

·    update for more user-friendly language

·    make the policy clearer and more fit-for-purpose for our communities

·    create a more contemporary policy.

18.     These changes are intended to be high-level and are mostly updates or clarifications of the current significance and engagement principles.

19.     The proposed amendments to the significance component of the policy focus on clarifying the council’s approach to determining the significance of proposals and decisions in relation to issues, assets and other matters and how and when we will consult or engage with the public.

20.     Changes are minimal for the engagement component of the policy refresh. Rather, the focus will be on the review of the council’s Engagement Guidelines which will take place in 2022 to align with the policy refresh.

21.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to be a prescriptive policy document, and any accepted changes to the draft policy will not change the purpose for which it is used.


 

 

22.     An overview of the proposed changes is below:

Significance updates

Engagement updates

·    Maintaining that the policy is a high-level document that sets out the general principles with specific decisions being made on a case-by-case basis

·    Refining and simplifying existing text to strengthen the policy and make it user-friendly

·    Clarifying that the policy applies when assessing the significance of an issue, proposal, decision, or other matter

·    Refreshing the current set of engagement principles to reflect a changing and more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

·    Clarifying that council considers the cumulative effect of the proposals as a whole when assessing the significance of a package of proposals or decisions

·    Updating policy content to reference connection to the council’s Engagement Guidelines which is a separate document.

·    Clarifying the high-level relationship between the significance of asset decisions and their subsequent engagement processes

 

·    Clarifying that significance is assessed on a continuum from low to high

 

·    Refining the list of strategic assets

 

 

Proposed significance updates

23.     The two main updates in the significance section of the draft policy are around the assessment of significance and strategic assets.

24.     The assessment of significance under the 2014 policy is described as a binary consideration with proposals deemed significant or not significant. The proposed policy clarifies that significance is better assessed as a continuum, from low to high.

25.     The proposed policy also reconfirms a cumulative approach to a package of proposals or decisions. Where a number of proposals or decisions are to be taken together significance should be assessed on the cumulative impact of the whole package.

26.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is required, under the LGA, to include a list of strategic assets. This list will include both those specified as strategic by the Act[7] and those identified by the council.

27.     Strategic assets as defined under the LGA are assets or groups of assets that the council needs to continue to own in order to achieve outcomes that are important to the current or future well-being of the community.

28.     The council generally considers decisions concerning strategic assets to have a high level of significance and, under the LGA a decision to transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset needs to be provided for in the council’s Long Term Plan. This ensures that these decisions have an appropriate level of public engagement and audit scrutiny.

29.     When adopting or amending its Significance and Engagement Policy, the council is able to use its judgment to decide which assets (or groups of assets) should be on the list in addition to the legislatively required strategic assets.

 

30.     It is recommended that the list of strategic assets is updated in accordance with the following key principles:

·    assets which are not used for the delivery of services are not considered strategic

·    most council strategic assets are identified as groups, or networks of assets to reflect the way in which they deliver services and enable us to respond to changing needs

·    the desired outcome of identifying a strategic asset is to protect its ability to deliver services (this focuses attention on underlying assets rather than shareholdings).

31.     This focus on maintaining service delivery capacity has led to a recommendation to remove some items from the list of strategic assets included in the 2014 policy (including heritage scheduled assets and waterfront properties). While these do not meet the threshold for strategic assets, it is important to acknowledge that any change to the council’s ownership or control of assets in these groups may be of high interest and significance to either the Auckland community as a whole or some part of that community. Given this, an assessment of significance and appropriate consultation and engagement is important, and the council has prepared supporting guidelines (see Attachment B).

32.     By removing these from the list of strategic assets, the council is able to utilise more fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement approaches about decisions relating to these assets. Instead of including proposals within a long-term plan consultation document and following a special consultative process, the council can look to engage more directly with interested and affected parts of the community in more appropriate ways. For example, the recent consultation on heritage properties in Devonport-Takapuna as part of the Recovery Budget consultation received less than 20 pieces of feedback out of almost 20,000 received for the budget as a whole. A more targeted engagement with local and interested stakeholders is likely to have gathered relevant feedback whilst better informing those communities and stakeholders.

33.     Additionally, shareholdings in substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs) are no longer proposed to be classed as strategic assets as the level or structure of shareholding does not necessarily impact the control the council has over the underlying assets that deliver the service. When assessing the significance of a particular proposal regarding a strategic asset held via a CCO, it is generally the control of the underlying strategic asset that is most relevant.

34.     The following table lists out the strategic assets in the 2014 policy and the proposed consolidated list for the draft policy.

 

·   

·   

2014 Policy

Draft 2021 Policy

Reason for proposed change

·    public transport network, including Britomart

 

·    public transport network

Minor editorial change to remove the specific calling out of one component of the network.

A decision related to Britomart, (or any other public transport station) would need to consider the impact on the overall network to assess the significance of the decision.

 

 

 

·    roading network

 

·    roading and footpath assets

 

Category has been broadened to reflect the importance of footpaths to Aucklanders. The draft policy explains that this means the group of roading and footpath assets and how decisions around individual assets within the group should be assessed.

·    stormwater network

 

·    the water supply, wastewater, and stormwater networks

 

Minor editorial change to combine the water networks into one line.

·    water and wastewater network

·    parks network

·    the network of parks and open spaces

Minor editorial change to reflect council terminology and acknowledge the diverse nature of open spaces in the urban environment.

·    network of swimming pools

·    the community facilities network

Minor change to reflect the management of community facilities as one network.

The community facilities network includes arts and culture facilities, community centres, libraries, pools and leisure facilities, and venues for hire (community or rural halls)

·    network of community centres and halls

·    community library network

·    cemeteries, heritage scheduled buildings and structures

·    cemeteries

Removal of heritage scheduled buildings and structures that are not used for the delivery of services. These assets are now proposed to be covered by the guidelines set out in Attachment B.

·    freehold interests in waterfront land held by the Ports of Auckland Limited and the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency

 

Removal of these assets where they are not used for the delivery of council services. These assets are now proposed to be covered by the guidelines set out in Attachment B.

·    shares in substantive CCOs

 

Removed as the focus of significance assessment should be on the control of the underlying assets rather than the specific form of the corporate ownership structure.

·    Auckland Central Library and the historical library collection

·    the heritage and general library collections

Minor editorial change to reflect the inclusion of Auckland Central Library within the community facilities network.

·    Civic Theatre, Aotea Centre, Zoo, Viaduct Events Centre, North Harbour Stadium, Bruce Mason Theatre, Q Theatre, Auckland Art Gallery (including the art collection owned by Regional Facilities Auckland), Mt Smart Stadium and the council's contractual rights and interests in Auckland City Arena (known as Vector Arena)

·    the network of stadiums and venues[8]

 

Minor editorial change to include the entire network of stadiums and venues instead of listing each individual asset out.

·    Auckland Zoo

Minor editorial change to recognise the zoo as a specific strategic asset given the inherent link between this asset and the services provided to the community using this asset.

·    Auckland Art Gallery, including the associated art collection.

Minor editorial change to recognise the art gallery and the gallery’s collection (as a group) as a specific strategic asset.

·    social housing network including housing for the elderly

·    the council’s interest in Housing for Older People managed via Haumaru Housing.

Minor editorial to reflect the arrangements under which the council provides social housing.

·    shares in Auckland International Airport Limited

·    shares in Auckland International Airport Limited.

No change.

·    shares in Ports of Auckland Limited.

·    shares in Ports of Auckland Limited.

No change.

 

35.     Any strategic asset under this policy that is held or managed by a substantive CCO will be identified in the CCO Accountability Policy. CCOs must comply with that policy when making decisions on strategic assets under their control.

36.     None of the proposed changes to the list of strategic assets would change the existing authority for decision-making. Decision-making still needs to be carried out in accordance with delegations and the allocation of decision-making between the Governing Body and local boards.

                               

Proposed engagement updates

37.     There are three proposed changes in the engagement component of the policy that are consistent with a refresh as opposed to a review.

38.     Pre-engagement consultation with community partners, demographic advisory panels, and stakeholders reflects that the existing 2014 policy is still relevant but with refinements of language necessary.

39.     Tāmaki Makaurau has seen a significant increase in its resident population which has resulted in more diverse communities. While the policy provides principles to clarify council’s intention when engaging Aucklanders, council’s Engagement Guidelines offer an opportunity to capture the diversity of the communities that council serves and how they will be engaged.

40.     The Engagement Guidelines are the practical toolkit for council staff and are aligned to engagement principles and practice measures. The guidelines will help council staff prepare for effective community engagement that meets council’s legal obligations, aligns with international practice standards and keeps the organisation relevant, accountable and visible to our partners, stakeholders and communities.

41.     Updating the Significance and Engagement Policy content to reference the Engagement Guidelines reaffirms that while the policy sets the direction, the guidelines help us deliver fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement as a living and relevant document.

Consultation

42.     Staff propose to run consultation with the public on the draft policy from 27 September to 18 October 2021.

43.     The consultation document (Attachment C) sets out the information to be shared with the public to support this consultation. 

44.     The consultation process will adhere to any relevant Ministry of Health guidelines in order to protect public health and safety. It is subject to change and will likely consist of:

·    consultation materials and online feedback forms available on the council engagement website (Have Your Say)

·    online and digital engagement channels

·    working with community partners to reach diverse groups.

45.     Following consultation, local board workshops will take place in November 2021 followed by business meetings in December 2021 to formalise local board views on the draft policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46.     Accepting the proposed changes to the draft policy allows for a fit-for-purpose and contemporary significance and engagement policy that will encourage a richer engagement process during future consultations around climate change issues.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.     Any strategic asset under the draft policy that is held or managed by a substantive CCO will be identified in the CCO Accountability Policy. CCOs must comply with that policy when making decisions on strategic assets under their control.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48.     Local boards play a key role in engaging with their local communities. The change to enable more fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement for some asset-based decisions may provide local boards with greater flexibility to customise some engagement processes to better meet the needs of their community.

 

 

 

49.     Local board chairs were invited to a workshop held on 4 August 2021 that also included the Parks, Arts, Community and Events, and Finance and Performance committees for a high-level overview on proposed amendments to the draft policy.

50.     Formalised local board views will be incorporated into the February 2022 Governing Body report for the policy adoption.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

51.     The refresh of the Significance and Engagement Policy will strengthen the council’s capacity and capability to engage with and meet the needs of the Māori community. This will be achieved through the delivery of bespoke training initiatives and resources which align to best practice engagement that responds to the needs and is supported by Māori. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau provides a foundation to build council’s engagement approach and supports initiatives already underway such as Te Matapuna 2 as a pilot for spatial based engagement. Work on relationship agreements is progressing, and there is good support for capacity contracts. Further work is required to streamline engagement forums to ensure they are fit for purpose and respond to priorities from Māori.

52.     Ongoing collaboration on the development of the Māori engagement practice and approach will inform the Engagement Guidelines, and will ensure council’s size and engagement reach is leveraged effectively. This collaboration will ensure that the operational execution of the Engagement Guidelines is well-informed and aligned with best practice in te ao Māori.

53.     This focus on practice, capacity and capability will guide operational performance so that the aspirations for Maori engagement in Tāmaki Makaurau are progressed, aligned and achievable. Further work on Kia Ora Tamaki Makaurau performance measures will be aligned with the engagement approach as it continues to be developed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54.     The proposed changes to the significance section of the policy will assist in the assessment of significance and may reduce the financial costs of engagement approaches that are not fit-for-purpose.

55.     Reclassifying some assets as non-strategic will also remove the burden of audit costs if the council seeks to make any future decisions around changing ownership or control of those assets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56.     An updated draft policy that clearly references LGA legislation may mitigate any uncertainty around the policy’s application when it comes to decisions around significance and assets, and the engagement process.

57.     As previously referred to in paragraph 33, the draft policy may mitigate extraneous time and cost spent on engagement that is not fit-for-purpose or decision-making processes.


 

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

58.     Following the adoption of the draft policy for consultation:

·    consultation will run from 27 September to 18 October 2021

·    staff will workshop public consultation results and informal local board views in November 2021

·    local board views will be formalised at local board meetings in December 2021.

59.     Staff will present a finalised draft policy for Governing Body approval in February 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft significance and engagement policy 2021

127

b

Non-strategic assets significance guidelines

151

c

Consultation Document

153

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Michael Burns - Manager Financial Strategy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Proposal to make a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/12702

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To adopt a Statement of Proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 for public consultation and to appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In March 2021 the Governing Body gave staff new direction to inform development of a Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for Auckland. This decision followed consideration of possible elements to replace an earlier proposal developed in 2018, which was set aside by the Governing Body in August 2019.

3.       Staff recommend that the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) containing a new bylaw for public consultation.

4.       This proposal would make a new bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011. This bylaw would replace the current legacy bylaw, which expires in 2022 and contains provisions developed before the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was passed.

5.       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping on all public land unless it is already prohibited under another enactment. The Act enables councils to make a bylaw to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in areas that meet statutory criteria for protection.

6.       The key changes compared with the 2018 proposal are that the new proposal:

·     excludes land held under the Reserves Act 1977 from scope (council would maintain the current default prohibition on camping on reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, although local boards can choose to allow camping on some reserves by following processes set out in that Act)

·     manages freedom camping only on land held under the Local Government Act 2002

·     seeks to prevent freedom camping impacts in sensitive areas, and to protect public health and safety and manage access in all areas, by:

scheduling 45 prohibited areas, where no freedom camping is allowed

scheduling 22 restricted areas, where freedom camping is allowed subject to site-specific restrictions

including general rules to manage freedom camping impacts in all other areas (campers must use certified self-contained vehicles, stay a maximum of two nights, depart by 9am and not return to the same area within two weeks).

7.       The proposed prohibited and restricted areas are those areas which the Bylaw Panel recommended should be prohibited and restricted in 2019, and which are held under the Local Government Act 2002. Areas held under the Reserves Act 1977 have been removed.

8.       The Panel’s recommendations drew on previous area assessments and take into account feedback from local board engagement and public consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019.

9.       In August 2021 staff sought local board views on a draft proposal for public consultation. The draft proposal was supported by 12 local boards with 10 noting concerns or requesting changes, partly supported by six local boards noting concerns or requesting changes, and not supported by three local boards.

10.     The key risks of the proposal are that:

·     it creates too few areas where freedom camping is allowed; this is partially mitigated by allowing freedom camping on most roads (subject to general rules), and council could decide to designate more restricted areas following consultation

·     the cumulative impact of all prohibitions under the Bylaw and other enactments is viewed as an effective ban; however staff looked closely at the requirements of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 in developing the proposal and will continue to monitor cumulative impact as bylaw development progresses.

·     it does not reflect the views of the public and that a COVID-19 outbreak prevents in-person public consultation. These risks are partly mitigated by the opportunity for public feedback to be gathered in writing or virtually, and at Bylaw Panel deliberations.

11.     Adoption of the proposal will start the statutory process to make a new bylaw. Public consultation is scheduled to take place during October and November 2021. A Bylaw Panel will consider any public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body in early 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note that the Regulatory Committee completed the review of the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Freedom Camping 2015 in August 2017 and determined that a bylaw is an appropriate way to manage freedom camping in Auckland.

b)      adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022:

i)       is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii)      does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)       forward to local boards this agenda report and attachments for their information.

d)      appoint a chair and two Bylaw Panel members selected from the Governing Body and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report.

e)      delegate authority to His Worship the Mayor to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

f)       delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to:

i)       appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii)       make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

 

Horopaki

Context

Freedom camping can have both positive and negative impacts

12.     For the purposes of this Bylaw, freedom camping is when someone stays overnight on council-managed land, including roadsides, in a vehicle or caravan.

13.     More specifically, freedom camping refers to people staying in vehicles overnight as part of leisure travel, or because they are choosing to live in a vehicle for lifestyle reasons.

14.     Freedom camping provides a flexible and affordable way for Aucklanders and for domestic and international visitors to experience and enjoy the region. Many freedom campers will visit friends and family, attend events, and support local businesses during their stay.

15.     Freedom camping can however have negative impacts on the local environment and host communities if it is not well-managed. These impacts can be caused by:

16.     Freedom camping has become popularly associated with harmful and antisocial behaviours, but our research shows that most freedom campers visiting Auckland do camp responsibly.

17.     However, the presence of large numbers of campers – even responsible campers – is more likely to cause community concern in Auckland due to pressure on limited public space.

18.     Freedom camper numbers have been growing in Auckland and throughout the country over the last two decades. Once the current border restrictions are lifted overseas visitors are likely to return, and domestic freedom camping may continue to increase in the meantime.

19.     Auckland does not currently have enough places for freedom campers to go. This means there is often overcrowding in the places where it is allowed, or illegal camping in unsuitable areas once legal sites are full. Having more areas would reduce these supply-related issues.

20.     The council can regulate freedom camping to help prevent irresponsible camping and manage responsible freedom camping in a way that minimises its negative impacts.

Council must align its freedom camping regulation with the Freedom Camping Act 2011

21.     The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping on all public land unless it is prohibited under a bylaw or another enactment, such as the Reserves Act 1977.

22.     Auckland’s current Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2015 is a consolidation of pre-2010 legacy bylaw provisions developed before the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was passed. A new bylaw must be made that aligns with the national legislation before the current bylaw expires in 2022.

23.     The Freedom Camping Act 2011 is permissive by default but does allow council to make a bylaw to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in areas where certain statutory criteria are met. In particular, council must be satisfied that:

·      each area’s location can be clearly shown on a map and/or described

·      the prohibitions and restrictions in each area are necessary to:

-     protect the area (for example because it is environmentally or culturally sensitive)

-     protect the health and safety of the people who may visit the area

-     protect access to the area (for other users)

·      the prohibitions and restrictions are the most appropriate and proportionate response to freedom camping demand in the area, and the problems it would cause if allowed

·      the cumulative impact of all prohibitions and restrictions (under the bylaw and other enactments) do not constitute an effective ban on freedom camping on council land.

 

A 2018 proposal to regulate freedom camping was set aside in August 2019

24.     Work to develop a freedom camping bylaw began in 2016. Staff assessed more than 1,000 areas for their suitability for freedom camping and need for protection under the Freedom Camping Act 2011. This process included extensive engagement with local boards.

25.     In late 2018 and early 2019 public feedback and formal local board views were sought on a proposal for a draft Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw. A Bylaw Panel deliberated on all feedback and made recommendations to the Governing Body. The Panel recommended scheduling 322 prohibited areas and 103 restricted areas, including a number of reserves.

26.     In August 2019 the Governing Body set aside the recommendations of the Bylaw Panel and instead requested advice on a new direction for bylaw development.

Decisions made to exclude reserves from scope and include general rules

27.     The Governing Body considered staff advice in March 2021[9] and May 2021[10] and directed that a new proposal for a Freedom Camping Act 2011 bylaw be developed that:

·     only manages freedom camping on land held under the Local Government Act 2002, with camping on reserves continuing to be managed by the Reserves Act 1977

·     includes general rules to manage the generalised impacts of freedom camping, and ensure problems are not displaced from regulated to unregulated areas

·     relies on previous assessments (undertaken to develop the 2018 proposal) to identify land held under the Local Government Act 2002 that should be prohibited or further restricted through the bylaw.

28.     Staff have prepared a proposal to implement the Governing Body’s decisions (Attachment A). This proposal outlines the reasons and decisions that have led to the content of the proposed new Bylaw.

Potential changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011 not yet confirmed

29.     In April and May 2021, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) publicly consulted on four proposals for change to the Freedom Camping Act 2011. This included making the use of self-contained vehicles mandatory for all freedom camping.

30.     The Governing Body approved Auckland Council’s submission, which incorporated local board views, in May 2021[11]. In August MBIE invited council to participate in a further targeted consultation but this was then cancelled three days later. MBIE has not yet released any further information, and timeframes for any changes to the Act have not been confirmed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

A new bylaw is proposed to manage freedom camping in vehicles on some council land

31.     The proposal would make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Noho Puni Wātea ā-Waka 2022 / Auckland Council Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 that:

·     aligns with the Freedom Camping Act 2011

·     helps council to prevent freedom camping impacts in sensitive areas, and to protect public health and safety and manage access in all areas of land held under the Local Government Act 2002 (including roads controlled by Auckland Transport)

·     forms part of a wider regulatory framework of Acts, regulations and other bylaws[12].

 

32.     The Bylaw will be enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a risk-based and graduated compliance model (information, education, enforcement).

33.     The table below summarises the main proposals:

Proposals

Reasons for proposal

To schedule 67 specific areas as follows:

Prohibit freedom camping in 45 specific areas in Schedule 1 of the proposed Bylaw (places where freedom camping is not allowed)

To protect areas that have been identified as being environmentally or culturally sensitive, or where freedom camping would impact public health and safety and access in ways that cannot be adequately managed through restrictions.

Forty-four of these are the prohibited areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel in 2019, with all reserves removed. Staff are also recommending one area be changed from a restricted area to a prohibited area, based on new evidence of its unsuitability for freedom camping found while investigating its land classification.

Restrict freedom camping in 22 specific areas in Schedule 2 of the proposed Bylaw (places where freedom camping is allowed subject to site-specific restrictions)

 

To better manage areas that have been identified as needing additional regulation due to factors such as popularity, current use by others, demand for parking and the size of the parking areas.

These are the restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel in 2019, with all reserves removed.

To include general rules for all other areas as follows:

Require freedom campers to use certified self-contained vehicles

To prevent impacts from the depositing of toilet waste and wastewater into the environment, and the use of unsuitable areas for cooking

Allow freedom campers to stay a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area

To prevent impacts from the depositing of toilet waste and wastewater into the environment and protect access to limited shared parking and amenities

Note: on Waiheke Island, we’re proposing that the whole island counts as a single area for the purposes of the maximum stay rule, as it does not have a public dump station. Freedom campers would need to leave the island to dump their waste or find alternative accommodation if they wish to stay longer.

Require freedom campers to vacate their parking space by 9am on the day of departure

To protect access to limited shared parking and amenities for other campers and all users of public space

Require freedom campers not return to stay in the same road or off-road parking area within a two-week period

To protect access to limited shared parking and amenities for other campers and all users of public space

34.     The proposal notes that the council does not intend to use the bylaw to manage issues associated with homelessness (people living in a vehicle involuntarily). However, it may have an impact on people experiencing homelessness and council has committed to a compassionate enforcement approach to protect vulnerable Aucklanders.

 

 

The proposal complies with statutory requirements

35.     The proposal has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements. Staff consider the proposed Bylaw:

·     only prohibits or restricts freedom camping where it is necessary to protect sensitive areas, and/or to manage impacts on public health and safety and access to an area

·     uses a format and wording that are easy to read, understand and comply with

·     is authorised by statute, is not repugnant to other legislation, and is not unreasonable

·     does not give rise to any implications or inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Staff recommend the Governing Body commence the process to amend the Bylaw

36.     Staff recommend the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal containing a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022 for public consultation.

37.     The Governing Body is recommended to appoint a Bylaw Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback and local board views on the proposal.

38.     It is also recommended that staff be delegated authority to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate or in the case of panel member being unable to attend.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39.     Staff note that this is a regulatory process to manage existing activities enabled by central government policy. It is not causing these activities to occur or affecting the likelihood that they will occur. The decision sought in this report therefore has no specific climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40.     The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations, including Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, Parks, Sport and Recreation and Auckland Transport.

41.     The Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their primary role in implementing and managing compliance with the Bylaw.

42.     Council’s 86 park rangers help to manage compliance with council Bylaws, the Reserves Act 1977 and the Litter Act 1974 by carrying out education and monitoring on parks and reserves. However, rangers are not currently being warranted or renewing warrants, and Licensing and Regulatory Compliance will continue to carry out any enforcement required.

Enhanced service levels for Bylaw compliance activities are not currently budgeted

43.     Concern about the council’s ability to effectively implement the Bylaw and manage compliance within existing resources was a key theme of public and local board feedback received in 2019. The majority of local boards (16 out of 21) again raised this as an issue in their August 2021 resolutions on the draft proposal.

44.     In March 2021 the Governing Body requested advice about costed options for increasing the service levels for compliance associated with this Bylaw.

45.     In addition to costs associated with Bylaw implementation, there are options for increasing investment in both proactive and reactive compliance activities. Estimated costings for these elements, which are not mutually exclusive, are shown in the table on the following page.

46.     However, these additional elements are unbudgeted and in the current environment the ability to reprioritise funding is limited. Additional investment can be considered during future Long-term Plan and Annual Plan cycles.

Implementation costs (will be met from existing budgets)

Estimated cost

Signage

New signs and signage installation at areas prohibited and restricted under the Bylaw

c.$10,000-$25,000 depending on site-specific requirements (one-off cost)

Costs range from c. $30-$300 per sign plus installation costs, depending on sign type and ability to use existing infrastructure

Communications

New website content outlining rules that will apply to freedom camping

Identification and mapping of prohibited and restricted areas

Costs to be confirmed

ICT enhancements to support new infringement regime

ICT enhancements and support to enable processing of fines, and integration with Ministry of Justice systems for recording and following up of non-payment

c.$50,000 (one-off cost)

 

Elements in addition to business-as-usual compliance

Estimated cost

(1) Enhanced status quo (unbudgeted)

Mobile ticket printers

To enable instant issuing of infringements to campers/vehicles in breach of the Bylaw

$4,800

Four printers at $1,200 each

Remote surveillance cameras

To enable remote monitoring of known or emerging hotspots, for evidence-gathering purposes and/or to support real-time enforcement

Can be increased over the summer periods in conjunction with proactive patrolling (refer (3) below)

$14,000 (one-off cost, plus ongoing monitoring)

20 at c.$700 each

(2) Addition of contracted security response (unbudgeted)

Contracted security response (call-out basis)

Comparable to how noise contracts operate currently, this option would pay a fixed ‘call-out’ fee for a contracted security firm to attend freedom camping-related complaints received through the council call centre

Would allow for a 24/7, 365-day response, with a contracted officer attending within one hour

c.$24,000 to $32,000 per annum

Estimated 300-400 call-outs per year (based on historic complaints volume) at $60 - $80 per call out (subject to procurement contract)

The overall cost of the service should be partially offset by infringement fine revenue, but this is difficult to estimate in advance

Mobile ticket printers

To enable instant issuing of infringements for Bylaw breaches by contracted security staff

$12,000 (one-off cost)

Ten printers to provide regional coverage at $1,200 each

3. Proactive summer compliance campaign (unbudgeted)

Responsible Camping Ambassadors programme

Seasonal recruitment of ten Responsible Camping Ambassadors to focus on proactive education and monitoring to support compliance staff at hot spot areas

Campaign is 7 days-per-week for three-month peak period

Programme has previously been funded by MBIE, but funding has not been provided for the 2021-22 summer season

Programme could be enhanced by warranting Ambassadors to issue infringements, increasing customer compliance and potentially recovering some costs

c.$150,000 per annum

The overall cost of the programme could be partially offset by infringement fine revenue, but this is difficult to estimate in advance

47.     Local boards were advised in August that they can request further advice from Licensing and Regulatory Compliance if they wish to consider allocating local budget for enhanced local compliance activities.

Ongoing land classification work won’t be completed with bylaw development timeframes

48.     Following the Governing Body’s decision in March 2021 to exclude reserves from scope, land status has become more relevant for identifying areas requiring protection in the bylaw.

49.     The council does not currently hold complete land classification data to establish definitive numbers of reserves. Parks and reserves can comprise multiple land parcels which may be held under different Acts.

50.     Since reporting to the Governing Body in March, staff have completed further investigation of the land status of the prohibited and restricted areas recommended by the Bylaw Panel. This investigation and subsequent engagement with local boards has identified that some areas were wrongly classified in the March report, which has reduced the proposed prohibited areas (from 55 in the March report to 45 in the draft proposal) and increased the number of restricted areas (from 21 to 22).

51.     Classifications are still being confirmed as part of the development of omnibus Local Park Management Plans. Five local board areas have completed this work, and an average of 94 percent of their parks were found to be held under the Reserves Act 1977.

52.     Ongoing land classification work will support bylaw implementation. It will not finish within the timeframe for bylaw development, so the status quo issues will remain.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53.     The proposed Bylaw impacts on local boards’ governance role as it affects decision making over local assets, particularly parks and other council-controlled public places. There is also high community interest in freedom camping regulation in many local board areas.

54.     Local boards provided formal feedback on the 2018 draft proposal to the Bylaw Panel in 2019, following on from their early feedback given during engagement in 2017, and site-specific feedback provided in 2018. This feedback supported the Governing Body decision to set aside the 2018 proposal to which this new proposal responds.

 

 

 

 

55.     Three local board representatives participated in a joint political working group on 21 May 2021 to provide views on options for including general rules in the Bylaw. The working group unanimously supported the inclusion of general rules in the Bylaw, and five out of six members supported the recommended settings included in the proposal. A summary of the working group’s views was reported to the Governing Body on 27 May 2021[13].

56.     In August 2021 staff sought local board views on a draft proposal for public consultation. The draft proposal was supported by 12 local boards with 10 noting concerns or requesting changes, partly supported by six local boards noting concerns or requesting changes, and not supported by three local boards.

57.     Local board resolutions, staff responses and any changes made to the proposal as a result are outlined in Attachment B and C.

58.     Local boards will have further opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in early 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

59.     The Bylaw has relevance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports two key directions in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau:

·     wairuatanga (promoting distinctive identity), in relation to valuing and protecting Māori heritage and Taonga Māori

·     kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

60.     The proposal also supports the Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by ensuring that sites of significance to Māori are identified and protected from freedom camping harms.

61.     Mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to provide feedback during the development of the 2018 proposal via dedicated hui and again through the public consultation process.

62.     Feedback received on specific prohibited and restricted areas identified in the 2018 proposal was incorporated into the deliberations. This included the identification of sites of significance to Māori, such as wahi tapu areas.

63.     General matters raised by Māori during engagement included the need to ensure:

·     the ability to add further sites of significance to the bylaw as these are designated

·     provision for temporary bans on freedom camping, e.g. in areas under a rahui

·     a compassionate approach to people experiencing homelessness

·     provision of sufficient dump stations to avoid environmental pollution

·     clear communication of the rules in the bylaw and at freedom camping sites.

64.     The proposal addresses these matters by proposing to prohibit freedom camping at sites of significance to Māori (such as Maraetai Foreshore and Onetangi Cemetery), provision in the Bylaw for temporary bans, and confirming council’s commitment to a compassionate enforcement approach to people experiencing homelessness.

65.     Mana whenua and mataawaka will have an opportunity to provide further feedback during public consultation on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

66.     Costs associated with the special consultative procedure and Bylaw implementation will be met within existing budgets. These will include:

·     delivery of Have Your Say events

·     website updates and other communication about the new Bylaw, once adopted

·     signage of designated prohibited and restricted areas

·     ICT enhancements to implement the infringement fines regime.

67.     Additional investment for compliance and enforcement service enhancements can be considered during future Long-term Plan and Annual Plan cycles.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

68.     Legal risks were discussed as part of the provision of legally privileged advice to the Governing Body at a confidential workshop held in May 2021.

69.     The other key risks and possible mitigations are summarised in the table below:

If...

Then...

Mitigation (partial)

The Bylaw does not create enough areas where freedom camping is allowed

 

Council may need to manage an increase in overcrowding, non-compliance, and harms over time.

The proposed bylaw would enable freedom campers to stay for up to two nights on most roads, subject to general rules.

Council could consider increasing the number of designated restricted areas following consultation, or if problems arise in future.

 

The cumulative impact of prohibitions and restrictions in the Bylaw and other enactments is viewed as an ‘effective ban’ on freedom camping in Auckland

 

The risk of legal challenge could increase.

Staff looked closely at the requirements of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 in developing the proposal, and cumulative impact will continue to be monitored.

Council can’t meet public expectations of increased enforcement

There may be a loss of social license for freedom camping and reputational risk for council.

Responsible Camping Ambassadors have assisted compliance staff during the last two peak seasons, but MBIE recently advised it has discontinued this funding for the 2021-22 summer period.

The Governing Body or local boards could allocate additional funding to continue the Responsible Camping Ambassadors programme and increase service levels for other compliance activities.

 

 

 

The proposal does not reflect the views of the public, or a COVID-19 outbreak prevents in-person public consultation

There may be negative comments to council about its consultation on the proposed new Bylaw.

The public and stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide feedback, including provision of virtual engagement opportunities if Auckland is in COVID-19 Alert Levels 2, 3 or 4.

The Bylaw Panel will consider all feedback during deliberations, and can recommend changes to the proposal before a final decision is made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70.     If the Governing Body decide to adopt the proposal for public consultation, public feedback will be sought and considered by the Bylaw Panel. A final decision will be made by the Governing Body in early- to mid-2022. The next steps are shown in the diagram below.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Proposal for a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022

171

b

Local Board views on a draft Statement of Proposal for a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw 2022

257

c

Local Board views addendum (resolutions in full from Albert-Eden Local Board, Kaipātiki Local Board and Ōrākei Local Board)

281

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Review findings and options for the Wharves Bylaw

File No.: CP2021/13546

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.          To receive recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on the Review findings and options for the Wharves Bylaw.

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 14 September 2021, the Regulatory Committee considered the item and resolved as follows:

“Resolution number REG/2021/58

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      agree that the Auckland Council Legacy Provisions on Wharves Bylaw 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to address matters related to public safety, nuisance and damage on and around wharves, boat ramps and similar structures in the former Auckland City and Rodney District under the control of Auckland Council.

b)      agree that option one (rely on existing regulations and allow the Bylaw to lapse) as detailed in this agenda report is the preferred option to address the matters in clause a).

c)      recommend the Governing Body:

i)        confirm that the Auckland Council Legacy Provisions on Wharves Bylaw 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to address matters related to public safety, nuisance and damage on and around wharves, boat ramps and similar structures in the former Auckland City and Rodney District under the control of Auckland Council.

ii)       approve continuing to rely on other existing regulations to address matters related to public safety, nuisance and damage on and around wharves, boat ramps and similar structures under the control of Auckland Council.

iii)      approve allowing the Auckland Council Wharves Bylaw 2015 to lapse on 29 October 2022.”

3.       The original report provided to the Regulatory Committee, with attachments, can be accessed at the following link:  http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/09/REG_20210914_AGN_10507_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_84025

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaū / confirm that the Auckland Council Legacy Provisions on Wharves Bylaw 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to address matters related to public safety, nuisance and damage on and around wharves, boat ramps and similar structures in the former Auckland City and Rodney District under the control of Auckland Council.

b)      whakaae / approve continuing to rely on other existing regulations to address matters related to public safety, nuisance and damage on and around wharves, boat ramps and similar structures under the control of Auckland Council.

c)       whakaae / approve allowing the Auckland Council Wharves Bylaw 2015 to lapse on 29 October 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Review findings and options for the Legacy Bylaw Provisions for Construction in Public Places 2015

File No.: CP2021/13553

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.          To receive recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on the Review findings and options for the Legacy Bylaw Provisions for Construction in Public Places 2015.

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 14 September 2021, the Regulatory Committee considered the item and resolved as follows:

“Resolution number REG/2021/59

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      agree that the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to protect public health, safety, property and the environment from construction related activities on public places under the control of Auckland Council.

b)      agree that option one (rely on other existing regulations and allow the Bylaw to lapse) as detailed in this agenda report is the preferred option to address the matters in clause a).

c)      recommend the Governing Body:

i)        confirm that the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to protect public health, safety, property and the environment from construction related activities on public places under the control of Auckland Council.

ii)       approve continuing to rely on other existing regulations to address matters related to public health, safety, property and the environment from construction related activities on public places under the control of Auckland Council.

iii)      approve allowing the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015 to lapse on 29 October 2022.”

3.       The original report provided to the Regulatory Committee, with attachments, can be accessed at the following link:  http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/09/REG_20210914_AGN_10507_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_84054

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      whakaū / confirm that the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015 is no longer the most appropriate way to protect public health, safety, property and the environment from construction related activities on public places under the control of Auckland Council.

b)      whakaae / approve continuing to rely on other existing regulations to address matters related to public health, safety, property and the environment from construction related activities on public places under the control of Auckland Council.

c)       whakaae / approve allowing the Auckland Council Legacy Bylaw Provisions on Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places 2015 to lapse on 29 October 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Recommendation from the Regulatory Committee – Proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/13554

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on the Proposal to amend the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 14 September 2021, the Regulatory Committee considered the item and resolved as follows:

“Resolution number REG/2021/60

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      note that this committee completed the review of the Auckland Council Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 in September 2020 and determined that a bylaw regarding property maintenance is still the most appropriate way to help minimise public health risks and nuisance caused by poorly maintained private property.

b)      recommend the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation and confirm the proposed Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Auckland Council Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015:

i)   is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii)       does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)      recommend the Governing Body forward to local boards this agenda report and attachments for their information.

d)      recommend the Governing Body delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

e)      appoint a chair and two Bylaw Panel members selected from the Governing Body: Cr L Cooper and Cr C Casey, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report.

f)       delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

g)      delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i)   to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii)       to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee.”

3.       The Regulatory Committee requested changes to the Statement of Proposal prior to it being presented to the Governing Body.  Those changes have been made and an amended Statement of Proposal with changes highlighted is appended at Attachment A.

4.       The changes have been made in accordance with the above resolution to:

i)       remove proposal regarding the feeding of wild animals, as this proposal is already being consulted on as part of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015; and

ii)       add related information notes to the draft amended Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw to clarify issues regarding overhanging vegetation.

5.       The original report provided to the Regulatory Committee, with attachments, can be accessed at the following link:  http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/09/REG_20210914_AGN_10507_AT.htm#PDF3_Attachment_83872_1

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      tango / adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for public consultation and confirm the proposed Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Auckland Council Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii)       does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

b)      pukapuka / forward to local boards the original agenda report and attachments for their information.

c)       tuhi / note the delegated authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

d)      tuhi / note the appointment of:

i)       Cr L Cooper (chair)

ii)       Cr C Casey

iii)      an Independent Māori Statutory Board member

to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Amended Statement of Proposal - Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

301

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Autho

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authorisers

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Enterprise Risk Update - September 2021

File No.: CP2021/13378

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.        To receive the Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.        The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 at its meeting on 13 September 2021.

3.        The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/59

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)           note the Auckland Council Top Risk Update

b)      refer the Enterprise Risk Update - September 2021 report to the Governing Body for information. “

4.         Clause b) of the above resolution refers the report to the Governing Body for information.

5.       The original Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 report to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      riro / receive the Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 (Attachment A of the agenda report).

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Enterprise Risk Update – September 2021 report to the Audit and Risk Committee

367

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance

File No.: CP2021/13379

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance at its meeting on 13 September 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/60

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      note the information in this report and associated health, safety and wellbeing indicators

b)      refer this report to the Governing Body and recommend that the Governing Body forward the report to Local Boards for their information.

4.       Clause b) of the resolution refers the report to the Governing Body for noting along with any commentary the Audit and Risk Committee feels is appropriate.

5.       The original Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      tuhipoke / note the Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance report (Attachment A of the agenda report) and any commentary from the Audit and Risk Committee

b)      tuhipoke / note that the report has been provided to all local boards for their information.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Auckland Council's Health, Safety and Wellbeing (HSW) performance

395

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

23 September 2021

 

 

Referred from the Audit and Risk Committee - Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update

File No.: CP2021/13385

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update referred by the Audit and Risk Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Audit and Risk Committee considered the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update at its meeting on 13 September 2021.

3.       The Audit and Risk Committee resolved as follows:

Resolution number AUD/2021/61

That the Audit and Risk Committee:

a)      note the Wellbeing Programme update

b)      refer the Wellbeing Programme update report to the Governing Body for information and recommend that the Governing Body provide it to local boards for their information.”

4.       The report is now being submitted to the Governing Body along with any commentary from the Audit and Risk Committee.

5.       The original Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update report to the Audit and Risk Committee is appended as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      riro / receive the Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update report

b)      tuhipoke / note that the Auckland Council Hauroa (Wellbeing) Programme Update report has been forwarded to all local boards for their information.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Original Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Programme Update

417

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Wiri Prison - Appointments to Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee

File No.: CP2021/09694

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.   To delegate to a joint committee established by local boards, the decision to make two Auckland Council appointments to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee (SIFAC) associated with the Wiri Prison.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.   The Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee was established under conditions set by the Board of Inquiry into the Wiri Men’s Prison.  A summary of this requirement is provided as Attachment A.  The SIFAC and its associated processes are administered by the Department of Corrections. The social impact fund is made available through the Department of Corrections, and the SIFAC is able to allocate $250,000 each year.

3.   Auckland Council must make at least two appointments to the SIFAC.  In the previous term an ad-hoc sub-committee was established of the (then) Environment and Community Committee, which met locally in Manurewa to make the appointments.  This sub-committee then was discharged.

4.   Staff have taken the opportunity to consider whether the appointments to the SIFAC should be made by the Governing Body and have concluded that these appointments are neither a regional matter, nor a matter that sits entirely within one local board area.  To recognise the sub-regional nature of the allocations able to be made by SIFAC, it would be preferable to make the appointments through a joint committee formed by the four local boards in the impacted area.

5.   This report proposes that a joint committee of these local boards is established to make the appointments and that an enduring delegation is given to this joint committee.  This avoids setting up an ad hoc committee of the Governing Body each year to make the appointments.  

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      delegate to a joint committee established by the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards, the power to make two Auckland Council appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee subject to:

i)       southern ward councillors having attendance and speaking rights

ii)       the Independent Māori Statutory Board having the ability to appoint two members.

b)      agree that this delegation continues until it is revoked or changed by the Governing Body.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.   In 2011, a Board of Inquiry reported on its hearings in relation to the men’s prison at Wiri.  An outcome of this process was the establishment of a “Community Impact Forum” and a “Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee”.  The social impact fund is to be at least $250,000 annually. 

7.   The Community Impact Forum has the role of discussing impacts to the community arising from the corrections facilities and makes recommendations to the SIFAC which decides how the fund should be allocated.

8.   The role description of a member of the allocation committee is provided as Attachment A

9.   The SIFAC has up to seven members:

·    the chair is the chair of the Community Impact Forum

·    at least two members appointed by the Minister of Corrections

·    at least two members appointed by Auckland Council

·    up to two members co-opted by the committee itself.

10. The appointment of the Auckland Council members to the SIFAC has not been allocated or delegated to local boards.  In the previous term, the (then) Environment and Community Committee established an ad-hoc sub-committee to make the appointments.  The sub-committee was made up of:

·    one of the ward councillors for Manurewa-Papakura

·    one of the ward councillors for Manukau

·    the chairs (or deputy chairs) of the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards

·    two Independent Māori Statutory Board representatives.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. Council needs to make new appointments to the SIFAC in the first half of 2022.

12. Staff have taken the opportunity to consider whether the appointments to the SIFAC should be made by the Governing Body and have concluded that these appointments are neither a regional matter, nor a matter that sits entirely within one local board area.  To recognise the sub-regional nature of the allocations able to be made by SIFAC, it would be preferable to make the appointments through a joint committee formed by the four local boards.

13. The Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 30, provides for joint committees to be formed and clause 30A requires that each participating body agree on certain terms of the joint committee:

a)   Joint committees

b)          (1)   A local authority may not appoint a joint committee under clause 30(1)(b) unless it has first reached agreement with every other local authority or public body that is to appoint members of the committee.

c)          (2)   An agreement under subclause (1) must specify—

d)          (a)      the number of members each local authority or public body may appoint to the committee; and

e)          (b)      how the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the committee are to be appointed; and

f)           (c)      the terms of reference of the committee; and

g)          (d)      what responsibilities (if any) are to be delegated to the committee by each local authority or public body; and

h)          (e)      how the agreement may be varied.

 

 

 

14. Acknowledging the change of focus of the process to a joint committee of local boards whereby local boards appoint the members, staff propose that Governing Body members are extended speaking rights but not membership (and voting) rights.   It is possible for the joint committee to appoint governing body or local board members.

15. Staff propose that the agreement described under schedule 7, clause 30 sets out:

a)   the participating local boards will be the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards

b)   each local board appoints its chair or deputy chair to the joint committee

c)   the Independent Māori Statutory Board will be invited to appoint two representatives

d)   the joint committee elects its own chair and deputy chair

e)   Governing Body members are not members of the joint committee but have speaking rights

f)    the terms of reference of the joint committee are to appoint the two Auckland Council members of the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee

g)   the power to make these appointments is delegated by the Auckland Council Governing Body

h)   the agreement may be varied by the participating local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

16. This report proposes a change to the process for making two Auckland Council appointments.  The change in the process does not impact climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. Making two Auckland Council appointments to the SIFAC does not impact the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18. The scope of the SIFAC is not regional but is sub-regional, being relevant to the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards.  It is because of this that the report proposes a joint committee of local boards makes the two Auckland Council appointments.

19. The views of the chairpersons of the Manurewa, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards were sought and state support for making these appointments a local board matter.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. Previously when appointments were made by an ad-hoc committee of the Governing Body (or sub-committee of a Governing Body committee), the Independent Māori Statutory Board was invited to make appointments to the ad-hoc committee.  The proposed joint committee is deemed to be a committee of each participating local board and the proposal provides for two Independent Māori Statutory Board members.

 

 

 

21. This report relates to the proper process for appointing two Auckland Council members.  The process itself does not impact on the Māori community however the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee will be considering applications for funding for projects which will have an impact on the Māori community.  Mana whenua take part in the Community Impact Forum.  There is also a Tangata Whenua Committee comprising representatives of affected iwi, which advises impacts on Māori to the Minister and also makes recommendations on projects for funding by the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. There are no financial implications for Auckland Council resulting from this decision.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. There are no significant risks for Auckland Council resulting from this decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Following agreement by the Governing Body, the proposed process for making Auckland Council appointments through establishing a joint committee will be reported to the relevant local boards and implemented in time to make appointments in the first half of 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

SIFAC background and role description of members.

429

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 23 September 2021

File No.: CP2021/11412

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To tuhipoka / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2.       To riro / receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or 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 memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following memoranda/information have been sent:

Date

Memorandum

15/9/21

Eke Panuku – Support for Tenants

17/9/21

Kaipātiki Local Board – Decision relating to Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) Facilities INFORMATION

 

5.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date

Workshop/Briefing

15/9/21

Governance Framework Review CONFIDENTIAL

 

6.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

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

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “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’.

7.       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)      tuhipoka / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      riro / receive the Summary of Governing Body information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 23 September 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

433

b

Memorandum:  Eke Panuku – Support for Tenants (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

INFORMATION:  Kaipātiki Local Board – Decision relating to Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) Facilities (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Jim Stabback - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

 

Tira Kāwana / Governing Body
Forward Work Programme 2021

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 full terms of reference can be found here: Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Chief Executive’s Performance Objectives

The Appointments and Performance Review Committee has the delegation to recommend performance objectives.

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

Decision to approve performance objectives

 

Progress to date:

Setting the Chief Executives 2020/2021 performance objectives – Open Process Report 26 November 2020
Link to decision

Update Report on workforce and full-time equivalents CONFIDENTIAL 25 March 2021

Chief Executives Performance Objectives for FY22-24 CONFIDENTIAL 24 June 2021 released 29 July 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Objectives

 

 

Review FY21/22

 

 

City Rail Link

Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city

Decisions to approve matter associated with City Rail Link

Decisions to note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project

 

Progress to date:

Appointments to board of City Rail Link 25 June 2020
Link to decision open process report
Link to restatement

Report on shareholder approval of major transaction 27 August 2020
Link to decision

Report on Targeted Hardship Fund for C3 Works CONFIDENTIAL 26 August 2021

As and when required

Review of council- controlled organisations

Overview of and decisions relating to any council-controlled organisations review including the implementation of any resulting changes to council-controlled organisations

Decision on appointment of a council-controlled organisations review panel

Consider draft report on the key issues, feedback from the community and stakeholders

Decision on final report and recommendations

 

Progress to date:

11 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop

19 August 2020 – Confidential Workshop

Decision on the CCO Review 27 August 2020
Link to decision

Report and proposal to merge Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) 27 August 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Budget

(Annual Plan)

Statutory requirement

Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation

Decision to adopt Annual Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation Material

Annual Report

Statutory requirement

Decision to adopt the Annual Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption

 

 

Committee Forward Work Programmes

Responsibility for oversight of work programmes of all committee of the Governing Body.

Decision to note that all committee have adopted a forward work programme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Decision to adopt the Terms of Reference

Decision to adopt changes to Terms of Reference

 

Progress to date:

Terms of Reference approved November 2019
Link to decision

Terms of Reference amended to include working parties November 2019
Link to decision

Terms of Reference amended to include the Emergency Committee March 2020
Link to decision

Change to membership of Appointments and Performance Review Committee 24 June 2021
Link to decision

 

As and when required

Standing Orders

Statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 27

Originally adopted 16/12/2010

Decision to amend standing orders

 

Progress to date:

Change in light of COVID-19 March 2020
Link to decision

Change for Attendance by Electronic Link 25 June 2020
Link to decision

As and when required

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

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

Decision to receive quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing report

 

Progress to date:

Report for December 2020 to Audit and Risk Committee 8 December 2020
Link to decision

Report for March 2021 to Audit and Risk Committee 25 March 2021
Link to decision

Report for May 2021 to Audit and Risk Committee 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Council Hauora (Wellbeing) Review

The Auckland Council conducted a Hauora (Wellbeing) review for its staff in early 2021.

Decisions and reporting as and when required.

 

Progress to date:

Initial review report 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Council Top Risk Register

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

Decision to note the top risk register and risk heat map

Decision to receive quarterly reports

 

Progress to Date:

Enterprise Risk Update – February 2021 25 March 2021
Link to decision

Enterprise Risk Update – May 2021 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Decision to approve submissions to the Crown as and when required

Decision to approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements

 

As and when required

Governance Framework Review

The Joint Governance Working Party will make recommendations to the Governing Body on governance matters of mutual interest to the Governing Body and local boards

Decisions on Joint Governance Working Party recommendations

Decisions on Service Levels and Funding

Decisions on Governance Framework Review implementation as required

 

As and when required

National Three Waters Programme

The Minister of Local Government recently established a joint central-local government steering committee to provide oversight and guidance to support the reform, and to assist in engaging with local government, iwi/Māori, and other water sector stakeholders on options and proposals.

Decision to opt in to the first stage of the national three waters reform programmes

 

Progress to Date:

Report and decision on opt in 27 August 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial Stage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Review of Health and Safety at Port of Auckland

On 14 September 2020 the mayor announced that Auckland Council, as Ports of Auckland’s sole shareholder, would initiate an independent review of health and safety at Ports of Auckland

The proposed focus of the council’s independent review is to assess and comment on Ports of Auckland’s management of its critical risks for health and safety (including hazard identification, risk assessment, monitoring controls and resilience) and the health and safety culture at Ports of Auckland.

Decision to agree Terms of Reference.

Consider independent review.

Ports of Auckland Limited will present progress to implement the CHASNZ report recommendations in July and October 2021.

 

Progress to Date:

Report to agree Terms of Reference for the review 24 September 2020
Link to decision

Workshop held 12 April 2021

Final Report 29 April 2021
Link to decision

Progress with implementation 29 July 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report from POAL

 

 

Report from POAL

 

 

Maori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework

 

Decision to agree to finalise the framework.

 

Progress to Date:

This was reported to Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee 8 July 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BYLAWS

Animal Management Bylaw Review

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

Progress to date:

Statement of Proposal 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction Bylaw 2015

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

 

Freedom Camping in Vehicles

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

Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

Progress to Date:

Report on next steps 25 March 2021
Link to decision

Options Report 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

Direction

 

Options

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

Signage Bylaw Review

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to 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 statement of proposal 26 August 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

Stormwater Bylaw

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to 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 statement of proposal 26 August 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw Review

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to 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 statement of proposal 27 May 2021
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Bylaw Review

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

Progress to Date:

No decision required until 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to 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 statement of proposal 25 February 2021
Link to decision

 

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wharves Bylaw 2015

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

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Options

 

 


 

Completed

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

 

Ark in the Park

Decision to appoint GB representatives to Ark in the Park.

Appointment of councillor representatives February 2020 Link to decision

 

Local government elections

Evaluation of 2019 election and preparation for 2022 election

Consider evaluation report of 2019 election

Decision on submission to Justice Select Committee Inquiry into 2019 election

Decision on voting system for the 2022 election and whether to establish Māori wards

Decision on evaluation and Māori wards February 2020 Link to decision

Decision on submission in Inquiry into 2019 election February 2020 Link to decision

 

 

Emergency Budget/ Annual Budget (Annual Plan)

Statutory requirement

Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation

Decision to adopt Emergency Budget

 

Decision on Emergency Budget and consultation given COVID-19 – 16 April 2020 in confidential and released on 7 May 2020 Link to decision

Decisions on Emergency Budget and consultation
14 May 2020 Confidential
Link to decision 21 May 2020 released 25 June 2020
Link to decision 28 May 2020 released 25 June 2020

Decisions on Emergency Budget feedback Link to decision 16 July 2020

Final adoption of Emergency Budget Link to decision 30 July 2020

 

Elected members expense policy

Responsibility to adopt expense policy rules for Remuneration Authority approval

Adoption of policy 30 July 2020 Link to decision

 

Appointment of Chief Executive

Statutory requirement

Decision to appoint a new chief executive June 2020 in confidential

Chief Executive appointed July 2020 Link to announcement

 

Water Strategy

Monitoring drought situation.

 

Update from Watercare 25 June 2020 Link to decision

Update on water matters from Auckland Council 25 June 2020 Link to decision

Drought Restrictions Summer 2020/2021 24 September 2020 Link to decision

Review of Drought Restrictions for the 2020/2021 summer season 26 November 2020 Link to decision

Going forward this subject will be dealt with at the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

 

Review of Code of Conduct

Decision to adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct

Scope of the Review Report 26 November 2020 Link to decision

Final report for adoption 25 May 2021 Link to decision

 

 

Decision-making Responsibilities of the Governing Body and Local Board

Decision to approve the policy and confirm any changes.

Report to approve 24 June 2021 Link to decision

 

Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)

Statutory requirement

Decision to approve consultation documents, supporting information and process prior to consultation

Decision to adopt the 10-year Budget (Long-term Plan)

 

Various workshops being held January 2021 – June 2021

Agree items for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision

Agree other items for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision

Agree changes to urban rating and rating of farm and lifestyle properties for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision

Agree other Rates and Fees Issues for consultation 9 December 2020 Link to decision

Agree to consult on Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate 18 February 2021
Link to decision

Agree to consult on amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy 18 February 2021
Link to decision

Adopt consultation material 18 February 2021 Link to decision

Adopt Communications and Engagement Plan 18 February 2021 Link to decision

Agree Recovery Budget Mayor’s Final Proposal 25 May 2021 Link to decision

Agree Recovery Budget:  Other Proposals 25 May 2021 Link to decision

Agree Changes to the Urban Rating Area and Rating of Farm and Lifestyle Properties within the Urban Rating Area 25 May 2021 Link to decision

Agree Other Rates and Fees Issues for the Recovery Budget 25 May 20217 Link to decision

Independent Maori Statutory Board Funding Agreement 24 June 2021 Link to decision

Adoption of Revenue and Financing Policy 29 June 2021 Link to decision

Adoption of the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) 29 June 2021 Link to decision

Rates Setting 2021-2022 29 June 2021 Link to decision

 

Group Remuneration Policy

Decision to approve the policy.

 

Report to approve policy 24 June 2021 Link to decision

 

Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operations Plan

Decision to adopt Operations Plan and summary

 

Tango (adopt) DRAFT Operational Plan and Summary for consultation 9 December 2020
Link to decision

Report to agree to Operational Plan and include in the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget) 29 Jun 2021 Link to decision

 

BYLAWS

Food Safety Information Bylaw Review

 

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

Legislative requirement

Adoption of Food Safety Information Bylaw Review 30 April 2020 Link to decision

 

Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

Legislative requirement

 

Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision

Approve panel recommendations and adopt amended bylaw 25 February 2021 Link to decision

 

 

Alcohol Control Bylaw Review

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

 

Statement of Proposal 24 September 2020 Link to decision

Final decision report 29 April 2021 Link to decision

 

Navigation Safety Bylaw Review

Decision to approve statement of proposal #

Decision to Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw

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

Approve statement of proposal 29 October 2020 Link to decision

Bylaw Panel Report to adopt bylaw 24 June 2021 Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 


Governing Body

23 September 2021

 

 

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       CONFIDENTIAL:  Appointment of Conduct Commissioners

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)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, the report contains personal information.

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.

 



[1] Transforming the system for delivering three waters services (dia.govt.nz); https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/transforming-the-system-for-delivering-three-waters-services-the-case-for-change-and-summary-of-proposals-30-june-2021.pdf

[2] 2872-DIA-A3-A New Water with-without reform Map 20210526 v2.7

[3] Three-Waters-101-Infographic.pdf (lgnz.co.nz)

[4] 2% efficiencies over ten years would equate to an overall 22% efficiency gain.

[5] Staff have considered the need for two rating agencies and conclude it is necessary for council’s borrowing programme. S&P Global and Moody’s are the benchmark rating agencies.

[6] For e.g., who provides emergency water to non-connected dwellings (i.e. water supplier of last resort) or who assumes responsibility and liability for repairs from historically known flooding areas or unknown or newly created risks areas?

[7] This includes assets owned to provide affordable housing and equity investments in a port or airport.

[8] A network of regionally important facilities providing capacity for activities such as sporting events,

cultural events, or conferences (examples include stadia, theatres, and convention venues)

[9] http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/03/GB_20210325_AGN_10148_AT_WEB.htm (Item 9, GB/2021/19)

[10] http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/05/GB_20210527_AGN_10145_AT_WEB.htm (Item 10, GB/2021/49)

[11] http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/05/GB_20210527_AGN_10145_AT_WEB.htm (Item 9, GB/2021/48)

[12] Freedom Camping Act; Litter Act; Resource Management Act; Fire and Emergency NZ Act; Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw; Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw; Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw; Alcohol Control Bylaw; Dog Management Bylaw

[13] https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/05/GB_20210527_MAT_10145_WEB.htm