Agenda of Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

10.00am

Rooms 1 & 2, Level 26
135 Albert Street, Auckland

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Bill Cashmore
Members	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Member David Taipari
	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Member Karen Wilson
	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum 3 members)

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

8 June 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee will be responsible for:

· Being Auckland’s strategic forum for civil defence and emergency management planning and policy;

· Establishing an emergency management structure for the Auckland region;

· Develop, approve, implement and monitor the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan;

· Performing the statutory functions of a civil defence emergency management group;

· Representing Auckland in the development of national emergency management policy;

· Developing policy for, and monitoring, the Auckland Council’s civil defence, emergency management and natural hazards functions; and

· Engaging with Local Boards on civil defence and emergency management issues.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee will exercise the statutory powers outlined in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee is authorised to approve use of the established emergency funding facility provided for emergency management.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; and
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

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.

Staff

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

· Only 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.

Independt Maori Statutory Board (IMSB)

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs)

Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr JG Walker has been received.

2 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.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 17 March 2015, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 2 April 2015, as true and correct records.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days 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.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 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 two (2) days 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 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

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

7 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.”

8 Notices of Motion

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

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

16 June 2015

Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan Project Update

File No.: CP2015/10836

Purpose

ü Reduction

ü Readiness

ü Response

ü Recovery

1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group committee on the adjusted CDEM Group Plan project governance structure and key milestones and to seek its approval for the refreshed timelines.

Executive Summary

2. The CDEM Group Plan outlines the regional strategy for a comprehensive, inter-agency approach to emergency management.

3. In November 2014, the Auckland CDEM Group instigated the review of the current CDEM Group Plan and the development of the next generation plan.

4. Since the last Group Plan update to the committee, the Auckland Council CDEM department has reviewed the current Project Plan and determined that a refresh is required. The refresh includes a revision of the governance structure to include wider representation on the steering group and adjustments to key milestones.

Recommendation

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the adjusted Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan project approach and refreshed timelines.

Comments

Background

5. The Auckland CDEM Group is working under the current CDEM Group Plan (second generation), which was approved in June 201, and is extant until June 2016 (CDEM Act 2002 section 56 (1)).

6. A CDEM Group Plan must be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure that:

· any new knowledge about hazards and risks are addressed

· the objectives in the current plan and proposed actions for achieving them are still current, revised or superseded

· the content is consistent with all doctrine

· other relevant changes are accurately reflected and provided for.

7. The CDEM Group Plan project started in November 2014 to deliver the third generation CDEM Group Plan, which will come into effect in July 2016, and be operative for five years, until July 2021 (CDEM Act 2002 section 56(1)).

8. The guiding document for the current review is the Directors Guideline for CDEM Group Planning (CDEM Act 2002 section 53 (2)), which the Auckland CDEM Group will use to guide the review of the current CDEM Group Plan and the development of the next CDEM Group Plan.

9. The Auckland Council CDEM department has reviewed the current Project Plan and determined that a refresh is required. This refresh includes a revision of the governance structure to include wider representation on the steering group and a specific community engagement workstream.

10. As part of this revised governance structure approach, the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) members were invited to express their interest in being involved. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) is represented on the Steering Group through John Titmus, Regional Emergency Management Advisor (REMA).

11. This more thorough approach to consultation and engagement has resulted in a revision of the original proposed timeframes, but will also allow for more comprehensive stakeholder and community input into the development of the plan (refer to Table 1: Key Milestones).

12. The project will be implemented in four phases over a period of approximately 18 months.

· Phase 1 preparation and development of the first draft CDEM Group Plan

· Phase 2 first round of sector consultation, development of second draft

CDEM Group Plan, informal review by Minister

· Phase 3 notification of public consultation and public consultation process

complete (including formal hearings process), development of final

(third) draft of CDEM Group Plan

· Phase 4 approval and adoption of final CDEM Group Plan 2016 - 2021.

13. Phase 3 will commence in the third week of January 2016. The decision to begin the public consultation after the Christmas holidays was recommended by Democracy Services. This was due to possible negative public perception of conducting public consultation during the holiday season.

14. To ensure all CDEM Group members aspirations and future priorities are captured, the Programme Manager will conduct one-on-one interviews with respective CEG representatives. These interviews will form part of the informal stakeholder consultation process, with the opportunity to engage further through themed workshops. The project will also include a formal stakeholder and public consultation process (CDEM Act section 56 (4)).

15. To ensure community priorities and aspirations are understood and appropriately considered, CDEM will conduct a comprehensive community engagement and consultation programme. The intention is to begin the informal consultation process early, and by doing so, increase the level of community engagement.

16. This programme will include learnings and best practice from existing council community engagement initiatives and is intended to improve community CDEM awareness and understanding. All community engagement and consultation activities will exceed minimum statutory requirements.

17. By directly engaging with relevant community groups, CDEM will also have an opportunity to assess other areas of long-term work, for example, a review of the Community Response Plan project with a focus on a wider-council approach to support community efforts in building resilience and lifting of CDEM community engagement activities.

18. The heightened effort to ensure the community is motivated to engage in the development of the next Group Plan, above the statutory minimum, has resulted in adjustments to the project plan, which is available to CDEM Group Committee members on request.

Table 1: Auckland CDEM Group Plan Key Milestones

Phases	Milestone	Refreshed Planned Delivery Dates
Phase 1	Project Execution Plan circulated to Project Steering Group for feedback	20 Oct 2014*
Phase 1	Project Execution Plan approved by Project Steering Group	31 Oct 2014*
Phase 1	AKL CDEM Group committee meeting – work programme update	18 Nov 2014*
Phase 1	CEG meeting – work programme update	9 Dec 2014*
Phase 1	CEG meeting – work programme update	11 March 2015*
Phase 1	AKL CDEM Group committee – work programme update	17 March 2015*
Phase 1	CEG meeting – full report	26 May 2015*
Phase 1	Initial communications sent to CDEM stakeholders via Engage	1 June 2015**
Phase 1	Auckland’s Risk Profile complete (all hazards)	13 July 2015
Phase 1	First draft CDEM Group Plan complete (incorporating one-on-one with CEG representatives), informal sector consultation begins (series of themed workshops)	3 August 2015
Phase 2	CEG meeting – full report	11 August 2015
Phase 2	AKL CDEM Group committee meeting – full report	25 August 2015
Phase 2	First round of informal sector consultation complete (workshops)	5 October 2015
Phase 2	CEG meeting – full report	27 Oct 2015
Phase 2	Second draft CDEM Group Plan complete, informal review by MCDEM	2 Nov 2015
Phase 2	AKL CDEM Group committee meeting · Workshop to discuss second draft and approve · Endorse second draft for public consultation release	17 Nov 2015
Phase 3	Notifications of public consultation (including formal submission process by sector)	18 Jan 2016
Phase 3	Public consultation on second draft CDEM Group Plan complete	18 April 2016
Phase 3	AKL CDEM Group committee meeting – full report	End March
Phase 3	Formal Hearing process through AKL CDEM Group committee	16 May – 20 May 2016
Phase 3	Feedback assessed and incorporated into final draft CDEM Group Plan, initial design drafted	23 May 2016
Phase 4	AKL CDEM Group committee meeting – final draft of CDEM Group Plan approved by CDEM Group (formal review)	30 May 2016
Phase 4	Final draft of CDEM Group Plan sent to Minister of Civil Defence for comment	1 June – 28 June 2016
Phase 4	FINAL Auckland CDEM Group Plan 2016 – 2021 approved by CDEM Group	30 June 2016

* milestone met ** milestone not delivered, pending outcome of committee direction

NOTE

· There will be a requirement for the CDEMG committee to meet outside of scheduled committee meetings for the formal hearings process. These will be planned in advance.

· The CDEM Group must allow 20 working days for the Minister to comment.

· CEG meeting dates subject to change.

· Local Government elections set for 8 October 2016.

· Annual Plan consultation dates are Jan – Feb 2016.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

Obligations to the Local Government Act 2002

19. Auckland Council’s new Significance and Engagement (S & E) Policy is effective from 1 December 2014. This policy is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

20. This consultation may present opportunities to many people, who could be directly affected by an emergency and want to know what the council’s Group Plan is about. There is potential for this to generate wide public interest in New Zealand, given events that have happened domestically and internationally. It is therefore determined that this as a significant consultation and engagement activity and the engagement principles of the S & E policy will be applied.

21. Specifically, the council will:

· conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and give effect to its identified priorities and outcomes in an efficient and effective manner

· make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities

· take account of the diversity of the community, and the community's interests; and the interests of future as well as current communities; and the likely impact of any decision on them

· provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes

· ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets.

Local Board views and implications

22. Local Boards have been identified as a key stakeholder during the informal and formal consultation process and as an important link into the community during public consultation.

Māori impact statement

23. Māori (mana whenua and mataawaka) have been identified as a key stakeholder that needs to be aware and engaged in this draft Group Plan consultation. Council staff will seek advice and work closely with Te Waka Angamua and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to ensure Māori views are incorporated into the final CDEM Group plan.

Implementation

Financial and Resourcing Implications

24. The financial and resourcing implications for the Group Plan are to be redefined in the refreshed project plan.

Legal and Legislative Implications

25. This project has been initiated to meet the legislative requirement of section 49 (2) of the CDEM Act 2002. In addition to the relevant sections of the CDEM Act 2002 referenced in this report, before approving a CDEM Group Plan, the CDEM Group must:

· give public notice

· allow a period of time for submissions (no less than one month, and no greater than three months, unless the CDEM Group otherwise directs)

· provide a reasonable opportunity for submissions to be heard

· make written submissions available to the public, and

· adopt the final plan at a meeting of the CDEM Group Committee.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Kiri Maxwell - Senior Advisor Readiness, Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director, Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

16 June 2015

Community Response Planning Review

File No.: CP2015/10837

Purpose

1. To seek endorsement from the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Committee for a review of the Community Response Planning framework and the development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme for this framework.

Executive Summary

2. Since 2011, the Auckland CDEM Group has been working with communities across Auckland to develop Community Response Plans (CRPs), to support Community Response Group volunteers, and to deliver training to Community Response Groups (CRGs).

3. In September 2014, the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM) conducted the monitoring and evaluation assessment for Auckland. One of the areas of improvement in the Capability Assessment Report was Community Response Planning. Specifically this report recommended that ‘resilience for Auckland is likely to be created through a strategic approach that considers a range of activities and partners that could contribute to strengthening resilience in the social, economic, infrastructural, environmental and organisational areas’.

4. This report recommends that the committee endorses a review of the Community Response Planning framework to achieve better social outcomes based on community capacity and capability building, for example, activities to support community-led development in the development of these plans.

5. In addition, this report also recommends that the development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme for this framework is endorsed by the committee.

Recommendations

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) endorse a review of the Community Response Planning framework and recommendations, to be delivered by November 2015.

b) endorse the development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme for the Community Response Planning framework.

Comments

Background

6. Since 2011, the Auckland CDEM Group has been working with communities across Auckland to develop CRPs, to support Community Response Group volunteers, and to deliver training to CRGs.

7. The key performance indicators for the Community Response Planning work programme have been based on the number of CRPs completed and the percentage of population covered by these plans.

8. Currently, Auckland has 57 CRPs covering 50 per cent of the population. A further four CRPs will be finalised by 30 June 2015, and will bring the total population covered to 75 per cent.

9. As well as creating new CRPs, existing plans are reviewed every two years to ensure that they are operational and that the CRGs still function.

10. CRPs are intended to be driven by the community as a truly participatory process for a community to build resilience in order to withstand the impacts of an event with an emphasis on building local preparedness and encouraging resilience.

Opportunity

11. In September 2014, MCDEM conducted the monitoring and evaluation assessment for Auckland. One of the areas of improvement in the Capability Assessment Report was CRP. Specifically this report recommended that ‘resilience for Auckland is likely to be created through a strategic approach that considers a range of activities and partners that could contribute to strengthening resilience in the social, economic, infrastructural, environmental and organisational areas‘

12. This report recommends that the committee endorses a full review of the CRP framework using a community engagement approach to achieve better social outcomes based on community capacity and capability building, for example, activities to support community-led development in the development of these plans.

13. In addition, this report also recommends that the development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme for this framework is endorsed by the committee.

14. Across Auckland Council many departments are engaging with Auckland’s communities to achieve better social outcomes based on community capacity and capability building, for example, activities to support community-led development.

15. With the identification of CRP as an area of improvement in the Capability Assessment Report, and the move to council’s Operations Division, CDEM has an opportunity to be better integrated with these work programmes.

16. The review of the current CDEM Group Plan and the development of the third generation Group Plan also provides an opportunity to assess other areas of long-term work to ensure community priorities and aspirations are understood and appropriately considered.

17. A review of the current CRP framework, including the development of a monitoring and evaluation programme, is the first step to ensuring community response planning is fulfilling the purpose intended.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. Local Boards are regularly engaged with by CDEM staff. They play an important role in connecting communities and local networks to support CRGs in their areas. The way this engagement continues, and could be further developed in the future, will form part of this review.

Māori impact statement

19. Neither mana whenua nor mataawaka have been consulted for the purposes of this procedural report. However, in reviewing the community response planning framework, officers will consult with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and other relevant Māori stakeholders.

20. The development of future community response plans, the use of Te Reo Māori, and the inclusion of matauranga Māori will be part of the design. Any community response plan will need to take into account specific Māori community needs in partnership with Māori.

Implementation

21. There are no significant implementation issues arising from this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Brett England - Manager Community Resilience, Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

16 June 2015

Public Alerting Systems Review

File No.: CP2015/10838

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group (CDEM) Committee to decommission the North Shore Tsunami Warning system, decommission the OPTN text alerting system and review the continued use of fixed sirens.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland CDEM Group currently has a number of legacy council public alerting systems. Advances in technology, new international research and the increased cost of maintaining old systems necessitate a review of our current operational practices.

3. This report recommends that the legacy public alerting systems are progressively decommissioned as new technology has the ability to efficiently and effectively deliver these functions. The following systems are recommended to be progressively decommissioned in favour of using the alternative methods:

· the legacy North Shore fixed telephone tsunami warning system (acknowledging the widespread use of mobile phones and other options for the function, such as fixed helicopter speaker, SMS messaging and mobile apps)

· the legacy Rodney text alerting system (in favour of the existing Auckland Council text service)

· investigation to remove fixed tsunami sirens (in line with current best practice and utilising other available public alerting options).

4. Effective and reliable public alerting systems are essential for the effective management of emergency scenarios. A number of factors were considered in the development of these recommendations including the development of new technology, value for money, long term maintenance, the effectiveness of messaging alerts and appropriate alternatives as detailed, per recommended decommissioning, in the comments section of this report.

Recommendations

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the decommissioning of the legacy North Shore City Council telephone tsunami warning system.

b) approve the decommissioning of the legacy Rodney District Council text messaging system, noting that registered users will be moved onto the existing text messaging service through the public alerting platform.

c) agree to the investigation of decommissioning the fixed tsunami sirens in Waitakere and Rodney.

Comments

5. The Auckland CDEM Group currently has a number of legacy council public alerting systems. These systems include ageing fixed sirens in coastal zones, a text alerting system and a telephone tsunami warning system. Advances in technology, new international research, our recent investment in helicopter siren technologies and the increased cost of maintaining old systems offer the opportunity to review of our current operational public alerting system practices.

North Shore Tsunami Warning system

6. The North Shore Tsunami Warning system is based in the Takapuna call-centre and uses existing fixed phone lines to alert registered users of a tsunami threat. Users register their landline phone number and in the event of a tsunami warning, receive a pre-recorded voice message.

7. Currently the database has 5,000 registered users, however a recent survey of 100 users showed that only about 25 per cent of numbers were still valid. Database management is an ongoing issue, with no cost-effective solution.

8. Due to the transition to the new digital phone system for council, the hardware for the tsunami warning system is no longer supported. Investigations have been conducted to explore updating the tsunami warning system to align with the new digital phone system. The cost of this would be $135,000 capex and an ongoing operational cost of $100,000 per annum.

9. Since this system was installed, the use of mobile phones has become widespread and other options are available. For example, fixed helicopter speakers, SMS messaging and mobile applications (apps).

10. Due to the cost of updating the system, the low number of current users, and the availability of other options, it is recommended that the telephone tsunami warning system is decommissioned.

Rodney OPTN text messaging system

11. OPTN text messaging system was a public warning system used by legacy Rodney District council. Currently there are 7,600 users registered to this system.

12. With the development of the Auckland CDEM Alerting Platform, there is the same capability to send text messages from the Alerting Platform using council’s preferred supplier, Vodafone.

13. In order to simplify systems, and reduce operating costs, it is recommended that the OPTN system is decommissioned and existing users are given the opportunity to transfer to the text message system through the Alerting Platform.

Fixed Sirens

14. Auckland currently has 44 fixed Tsunami Warning sirens across nine sites in Rodney and Waitakere.

15. International research following the 2011 Japanese tsunami questions the effectiveness of fixed sirens. Current best practice is for residents to be aware of natural warnings, such as strong or long earthquakes and to take action without waiting for official warnings.

16. In 2014, MCDEM issued ‘Technical Standard TS03/14 Fixed Tsunami Sirens’ providing a national standard for New Zealand. Improvements to meet this standard should be in place by 2020. This was issued with a caveat that MCDEM does not recommend the use of fixed sirens.

17. The current sirens have three separate tones: 1. Alert, 2. Evacuate, and 3. All Clear. The new tsunami siren standard recommends voice messages to replace these fixed tones. This will require significant investment to retrofit voice capable sound cards to the existing sirens.

18. Currently, the Waitakere sirens are failing due to corrosion and there is a high maintenance cost in keeping them running.

19. It is recommended that work begins to investigate decommissioning fixed tsunami sirens.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. This report is operational and does not require Local Board input

Māori impact statement

21. This report is operational and does not have any particular impact on Māori

Implementation

22. There are no implementation issues of note.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Angus McKay - Head of Emergency Management Operations
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

16 June 2015

Item for Information - Civil Defence and Emergency Management Department Work Programme Update

File No.: CP2015/10839

Purpose

ü Reduction

ü Readiness

ü Response

ü Recovery

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee on the progress of the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) team’s work programme.

Executive Summary

2. This is a regular report to keep the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group up to date on the CDEM team’s work programme.

3. At the time of writing this report, the CDEM work programme for 2014/15 is on track. All service delivery measures are achieving their key performance indicators and key highlights for this quarter are below.

Recommendation

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) receive the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Department work programme update report.

Comments

Queensland Fruit Fly

4. The Auckland Council response to the Queensland Fruit Fly incident in Grey Lynn has been scaled back. We are currently providing one member of staff to act as the Welfare Manager for Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). This role is providing a single point of contact for affected residents and businesses and is looking at compensation and relationship management with the local community.

5. John Gilliland, the MPI controller for this incident included the following comments in a letter to CDEM;

‘We are especially grateful for your willingness to provide staff to support welfare needs related to this response. We commend the efforts of Janice Miller, who has held the role of Welfare Liaison Coordinator during the ongoing Auckland Fruit Fly response. Janice has done an excellent job working with residents of affected properties, businesses impacted by the response, and anyone in the wider community who has needed welfare assistance. Feedback from affected persons to date has been really positive, and her expertise and familiarity with the local community has been invaluable. Janice’s work has also been really important for keeping the community on-board and supporting the response.’

6. This role is likely to continue through to November, allowing MPI to confirm the outbreak has been eradicated as the warmer weather returns.

Auckland Council CDEM 2014/15 Business Plan

Top service delivery performance measures

Measure	Current (10 months)	Target (Per annum)
Number of ECC emergency activations or exercises undertaken per annum	11	9
Overall score using the MCDEM capability assessment tool	75%	67%
Number of local board hazard guides published and distributed	5	7
Percentage of community prepared at home for an emergency	21	24
Percentage of Auckland population covered by community response plans (by geographic area only)	50	75

Green = exceed, Yellow = on track

Top Service Delivery Objectives

2.1 Understand and communicate, and where practical reduce the risks of hazards to Auckland

7. Local Board Hazards Reports: Reports for Ōrākei, Waiheke, Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney and Franklin are complete and have been presented to respective Local Boards. Great Barrier and Kaipatiki reports are currently underway.

8. Tsunami: Work on community specific requirements for tsunami signage and message boards continues through the Community Response Plan programme.

9. Evacuation: A draft Operational Evacuation Plan has been prepared by NZ Police and was considered at a workshop with the Auckland Transport Response Group (ATRG) held on 12 May. Other members of the ATRG are considering this draft and will scenario test the plan in coming months.

10. Social Media: Engagement in the lead up to and during Cyclone Pam in March increased patronage to over 24,000 followers on Auckland CDEM’s Facebook. Whilst this is only 1.6 per cent of Auckland’s population, the actual social media reach over Cyclone Pam was outstanding. The total post reach exceeded 970,700 people during the course of the week.

2.2 Build individual, community and business resilience against the disruption caused by the impact of a hazard

11. Work has continued on producing new Community Response Plans and reviewing older plans. Otara has been completed and Kawau Island and Whangaparoa reviewed.

12. The Central Business District plan has been signed off by the Central Emergency Management Committee, who will own the plan. This will be the template for other urban areas where traditional community engagement is hard to achieve.

13. Liaison with local boards continues with regular CDEM updates provided to local board meetings and implementation of programmes such as Community Response plans and how we can better engage with the community. The production of Local Board Hazard Guides is generating active discussion.

14. As community plans are being created or reviewed, we are looking at tsunami road signage, blue lines and information boards. Kawau island has requested seven tsunami information boards, Whangaparaoa is keen on blue lines and Auckland Regional Parks are keen to implement these measures across the region. A project team is looking at this piece of work.

Community Response Plans and Local Board responsibility:

Staff Member

Community Response Plan

Local Boards

Brett England

Auckland CBD

Devonport-Takapuna

Kaipatiki

Craig Bosson

Otara

Howick Pakuranga

Papatoetoe

Franklin

Papakura

Manurewa

Otara-Papatoetoe

Howick

Donna Murray

Helensville

Tomarata

Wellsford

Rodney

Hibiscus Bays

Chris Wilkins

Puketapapa

Waitemata

Albert Eden

Grey Lynn

Review of Great Barrier

Great Barrier

Waitemata

Albert Eden

Puketapapa

Waiheke

Roslyn Prictor

Massey/Henderson

Birkdale/Beachhaven

Henderson Massey

Waitakere

Whau

Upper Harbour

Keith Suddes

Mangere Bridge

Tamaki-Maungakiekie

Mangere-Otahuhu

Tamaki-Maungakiekie

Orakei

Public Education

15. The new Public Education booklet has been produced and has been distributed widely receiving excellent feedback. Our first print run of 10,000 has been used up in six months.

16. A project on personal preparedness in Auckland high rise buildings has been started with two masters students from Auckland University undertaking the work.

17. Shakeout will be taking place on 15 October 2015. Planning is underway with MCDEM, Auckland Council CDEM and the council’s Communications and Engagement team.

2.3 CDEM Operational Readiness, Response, and Recovery

ECC Work Programme

18. With the successful completion of the Manukau Enlarged Emergency Co-ordinating Centre (ECC), we are looking at retro fitting some of the new technology into the Bledisloe House ECC. There are real advantages in running on a council system with the necessary back-up systems in place rather than a stand-alone system.

19. Lifelines Exercise on 27 May 2015 is in its final stages of preparation. We have good buy-in from stakeholders and the scenario will affect several lifeline ‘hotspots’ (areas where lifelines intersect) during the exercise.

20. A project to review, update and ensure conformity with our ECC desk files is under way. This has come about due to training of Auckland Council Emergency Support staff (ACES) in function specific roles and the need for clear reference material.

Logistics

21. Completion of the water tank for Motairehe Marae on Great Barrier island is complete. This was an outcome of the June storms last year and was funded by a contribution by Te Puni Kokiri to the Mayor’s fund.

22. A new catalogue of suppliers is being created in SAP (Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing) for use in emergencies. This will allow us to easily create purchase orders and also map suppliers to GIS (Geographic Information System).

Training and Development

23. Integrated Training Framework intermediate course is in its final stage of development, with a pilot course to be held in Taranaki during May. We have provided technical expertise and are represented on the Steering Committee.

24. The ongoing team building and staff development programme of work has fed into the new values work for the new Director.

25. A department day to look at our shared vision for CDEM was held on 11 May 2015.

Welfare

26. A welfare practical skills course for staff working in Civil Defence Centres has been developed and delivered in training. This will continue to include all CDEM volunteers.

27. Feedback continues to be given to MCDEM around the new Director’s Guidelines and changes to the National Welfare Plan.

Recovery

28. Current Recovery portfolio update includes establishing chairs for the Built Environment Taskgroup, confirmed Don Lyons, Managing director BECA; Economic Environment, confirmed, Kim Campbell, Chief Executive, Employers Manufacturers Association. Currently in discussions to confirm chair for the Social Environment.

29. Members of the Built Environment and Economic Environment Taskgroups are being finalized, after which the respective Taskgroups will meet. The Terms of Reference will be presented with an outline of the expectations of their roles in the event of a civil defence emergency.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

30. Local Board are being consulted in the community planning area and with the provision of local board hazard guides which are being rolled out. CDEM staff attend Local Board meetings and workshops where we have presented on our work programme.

Māori impact statement

31. The position adopted in this report do not give rise to any issues for Māori

Implementation

32. There are no specific implementation issues arising from this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Angus McKay - Head of Emergency Management Operations
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

16 June 2015

Item for Information - Rural Fire Update

File No.: CP2015/10841

Purpose

ü Reduction

ü Readiness

ü Response

ü Recovery

1. The purpose of this report is to update all members of the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Committee of current Rural Fire activities.

Executive Summary

2. This is a brief report for information on current rural fire activities, which may be of interest to the committee and covers such areas as:

· an update on the legislative review of Fire Service

· the 2014/2015 Fire Season

· the Fire Permit Mobility Application.

Recommendation

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) receive the Rural Fire Update report.

Comments

Legislative review of Fire Services update

3. At a previous meeting of this committee, the Principal Rural Fire Officer provided a report on the review of the two pieces of legislation that support the management of fires in New Zealand, these are the Forest and Rural Fires Act and the Fire Service Act.

4. The review has identified a range of support and accountability options over all 4Rs. This is an opportunity to get the legislation aligned with current practices and also give volunteers, through the fire authority, the mandate and associated protections to attend incidents other than just fire-related incidents.

5. The Principal Rural Fire Officer, through the Enlarged Rural Fire Districts Chairpersons and Executive forum, met with the Minister of the Department of Internal Affairs on 18 May 2015, to discuss the review and associated timeframes. The Minister is intending to release the Discussion Document of the review on 28 May, with a six week consultation period.

6. Once the Discussion Document has been received and analysed, the Rural Fire team will communicate this to the wider sector and draft a submission to the review accordingly.

2014/2015 Fire Season

7. 17 April 2015 saw the end of a successful 2014/2015 fire season, with the declaration of an open fire season for the mainland and a restricted fire season on the habited Islands of the Hauraki Gulf. The fire authority maintains a prohibited fire season on all the conservation islands of the Hauraki Gulf, this fire season status is supported by the Department of Conservation.

8. This fire season saw a reduction in escaped vegetation fires from unpermitted or permitted burns, with an overall reduction in smoke nuisance fires, which suggested that the new fire permit application and the associated fire reduction initiatives were successful. The largest fire of the season was the Cornwallis fire of 9ha, which was a suspected arson.

9. The timing of a fire season declaration is critical and can be measured on the number of escaped burns at the beginning of the open fire season. There were approximately three escaped fires over a month, resulting in minimal damage to vegetation, with no loss to any structures. We can clearly say that the timing this year, was again correctly administered.

10. It also has to be noted that a fire reduction campaign that targeted the Islands of the Hauraki Gulf resulted in no escaped vegetation fires.

Fire Permit Mobility Application:

11. The Auckland Rural Fire Permit Application project was selected as a finalist for the Association of Local Government Information Management (ALGIM) Web & Digital Best Use of Social Media or App awards. The project achieved runner up honours in the category at the presentation in Christchurch on the evening of 18 May 2015.

12. Rural fire permit mobile application is Auckland Council's first in-house solution developed for the Auckland Rural Fire Team. It is a user friendly application that allows officers to issue permits on the go, which increased efficiency and productivity when issuing permits and improved accountability, transparency and flexibility among the team.

13. The previous process saw Rural Fire Officers working in a traditionally manual way by carrying fire permit books. They listed the applicants address, went to the location, filled in the details manually and issued the fire permit copy to applicants and then entered the data into a simple spread sheet. The new application is designed to work in online as well as offline modes, which enables our team to use it in remote locations. Officers can take pictures of locations, issue the fire permit with appropriate conditions and hand over a printed copy of the fire permit to the applicants. In addition a PDF copy of the permit is sent to applicants by email. All permits, either issued or rejected, populate our database.

14. The solution that has been developed has followed the key objectives, which were to improve customer satisfaction and officers’ productivity. Special mention needs to go to Auckland Council’s Web in Mobile team, which completed this project in just over eight weeks, to enable a solution for the 2014/2015 Fire Season. Work is already underway for Phase two to integrate data captured from the NZFS and Auckland Council Outdoor Burning databases and to incorporate a GIS system to provide accurate and up to date data at the fingertips of staff and stakeholders. There has already been talk about challenging for the top prize next year.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. Local board views have not been sought for the purposes of this report.

Māori impact statement

16. Māori views and impact have not been sought nor assessed for the purposes of this report.

Implementation

17. There are no implementation issues arising from this report

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Bryan Cartelle - Principal Rural Fire Officer, Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

No.	Title	Page
a View	MCDEM Update Report	35
b View	MCDEM Rolling Calendar	43

Author	Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management