Agenda of Governing Body - 24 September 2015

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

Apologies from Cr AJ Anae, Cr GS Wood and Cr RI Clow have been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday 27 August, 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

His Worship the Mayor will read the acknowledgements and acheivements.

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy 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.

7.1 Public Input - Councillor Richard Foster (Melbourne City Council): Melbourne's Smokefree Policy

Purpose

1. To provide an opportunity for Councillor Richard Foster, Melbourne City Council, to present to the Governing Body on Melbourne’s Smokefree Policy.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Councillor Richard Foster, Melbourne City Council, for his presentation on Melbourne’s Smokefree Policy.

8 Local Board Input

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

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

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

9 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.”

10 Notices of Motion

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

Governing Body

24 September 2015

Adoption of the 2014/2015 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report for Auckland Council and Group

File No.: CP2015/14212

Purpose

1. To adopt the 2014/2015 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report for Auckland Council and Group.

Executive Summary

2. Preparing and publishing an Annual Report is a legislative requirement. The Annual Report covering the year to 30 June 2015 has been prepared by Council Officers and audited by Audit New Zealand. The report compares and comments on the performance of the Auckland Council Group against the budgets and operating targets set in the annual plan.

3. The Audit and Risk Committee received the report and reviewed the audit with Audit New Zealand on 15 September 2015 (see Attachment A).

4. The Finance and Performance Committee received the report at its meeting on 17 September 2015 (see Attachment A).

5. The Governing Body is required by section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt the Annual Report. To meet the requirements of the Listing Rules of the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) the Annual Report must be adopted and released to the NZX on 25 September 2015.

6. The Local Government Act also requires Council to prepare and make publically available a summary of the Annual Report. The Summary Annual Report is included for adoption.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the 2014/2015 Annual Report for Auckland Council and Group

b) adopt the 2014/2015 Summary Annual Report for Auckland Council and Group.

Comments

7. The Local Government Act requires Auckland Council to prepare and adopt an Annual Report each year. The Annual Report details the activities and performance of the Auckland Council Group. It includes performance results for the Group and Auckland Council parent against planned levels of performance in the Annual Plan 2014/2015. This comprehensive report covers all activities of the Council, CCOs and Local Boards. The 2014/2015 Annual Report will be published on Council’s website and made available at libraries and service centres to promote accountability to the community.

8. The report and financial statements have been audited by Audit New Zealand on behalf of the Auditor-General.

9. The Annual Report (referred to hereafter as the Full Annual Report) consists of three separate books and documents:

· Volume 1 Overview, themes and groups of activities

· Volume 2 Local Boards

· Volume 3 Financial Statements

10. In addition to the Full Annual Report (FAR), councils are required to prepare a Summary Annual Report (SAR) of the major items in the FAR. Preparing and making available a SAR is a legislative requirement. It must be adopted independently of the FAR. The SAR must be audited.

11. The Audit and Risk Committee receives both the FAR and SAR and makes a recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee which recommends to the Governing Body the adoption of the FAR and SAR. The Audit and Risk Committee reviewed the Council’s preparation of the financial statements, the process undertaken to complete the Annual Reports and received feedback on the audit from Audit New Zealand before making the recommendation at its meeting on 15 September 2015.

12. The Finance and Performance Committee received the recommendation from the Audit and Risk Committee relating to the FAR and SAR. The Finance and Performance Committee reviewed the financial and operating performance of the Auckland Council Group at its meeting held on 17 September 2015.

13. The recommendation of the Finance and Performance Committee will be reported at the Governing Body meeting.

14. The FAR includes the detailed financial statements of the Auckland Council Group. The headline Group Financial statements were released via the NZX on 28 August 2015 as required by NZX listing rules. This document was provided to Councillors on that date.

15. The FAR and SAR are currently undergoing final editing and review by Audit New Zealand. Any major changes to the versions you have received will be reported at the meeting of the Governing Body.

16. The Auditor-General, Lyn Provost, will be attending the Governing Body meeting for the adoption of the FAR and SAR. The Auditor General may wish to address the Governing Body on the audit, the FAR, SAR and other matters of interest.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The FAR includes a section featuring the achievements in each local board area. Local boards were engaged to collect and review this information and each Chair has prepared a message from the Chairperson which is included in the annual report.

18. The Local Government Act 2002 provides for each local board to comment on the section of the FAR relating to their local board area.

Māori impact statement

19. The FAR and SAR covers all aspects of Council’s governance and public accountability. The FAR and SAR includes commentary on Council’s contribution to outcomes for Māori, the role of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Council’s Te Waka Angamua – Māori Strategy and Relations Department. Te Waka Angamua has been consulted on the appropriate content of the reports.

Implementation

20. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Resolutions from Audit and Risk, and Finance and Performance Committee Meetings	15

NOTE: The draft copies of the 2014/2015 Full Annual Report and Summary Annual Report are to be circulated separately and are available on the Auckland Council Councillors’ shared drive and on the Auckland Council website.

Signatories

Author

Francis Caetano - Group Financial Controller

Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay - General Manager Finance

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

24 September 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/19525

Purpose

1. This report recommends the adoption for consultation of the amendment to the Local Boards Funding Policy (LBFP) to provide for allocation of discretionary capital expenditure funding.

Executive Summary

1. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. The Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex fund enables local boards to deliver small local asset based projects, either directly, in partnership with the community, or through joint agreements between boards. The LDI Capex fund will be managed over three years. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects.

2. Local boards were presented with five options for allocating the LDI Capex fund.

· 10 boards supported an allocation formula based on 90 per cent population, 5 per cent land area and 5 per cent deprivation. The remaining boards preferred funds to be allocated based on population and deprivation, or just population.

· 16 local boards supported allocating a fixed proportion of funding to Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards. 12 boards supported funding proportion set at one per cent for Great Barrier Island local board and two per cent for Waiheke Island local board..

3. Staff recommend that the LDI Capex fund be allocated on the following basis:

· one per cent of the fund allocated to the Great Barrier Island local board

· two per cent of the fund allocated to Waiheke Island local board

· remainder of the fund allocated between the remaining local boards based on 90 per cent population, 5 per cent land area and 5 per cent deprivation.

4. Staff consider that the recommended allocation formula is:

· consistent with the formula for allocating funding for locally driven initiatives

· provides sufficient funding for the Gulf Islands.

However, staff note that an allocation based on land area doesn’t have a strong connection to demand for services and shifts significant funding to rural areas. The formula for the allocation of the discretionary LDI Capex fund must be included in the LBFP. The council is required to undertake consultation on this proposal. This report recommends the Proposal to amend the LBFP document, and the consultation strategy.

5. Staff propose to amend the LBFP to provide a general formula for allocating any non LDI funding. This will avoid the need to amend the LBFP every time a new funding source is established.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) agree to consult on a model for the allocation of the discretionary Locally Driven Initiatives Capex fund as follows:

i) one per cent of the fund allocated to the Great Barrier Island local board

ii) two per cent of the fund allocated to Waiheke Island local board

iii) remainder of the fund allocated between the remaining local boards based on 90 per cent population, 5 per cent land area and 5 per cent deprivation.

b) adopt for consultation the Proposal to amend the Local boards funding policy in Attachment One of this report.

c) agree the process for consultation as set out in the report.

d) delegate authority for updating the Proposal to amend the Local Boards Funding Policy to reflect the decisions made at this meeting and to make minor editorial changes or correction of minor errors to the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee, and the Chief Finance Officer.

Comments

Background

Local discretionary LDI Capex fund

6. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. On May 7 the Budget Committee passed the following resolution:

a) Provide a new Local Board discretionary capex fund of $10 million per annum noting that this will incorporate the existing Facilities Partnership Fund.

b) Approve the following parameters for this fund:

i. The fund may be managed as a three year amount

ii. Local Boards may use the fund to build council owned assets, add to an existing council funded renewal or new capital project, work in partnership with an external provider or seed fund a community project.

7. The Budget Committee requested that staff and local boards develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects to report to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Purpose of the LDI Capex fund

8. The purpose of the fund is to ensure locally important projects are given appropriate priority. It is envisaged that the fund will be used for projects similar to those historically funded by the local improvement projects (LIP’s) or small local improvement projects (SLIP’s).

Local boards funding policy formula for allocation of funding for locally driven initiatives operating expenditure (LDI opex)

9. The Local boards funding policy (LBFP) makes allocations on the following basis:

· 90 per cent based on local board population size

· 5 per cent based on the relative level of deprivation of the board

· 5 per cent based on the land area of the board

· Waiheke and Great Barrier Island are funded for a fixed amount set by the Governing Body.

10. The following table shows the level of local board support for the use of the above factors for allocating LDI opex recorded during the review of the LBFP.

Local Board Attribute	Local Boards support and comments from last review of LBFP		Relationship to need for funding	Staff Comments
Population	21	“population tends to be a key driver of the demand for services”	Strong	Strongly relates to demand for services
Deprivation	17	“areas of deprivation have characteristics that may indicate a greater dependency on local services”	Weak	Little objective evidence for relationship to demand for services
Geography	16	[Rural areas have less access to regionally funded services, so are more dependent on local services]	Weak	Distortionary effect on allocation that does not relate to need for services

Principles for funding allocations

11. In developing a formula to allocation funding for local activities to local boards the council must consider the matters set out in s19(4) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The key factors are the demographic characteristics. The matters in the Act were considered in developing this advice. The core principles for allocating funding to local boards are an:

· equitable capacity for each local board to enhance well-being

· administrative effectiveness

· transparency.

Funding Allocation Options

12. Five models were presented for the allocation of the LDI Capex fund between all boards based on the population, deprivation and land area attributes of the boards:

· Model A: All boards funded based on 100% population

· Model B: All boards funded based on 95% population and 5% deprivation

· Model C: All boards funded based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model D: Great Barriers receives 2.3% and Waiheke receives 2.7% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model E: Great Barriers receives 1% and Waiheke receives 2% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area.

13. A key decision for the allocation of the LDI Capex fund is to determine the appropriate level of capital funding for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke. Two options were presented for the allocation of funding to these boards:

· LDI allocation: Great Barrier Island and Waiheke receive the same proportion of the LDI Capex fund as they currently receive of the total funding pool for Locally Driven Initiatives. (This is 2.3% of the total pool for Great Barrier Island and 2.7% for Waiheke)

· Transport model: Great Barrier Island receives 1 per cent and Waiheke 2 per cent of the total funding pool.

14. The following page present these five models in table form.

15. Other potential funding attributes that have not been included in the modelling are:

· rates paid: there is no relationship with need for services, and support was low for this attribute during the last review, with six boards in favour.

· current levels of capital expenditure: data on regional activities is unavailable at local level. Levels of expenditure on local assets are not relevant to the purpose of the LDI Capex fund. Gaps in the provision of assets will be met through the relevant network facilities plan.

· population growth: growth will be addressed every three years through the proposed allocation formula

16. The costs of providing small local capital projects doesn’t vary widely across local boards.

17. The following table shows the impact of the five models on each local board. This shows that:

· using land area as an allocation factor significantly increases funding to Rodney and Franklin local boards

· Great Barrier Island receives less than $7,000 under a population based allocation. This rises to $77,000 under the allocation formula that includes deprivation and land area

· providing Great Barrier Island and Waiheke with fixed allocations under the LDI allocation and Transport models only has a small impact on the other 19 boards.

Model	A: 100% Population	B: 95% Population 5% Deprivation	C: 90% Population 5% Deprivation 5% Land Area	D: GBI: 2.3%, Waiheke: 2.7% of fund Other boards: 90% Population 5% Deprivation 5% Land Area	E: GBI: 1%, Waiheke: 2% of fund Other boards: 90% Population 5% Deprivation 5% Land Area
Albert-Eden	668,963	657,222	626,669	602,363	615,305
Devonport-Takapuna	391,862	386,741	369,200	355,152	362,782
Franklin	461,460	454,987	554,035	543,637	555,317
Great Barrier	6,633	44,609	77,015	229,088	100,000
Henderson-Massey	760,729	751,296	718,691	691,544	706,402
Hibiscus and Bays	634,608	617,350	596,626	573,397	585,717
Howick	898,061	868,651	830,867	797,072	814,197
Kaipatiki	582,770	573,722	548,057	527,047	538,371
Mangere-Otahuhu	501,282	513,972	493,923	477,953	488,222
Manurewa	580,990	583,821	558,564	538,791	550,368
Maungakiekie-Tamaki	494,522	500,654	479,650	463,210	473,162
Orakei	561,873	545,485	520,709	499,702	510,438
Otara-Papatoetoe	534,513	544,180	521,245	503,760	514,583
Papakura	322,369	335,109	323,104	313,327	320,059
Puketapapa	373,975	380,219	363,431	351,108	358,652
Rodney	387,687	385,200	595,331	593,444	606,195
Upper Harbour	379,146	373,043	361,197	347,758	355,230
Waiheke	58,896	85,065	97,922	274,940	200,000
Waitakere Ranges	341,910	343,031	356,306	346,071	353,507
Waitemata	544,919	540,615	515,339	496,033	506,690
Whau	512,832	515,028	492,119	474,605	484,802
Total	10,000,000	10,000,000	10,000,000	10,000,000	10,000,000

18. In determining the appropriate funding levels for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke consideration should be given both to the total value of the funding over three years, and the typical costs of activities likely to undertaken by these boards. The following table shows the level of funding these boards would receive over three years in comparison to the next smallest board, Papakura:

Allocation formula model	Three year LDI Capex funding allocation for
Allocation formula model	Great Barrier	Waiheke	Papakura
Board Population size	900	8,400	45,000
A: 100% population	$20,000	$180,000	$970,000
B: 95% population + 5% deprivation	$130,000	$260,000	$1,000,000
C: 90% population + 5% deprivation + 5% land area	$230,000	$290,000	$970,000
D: GBI: 2.3% Waiheke 2.7% (Current LDI allocation)	$690,000	$820,000	$940,000
E: GBI: 1% Waiheke 2% of total fund	$300,000	$600,000	$960,000

Local board views of capex allocation formula

19. Local boards considered the options for the discretionary capital allocation formula at their August meetings. The following table shows the level of support for each funding allocation formula.

Allocation formula	Local board support	Key local board comments
100% Population	5	“population strongly relates to the demand for services”
95% Population 5% Deprivation	4	“deprivation is a significant factor for the population of Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area and is also a major concern for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke.”
90% Population 10% Deprivation	2	“Deprivation needs to be given greater weighting. The land area component is unrealistic, bearing in mind that the LDI Capex fund does not cover roading.”
90% Population 5% Deprivation 5% Land Area	10	“maintains consistency with current policy”

20. The same funding formula as used for Locally Driven Initiatives opex was the most popular option with the boards.

21. The following table shows the local board support for different funding options for Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards:

Option	Local board support	Key local board comments
GBI: 2.3%, Waiheke: 2.7% of fund	3	“[Island boards] have a higher funding role […]than other boards […that ]are more strongly supported by regional funds”
GBI: 1%, Waiheke: 2% of fund	12	“The Local Boards Funding Policy should also include a percentage allocation for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Local Boards.”
Funded through allocation formula	6	“Supports the same allocation formula [as for other boards.] applied for Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards”

22. Most boards agreed that the Island boards should be funded through a fixed allocation, with most preferring the option of one per cent of the fund for Great Barrier and two per cent for Waiheke.

23. The full local board resolutions are included in Attachment two: Local board resolutions.

Staff views of capex allocation formula

24. Staff consider there is a strong case for using the same formula for LDI Opex and the LDI Capex fund to maintain consistency in the allocation. However, staff note there is also a case for excluding land area given it doesn’t have a strong connection to demand for services and shifts significant funding to rural areas.

25. Staff consider that allocating Great Barrier and Waiheke the same proportion of funding as they receive from the LDI opex fund would over fund these boards compared to other board areas. Staff recommend an allocation of one per cent of the total fund to Great Barrier, and two per cent to Waiheke would be appropriate.

Guidelines for discretionary LDI Capex fund

26. Staff have discussed with local boards a set of guidelines for the discretionary LDI capex fund. These will be reported to the October Finance and Performance Committee meeting alongside the results of the consultation.

Local Boards Funding Policy Amendment

27. The current LBFP must be amended to provide for the allocation of LDI Capex funding ($10 million p.a.). The proposed amendment is primarily an internal allocation process between the governing body and local boards. Consultation on the last amendment to the LBFP which provided for allocation of annual funding of $330 million for local activities attracted 14 submissions from the public.

28. Staff propose the following process for public consultation on the amendment:

a) the consultation period will be from Friday 25 September to Friday 9 October.

b) a Proposal to amend the LBFP document will be published on the Shape Auckland website and available from local libraries, council service centres and local board offices

c) a public notice will be published

d) the public will be able to give feedback in writing, by email, or through the Shape Auckland website.

29. Local board representatives will be provided with a structured opportunity to provide feedback to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting in October on this issue.

30. Staff propose to amend the LBFP to provide a general formula for allocating any non LDI funding. This will avoid the need to amend the LBFP every time a new local board funding source is established.

Consideration

Local board views

31. Local board views are set out in the report. Full local board resolutions are attached as Attachment two: Local board resolutions.

Allocation of decision making

32. The proposal does not impact the allocation of decision making.

Significance and Engagement

33. The proposed LDI Capex fund is a minor change in the scale of the Council’s budget and funding for Local Activities. As such it is not a significant change. Creating a new funding allocation for local boards requires an amendment to the Local Boards Funding Policy and will be consulted on.

Māori impact statement

34. Māori may benefit from a funding formula that has greater emphasis on deprivation, based on 2013 census data, as this will provide more funding to local boards with higher Māori populations. How Māori are impacted would depend on how the local boards choose to use their budget.

Implementation

35. The proposed amendment to the Local Boards Funding Policy is not significant. As such, the amendment to the Long-term Plan will not need to be audited.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposal to amend the Local Board Funding Policy	27
b View	Local Board resolutions	37

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budget

Matthew Walker - Acting Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

24 September 2015

Report of the Hearing Panel on the proposed Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2015/17473

Purpose

1. To adopt the Auckland Council Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

Executive Summary

2. This report presents the proposed Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 (the bylaw) to the Governing Body for adoption.

3. The bylaw is proposed by the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw hearing panel (the panel), which was appointed by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (resolution number RBC/2015/18) to consider public submissions on the draft bylaw and to make recommendations to the Governing Body, including any proposals for the final bylaw.

4. The panel members were Councillors Penrose (Chairperson) and Cooper. No Independent Māori Statutory Board member was available to sit on the panel. Written comments from the Independent Māori Statutory Board were received, and considered, by the panel as part of its deliberation of the bylaw.

5. The bylaw was publicly notified for consultation from 3 June to 1 July 2015. The council received 36 written submissions. A public hearing was held on 31 July 2015, during which the panel heard from public submitters as well as from the Orākei Local Board. Public deliberation was also held on 31 July 2015.

6. During deliberation the panel agreed to changes to the draft bylaw as publicly notified. These changes are incorporated into the proposed bylaw, contained in Attachment A. The panel recommend that the Governing Body adopt the proposed bylaw as the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

7. If adopted, the new bylaw would come into effect from 1 November 2015, from which date three related legacy council bylaws will be revoked.

8. Once in effect the new bylaw would require private property to be maintained so that it does not cause nuisance to any other person. The bylaw would also require industrial cooling tower water systems in Auckland to be registered with the council and maintained to reduce the risk of an outbreak of Legionnaires Disease occurring.

9. A full comparison of the publicly notified draft bylaw and the proposed bylaw, with the panel’s recommended amendments is provided as Attachment B.

10. The panel would like to thank the submitters and staff whose contribution to the consultation process has been greatly appreciated.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) make the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, contained in Attachment A of the agenda report, pursuant to sections 145,146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002, with effect from 1 November 2015

b) revoke, from 1 November 2015, the following legacy council bylaws relating to environmental protection (as identified in Section One of “Additional Information to the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015” in Attachment A) to the extent that they are deemed to have been made by Auckland Council under section 63 or section 61 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, whichever is applicable:

(i) Clauses 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.6 of the Auckland City Council Bylaw No. 13 – Environmental Protection

(ii) North Shore City - Part 7 Environmental Protection – Nuisance Arising on Private Land Bylaw 2000

(iii) Waitakere City Council Control of Intruder Alarm Systems Bylaw 2010

c) authorise the Manager: Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with Councillor Penrose as chair of the Hearing Panel, to make any minor edits or amendments to the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

Background

11. The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw Hearing Panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body of Auckland Council on the proposed Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw (resolution no. RBC/2015/12).

12. On 28 May 2015 the Governing Body approved the draft bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2015/37).

13. The draft bylaw was publicly notified for public consultation with a submission period of 3 June 2015 to 1 July 2015. A total of 36 submissions were received (including one late submission).

14. On 31 July 2015, the panel held a public hearing and received verbal submissions from seven submitters as well as feedback from the Orākei Local Board. After considering the submissions and feedback, the panel also publicly deliberated on 31 July 2015.

Overview of written and verbal submissions

15. At the close of the submission period the council received 35 written submissions, with a total of 54 submission points being made.

16. A late submission was received after the close of the submission period and was accepted by the chair of the panel.

17. The highest number of written submissions points was on clause 5 - Interpretations, in particular the definitions of “nuisance”, “pests or vermin”, and “material or thing”.

18. The panel heard from submitters on a range of issues including:

· industrial cooling tower water systems

· pest plants and invasive species

· overgrown sections

· properties that create a nuisance

· enforcement

Deliberations

19. The matters deliberated on by the panel have been categorised into five topic areas and are presented in the order that they were discussed. Proposed insertions of text are in italics and underlined while proposed deletions of the notified draft clauses are ~~struck through~~.

Table one: Deliberation topics and relevant bylaw clause

Topic number	Deliberation topic	Bylaw clause
A	Purpose	4
B	Interpretation	5
C	Property maintenance	6
D	Industrial cooling tower water systems	7
E	Enforcement	8

Topic A– Purpose

20. Three submitters commented on subclause 4(b). One submitter suggested it be amended to read:

prevent the feeding of any birds or animals on private property in a manner that may cause a nuisance.

21. Two submitters suggested it be amended to read:

prevent the feeding of wild birds, fowl or feral animals in such a manner that it creates a nuisance.

22. The panel:

· deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions

· recommend that in order to provide clarity and certainty, and ensure that any nuisance caused is as the direct result of the actions of another person, subclause 4(b) be amended to read:

prevent the active feeding of any bird or animal on private property in a manner that causes, or may cause, a nuisance.

Topic B - Interpretation

23. One submitter requested the definition of, and reference throughout the proposed new bylaw of industrial water cooing tower systems be changed to:

industrial cooling tower water systems

24. One submitter requested that asbestos be added to the definition of material or thing and one that noxious and invasive weeds be added.

25. Two submitters requested pest plants be included in the definition of nuisance. One submitter suggested this include moth plant, gingers, wooly nightshade, climbing/bushy asparagus, jasmine, rhamnus, and madeira vine.

26. Two submitters requested noise be added to the definition of nuisance, and one submitter asked that intruder alarms, vehicles, and sound systems be included.

27. One submitter requested privet trees be added to the definition of nuisance, and one submitter requested privacy intrusion as a result of trampoline use is added.

28. One submitter requested that under the interpretation of nuisance (a) be amended to read offensive and injurious to health, and that a definition of offensive be included.

29. One submitter requested the definition of nuisance be left open and broad and the definition in the draft for consultation be added to clause 4 – Purpose

30. Two submitters commented that bees should not be listed as pests or vermin.

31. One submitter requested the interpretation of pests and vermin be amended to include all animals, wild, feral, farm, or domestic, and any species of caged or feral bird.

32. The bylaw has taken part of its definition of nuisance directly from the Health Act 1956. It is for this reason that the panel did not accept the submitter’s suggestion to change (a) to read offensive and injurious to health.

33. The panel:

· acknowledged both written and verbal submissions, and recommend including asbestos in the interpretation of material or thing

· did not accept submitters’ proposal that noxious and invasive weeds be added to the definition of material or thing as these are listed in the Regional Pest Management Strategy and this is implemented by the Biodiversity Group

· did not accept submitters’ arguments that pest plants be added to the interpretation of nuisance. Pest plants and noxious weeds are listed in the Regional Pest Management Strategy and this is implemented by the Biodiversity Group

· felt including a list of pest plants and noxious weeds in the bylaw would be a duplication of effort and could create confusion regarding enforcement

· did not accept submitters’ arguments that privet trees or trampolines be added to the interpretation of nuisance as both examples were localised and situation specific and not considered appropriate for a region wide rule

· noted that noise, including noise from intruder alarms, is covered by existing district plan rules and will be covered by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· agreed with submitters that bees should not be listed as pests or vermin

· recommend reference throughout the proposed new bylaw to industrial water cooling tower systems be changed to:

industrial cooling tower water systems

· recommend amending the interpretation of industrial water cooling tower systems from

industrial cooling water system means cooling towers associated with industrial processes (including scrubbing towers) that are not part of a building as defined in the Building Act 2004 which are therefore not required to be inspected, maintained or recorded in accordance with a compliance schedule made under the Building Act 2004.

~~industrial cooling water system~~ industrial cooling tower water system means cooling towers associated with industrial processes (including scrubbing towers and mobile cooling systems) that are not part of a building as defined in the Building Act 2004 which are therefore not required to be inspected, maintained or recorded in accordance with a compliance schedule made under the Building Act 2004.

· support the submitters’ request that the interpretation of pests and vermin be amended from:

pests or vermin means animals that may attack or infest or are parasitic on living beings and plants, and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) ants

(b) cockroaches

(d) flies

(e) mice

(f) mosquitoes

(g) mites

(h) pigeons

(i) possums

(j) rats

(k) stoats

(l) ticks

(m) wasps

to:

pests or vermin means all animals, wild, feral, farm, or domestic, and any species of caged or feral bird that may attack or infest or are parasitic on living beings and plants, and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) ants

(b) cockroaches

(d) flies

(e) mice

(f) mosquitoes

(g) mites

(h) pigeons

(i) possums

(j) rats

(k) stoats

(l) ticks

(m) wasps

Topic C – Property maintenance

34. Five submitters noted issues with overhanging trees creating a nuisance.

35. Three submitters asked that property owners be required to cut back and correct issues with overhanging trees, overgrown vegetation, and pest plants.

36. Four submitters supported the provision of not allowing pest plants and/ or vegetation to become a nuisance on private property.

37. Two submitters expressed concern over the ability of Biosecurity staff, using the Regional Pest Management Strategy, to adequately deal with the issue of pest plants and invasive species and requested a list of pest plants be added to the proposed new bylaw.

38. One submitter requested prohibiting bamboo from residential areas.

39. The panel

· deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions

· did not accept submitters’ arguments that pest plants be added to the interpretation of nuisance. It was noted that the Regional Pest Management Strategy is set for revision later this year / early 2016

· noted that the revision process of the Regional Pest Management Strategy will provide an appropriate opportunity for the public to submit concerns regarding the species and sites that should be prioritised for pest plant management, and the appropriate rules which should be used to implement this

· felt including pest plants and noxious weeds in the bylaw would be a duplication of effort and could create confusion regarding enforcement.

40. One submitter commented that a property owner should be permitted to accumulate any material or thing on their property, and one submitter suggested the council’s biodiversity officers be consulted on a list of pest plants and invasive species to be included in the bylaw.

41. One submitter commented that regular feeding of grains and food scraps encourages rats

42. One submitter suggested subclause (c) be amended to:

allow the active feeding of any bird or animal on any private property under their control in a manner that causes or may cause a nuisance.

43. The panel:

· deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions

· recommend amending subclause 6(1)(c) as follows in order to bring certainty and clarity to the intent of this subclause:

allow the active feeding of any wild or feral animal ~~to be fed~~ on any private property under their control in a manner that causes or may cause a nuisance.

Topic D – Industrial water cooling tower systems

44. Four submitters expressed support the industrial water cooling tower system registration and maintenance requirements.

45. Two submitters requested the requirements be retained, as publicly notified.

46. One submitter requested the recommendations of the 2007 Christchurch Coroner’s Report into the legionella outbreak in Christchurch in 2005 be included in bylaw.

47. One submitter commented that any future fee for the registration of industrial water cooling tower systems may be excessive, expensive, and a burden on industry. The same submitter also believes that the bylaw overlaps with the Building Warrant of Fitness regime.

48. One submitter suggested amending subclauses 3, 4 and 5 as follows:

(3) The owner of any building with an ~~industrial~~ cooling tower water system with auto chemical dosing must carry out:

(a) testing as per ~~weekly dip-slide tests~~ Table1, Schedule 1 of this bylaw; and

(b) the control strategies in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 of Schedule 1 of this bylaw.

(4) The owner of any building with an ~~industrial~~ cooling tower water system without automatic chemical dosing must carry out:

(a) testing as per Table1, Schedule 1 of this bylaw; and

(b) the tests specified in Table 2, Schedule 1 of this bylaw; and

(c) the control strategies in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Schedule 1 of this bylaw.

49. One submitter commented that weekly dip slide testing is excessive, overly onerous, would impose an increased burden on business, and suggested six monthly testing, similar to that for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

50. Two submitters propose no change to the dip-slide testing, as publicly notified.

51. One submitter noted that some chemicals specifically blended for cooling tower water treatment have a bio-dispersant already added. The submitter proposed including an explanatory note to this effect in 2.2 of Schedule 2.

52. One submitter proposed that the requirement to notify Auckland Council and a Medical Officer of Health of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service within 48 hours should form part of control strategy 4 in Table 3.1 of Schedule 1, and not control strategy 3.

53. The panel:

· deliberated on the views of submitters, acknowledged both written and verbal submissions, and after some consideration asked officers to report back with further advice on the merits and drawbacks of a weekly testing regime (NZS 3666.3) over a six monthly testing regime (NZS 3666.2), and making reference to mobile cooling systems

· received and considered further advice from the Ministry of Health and the Auckland Regional Public Health Service amongst others and concluded that the proposal, as publicly notified, to require testing based on NZS 3666.3 is justified and recommend its retention

· support the submitters request to amend subclauses 7(3) and 7(4) making reference to testing and dosing regimes, as per paragraph 52

· considered the written and oral submission points made in relation to the control strategies in Schedule 1 and support the submitters request to amend control strategies 3 and 4 in Table 3.1, as per paragraph 56

· support the submitter’s request and propose the following explanatory note be added to 2.2 of Schedule 2 as follows:

Some biocides may have inherent biodispersant properties and this step may not be required.

Topic E - Enforcement

54. One submitter raised concerns over the interpretation of nuisance and offensive in rural areas, suggested that the proposed the bylaw only be applied in the urban environment, and proposed a graduated enforcement approach be adopted.

55. One submitter suggested that extending the bylaw to the cover pest plants would ease enforcement if undertaken by Licensing and Compliance Services bylaws enforcement officers, and that the council could employ contractors to enter and clear private properties in worst case scenarios.

56. One submitter suggested a lack of funding is preventing Biosecurity staff from adequately enforcing the Regional Pest Management Strategy and dealing with pest plant issues on private property, and that enforcement should fall to bylaws officers.

57. One submitter noted generic property maintenance issues are often attributable to absentee landlords and land bankers.

58. The panel:

· deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions

· noted submitters concerns and further noted that only where a complaint has been deemed a nuisance following a site visit from a bylaws enforcement officer will enforcement action begin

· is assured that enforcement action will be commensurate to the level of nuisance and, in the first instance, entail working with the property owner to remove and / or eradicate the nuisance, including where applicable with absentee landlords

· noted funding issues across all areas of council, including Biosecurity, and is content that the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy prioritises weed management across the region and is appropriately enforced by Biosecurity officers.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

59. Staff sought local board views on the legacy council environmental protection bylaws and the draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw through a series of workshops between September and November 2014.

60. Local boards supported the outlined approach and agreed with the need to provide enforcement officers with the necessary tools to deal with property maintenance and nuisance related issues.

Māori impact statement

61. In order to determine the views of Māori on the proposed Property Maintenance and Nuisance bylaw two hui were held. They were in Orewa, for northern iwi, on 24 March 2015 and Manukau, for southern iwi, on 31 March 2015.

62. Discussions with Māori indicated that any bylaw dealing with property maintenance and nuisance should not be inconsistent with any policies that deal with issues such as protecting historic places or those with specific cultural significance. Nor should it impose any financial constraints on Māori, or impose lifestyle choices.

General

63. The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw has been developed through pre-consultation with internal and external stakeholders, including local boards, council departments and units, and key stakeholders.

64. The panel would like to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process. The contributions from submitters and other stakeholders have been greatly appreciated.

Implementation

65. The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw will be implemented by Licensing and Compliance Services using currently allocated resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015	73
b View	Amendments following deliberation	93

Signatories

Authors	Councillor Calum Penrose – Hearing Panel Chair
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

24 September 2015

Changes to local dog access rules

File No.: CP2015/17768

Purpose

1. To accept local board decisions on local dog access rules, and make the necessary amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

Executive Summary

2. From 1 July 2013, local boards have the delegated authority to make changes to local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

3. The following local boards have reviewed and made changes to local dog access rules in 2015:

· Albert-Eden	· Rodney
· Devonport-Takapuna	· Upper Harbour
· Kaipatiki	· Waiheke
· Orakei	· Waitakere Ranges
· Puketapapa	· Waitemata

4. To implement local board decisions the Governing Body must update the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 and approve local board decisions that use alternative summer times or seasons to those contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

5. The necessary updates to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 to give effect to the changes are contained in Attachment A.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) note the local boards have made final decisions on changes to local dog access rules in accordance with their delegations.

b) approve the following alternative local board summer times and season:

Local Board	Summer period	Summer times
Standard	Labour Weekend to 1 March	10am and 5pm
Albert-Eden	31 March	7.00pm
Devonport-Takapuna	31 March	6.30pm
Rodney	N/A	6.30pm
Waitakere Ranges (Te Henga / Bethells Beach only)	Easter	Sunrise and sunset
Waitemata	31 March	7.00pm

c) approve the amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in accordance with section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 as contained in Attachment A of the agenda report with a commencement date of 24 October 2015.

d) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws in consultation with the relevant chair of the local board to make any minor edits or amendments to Attachment A to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Comments

6. From 1 July 2013, local boards (for the first time) have been delegated responsibility to change local dog access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012. This does not include areas subject to region-wide rules (e.g. playgrounds), areas of regional significance and areas not under control of Auckland Council (e.g. areas administered by the Department of Conservation or Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority).

7. The process for local boards to change local dog access rules uses the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002. A pre-consultation period over summer 2014/15 gathered information and community views to inform the development of proposed changes. The proposed changes were then publicly notified for submissions. All known dog owners were notified as part of the dog registration process in June 2015. Public hearings and deliberations were held before a final decision was made in August and September 2015.

8. To implement local board decisions the Governing Body must:

· update the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

This is a procedural step that cannot be delegated to local boards. Under section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996, the Governing Body must update the dog bylaw within 60 days of a local board change to the policy on dogs. The Governing Body cannot change the local board decision.

· approve local board decisions that use alternative summer times or seasons to those contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (Table 2).

Alternative summer times and seasons may be adopted by local boards to better meet the council’s overriding statutory requirement to provide for public safety and comfort, and to achieve the overall objective and policy statements of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 to keep dogs as a positive part of Auckland life, and to provide dog access in a way that is safe for everyone.

In these instances, the Governing Body in adopting the policy on dogs “recognised that regional consistency and local needs need to be carefully balanced depending on the unique circumstances for each area” (Governing Body 22 November 2012) which recognises that the desire for consistency is secondary to the overriding statutory requirement of the council and overall objective and policy statements of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

The Governing Body at its meeting in September and October 2014 approved the following alternative summer times or seasons (resolution numbers GB/2014/105 and GB/2014/122).

Table 1: Alternative summer times and season previously approved by the Governing Body in 2014

Local Board	Summer period	Summer times
Standard	Labour Weekend to 1 March	10am and 5pm
Kaipatiki	N/A	6.30pm
Orakei	31 March	7.00pm (9.00pm Mission Bay Beach)

9. The following local boards have reviewed and made changes to local dog access rules in 2015. The decision reports will be available on the bylaw hearings page of council’s website by reference to the relevant local board and decision date.

Table 2: Local Board decisions on changes to local dog access rules

Local Board Decision date	Decision Document
Albert-Eden 09 September 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Albert-Eden Local Board area 2015
Devonport-Takapuna 27 August 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area 2015
Kaipatiki 20 August 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules on Shoal Bay in the Kaipātiki Local Board area 2015
Orakei 03 September 2015	Decision Report on Local Dog Access Rules in the Orākei Local Board Area 2015
Puketapapa 27 August 2015	Decision report on local dog access rules in the Puketāpapa Local Board area 2015
Rodney 17 August 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Rodney Local Board area
Upper Harbour 18 August 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Upper Harbour Local Board area 2015
Waiheke 10 September 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Waiheke Local Board area 2015
Waitakere Ranges 10 September 2015	Decision Report on local dog access rules in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area 2015
Waitemata 08 September 2015	Decision Report on the Local Dog Access Rules in the Waitematā Local Board Area 2015

10. In general, it is noted that the decisions of the local boards provide more under control off-leash opportunities for dogs and their owners. For instance, there are more under control off-leash at any time beach and foreshore areas, the summer period has been shortened, and morning hours extended. Other decisions better provide for public safety and comfort, the protection of wildlife, and simplification of rules.

11. The following local boards have used the following alternative summer beach times or seasons which require Governing Body approval.

Table 3: Alternative summer times and season requested by local boards

Local Board	Summer period	Summer times
Standard	Labour Weekend to 1 March	10am and 5pm
Albert-Eden	31 March	7.00pm
Devonport-Takapuna	31 March	6.30pm
Rodney	N/A	6.30pm
Waitakere Ranges (Te Henga / Bethells Beach only)	Easter	Sunrise and sunset
Waitemata	31 March	7.00pm

12. The necessary updates to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 to give effect to the changes are contained in Attachment A.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13. The views and implications of the decisions on local boards has been addressed as part of the local board decision-making process.

Māori impact statement

14. The impact of the decisions on Māori has been addressed as part of the local board decision-making process.

Implementation

15. Any decision that makes changes to dog access rules will require updates to signage and information, and training of animal management officers and park rangers.

16. The administration and implementation of the changes to dog access rules will be provided for within existing budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Changes to dog access rules	117

Signatories

Author

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jacques Victor – Acting Chief of Strategy

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Mayor	Len Brown, JP
Deputy Mayor	Penny Hulse
Councillors	Cr Anae Arthur Anae	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr John Watson
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr George Wood, CNZM
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Calum Penrose

Author	Jaimee Maha - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive