Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

1 Welcome

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

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda, an apology had been received from Member J Cleave.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

Chairperson IM Fordham will acknowledge the passing of Michael Daly, Arthur Frost and

Nolene Ngawaka-Fortzer.

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Great Barrier Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Great Barrier Local Board

19 September 2017

Adoption of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017

File No.: CP2017/17677

Purpose

1. To adopt the final version of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017.

Executive summary

2. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 each local board is required to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017.

3. The Act also requires local board plans to be developed using the special consultative procedure. The consultation period for the 2017 local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June.

4. The local board have considered submissions received and feedback gathered from the consultation period. As a result of this consideration, the following changes are proposed. Apart from minor edits the following changes have been made to the Opportunities, Challenges and Initiatives sections of the plan:

· Add an initiative on Pest Free Auckland to the environment outcome

· Add a reference to vector pathway management in the challenges section of the environment outcome

· Add a reference to cross agency collaboration on environmental projects in the opportunity section of the environment outcome

· Add an initiative to continue to minimise agrichemical use in the environment outcome

· Add an initiative and reference to the Unitary Plan in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome

· Replace the initiative for transport services to be brought within the subsidised public transport network with advocacy for affordable, secure and efficient transport and freight in the infrastructure outcome

· Remove the abattoir initiative from the economy outcome

· Add an initiative on gaining understanding of public and private investment on island in the economy outcome

· Add a reference to looping up walking tracks in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome

· Add a reference to climate change in the challenges sections in the environment and infrastructure outcomes

5. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017, which includes proposed changes, is attached to this report.

6. Pending adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve the following changes being made from the draft Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017:

· Add an initiative on Pest Free Auckland to the environment outcome

· Add a reference to vector pathway management in the challenges section of the environment outcome

· Add a reference to cross agency collaboration on environmental projects in the opportunity section of the environment outcome

· Add an initiative to continue to minimise agrichemical use in the environment outcome

· Add an initiative and reference to the Unitary Plan in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome

· Remove the abattoir initiative from the economy outcome

· Add an initiative on gaining understanding of public and private investment on island in the economy outcome

· Add a reference to looping up walking tracks in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome

· Add a reference to climate change in the challenges sections in the environment and infrastructure outcomes

b) subject to recommendation a), adopts Attachment A as the final Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017.

c) delegate authority to the Chair to approve any minor edits that may be necessary.

Comments

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan every three years. This means that the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 must be adopted by 31 October 2017.

8. Local board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how the local board:

· makes decisions on local activities and projects

· provides input into regional strategies and policies.

9. The plans form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for the following three financial years and subsequent work programmes. They also inform the development of council’s 10-year budget.

10. Under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

11. Submissions were made through the following channels and coded together:

· online form available on the Shape Auckland website

· hard copy form included in the household summary document

· via email or post.

12. In total 36 written submissions were received on the draft Aotea Great Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, 63 people provided feedback at engagement events.

Consideration of submissions and feedback

13. The board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. It received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback to read ahead of a workshop to discuss on Tuesday 31 July. Advice has been sought from staff on matters raised in the consultation period and this is reflected in the below table.

14. Public feedback on the draft plan was generally positive although some feedback was given requesting more emphasis on certain issues. Key feedback points are outlined in the table below. Analysis of these points, and any resulting substantive proposed changes to the outcome chapters, are outlined in the corresponding columns.

Key public feedback points	Analysis	Proposed changes
Pest eradication was the highest feedback topic with submitters providing a range of views across the full spectrum of biosecurity issues	Predator Free 2050 is a central government initiative and Auckland Council has its new Pest Free Auckland programme. Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to biosecurity challenges 4. add a reference to biosecurity opportunities	Add an initiative on Pest Free Auckland to the environment outcome Add a reference to vector pathway management in the challenges section of the environment outcome Add a reference to cross agency collaboration on environmental projects in the opportunity section of the environment outcome
There were a large number of proforma submissions to minimise agrichemical use	The local board currently supports minimising agrichemical use but didn’t specify this in the plan. Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to agrichemical use challenges	Add an initiative to continue to minimise agrichemical use in the environment outcome
A number of submitters were concerned about the affordability of housing and the building of houses	The Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan being integrated into the Unitary Plan in the future was not mentioned in the plan. Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to planning challenges 4. add a reference to planning opportunities	Add an initiative and reference to the Unitary Plan in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome
A majority of the transport feedback related to freight issues and on island transport	Inclusion of the ferry service into the public transport network has been exhausted Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. remove the initiative for public transport subsidies 3. reword the initiative to focus on freight only 4. reword the initiative to focus on freight and affordable transport	Replace the initiative for transport services to be brought within the subsidised public transport network with advocacy for affordable, secure and efficient transport and freight in the infrastructure outcome
There was little feedback received on the abattoir initiative and lots of positive feedback on the local sale of locally caught fish	With high compliance costs and challenge in fattening cattle on island, the board should focus its attention on the local sale of locally caught fish this term Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. remove the abattoir initiative	Remove the abattoir initiative from the economy outcome
Feedback was received to better understand the macro-economics of the island	The plan has an initiative for an investigation into the micro-economics of home-based businesses only. Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to the challenge of understanding macro-economics of the island	Add an initiative on gaining understanding of public and private investment on island in the economy outcome
A number of submitters mentioned the possibility of an island Great Walk and looping up tracks	Great Walks are a central Government initiative. Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to Great Walk opportunities 4. add a reference to looping up walking track opportunities	Add a reference to looping up walking tracks in the opportunity section of the infrastructure outcome
A number of submitters were concerned about the island’s need to address climate change	The plan’s overarching theme for sustainability and resilience addresses climate change Options are: 1. keep the status quo 2. add an initiative 3. add a reference to the challenges of climate change	Add a reference to climate change in the challenges sections in the environment and infrastructure outcomes

Changes to the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017

15. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017, with proposed substantive changes to the outcome chapters as described in the above table, is attached to this report.

16. Other minor changes, made for the purposes of clarification, are also included.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The local board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this report.

18. In developing the plan, the board considered:

· what we already know about our communities and what is important to them

· submissions received via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post as well as feedback provided by people at engagement events

· regional strategies and policies, including Auckland Plan, Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012, Low Carbon Auckland 2014 and Auckland Growing Greener 2016

· staff advice

· stakeholder views from Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea, Department of Conservation, Great Barrier Island History Research Group, Aotea Family Support Group, Aotea Conservation Park Advisory Committee, Windy Hill Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust, AoteaOra Trust, Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust, Orama Oasis, Kotuku Peninsula Charitable Trust, Hillary Outdoors Great Barrier Island, Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust, Motu Kaikoura Trust, Sealink, Glenfern Trust, Aotea Boardriders Club, North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Association, Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village, Fly My Sky, Destination Great Barrier Island and Barrier Air

Māori impact statement

19. As part of developing the plan, the board have:

· considered views expressed by mana whenua authorities at a sub-regional governance level hui

· considered pre-existing feedback from Māori within the local board area

· considering the Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Hapu Management and Strategic Plans 2013-2018

20. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 promotes outcomes or issues of importance to Māori by including the following matters:

· Continue to provide local and capital grants for our community and marae groups targeted at self-sufficiency, resilience and sustainability

· Agree collaborative projects with Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea and deliver as funding allows

· Develop a heritage plan with Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea that incorporates both iwi and settler history, and support the delivery of key projects from that plan

· Deliver marine protection and enhancement in collaboration with mana whenua, the community and the Hauraki Gulf Forum, using Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari as a guide

· Work with our community, Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea, DoC and our island-based service providers to develop a Visitor Strategy

· Support Destination Great Barrier Island and our local businesses to improve visitor experiences, explore new tourism opportunities, build local enterprise including eco-tourism and, alongside mana whenua, cultural tourism

Implementation

21. Pending adoption of the plan, minor edits may be necessary. This report recommends that responsibility for approving these are delegated to the Chair.

22. Photos and other design features will then be added to the plan to prepare it for publication.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017	27

Signatories

Author	Jacqueline Fyers - Democracy/Engagement Advisor
Authoriser	John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Great Barrier Local Board

19 September 2017

Approval of remaining 2017/2018 freshwater management programme

File No.: CP2017/15435

Purpose

1. To approve funding for a community-based freshwater monitoring programme on Aotea Great Barrier, and the removal of a weir on Garden Road Stream.

Executive summary

2. The Great Barrier Local Board (the board) freshwater programme commenced in 2015 with an investigation into water quality in Tryphena streams. The 2016/2017 freshwater programme addressed the issue of e.coli contamination in these streams through a septic tank education programme, and faecal source tracking to determine the source of the e.coli. In addition, the board funded an investigation in to the effectiveness of remediated culverts for fish passage. Reports back on that 2016/2017 freshwater monitoring programme are appended as attachments A, B, and C.

3. The board approved $20,000 of funding to continue a septic tank education programme at its June 2017 meeting (resolution number GB/2017/65). The remaining $20,000 available to continue local water quality programmes was reserved until receipt of the three reports on the 2016/2017 freshwater programme.

4. This report recommends the board develop a community-based freshwater monitoring programme on Aotea Great Barrier, using the Wai Care model. In particular, the budget will support the purchase of testing kits for individuals and community groups. A freshwater monitoring programme will engage communities in the monitoring and protection of local streams as well as providing data on stream health.

5. The report also recommends funding of $15,000 to remove the weir on Garden Road Stream to support fish passage.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve funding of $5,000 for the development of a community-based freshwater monitoring programme on Aotea Great Barrier.

b) approve funding of $15,000 to support the removal of a weir on Garden Road Stream.

Comments

6. The board established a freshwater monitoring programme in 2015 to support the freshwater objectives of the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan.

7. The septic tank education report (attachment A), and the source tracking investigation report (attachment B), both highlight the value of providing more regular inspections and education around septic tank maintenance. Recommendations to continue the education and inspection programmes will be incorporated into the approved 2017/2018 septic tank education programme.

8. The source tracking of Tryphena streams identified animals as the main source of e.coli contamination, and suggested working with local landowners to fence and plant streams to prevent stock entering them.

9. The validation monitoring report (attachment C) identified a number of failed culverts that were not supporting fish passage, and recommendations for remediated culverts to be included in a regular asset maintenance schedule. The report also recommended education programmes on freshwater fish, and supporting better fish passage in some streams.

Options for 2017/2018 freshwater programme

Option A - Community freshwater monitoring programme (recommended) ($5,000)

10. The Tryphena monitoring was envisioned as the first step in a wider freshwater monitoring programme for the island. The initial monitoring programme in Tryphena cost approximately $2,000 per month, including sample collection and freight costs. A community-based freshwater monitoring programme based on the Wai Care model delivered in Auckland is significantly cheaper.

11. $5,000 funding will purchase Wai Care water quality monitoring kits ($700 each), and training for individuals and groups in their use. It will also support a trained coordinator to work with groups and individuals on restoration projects. Monitoring from this project will allow comparisons between streams on the island, and other monitored sites in Auckland.

12. This option is recommended. However, the board may wish to postpone extending the monitoring programme until such time as all issues in the Tryphena catchment are resolved.

Option B – Removal of weir on Garden Road Stream ($15,000)

13. A priority recommendation arising from the culvert remediation report was the removal of a decades old weir, situated a short distance inland from the coast in the Garden Road Stream. The report suggests that the weir is preventing fish from reaching premium habitat above.

14. Based on the costs of the Awana removal weir in March 2017, the removal of this weir could cost up to $15,000. A site visit is required to confirm the full scope of works, including assessments of access and costs to remove recovered material.

15. Landowner approval would be required prior to removal. Staff have had preliminary discussions with the landowner.

Options C and D - Fish passage and protection of giant kokopu habitat (options c and d)

16. In 2014, 25 culverts were remediated to enable fish passage. Setting aside funding for remediation of poorly functioning culverts identified by the validation monitoring is not recommended. The local board is not the owner of these assets, and asset management should sit with the asset owner. At this stage, asset management for culverts created to support the functioning of the road network remains with the asset owner (Auckland Transport). Infrastructure and Environmental Services will provide technical advice where required or requested.

17. Giant kokopu are rare, and in decline in the Auckland region. The Okiwi population is the only known giant kokopu population on Aotea Great Barrier. Fencing and planting off the wetland will support the future of this population. However, the site adjoins both conservation and private land so agreement between all parties would be required before any project could be implemented.

18. It is recommended any consideration of local funding for this project be postponed until such time as there is agreement for this work between the landowner and the Department of Conservation, and appropriate investigation of other potential funding sources.

Option E - Waterways protection fund

19. Preventing stock access to streams through fencing and planting will address one source of e.coli contamination. The Rodney and Franklin Local Boards have both established local waterways protection funds to support private landowners to fence and plant streams from stock. Waterways protection funds provide up to 50 per cent of the costs associated with this work.

20. Developing a local Aotea waterways protection fund is not recommended at this time. Further engagement with landowners as part of the septic tank education programme may provide an opportunity to discuss fencing streams from stock. There are also opportunities for landowners to apply for this funding from regional grant funding.

21. Landowners could apply for this funding through the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund. Staff will advocate for the regional waterways protection fund to be made available for Aotea Great Barrier landowners.

22. Other recommendations in the source tracking and septic tank reports to inspect council-owned long drops, and installation of signage advising against swimming, are part of existing council contracts and programmes.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Staff discussed the reports’ finding, and introduced the options and recommendations in this report, at a workshop on 1 August 2017. A specific discussion on the proposed removal of the weir was held on 29 August 2017.

24. All three projects were funded as part of the board’s 2016/2017 local environment work programme. A freshwater monitoring programme is a key initiative in the current Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan. ‘Our freshwater streams will be healthy’ is an objective in the draft Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan.

Māori impact statement

25. No specific consultation with Māori was undertaken for the purposes of this report. Mana whenua have indicated support for projects that support freshwater improvements through past council consultations.

26. The Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Hapū Management Plan references the importance of protecting freshwater environments to the hapū.

Implementation

27. As noted in paragraph 16 above, agreement with the landowners is required for the weir removal. If permission is not received, the board will be required to make a further decision on water quality projects.

28. There are no other implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on project delivery will be through the board’s quarterly performance report, or as required.

Democracy Advisor: Could you please add Matt Bloxham – Regional Advisor: Freshwater; and Rhianna Drury – Senior Healthy Waterways Specialist as co-authors with me.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Septic tank education programme report (Under Separate Cover)
b	Faecal source tracking investigation report (Under Separate Cover)
c	Culvert Validation and Monitoring report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Great Barrier Local Board

19 September 2017

Mulberry Grove Pest Coordinator project

File No.: CP2017/18721

Purpose

1. To agree to the discontinuation of the Mulberry Grove pest coordinator project, and to establish a similar role at Okiwi on a trial basis.

Executive summary

2. The objective of the Mulberry Grove pest coordinator project was to enable and encourage community control of rats. Traps and technical advice were also made available to the project. A report back on the project is appended as Attachment A.

3. However, the project struggled for momentum and retention of a local person to act as the coordinator. This report recommends the board discontinue the pest coordinator project. Staff will continue to work alongside those landowners and Mulberry Grove School who have shown interest in rat control.

4. It is recommended that $10,000 approved pest coordinator funding support implementation of an Okiwi pest coordinator project on a trial basis (GB/2017/65). As $15,000 funding was approved for the pest coordinator programme, it is recommended that the $5,000 funding not required for the pest coordinator be reallocated to another project in the environment work programme.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) agree to discontinue the Mulberry Grove Pest Coordinator project.

b) agree to a one year trial of a pest coordinator project at Okiwi.

c) approve the reallocation of $5,000 from the pest coordinator project to support the coastal weed survey.

Comments

5. A community rat control project started in Mulberry Grove in 2009 but was re-instated with board funding in the 2015/2016 financial year. Funding of a pest coordinator role supports the board’s objective of engaging the community in pest control. However, the project has struggled both to engage Mulberry Grove residents in rat control, and to retain a local person in the coordinator role. Council staff have had a greater role in day to day management of the project than expected.

6. The annual report on the pest coordinator programme (attachment A) suggests undertaking a community survey to determine interest in continuing the programme. However, interest in the programme is reflected in the low number of residents actively checking traps and participating in the project. Therefore, we recommend discontinuing the project at Mulberry Grove.

7. Staff will continue to support those residents, and Mulberry Grove School, who have shown interest in rat control projects. The emerging Pest Free Auckland and Department of Conservation-led Predator Free 2050 programmes may provide other opportunities for community-led pest control programmes. Similarly, community pest control projects could be included in the implementation of the ecology conversations project.

8. A workplan for an Okiwi pest coordinator project was developed as part of the 2016/2017 work programme. 2017/2018 funding allocated for a pest coordinator role could support implementation of that workplan, with findings incorporated into the discussion on future environment work programmes.

9. Although the community pest coordinator funding has been approved, the board could resolve to reallocate the funding to its community grants programme specifically for existing pest control programmes.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. The board has funded the Mulberry Grove pest coordinator project as part of its last two environment work programmes. Funding this project supports objectives in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan to encourage community-led pest control work.

11. The board approved $15,000 for continuing a pest coordinator project at its 6 June 2017 meeting (resolution GB/2017/65).

Māori impact statement

12. No consultation with Māori was undertaken for this report. The Ngāti Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Hapū Management Plan notes conditional support for pest control projects.

Implementation

13. There are no implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on the Okiwi project will be through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services’ contribution the board’s quarterly performance report.

14. Further funding for a pest coordinator project will be negotiated through the annual environment work programme development process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mulberry Grove pest coordinator annual report to end of June 2017	59

Signatories

Author

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Great Barrier Local Board

19 September 2017

Auckland Plan refresh – Local Board Engagement

File No.: CP2017/18605

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on draft Auckland Plan content to inform the final draft of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. In June and July 2017 the Auckland Plan refresh team provided all local boards with summaries of the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed Auckland Plan for their consideration.

3. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July, and feedback from stakeholders informed the further development of the content and development of the strategic framework. The framework was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied the report to the Planning Committee.

4. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

5. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

6. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to public consultation in early 2018.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide feedback, including any specific feedback on the package of materials across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy (attachment A).

b) note that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Comments

Background

7. Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues, to ensure the plan continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

8. On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan is intended to be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy.

Local Board involvement in the refresh

9. Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during 2017. Throughout these workshops, chairs (or their representatives) have provided early input into opportunities and challenges for Auckland over the next 30 years and feedback on the proposed strategic framework for the refreshed Auckland Plan. This input was the views of chairs only and does not represent formal local board feedback.

10. At local board cluster briefings in February and April 2017, local board members gave feedback and information which was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas.

11. A report on the Auckland Plan Refresh was considered at local board business meetings in June and July. Local boards were invited to consider their formal position on the themes and focus areas and provide further feedback.

12. Local board cluster briefings were also held in April and July on the Development Strategy which is a core component of Auckland Plan.

13. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July informed the further development of a draft strategic framework. This was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied this report to the Planning Committee.

14. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August 2017. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

15. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

16. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to full public consultation in early 2018

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local board feedback on the package of engagement material is being sought in this report.

18. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the governing body and providing input to regional strategies, policies, and plans.

Māori impact statement

19. The council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

20. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes of the plan. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

21. The strategic themes acknowledge and celebrate Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and Māori as Treaty partners in Auckland.

22. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the plan. The outcome describes the application of Te ao Māori values to the region, acknowledges the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau and acknowledges the foundational role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

23. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, and relevant Māori community groups has been undertaken to develop the draft plan.

Implementation

24. Feedback from the local boards will be summarised and provided to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Plan draft content package	79

Signatories

Author

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Great Barrier Local Board

19 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/17666

Purpose

1. To provide comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document “Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4. The Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which remuneration is decided:

(i) each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v) there is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no more than a cabinet minister.

5. The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions.

6. The proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings.

7. The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8. The proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9. The consultation document does not discuss local boards. In other councils, community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they were funded by a targeted rate. Local boards are very different from community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration of local boards should be decided.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review.

Comments

Introduction

10. The Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council.

11. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

12. Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv) the Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5% for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13. The report summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

Council size

14. The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

15. For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

16. For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17. Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

18. Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

· Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

· Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

· When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

19. Comments:

(i) It is noted that prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii) In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20. The discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

21. Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

· If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

22. Comments:

(i) Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23. Mayors are considered to be full-time positions. The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

24. Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

· If not, how should they be treated?

· Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25. Comments:

(i) For Auckland Council, the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities since that was determined. There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26. A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75% majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

27. The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

28. Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

· If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

· Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29. Comments:

(i) Setting a remuneration pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

(ii) One issue to consider relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is fixed. If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number of members on a board is increased or decreased, say by a review of representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease or increase accordingly. This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the discussion document.

(iii) In view of this, the local board might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv) A further issue to consider is that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration. Council has not had to debate how remuneration might be apportioned among governing body and local board members. This would be a major change.

(v) Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30. The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

31. Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

· Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

32. Comments:

(i) There are many bodies such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected members are appointed. These appointments are currently treated as part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii) If the pool proposal allows councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to CCOs

33. The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

34. Remuneration Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

· Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

35. Comments:

(i) Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

(ii) In the current term, Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36. The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this is clearly stated in any local board response.

37. Community board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded by way of a targeted rate.

38. Remuneration Authority questions on community boards:

· Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

· If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

· If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

Local Boards

39. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

40. Most local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41. Local boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i) On the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii) If the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a. Should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b. Should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

42. The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

43. The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44. Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45. Comments:

(i) The Authority suggests in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46. A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1 July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47. These proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council. From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Remuneration Authority.

48. The remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the Remuneration Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be reported individually to the Remuneration Authority.

Māori impact statement

50. The level at which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori as compared with the wider community.

Implementation

51. Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Remuneration Authority.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Remuneration Authority Local Government Review	95

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor, Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson – Governance Director

Karen Lyons – General Manager, Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Luke Coles
Members	Jeff Cleave
	Susan Daly
	Shirley Johnson

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deputy Chair Luke Coles quarterly report	139
b ⇩	Board member quarterly report - Jeff Cleave	141
c ⇩	Board member quarterly report - Sue Daly	143
d ⇩	Board member quarterly report - Shirley Johnson	147

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 1 August 2017	159
b ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 8 August 2017	161
c ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 22 August 2017	163
d ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 29 August 2017	165

Author	Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea/Great Barrier International Dark Sky Sanctuary operation report	127