I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Waiheke Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 28 September 2017 5.15pm Local Board
Office |
Waiheke Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Paul Walden |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Cath Handley |
|
Members |
Shirin Brown |
|
|
John Meeuwsen |
|
|
Bob Upchurch |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Safia Cockerell Democracy Advisor - Waiheke
21 September 2017
Contact Telephone: 021 283 8212 Email: safia.cockerell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Waiheke Local Board 28 September 2017 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
9 Public Forum 5
10 Extraordinary Business 5
11 Notices of Motion 6
12 Councillor's Update 7
13 Auckland Transport Waiheke Local Board Update - September 2017 9
14 Dispensation for herbicide use in selected Waiheke Reserves 13
15 Adoption of the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 33
16 Public alerting framework for Auckland 67
17 Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement 139
18 Remuneration Authority consultation document 151
19 Chairperson's Report 189
20 List of resource consents 191
21 Waiheke Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings 203
22 Governance Forward Work Programme 219
23 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
1 Welcome
Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,
Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho
Rire, rire hau…pai marire
Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby
Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,
Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability
Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.
2 Apologies
Apologies from Members B Upchurch and S Brown 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 Waiheke Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 24 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
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
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 Waiheke 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.
Waiheke Local Board 28 September 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/18567
Purpose
1. Providing Councillor Mike Lee with an opportunity to update the Waiheke Local Board on Governing Body issues.
That the Waiheke Local Board a) note the verbal update from the Waitemata and Gulf Ward Councillor, Mike Lee.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
Waiheke Local Board 28 September 2017 |
|
Auckland Transport Waiheke Local Board Update - September 2017
File No.: CP2017/18568
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to; respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on Wharf and Ferry information, respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters and provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Waiheke Local Board and its community.
Executive summary
2. This report covers matters of specific relevance for the Waiheke Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector.
3. In particular, this report covers:
· Progress on the passenger information display screens at Matiatia.
· Auckland Transport’s response to requests for the summer influx of people.
· Road rehabilitation for summer.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the Auckland Transport Waiheke Local Board Update - September 2017. |
Comments
Transport capital fund update
Project Updates
Project Name |
Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed |
Current Status |
Walking/Cycle paths – The causeway to Shelley Beach
|
There is insufficient connection from the path by the boat yard towards Shelley Beach Road. Requirement for a shared path to improve school walking and cycling connections |
‘Rough Order of Cost’ requested by the WLB in 2016. Request from the board to review and reduce the cost as it is too high for the boards budget |
Precinct Plan for Ostend. |
The development of the countdown has created greater traffic to Ostend area. The request was to look at improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities and traffic flow |
‘Rough Order of Cost’ approved by WLB in December 2016. ‘Draft Design’ presented to the WLB in June and August 2017 Consultation to begin mid-August 2017. Putiki Road improvements will be included in the maintenance rehabilitation job in the current financial year. Funded by AT. Design will begin once consultation has been received. |
Speed reduction – Driver feedback signs |
There are concerns for the speeds on Waiheke roads. Due to the nature of the island, there is little or no options for engineering solutions. This is an affordable and effective way to manage speed. |
Rough Order of Cost’ approved by WLB in August 2017
|
Financials update
Waiheke Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary |
|
Total funds available in current political term |
$835,329 |
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction |
$82,411 |
Remaining Budget left |
$752,918 |
Upcoming projects and activities of interest to the board
Wharf Update
Passenger Information Display Screen at Matiatia
4. Works progressing well, install date for internal screen is late September / early October. External screens at the departure berths will likely be November as they require integration in with other maintenance works planned on the facility.
Summer Preparedness
5. Planning continues to progress well between the AT Metro team and Fullers around queue management, facilities management and service provision.
New Fullers Boat
6. Entered into service on Thursday 14 September. This will help with capacity issues previously experienced by ferry patrons.
Sullage management
7. As of Friday 15 September 2017, a self-serve operation has been adopted at the Downtown Ferry Terminal for all operators on Access Agreements to use. This enables operators to be able to pump-out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week should they require.
Matiatia
8. Maintenance and renewal works are being finalised for both wharves in preparation for summer, with further works planned in 2018, to be discussed with the board at a later date.
Kennedy Point
9. Design and tender works are progressing with the renewal of the seawall at Kennedy Point.
Orapiu
10. Repair works to the facility will be completed in late September to repair weather damage sustained in the storms early in 2017.
Patronage
11. August reported patronage for the island:
Matiatia - 144,054 versus 137,455 in August 2016
Whole island – 174,358 versus 169,117 in August 2016
AT HOP Top Up Machines
12. An AT HOP Top Up Machine will be installed at the Matiatia terminal in week commencing 18 September. The machine will be located adjacent to the ATM in the facility. This will enable AT HOP customers to top up their AT HOP cards during the hours that the facility is open.
Ferry Futures Strategy
13. As part of the preparation for the compilation of the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP), Auckland Transport are seeking the assistance of external specialists to assist in a review of the current ferry strategy for Auckland. This review will cover many aspects of ferry service provision and will not be limited to existing service provision. As part of the data and knowledge collation for this review, stakeholders across the business will be approached for high-level input on areas which could be investigated further at a later date. The final publication of the RPTP will be subject to public consultation.
Walking and Cycling
14. Auckland Transport walking and cycling team are investigating infrastructure projects on the Island. To enable Auckland Transport to get a better understanding of the cycling need we are installing cycle counters, the locations of the cycle counters have not yet been decided and will have full board input before a decision is made.
Matiatia Keyhole
15. Auckland Transport have been involved in discussions with local transport providers to trial a number of suggestions that may help ensure better flow of traffic in and around Matiatia and the keyhole in the summer months. Suggestions include:
· Reinstating 30-minute small passenger vehicle parking in the lower carpark
· Installing bus stopping along Ocean View Road, opposite Owhanake carpark, to be called down to the keyhole as required.
· 2 minute pick up and drop off from the wharf side of the entrance to the key hole.
Road Rehabilitation Programme 17/18
16. Auckland Transport has developed a programme to rehabilitate four roads on Waiheke over the summer period. Road Rehabilitations require us to take the road back to its original base foundation and rebuild it. It requires many years of planning to get it to the delivery phase.
17. The four roads are, Putiki Road, Carsons Road, Bryan Road and Moa Ave. Auckland Transport is working closely with Healthy Waters on the designs of the road.
18. The rehabilitation programme is based on a report indicating roads may need attention. These roads are assessed by Auckland Transport and The Transport Agency staff, from here a programme for design is created.
19. The board has asked to have input in to this process and Auckland Transport welcomes the local knowledge to assist us in creating a more meaningful programme. Over the next six months Auckland Transport will work with the board on the next three years programme.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
20. The local board’s views will be taken into account during consultation on any proposed schemes.
Māori impact statement
21. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.
Implementation
22. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Melanie Dale, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport |
Authoriser |
Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport |
Waiheke Local Board 28 September 2017 |
|
Dispensation for herbicide use in selected Waiheke Reserves
File No.: CP2017/19772
Purpose
1. To seek dispensation under the Auckland Council Weed Management Policy for the targeted and limited use of three herbicides for pest plant control in identified ecological areas within reserves on Waiheke Island.
2. To provide confidence to the Waiheke Local Board that the supporting information to justify the above dispensation has adequately considered non herbicide alternatives as well as the wishes of the community for limited herbicide use on the island.
Executive summary
3. The legacy Auckland City Council Weed Management Policy restricts the use of herbicides on council administered land on Waiheke Island. However, it does allow some provision for limited herbicide application under restricted conditions where manual or mechanical control is not feasible. In these cases, dispensation for herbicide use in reserves may be obtained on application by council staff to the local board.
4. Waiheke Island is recognised for its unique position in the Hauraki Gulf, its diverse social atmosphere and natural environment that differs from the mainland. A Waiheke specific methodology and approach to pest plant control has been developed to reflect this. The proposal incorporates the use of three herbicides: Glyphosate, Metsulfuron and Picloram which dispensation is being requested for.
5. The methodology, planning and proposals within this report have been developed in consultation with councils Community Facilities, Biodiversity, Biosecurity, Treescape Environmental and key community volunteer groups including Waiheke Resources Trust, Waiheke Go Moth Plant Group, (Te Toki Reserve Okahuiti Wetland), Te Matuku Landcare, Waiheke Rat Busters and the Hauraki Gulf Islands Branch of Forest and Bird.
6. Methodologies have been designed around the most appropriate method to target a suite of pest plant species. For most pest plants listed, the use of herbicide is generally the second option with a manual non herbicide means as the preferred option. Herbicide use will only be utilised after other treatments are not considered to be effective. Targeted foliar treatment, weed wiping, ringbarking/painting, stump cut/paste, will only be used in conjunction with mechanical methods to minimise both herbicide volume and off-target application.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) approve the dispensation for the use of Glyphosate, Metsulfuron and Picloram in the specific sites and limited to the Waiheke specific methodologies as specified within this report and attached detail.
|
Comments
Background
A Pest Plant Problem
7. Waiheke Island has significant pest plant challenges. The management of pest plants has been difficult for various reasons including the size and scale of the pest plant problem, the inputs required to control pest plants, budget limitations and current methodologies being employed.
8. It is widely acknowledged that key pest plant species (moth plant and climbing asparagus) are affecting the long term ecological potential of a number of Waiheke sites. As herbicide control is the only effective control methodology for these species, and there is a strong commitment to a herbicide free environment where possible, a fresh and unique approach has been used to develop a programme of works for the island.
9. Additionally local board members highlighted the need to build on work done around coastal cliffs to manage species such as rhamnus, woolly nightshade and boneseed that threaten local natural communities and through wind spread of seed, also threaten conservation islands such as Rotoroa and the Noises.
10. It is also evident that collective effort from contractors, community groups and private landowners is required to prevent forest collapse at key sites such as Rangihoua.
Methodology Principals
11. Successful animal and plant pest control for ecological restoration purposes is most effective when a 'toolbox' of techniques is utilised. The contents of the toolbox are a series of methods suitable for the species being targeted and the environments they are located in, both geographically and community based.
12. Waiheke Island has a strong commitment to a herbicide free environment where possible. In line with this philosophy, a unique methodology has been developed to inform a programme of works that will have maximum benefit whilst using the minimum volume of herbicide. These methodologies will be used when undertaking ecological restoration works. The methodology, planning and proposals have been developed in cooperation with councils Community Facilities, Biodiversity, Biosecurity, Treescape Environmental and key community volunteer groups.
13. The legacy Auckland City Council Weed Management Policy 1999, Statement of Policy Item 8 states: Waiheke Island: no herbicide use at all, with a dispensation for bush reserves on application to the Waiheke Community Board and with provision of a long-term management plan.
14. In line with the above provision, a dispensation is being sought to use selected herbicides based on Waiheke specific methodologies as follows:
Pest Plant Control Methodology
15. The rationale for the control toolbox is based on: Practical experience with a variety of control measures combined with an understanding of the physiology of each of the weed species and optimum times for control. Utilising certain control methodologies during optimum control times are important to reduce spread and the effort required for control, both in terms of labour effort and to achieve reductions in overall herbicide use and type.
16. The practicality and success of non-herbicide control measures is considered first e.g. hand pull small plants, digging out isolated plants, removal of pods such as moth plant. If this is not practical, e.g. too dense an infestation, potential for erosion on steep sites by digging out, or damage to archaeological sites, only then is limited herbicide use is considered. It is restricted to three herbicides chosen on the basis of levels of effectiveness on a range of species and reduced overall volumes required to achieve effective control. The three herbicides are: Glyphosate, Metsulfuron and Picloram (see attachment E for methodologies, utilisation and target species).
17. Herbicide use will only be utilised after other treatments are not considered effective. Targeted foliar treatment will only be used in conjunction with mechanical methods to minimise both herbicide volume and off-target application. Of the 28 target weeds identified only seven have targeted foliar treatment as an option with 21 having only direct application as an option as identified below:
18. Direct application of herbicide will be used on 21 weed species. Care will be taken to ensure the best practice methodology is undertaken to ensure efficacy and minimising the requirement for future follow up treatment. Examples of such best practices are:
· cutting woody weed species as low as possible to the ground to reduce likelihood of epicormic bud regrowth, as well as cutting and applying to any exposed roots;
· ensuring herbicide is covering the entire cambium layer or live section of trunk encompassing the vascular system; and
· removal of cut material that may re-sprout and root, such as willow branches.
19. The remaining seven pest plant species will have targeted foliar treatment where infestations are too dense or extensive to allow for effective manual control. This will be through a combination of small 2L pump action hand held spray bottles or 15L spray back packs with spray reducing cones, fine nozzles and low pressure to reduce drift and application volume. All applicators are trained and experienced in ecological herbicide control. Species include pampas grass, jasmine, climbing asparagus, moth plant, german ivy, japanese honeysuckle and tradescantia. Any natives in proximity will be hand released prior to application.
20. Additionally young plants at a certain growth stage become very difficult to hand pull and risk not controlling the entire plant. Actual volumes of herbicides applied using the proposed techniques are at a very low level. The herbicide strengths and quantities have been selected to provide the least environmental impact at each site over the life of the programme. This includes selection of the lowest strength mix that will effectively do the job, without using a strength so low that it will not adequately control the pest plants. This avoids re-work which would otherwise result in a greater total quantity of herbicide being used on a particular site than would have been used if the correct and slightly higher rate was initially applied.
21. Attachment C identifies the 28 species listed for long term management on Waiheke Island and their proposed control measures. The high value site list and general site list contain detail identifying which species are present at each site and intended control methods.
22. Three herbicides are proposed for use within this dispensation and related ecological services contract, Glyphosate, Metsulfuron and Picloram. All three herbicides are considered important tools in restoration ecology when used correctly, meaningfully and sparingly.
23. The methodology, planning and proposals within this report have been developed in consultation with Community Facilities, Biodiversity, Biosecurity, Treescape Environmental and key community volunteer groups including Waiheke Resources Trust, Waiheke Go Moth Plant Group, (Te Toki Reserve Okahuiti Wetland), Te Matuku Landcare, Waiheke Rat Busters and Forest and Bird. The latter meetings have resulted in a community partnership approach to Treescape's intended ecological management programme with all groups being fully supportive of working together to develop and achieve a collaborative and integrated restoration strategy.
Reducing Herbicide Use
24. It is acknowledged that there are concerns around the use of herbicides on Waiheke Island. However, a cautious and targeted use as proposed, using an experienced local team is compatible with minimising herbicide use. The programme would largely use techniques that do not rely heavily on conventional repeated treatments. Additionally a limited range of herbicides is compatible with the community's desire to reduce herbicide use but at the same time collectively achieve long lasting landscape scale recovery of ecologically significant environments.
25. A significant proportion of the herbicides used will be Cut 'n' Paste products designed specifically by a long-time Waiheke resident in direct response to increasing concerns about the unnecessary broad scale use of conventional broadcast spray application techniques.
26. Cut 'n' Paste products are gel based ready mixed products that are contained in brush on applicator bottles. This effectively limits both the volume of herbicide that is used on an individual pest plant as well as minimising the potential for non-target effects on both the soil, and surrounding plants at the application site.
27. Consideration has been given towards opportunities to further reduce herbicide use on Waiheke, particularly as it relates to the need for repeat site visits. Accordingly progressive removal of weed species and replacement with either living mulch (short life grass seed) and/or revegetating bare areas with locally sourced native species and/or manuka slash is suggested from year two onwards. No revegetation is proposed for year one as the contract was initiated at the beginning of the planting season. As a result there was insufficient time to build adequate site knowledge, understanding of community initiatives and undertake effective control prior to planting.
28. These techniques both effectively cover bare ground and speed up natural regeneration processes particularly when revegetation species include those that attract seed dispersing and pollinating birds (e.g. flax, cabbage tree).
29. These techniques in combination with working in partnership with community groups to achieve landscape control particularly of the most invasive species such as moth plant, climbing asparagus and rhamnus, will over time collectively reduce the overall abundance of plant pests on Waiheke Island and reduce the need for repeated herbicide application and non-targeted use.
30. The use of bio-controls will also continue to be explored with the councils Biosecurity department for use on general sites. Opportunities may exist to treat sites containing japanese honeysuckle and tradescantia.
31. Treescape Environmental also proposes to conduct regular information sharing sessions with all relevant stakeholders including land managers and owners, community groups and contractors. The purpose of these sessions will be to regularly take stock of works and discuss how better integration and collaboration can be achieved to increase efficacy of restoration works. Part of this session will be the sharing of information in relation to herbicide use. It is anticipated that this knowledge sharing will result in further herbicide reduction.
Herbicide Use Monitoring and Reporting
32. Recording and reporting on herbicide use must be undertaken in line with industry best practice and New Zealand standards. Reporting will be undertaken per site, per visit and recorded in a daily works diary. The report will include:
· methodologies used per park, e.g. manual, cut and paste etc
· the amount of herbicide used in each park, what species it was used on and how it was applied
· the number of hours used per methodology in each block
· weather conditions during control
· personnel on site
33. Additionally site auditing is undertaken by the council to ensure that standards and specifications are consistently adhered to.
34. All field crews will carry GPS units that will be worn at all times whilst working within reserves to track where each team member has been and what has been targeted. This will be downloaded and made available to council on request.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
35. Dispensations for herbicide use in individual reserves have previously been granted by the Waiheke Local Board on a limited basis
36. The proposed Waiheke specific methodology and anticipated outcomes are in keeping with the 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plan, Outcome three:
· Restore and protect our natural environment in partnership with our community - Develop and deliver animal and plant pest management plans and ensure a coordinated approach of all agencies involved in these programs.
Māori impact statement
37. Parks and open spaces contribute significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Tangata Whenua, appropriate consultation will follow.
Implementation
38. A draft work programme has been prepared that continues to be refined to ensure works are aligned with community group activities. Restoration plans will be drafted for the identified 10 high value sites. Resources to undertake the programme will be confirmed following receipt of dispensation.
39. The extent of works as proposed in the ecological services draft work programme and effectiveness of pest plant control is dependent on dispensation being provided for the use of Glyphosate, Metsulfuron and Picloram in line with Waiheke Island specific works methodologies.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
High value site list |
19 |
b⇩
|
General site list |
21 |
c⇩
|
Control methodology |
25 |
d⇩
|
Application methods |
29 |
e⇩
|
Proposed herbicides |
31 |
Signatories
Author |
Bruce Edwards - Area Manager - Regional Specialist Operational Management & Maintenance |
Authorisers |
Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
28 September 2017 |
|
Adoption of the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017
File No.: CP2017/16810
Purpose
1. To adopt the final version of the Waiheke 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 Waiheke Local Board has considered submissions received and feedback gathered from the consultation period. As a result of this consideration, the following key changes are proposed:
· including initiatives relating to small business support and fostering youth and local skill development;
· developing a Sustainable Tourism Strategy;
· adding arts-related initiatives to the economic development and visitor experience outcome;
· exploring sustainable and low carbon living opportunities;
· planning for the council’s shift to user pays for waste by building on-island capacity;
· supporting actions aimed at reducing harm caused by alcohol, smoking, drugs or gambling;
· advocating for improved drainage networks and infrastructure;
· improving cycleway and walkway connections;
· investigating public transport links to our wharves and advocating for competitive passenger ferry services.
5. A number of minor changes were also made throughout the document, as proposed by board members or submitters for the purposes of clarification.
6. The Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017, which includes the proposed changes, is attached to this report (Attachment A).
7. Pending adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) approve the following changes being made from the draft Local Board Plan 2017: · including initiatives relating to small business support and fostering youth and local skill development; · adding arts-related initiatives to the economic development and visitor experience outcome; · exploring sustainable and low carbon living opportunities; · planning for the council’s shift to user pays for waste by building on-island capacity; · supporting actions aimed at reducing harm caused by alcohol, smoking, drugs or gambling; · advocating for improved drainage networks and infrastructure; · improving cycleway and walkway connections; · investigating public transport links to our wharves and advocating for competitive passenger ferry services. b) subject to recommendation a), adopt Attachment A as the final Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017. c) delegate authority to the Chair to approve any minor edits that may be necessary. |
Comments
8. 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 Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 must be adopted by 31 October 2017.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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. The board also held a hearing on Wednesday 2 August 2017.
12. 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.
13. In total 263 submissions were received on the draft Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017. In addition, four people provided feedback at engagement events and there were eleven pieces of feedback gathered through Facebook. Twenty two people spoke at the hearing.
Consideration of submissions and feedback
14. The board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. They received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback on 28 July 2017 and held workshops to discuss on 31 August and 14 September. A hearing was held on 2 August 2017 where submitters were able to speak to their written submission, and a deliberations meeting was held following this to consider any changes to the plan. Advice has been sought from staff on matters raised in the consultation period and this is reflected in the table included later in this report.
15. Public feedback on the draft plan was supportive with 78 percent of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that the plan was on the right track.
16. 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 |
A number of submitters mentioned sustainable living, climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. |
This topic was not a focus within the draft plan. Development of a Carbon Plan or supporting low carbon initiatives during the work programme process would be an option should the board wish to progress. |
Sustainable and low-carbon living has been highlighted within the Chair’s message and an initiative added under the “Waiheke’s environment is treasured” outcome.
|
A large number of submissions mentioned protection and restoration of the environment – pest management, marine reserves and waste reduction, as a priority. |
The draft plan included a number of protection and restoration initiatives which align with community feedback. Additional waste reduction initiatives could be considered given community interest. |
An initiative has been added under “Waiheke’s environment is treasured” regarding building capacity for waste management in preparation for the council’s shift to user pays for waste. |
A number of submissions supported smokefree environments. A hearing submission also highlighted opportunities to assist with alcohol-related issues in the community. |
This topic was not a focus within the draft plan. It would be appropriate to include initiatives around supporting harm reduction should the board feel this is a priority for the community.
|
A new objective has been added to “help communities lead active and healthy lifestyles” under the “Vibrant places” outcome. Initiatives have been included to reduce harm caused by alcohol, smoking, drugs or gambling and extending the range of smoke-free public spaces. |
Eighty-seven submissions highlighted stormwater and drainage as an issue that required attention. |
Three outcomes within the draft plan mention stormwater management and initiatives. Development of infrastructure is outside the board’s decision-making so strengthening the board’s advocacy position could be considered.
|
The advocacy area around improved drainage networks and infrastructure has been strengthened within the “Transport and infrastructure” outcome. |
One hundred and thirty-one submissions referred to transport and infrastructure, with a large number commenting on road maintenance and the transport network including cycleways and walkways. |
The Transport and infrastructure outcome includes an advocacy area for quality roading and the Greenways (Pathways) plan will include proposals for cycleways and walkways, however given the strong community feedback, addition of a separate initiative may be appropriate.
|
Initiative added to improve cycleway and walkway connections under the “Transport and infrastructure” outcome. |
Competitive ferry services and public transport links was highlighted as a priority for many submitters. |
Reference within the draft plan to public transport and connectivity could be strengthened. Ferry services are an area of advocacy for the board and this could be added should the board feel this is a priority. |
Initiatives added under the “Transport and infrastructure outcome” regarding public transport links and advocating for competitive passenger ferry services. |
Support for development of a swimming pool was a key area for submitters.
|
The draft plan includes an initiative to continue to progress development of a community swimming pool and this will continue to be progressed under the work programme process.
|
No change proposed |
A large number of submissions raised concerns around visitor impact |
The draft plan includes an initiative to continue investigate a visitor levy and advocate to council’s governing body and central government to fund visitor infrastructure. Development of a sustainable tourism strategy could also be considered.
|
New initiative added to develop a Sustainable Tourism Strategy under the “Sustainable economy and positive visitor experience” outcome. |
Housing and aged care issues was an area of priority for our submitters
|
Detailed actions regarding housing and aged care issues will be addressed during development of the Housing Strategy initiative and work programme process.
|
No changes proposed however this priority is reiterated in the Chair’s message |
Small business support and youth skill development and employment |
There were no specific objectives relating to small businesses within the draft plan. A youth initiative that supports engagement, resiliency and transitions to adulthood was included. Addition of initiatives relating to supporting small businesses and youth skill development would be appropriate should the board feel this is a priority. |
Initiatives relating to small business support and fostering youth and local skill development have been added under the “Sustainable economy and positive visitor experience” outcome.
|
Feedback was received regarding the importance of the arts sector for the island, particularly in respect to the sustainable tourism industry. |
The plan’s reference to Waiheke’s arts sector could be strengthened and appropriate initiatives or development of a strategy considered. |
Objective added to support Waiheke’s recognition as an arts destination under the “Sustainable economy and positive visitor experience” outcome. Arts-related initiatives have been added and moved into this outcome. |
Changes to the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017
17. The Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017, with proposed substantive changes to the outcome chapters as described in the above table, is attached to this report.
18. Other minor changes, made for the purposes of clarification, are also included.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
19. The local board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this report.
20. 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 and gathered through Facebook,
· regional strategies and policies, and staff advice.
Māori impact statement
21. As part of developing the plan, the board have:
· considered views expressed by mana whenua authorities at a sub-regional governance level hui and local level one-on-one hui,
· considered pre-existing feedback from Māori within the local board area,
· engaged with mataawaka.
22. The Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 promotes outcomes or issues of importance to Māori by:
· developing a forum for dialogue with mana whenua and mataawaka,
· reconvening the Rangihoua Tawaipareira management subcommittee,
· working with mana whenua and mataawaka to identify ways to protect ngā taonga tuku iho (treasures handed down),
· supporting Piritahi Marae to further develop as a local community centre and community agency.
Implementation
23. Pending adoption of the plan, minor edits may be necessary. This report recommends that responsibility for approving these are delegated to the Chair.
24. Photos and other design features will then be added to the plan to prepare it for publication.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 |
39 |
Signatories
Authors |
Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
28 September 2017 |
|
Public alerting framework for Auckland
File No.: CP2017/19636
Purpose
1. To provide information on the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland. The report also provides the results of an analysis carried out by GNS Science, identifying communities at risk from tsunami across Auckland.
2. In addition, the report also seeks in-principle support for the proposed enhancement of Auckland’s tsunami siren network.
Executive summary
3. In February 2017, the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Committee endorsed the draft Public Alerting Framework for Auckland.
4. Following on from this, crown research agency, GNS Science was commissioned to provide an analysis of those communities most at risk from tsunami within the orange and red tsunami evacuation zones.
5. The GNS report and the Public Alerting Framework was presented to local boards in workshop sessions. Auckland Emergency Management is asking local boards for in principle support for the Public Alerting Framework and for an enhanced tsunami siren network.
6. Next steps involve procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage. Further information will be presented to local boards in due course.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the approach to public alerting as outlined in the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland (Attachment A). b) provide in-principle support for the development of an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network, noting that further information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will be reported in due course.
|
Comments
Tsunami risk for Auckland
7. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon consisting of a series of waves generated when a large volume of water in the sea, or in a lake, is rapidly displaced[1]. Tsunami threats pose a risk to New Zealand and to Auckland. Occurrence rates of tsunami are higher in the Pacific than for other oceans because of the "Ring of Fire".[2] Tsunami waves are most commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. In addition, these events have the potential to cause multiple other hazards including but not limited to; fire, fault line ruptures, coastal inundation, landslides, lifeline utility failures and serious health issues.[3] The Tonga-Kermadec trench is one of the Earth’s deepest trenches, and is Auckland’s highest risk for tsunami. Auckland is susceptible to regional and distant source tsunami, that is, tsunami generated from earthquakes in and around the Pacific Rim with travel time more than 1 hour as well as locally generated tsunami. Tsunami can be categorised as local, regional or distant based on their travel time or distance to the Auckland coastline.
· Local source – less than 1 hour travel time. These tsunamis can be generated by offshore faults, underwater landslide or volcanic activity.
· Regional source – Earthquakes in and around the Pacific Islands and the Tonga-Kermadec Trench 1 to 3 hours travel time to Auckland
· Distant source – Commonly generated by a large earthquake from any location around the Pacific Rim including but not limited to South America, Japan, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The travel time to Auckland will be 3 hours or greater. [4]
Figure 1. This map shows the position of New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean within an area of intense seismic activity called the ‘Ring of Fire’. Source: GNS Science
Tsunami sirens
5. Currently, Auckland has 44 fixed tsunami warning sirens across nine sites in legacy Rodney and Waitakere. These sirens were installed in 2008 and 2010 and do not meet current government technical standards[5] for tsunami warning sirens. All new and existing siren installations will need to meet these standards by June 2020.
6. Auckland Emergency Management is currently investigating the upgrading of its existing siren network from ‘tone-only’ sirens to those with PA/voiceover loudspeaker capability. The sirens have a strong immediate effect and can prompt immediate action to seek further information. There are valuable benefits in using tsunami sirens, in particular, sirens can be used when other communications (e.g. cell phones and radio broadcasting) may not have the maximum reach or be as effective. It is commonly accepted across the emergency management sector that effective public alerting systems are those that take a holistic view. This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned, understood, and in conjunction with effective public education information and campaigns. This is imperative for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting that communities can use and understand.
7. The limited locations of the present tsunami siren systems have been identified as a gap in the public alerting capabilities of Auckland region. Presently, Auckland is not well represented by tsunami sirens with the estimated reach of Auckland’s current sirens being only eight per cent of the ‘at-risk’ population. Auckland’s tsunami siren network is currently being considered for enhancement and expansion through the delivery of the Public Alerting Framework
Public Alerting Framework
8. Auckland Council has recognised the need for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting through the adoption of the Public Alerting Framework. The Framework, which was approved for consultation with local boards in February 2017, has been designed to:
· explain what public alerting in a CDEM sense is, what it can and cannot do;
· give detail on the range of channels for public alerting currently available in Auckland;
· highlight the advances being taken with regards to public alerting at a national level;
· provide some commentary on tsunami sirens, their uses and limitations; and
· assist with decisions taken by the Auckland CDEM Group Committee, local boards and partners and stakeholders with regards to the prioritisation of budgets and options for enhancing public alerting across the Auckland region.
9. Auckland Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as such, has allocated funds from the Long-Term Plan for this venture. This funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.
10. It is important to understand that no one public alerting system is without fault. The Public Alerting Framework focusses on the use of multi-platforms, understanding that a holistic approach is one that maximises the reach of public alerting in an emergency or hazard event. Through this project, prioritised public education is critical. Without effective public education and engagement activities, sirens alone are not considered a standalone approach to public alerting.
GNS Science report
Introduction and methodology
11. Following the endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, crown research agency GNS Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (see Appendix B) of those communities most at-risk of tsunami.
12. A GIS based analysis was used to calculate the number of exposed residents in communities. The analysis used 2013 census population data to identify the number of residents located in the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones. (see Figure 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology please see Appendix B.
Figure 2. Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used in the GNS Science analysis
Results
13. The results of the analysis carried out by GNS Science identified 217 communities at-risk from tsunami. For all 217 communities modelled, there are a total of 49,853 people at-risk from tsunami in the orange and red evacuation zones. For detailed information on the results of this analysis including detail on those communities at risk of tsunami please refer to the report from GNS Science at Appendix B.
Next steps
14. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region in order to share the results of the GNS Science report and the intention to implement an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network. This report seeks in-principle support for this enhanced and expanded network. More information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will be reported in due course
Consideration
Local board views and implications
15. Workshops on tsunami risk were held with local boards in 2016. Following the development of the Public Alerting Framework further information on tsunami risk, including the results of the GNS Science report, were shared with local boards between July and October 2017. Local boards were told that in-principle support for the enhanced and expanded tsunami siren network would be sought at formal business meetings of local boards.
16. As key decision makers representing local communities, local board input into this important project will continue.
Māori impact statement
17. There are no particular impacts on Maori communities which are different from the general population arising from this report. The Public Alerting Framework for Auckland notes the importance of community resilience, of reaching all members of the community and of having systems in place to ensure that public alert messages are understood and ubiquitous.
Implementation
18. Once in-principle support has been achieved, procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage will be undertaken.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
Public Alerting Framework |
73 |
b⇩
|
GNS Science report |
83 |
Signatories
Author |
Celia Wilson, Project Manager |
Authorisers |
Craig Glover, Head of Strategy and Planning John Dragicevich, Civil Defence Emergency Management Director |
28 September 2017 |
|
Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement
File No.: CP2017/18792
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.
That the Waiheke 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
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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
Auckland Plan Draft Content Package |
143 |
Signatories
Author |
Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor |
Authorisers |
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services |
28 September 2017 |
|
Remuneration Authority consultation document
File No.: CP2017/19202
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.
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.
That the Waiheke 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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
Local Government Review |
159 |
Signatories
Author |
Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services |
Authorisers |
Phil Wilson - Governance Director Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services |
28 September 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/18571
Executive summary
1. Providing Chairperson Paul Walden with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues he has been involved with and to draw the Board’s attention to any other matters of interest.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the verbal report from Chairperson Paul Walden.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
Waiheke Local Board 28 September 2017 |
|
File No.: CP2017/20416
Executive Summary
1. Attached are the lists of resource consent applications related to Waiheke Island received from 5 to 11 August, 12 to 18 August, 19 to 25 August, 26 August to 1 September and 2 to 8 September 2017.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the lists of resource consents lodged related to Waiheke Island from 5 to 11 August, 12 to 18 August, 19 to 25 August, 26 August to 1 September and 2 to 8 September 2017.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Resource Consent Applications Received 5-11 August 2017 |
193 |
b⇩ |
Resource Consent Applications Received 12-18 August 2017 |
195 |
c⇩ |
Resource Consent Applications Received 19-25 August 2017 |
197 |
d⇩ |
Resource Consent Applications Received 26 August - 1 September 2017 |
199 |
e⇩ |
Resource Consent Applications Received 2 - 8 September 2017 |
201 |
Signatories
Author |
Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
28 September 2017 |
|
Waiheke Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings
File No.: CP2017/18575
Executive Summary
1. Attached are copies of the record of proceedings of the Waiheke Local Board workshops held on 17 August 2017, 23 August, 24 August, 31 August, 7 September 2017, 12 September and 14 September 2017.
That the Waiheke Local Board a) note the record of proceedings of the Waiheke Local Board workshops held on 17 August 2017, 23 August, 24 August, 31 August, 7 September 2017, 12 September and 14 September 2017. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
20170817 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
205 |
b⇩ |
20170823 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
207 |
c⇩ |
20170824 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
209 |
d⇩ |
20170831 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
211 |
e⇩ |
20170907 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
213 |
f⇩ |
20170912 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
215 |
g⇩ |
20170914 Waiheke Local Board Workshop proceedings |
217 |
Signatories
Author |
Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
28 September 2017 |
|
Governance Forward Work Programme
File No.: CP2017/18576
Executive Summary
1. Attached is a copy of the Governance Forward Work Programme for Waiheke which is a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings and workshops over the next 12 months.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note the Governance Forward Work Programme.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩
|
Governance Forward Work Programme |
221 |
Signatories
Author |
Safia Cockerell - Democracy Advisor - Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke |
[1] Berryman, K. et al. (2005) Review of Tsunami Hazard and Risk in New Zealand. Dunedin, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited.
[2] GNS Science, Tsunami in New Zealand data accessed on 26th June 2017 from https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards/Tsunami/Tsunami-in-New-Zealand
[3] ACDEM (2016), Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021
[4] Auckland Council, Natural hazards and emergencies- Tsunami data accessed on 26th June 2017 from http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/environmentwaste/naturalhazardsemergencies/hazards/pages/tsunamihazardsinauckland.aspx
[5] [5] MCDEM (2014), Tsunami Warning Sirens Technical Standard [TS 03/14]