Agenda of Governing Body

Terms of Reference

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate

(b) the power to make a bylaw

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

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

(b) approval of a draft bylaw prior to consultation

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

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

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

(f) approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) overview of the implementation and refresh of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

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

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

An apology from Deputy Mayor BC Cashmore has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 19 April 2018 including the confidential section, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 30 April 2018, as a true and correct record.

5 Petitions

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

6 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

7 Local Board Input

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

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

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

8 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Governing Body

24 May 2018

Local Electoral Matters Bill and trial of online voting

File No.: CP2018/07446

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Local Electoral Matters Bill; and to support in principle Auckland Council trialling online voting for the 2019 local elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has been closely involved in the working group leading the local government sector’s effort advocating for an online voting trial in the 2019 local elections.

3. Staff have drafted a council submission to the Justice Select Committee (Attachment A) on the Local Electoral Matters Bill (Attachment B). The draft submission:

· highlights the importance of trialling online voting at the 2019 local elections

· supports the amendments proposed in the Bill

· recommends additional amendments on matters that should be put in place before the 2019 local elections. These amendments relate to:

o allowing candidate nominations and profile statements to be submitted electronically

o enabling the council to change the number of Governing Body members and to modify local board boundaries to maintain alignment with ward boundaries.

4. Staff ask that a Governing Body member be appointed with knowledge of the local electoral legislation to speak to the submission at the select committee with the General Manager Democracy Services.

5. Staff ask that the Governing Body support in principle Auckland Council participating in a trial of online voting in 2019 subject to specific conditions being met.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Local Electoral Matters Bill as contained in Attachment A of the report

b) appoint a member of the Governing Body to appear before the Justice Select Committee on behalf of Auckland Council

c) support in principle Auckland Council conducting an online voting trial in the 2019 local body elections for a subset of electors, either alone or in partnership with other councils, subject to the following conditions:

i) the enabling legislation and subsequent regulations being passed in time to procure and implement an online voting solution

ii) all risks, including security risks, being appropriately managed

iii) the cost being acceptable

iv) the Governing Body giving final approval for any trial to go ahead.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Submission on the Local Electoral Matters Bill

6. The Bill includes several important amendments to the local electoral legislation, which will enable and support local authorities in their efforts to increase democratic participation.

Trial of online voting

7. Online voting has been lawful since 2001. It is included in the definition of voting methods in section 5 of the Local Electoral Act 2001. However, there are no regulations allowing online elections. The Bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 to allow voters to choose from alternative voting methods and to enable a voting method to be offered to a specific subset of electors at an election for the purpose of a trial.

8. This provides a mechanism to limit the risks of trialing a new voting method on the whole elector population. In Auckland Council’s case, this means we could offer online voting as an additional voting method alongside postal voting to specific categories of electors such as overseas electors, disabled electors, or electors within a ward or local board area, or a combination of these.

Date of birth

9. The Bill will allow the Electoral Commission to provide date of birth information to local authorities if required to conduct a local election. This will enable the elector’s date of birth to be used as a factor to authenticate electors in the design of online voting.

Research into voter participation

10. The Bill will amend the Electoral Act 1993 to clarify that electors' age group information may be used for the purpose of research relating specifically to participation in local elections.

11. The benefit of this change is twofold:

· firstly, it enables the evaluation of trials of new voting methods using age group demographics, which will inform further improvement to the design of the new method;

· secondly, it ensures that any local authority can access information to better understand voter turnout and support its efforts to improve voter participation.

Allowing electronic transmission of nominations

12. For the 2016 Auckland local elections, over 600 nomination forms and profile statements were supplied by candidates and had to be typed and proof-read. The potential for mistakes and the cost associated with manually handling these would be significantly reduced if nominations could be submitted electronically.

13. Section 55 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that nominations be submitted “in the prescribed manner” and the Local Electoral Regulations, clause 25, states this must be in writing. It appears there is conflicting legal advice as to whether nominations that were scanned and emailed were ‘in writing’ for the purposes of this act.

14. Therefore, staff recommend that ‘nomination in writing’ be clearly defined and that a nomination received electronically should be valid provided the particulars are all clearly legible, including the signatures and addresses of the nominee, nominator and seconder.

Improving processes for a review of representation arrangements

15. In September 2017 the Governing Body resolved to:

“ff) approve council continuing to advocate to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of Governing Body members, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers and boundaries of local boards.” [GB2017/121].

16. Staff are taking the opportunity of making a submission on electoral matters to request the legislative changes that would give effect to the Governing Body resolution.

17. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets the membership of Auckland Council’s Governing Body as the Mayor and 20 members, which means the council is not able to review the number of members when conducting a review of representation arrangements under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

18. The Local Government Act 2002 requires a reorganisation application for local boards to be created, amalgamated, disestablished or for local board boundaries to be changed. This means that the council is not able to restore alignment between ward and local board boundaries if ward boundaries need to change as a result of the review of representation arrangements.

19. In the submission, staff recommend that:

i. the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 be amended to enable Auckland Council to review the number of Governing body members when conducting representation arrangement reviews under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

ii. the Local Electoral Act 2001 be amended to provide a process to restore alignment between ward and local board boundaries if ward boundaries need to change as a result of the review of representation arrangements and maintaining alignment is supported by affected local boards.

Supporting Auckland Council’s involvement in a 2019 online voting trial

20. On 27 July 2017 the Governing Body approved the council’s submission on the previous parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections. The submission advocated for councils to be able to trial online voting [GB/2017/83]. The inquiry was ultimately abandoned, but we have appended that submission to our submission on the Local Electoral Matters Bill.

21. At its December 2016 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to “request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections” [FIN/2016/164].

22. The council’s demographic advisory panels strongly support the introduction of online voting to encourage democratic participation of Auckland’s diverse communities. For instance, on 21 November 2017 the Disability Panel recommended “that Auckland Council seriously consider supporting online voting in the 2019 local elections, in particular for disability communities, many of whose members experience difficulty casting their votes independently. “

23. Democracy Services and ICT staff have been closely involved in the working group leading the local government sector’s effort to organise an online voting trial for the 2019 local elections. This effort has been coordinated jointly by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).

24. At the end of 2017, LGNZ wrote to the Minister of Local Government seeking a financial contribution from central government to assist with the cost of running a trial, with the local government sector meeting the remaining cost. Due as much to timing as to the multiple demands faced by a new government, LGNZ was not successful in its funding bid and the possibility of sector-wide funding was lost for this financial year once councils began their Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 consultation process.

25. As a result, the national procurement approach that the working group had been developing will not proceed for 2019. The original proposal for a single online voting provider jointly procured on behalf of the 12 – 20 councils that had expressed interest, has become non-viable. Councils can now choose to collaborate together and jointly commission an online provider, or to run a trial on their own.

26. Our preferred option would be to join with other councils to run one trial together, for three reasons:

· It would minimise costs.

· It would reduce the risk of several independently-run trials to fail. If one or more trials proceed in 2019, it is imperative that they succeed. Any failure could set back the introduction of online voting in New Zealand for many years.

· It would be more effective to run a coordinated public information campaign to educate the public and address concerns.

27. LGNZ and SOLGM will continue to work with the Department of Internal Affairs on getting the regulatory delivery and security framework in place to enable trials to proceed, should councils wish. They will also continue to advocate for and coordinate councils who are keen to trial online voting in 2019, as well as lead on those matters that need to happen at a national level.

28. For all the reasons outlined in our submission to the Justice Select Committee, Auckland Council staff are still keen to run an online voting trial in 2019 for a subset of electors, subject to the following conditions:

· the enabling legislation and subsequent regulations being passed on time to procure an online voting system

· all risks, including security risks, being appropriately managed

· the cost being acceptable

· the Governing Body giving final approval for the trial to go ahead.

29. If the legislation is enacted, regulations will need to be made setting up the functional and security requirements for the online voting system. These will need to be known as early as possible for a provider to be able to meet them on time for the 2019 elections.

30. Project risks will need to be properly assessed and appropriate mitigation strategies will need to be developed. In addition to the risks usually associated with sourcing any IT system, specific risks include:

· security risks – protecting the integrity of the voting system will be paramount to the success of the trial

· public acceptance – there are vocal international anti online voting activists who will actively seek to undermine the project.

31. Staff are not recommending running a trial at any cost, and there are presently no provisions in the draft LTP for an online voting trial. However, we are not able to provide exact costings at this stage. We need to be able to engage with providers to assess costs, and for this we need in-principle support from the Governing Body for a trial. Costs will be different if we use a local provider or an international one. Costs will also depend on how many councils participate in the trial. As a guide, however, staff estimate that the costs of running a trial for about 75,000 eligible voters in Auckland would be in the order of $1m to $1.5m. This assumes a subset of 5,000 visually-impaired eligible voters, 20,000 eligible overseas voters and about 50,000 eligible voters from a chosen ward.

32. To be able to proceed, staff are seeking the Governing Body’s in-principle support for the trial subject to the four conditions outlined in paragraph 28.

33. This support will enable us to approach other councils and form a consortium to work together, run a request for proposal process and engage with a preferred vendor to establish a timetable and budget. If we ascertain that a trial is feasible, we will then come back to the Governing Body with a formal proposal for final approval.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

34. All local boards made comments on Auckland Council’s submission to the inquiry into the 2016 local elections, which specifically advocated for the introduction of online voting.

35. There has been no other formal engagement with local boards on trialling online voting since then. We will engage with local boards if the trial is likely to go ahead.

36. The Waitematā Local Board has indicated it intends to make a submission on removing the cap on the number of Governing Body members as part of its submission on the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

37. Voting turnout has historically been lower among Māori than non-Māori, with Māori who are younger and less well off the least likely to vote.

38. In 2014, in its advice to the Department of Internal Affairs on the pros and cons of introducing online voting, the Māori Internet Society declared that online voting would offer mixed benefits for Māori.

39. On the one hand, Māori are less likely to have an internet connection than non-Māori. On the other hand, online voting has the potential to increase political participation, particularly among young people, as research shows that 85 per cent of Māori aged 15-24 use the internet for social media networking.

40. No formal engagement was conducted with Māori groups and community on trialling online voting or our submission on the Bill.

41. However, the council will engage with communities, including Māori communities, as part of the development of an online voting system should a trial be confirmed for the 2019 local elections. It will also look at ways to maximise internet accessibility so that as many eligible voters as possible can vote online.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

42. Making a submission on the Bill has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

43. There is a reputational risk where iwi, business or community views differ from the council submission. This is mitigated by an ability to make a submission supporting their view.

44. Privacy risks related to online voting have been covered in our submission.

45. The risks of running an online voting trial will be thoroughly assessed before seeking Governing Body approval for the trial.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

46. Submissions are due by 22 June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Submission to the Justice Select Committee in the matter of the Local Electoral Matters Bill	15
b ⇩	Local Electoral Matters Bill	23

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

24 May 2018

Decision-making delegation to Waiheke Local Board over public land, 10 Ocean View Road, Matiatia, Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2018/05269

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek a delegation to the Waiheke Local Board to make land use and development decisions over public land at 10 Ocean View Road, Matiatia on Waiheke Island.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The intention of the Waiheke Governance Pilot is to devolve more decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board to test whether this can provide better outcomes.

3. The Waiheke Local Board is seeking a delegation from the Governing Body to enable it to lead development of public land at Matiatia which has been stalled in the thirteen years since Auckland Council purchased the land.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) delegate non-regulatory land use and development decision-making over public land at 10 Ocean View Road, Matiatia, Waiheke Island described as Lot 8 DP 146325 and Lot 51 DP 159304 to the Waiheke Local Board in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 36C of the Local Government Act 2002

b) confirm the following expectations associated with this delegation:

i) development of the land is expected to include open space, commercial long-term leases, visitor and cultural infrastructure and transport services

ii) excludes land acquisition or disposal decisions

iii) the land will be managed by the Community Facilities department

iv) the delegation will be reviewed after five years

v) Panuku Development Auckland’s non-service portfolio on Lot 8 DP 146325 will be transferred into the service portfolio and managed by Community Facilities in line with current lease terms

vi) existing Auckland Transport parking leases will initially be retained on current terms

vii) all land use and development proposals will be consistent with Auckland Council plans, policies and existing regulations or if amendment is needed, these are agreed with respective decision-makers

viii) land development decisions will seek to balance the investment return intentions outlined when 10 Ocean View Road was purchased in 2005 with current transport, environmental, cultural, economic and tourism needs

ix) Auckland Transport and the Waiheke Local Board will work together to agree transport outcomes for the land and associated road/parking areas, with short term development being made within current budgets and longer-term development decisions being subject to Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and the Auckland Transport Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028 budgets being confirmed

x) the Waiheke Local Board will work with mana whenua to ensure their aspirations for Matiatia are recognised in planning and development outcomes

c) note that the above expectations are consistent with and give effect to:

i) the September 2017 Governing Body resolutions to commence a Waiheke Local Board Governance Pilot project under the Governance Framework Review aimed at testing an increased level of devolved decision making to the Waiheke Local Board

ii) the March 2018 Local Government Commission’s ‘Enhancing local government for Auckland - Recommendations to Auckland Council’ and in particular recommendation 12 that Auckland Council, the Waiheke Local Board and council-controlled organisations work towards solutions at Matiatia.

Horopaki / Context

4. This report responds to the following 22 February 2018 resolution of the Waiheke Local Board:

Request that the Governing Body delegate land use and development decision-making over the undeveloped and Panuku Development Auckland managed parts of the public land at Mātiatia to the local board to enable it to lead and make decisions on future public land use at Mātiatia as agreed under the Mātiatia Strategic Plan, noting that this is consistent with the Auckland Council Governance Review decision to test more devolved decision-making on Waiheke.

5. That report contained a detailed discussion of the issues and status around land use and management at Matiatia. Its conclusion is that local board leadership of decisions and actions at Matiatia is necessary if current issues are to be resolved and a development plan agreed and implemented.

Past decisions

6. In 2005 Auckland City Council purchased 8.7 hectares of land in the bay at Matiatia for $12.5 million to prevent a level of private development that was considered to be inappropriate and to enable coordinated land use and development planning and decisions to be made. The purchase included an expectation of achieving a minimum return of $7 million by a combination of land sale and long-term commercial lease of 8,000m² of land. This return was intended to mitigate $7 million of debt the council has on the books in relation to the original purchase.

7. The land purchased is the area shown on Attachment A (bordered teal) and consists of 8.7 hectares in two lots. It is held in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002. The areas bordered in green in Attachment A are commercial leases managed by Panuku Development Auckland. The area bordered red is leased by Auckland Transport for public parking. The bulk of the land is undeveloped.

8. The wider public landholding in the area also shown in Attachment A consists of:

· Church Bay Esplanade Reserve (Waiheke Local Board - bordered in white)

· Auckland Transport managed road reserve, wharf keyhole, foreshore carpark and the long-term carpark further up Ocean View Road (bordered in red)

· Watercare Services Owhanake wastewater treatment plant and surrounding undeveloped land (bordered in purple).

9. These land management arrangements were passed to Auckland Council and in the case of the Panuku leased areas and the undeveloped land, represent a holding pattern pending future decisions.

10. The 2009 Auckland City Council 20-year Matiatia directional plan was never progressed by Auckland Council. The 2011, 2014 and 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plans and Essentially Waiheke, which is seen as Waiheke’s guiding document, all include outcomes prioritising the development of a Mātiatia plan and seek funding to deliver these plans.

11. Despite these plans and strong, continuous advocacy by the Waiheke Local Board and community, no substantive progress has been made. Lack of funding, other council priorities and the disconnected land management structure, have all contributed to a lack of progress. While the respective management agencies are meeting immediate needs, this fragmentation is seen as a constraint on agreeing and delivering integrated long-term development outcomes at Mātiatia.

12. In September 2017 Auckland Council’s Governance Review included a decision to test more devolved decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board. That decision recognised that Waiheke is a unique community with different needs and a strong desire for decisions to be made locally.

13. In March 2018, the Local Government Commission reported to Auckland Council making recommendations in response to the unsuccessful applications for Waiheke and North Rodney unitary authorities. The Commission’s report included a specific recommendation that Auckland Council with all relevant parties, including the Waiheke Local Board and council-controlled organisations, work towards a solution at Matiatia on Waiheke Island.

Delegation

14. The Governing Body may delegate to a local board any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers but with some exeptions. In deciding whether to make a delegation, the Governing Body must weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district. The delegation enables the local board to act in the same way as the Governing Body would have without further reference to the Governing Body.

15. In deciding whether to make a delegation under Schedule 7, Clause 36C of the Local Government Act 2002, the Governing Body must weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district. In this case, the local board is better acquainted with the land and the needs and preferences of its community in relation to the land. A delegation is considered to be the best way to enable development of the land which is the purpose for which it was purchased in 2005. Further, as the land is on an island, and is not part of a council network or identified as a strategic or growth area, it is not considered necessary for the Governing Body to make the decision in order to ensure a single approach in the district.

16. It is noted that pursuant to Schedule 7, Cl 36C (5) of the Local Government Act (2002),the Governing Body retains legal responsibility to ensure the performance of any decisions that it has delegated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Delegation expectations

17. The delegation will enable the Waiheke Local Board to lead and make decisions on the future use and development of the Matiatia area. Only non-regulatory matters are to be delegated. Planning, funding and development will be managed by the respective Auckland Council departments that report to the Waiheke Local Board. In the case of Auckland Transport managed land, decisions will be made by Auckland Transport in consultation with the Waiheke Local Board.

18. Implicit in this request is an expectation that Waiheke Local Board leadership will enable outcomes that both the Waiheke community and the Auckland Council group can support. To provide certainty and structure to the delegation, the following current and planned processes are in place:

· A Matiatia Strategic Plan is currently being developed by community, mana whenua and council representatives that will determine the best development option for this land via a public consultation process

· An area plan for Waiheke is about to commence led by the council’s Plans and Places department and this will support and direct future land use zoning provisions when the Hauraki Gulf Island District Plan is integrated into the Auckland Unitary Plan

· Specific Long-term Plan 2018-2028 budgets for Matiatia are being sought by both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport and implementation of agreed outcomes will be subject to budgets being available.

19. The intention is that council’s Community Facilities department manages the majority of the Matiatia land and reports directly to the Waiheke Local Board. As can be seen from Attachment A, the bulk of this land is wetland and regenerating bush and its management will largely involve maintaining and enhancing these natural areas. The grass foreshore area is currently maintained by Community Facilities.

20. The areas currently managed by Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport represent 15 per cent of the total 8.7 hectares land area, or 1.3 hectatares. The current district plan zoning for Matiatia provides for up to 10,000m² of mixed use development as a permitted activity and for 10,000m² - 12,000m² as a discretionary activity. Within this a minimum of 35 per cent must be open space and 4000m² of this must adjoining the esplanade reserve.

21. Transfer of Panuku Development Auckland’s commercial lease to Community Facilities enables the local board lead on land-use and development because the local board will be the delegated decision-maker for Community Facilities activities. It enables the local board to test outcomes it is seeking at Matiatia which include activating commercial destination options in this area and supporting mana whenua aspirations.

22. Panuku Development Auckland understands the purpose of the Waiheke pilot, recognizes the value of this approach and supports the transfer of its commercial non-service leases to Community Facilities. Four such leases are in place, two expiring in 2021 and two on a monthly basis. Community Facilities intends to continue to manage these leases on a commercial basis.

23. Auckland Transport manages Matiatia wharf, the road reserve including the keyhole and foreshore carpark which are not part of 10 Ocean View Road. Because Governance Framework Review decisions already direct Auckland Transport to work with the Waiheke Local Board to agree outcomes, these areas apart from the wharf itself are in scope for the Matiatia strategic plan and development project.

24. Subject to funding and stakeholder consultation, Auckland Transport has already had an initial discussion with the Waiheke Local Board about some parking modifications. This will take into account a tour vehicle area trial that ran over summer 2017-18.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

25. This report seeks to give effect to the Waiheke Local Board’s request for decision-making over Matiatia and will support the Waiheke Governance Pilot’s aim of testing more devolved decision-making to the Waiheke Local Board. Local board governance over Matiatia is the first real test for this initiative.

26. The Waiheke Governance Pilot includes a formal recording, monitoring, evaluation and reporting process led by the pilot programme manager and the council’s Research, Evaluation and Monitoring Unit. These parties will report to the Waiheke Local Board and the pilot programme manager will report as needed to the new Joint Governance Working Party and other local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27. The 22 February 2018 Waiheke Local Board resolutions include a resolution that the board agree to pursue planning for and implementation of the Mātiatia Strategic Plan with Ngāti Paoa and to meet with Ngāti Paoa representatives as soon as possible to advance this proposal.

28. Recommendation b. x) in this report confirms the Governing Body’s expectation that The Waiheke Local Board will work with mana whenua to ensure their aspirations for Matiatia are recognised in planning and development outcomes.

29. Recently the Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust approved the public release of a cultural values assessment for Matiatia. This assessment provides a high-level overview of the associations and broad cultural values of Ngāti Paoa which apply to the Matiatia area. It documents the cultural significance of Matiatia to Ngāti Paoa, including specific sites, features and values; and includes recommendations to achieve Ngāti Paoa aspirations for consideration by Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland, which funded the assessment.

30. Ngati Paoa is supportive of the requested delegation and the Waiheke Local Board and officers expect and intend to work closely with Ngati Paoa to give effect to its Matiatia aspirations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31. The governance delegation itself will have no financial implications as costs associated with managing Matiatia land will continue to be borne by current management agencies or in the case of Panuku leases, by Community Facilities.

32. Matiatia Strategic Plan and area plan development costs are currently budgeted. Further development of Matiatia land will either be via existing budgets or subject to budgets being sought both by the Waiheke Local Board and Auckland Transport through respective ten–year plan processes.

33. If a decision is made that prevents any commercial return or reduces the maximum potential return to less than the $7 million anticipated on purchase in 2005, then council debt will be higher than anticipated. The land was valued at $21 million in 2016, which is its current value in the council’s financial records.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

34. If the Governing Body does not approved the delegation request this may put at risk implementing outcomes for Matiatia. It could also create a risk to the Waiheke Governance Pilot as the delegation request is the first real test for that proposal.

35. It is noted that Matiatia decisions and outcomes will be subject to normal plan development, land use and financial processes. The five-year initial term for the delegation and a review after that time, along with the evaluation and reporting process noted above, provide a further mitigation of any risk which might arise.

36. The Auckland Council legislation’s presumption of subsidiarity where non-regulatory activities are managed locally unless there is a reason to manage them regionally supports this delegation. The activities at Matiatia are not a regional matter, with the exception perhaps of ferry services which are outside of the scope of the requested delegation.

37. Another key risk is that the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan do not provide sufficient funding to deliver the long-term vision or the subsequent Auckland Transport and Auckland Council business case processes determine the plans are low priority and regional funding is delayed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36. Waiheke Local Board decision-making over Matiatia will be led by the land use planning processes and funding requests outlined in this report. Long-term Plan 2018-2028 budget decisions will be known by July 2018 with some funding requests taking longer under business case processes. Development decisions which can be funded are expected to be made from late 2018 onwards.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Matiatia Public Land Map	31

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

John Nash - Programme Manager,Waiheke & Gulf Islands

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Mayor	Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
Deputy Mayor	Bill Cashmore
Councillors	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Richard Hills	Cr John Watson
	Cr Penny Hulse

Author	Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Advisors
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a	Mayors Report on Visit to Hong Kong, April 2018 (Under Seperate Cover)	Error! Bookmark not defined.
b	Auckland Transport Alignment Project and Regional Fuel Tax Briefing - 27 April 2018 (Under Seperate Cover)