No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 18 October 2018	9

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

File No.: CP2018/20458

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on:

· the trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

· the subset of voters to participate in the online voting trial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The postal system is declining. The frequency of postal deliveries is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. An alternative method to postal voting must be put in place to secure the future of local democracy over time. Following the overall trend of transactions and activities moving online, online voting is the natural progression. It will increase convenience and accessibility for voters and has the potential to increase voter turnout.

3. Following the 24 May 2018 Governing Body’s in-principle support for an online voting trial at the 2019 local body elections, Auckland Council has entered into a collaborative agreement with eight other councils to work together towards the trial.

4. The project comprises three phases. The first phase, from now to December 2018, includes a procurement process aimed at selecting a preferred provider and all participating councils, seeking their Governing Body’s approval to proceed with the trial based on a full business case.

5. The security of the online voting solution is paramount. The participating councils are committed to offering a similar or higher level of security than postal voting. The solution will fulfil stringent security requirements and will be designed, implemented and tested with the assistance from external Information and Communications Technology (ICT) security experts.

6. In the case of Auckland Council, only a specified class of electors (a subset) will be offered to participate in the online voting trial. The other eight councils are intending to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

7. The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that the specified class of electors can be defined according to one or a combination of geographical areas or another common factor, like overseas residence or disability.

8. The size of the subset is still to be confirmed by the Minister of Local Government, but will likely include between 10 and 30 per cent of Auckland’s voting population.

9. The subset needs to be representative of the overall voting population. Staff have conducted an analysis of the population across the 21 local board areas based on a range of criteria. The preliminary results (refer Attachments A and B) show that no individual area is perfectly representative, and that a combination of several areas will increase the representativeness of the sample of electors.

10. Staff recommend also including in the subset the voters that are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the sole postal method, i.e. the overseas and disabled voters.

11. This report seeks local board feedback on the participation of Auckland Council in the trial and on the subset of voters eligible to participate in the trial.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on:

i) the trial of online voting at the 2019 elections

ii) the subset of voters to participate in the trial.

Horopaki / Context

12. For several years, Auckland Council has been supportive of trialling online voting for local body elections. 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’ [resolution number FIN/2016/164].

13. 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 (which has not concluded yet). The submission advocated for councils to be able to trial online voting [resolution number GB/2017/83]. Local boards provided feedback and input into the submission, with several boards expressing support for online voting.

14. At its 24 May 2018 meeting, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an online voting trial for the 2019 local body elections, subject to the following conditions:

· the costs being acceptable

· the legislation and regulations being in place on time

· identified risks being manageable

· the council giving its final approval to proceed.

15. The Local Electoral Matters Bill, which amends the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 to enable the conduct of trials of new voting methods is still before Parliament. Councillor Richard Hills and staff made an oral presentation to the Justice Select Committee on Auckland Council’s submission on the bill on 29 August 2018. The select committee is due to report back on 9 November 2018.

16. The enabling regulations are being drafted. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) released an exposure draft of the regulations on 19 October 2018, which is open for consultation until 2 November 2018. Two engagement events for community representatives and stakeholders were organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Future-proofing local democracy

17. The internet has become an integral part of everyday life. Many of the transactions that used to be carried out by post have long been replaced by online options, to the extent that people expect online facilities to enable the undertaking of their day-to-day activities. Online voting is therefore a natural progression and constitutes an opportunity to modernise the operation of local democracy in New Zealand.

18. The current postal voting method relies entirely on New Zealand Post providing an effective and reliable service. It is a reality that the postal service is declining. Fewer New Zealanders choose to communicate via post, particularly first time and younger voters, many of whom have never posted a letter. The frequency of delivery is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. The postal cost for the 2019 Auckland local elections will increase by an estimated 77 per cent compared with 2016, because of a postage price increase of almost 60 per cent and an increase in the number of electors of approximately 70,000.

19. It will become increasingly difficult to deliver postal voting effectively and affordably. Therefore, it is crucial to have a viable alternative to postal voting in place, and online voting is the obvious choice.

Online voting has the potential to increase voter turnout

20. Voter turnout has been dropping in both national and local elections in New Zealand. In the Auckland 2016 local elections, the voter turnout was 38.5 per cent. This means that almost two out of three eligible electors did not vote.

21. Online voting has the potential to enhance participation in elections. Auckland Council conducted voter awareness research after the 2016 local elections^{^[1]}. The results strongly indicate that if online voting was available, electors would be more inclined to vote.

22. When asked ‘If you had the choice of online voting or postal voting in the future, which would you prefer?’, 74 per cent of the respondents across all age groups in the 2016 survey said they would prefer online voting to postal voting. Focusing on the non-voter group alone, 82 per cent of respondents said they would prefer online voting to postal voting and 25 per cent said online or app-based voting would make them more likely to vote.

23. The results reflect an appetite for online voting, particularly when faced with the inconvenience of postal voting: 13 per cent of non-voters (4 per cent of all respondents) completed voting papers but did not post them. Factors such as not knowing where to find a post box, the additional effort of physically taking papers to a post box and the confusion caused by the postal deadline and the actual close of the voting period a few days later, created further barriers to voter participation. Removing these barriers alone would potentially have pushed the overall voter participation in Auckland’s 2016 local elections from 38.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent.

24. International experience and research demonstrates the positive effect that online voting can have on voter turnout. Some non-voters and infrequent voters are drawn to internet voting in Canada and European countries such as Estonia and Switzerland. This means that some electors who have not voted previously voted for the first time, or on a more regular basis, because online voting was an option.

25. In Estonian parliamentary elections, turnout has increased by 2.3 per cent since online voting was introduced in 2005. Post-election surveys in Estonia show a large proportion of people indicated they wouldn’t have voted if online voting wasn’t offered.

26. At the municipal level in Canada, researchers examining online voting over time found that internet voting increased voter turnout by 3.5 per cent.

27. The introduction of electronic voting for overseas military voters in various United States (US) jurisdictions has resulted in signiﬁcant improvements in turnout. In Cook County, one of the largest electoral jurisdictions in the US, turnout increased from 11 per cent to 53 per cent after the introduction of internet voting in 2012.

Online voting improves accessibility

28. Currently, a large part of the disability community requires support to complete and post voting papers. People with vision impairment, for example, cannot vote secretly and without the assistance of a support person. Online voting, coupled with screen-reading technology, would allow them to vote unaided.

29. International postal timeframes can make it difficult for overseas voters to submit their votes in time. For them as well, online voting would make it easier to participate in the New Zealand local elections.

Online voting offers a better voting experience

30. Online voting will make the voting process easier and faster, increase the speed and accuracy of results and reduce costs of local elections over time.

31. Estonia, where online voting has been used in elections from 2005 and is now well established nationwide, has attempted to quantify the efficiency gain for using online voting as opposed to booth voting. It calculated that, in the Estonian parliamentary elections of 2011, the cumulative time savings in online voting were 11,000 working days, or €504,000 ($890,000) in average wages.^{^[2]}

32. Online voting offers the potential to reduce voter errors. Technology can help prevent a voter from accidentally spoiling their ballot or submitting an incorrect or invalid vote.

33. International experience suggests that a real tangible benefit of online voting is to substantially improve the voting experience of voters, making it more convenient to vote when, where and how they want.

34. Online voting also offers potential for greater information and engagement. It provides end-to-end verifiability so that a voter is able to verify that their vote was received. These benefits will improve the experience of those who were already intending to vote and has the potential of addressing some of the barriers for non-voters.

Booth voting is not a viable option

35. Booth voting is provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001 and is authorised under regulations. However, reverting to booth voting on a single election day as an alternative or complementary option to postal voting is not a viable solution.

36. Election day is increasingly losing its meaning for people as they want the convenience to vote when it suits them, as shown by the growth in advance voting in recent years’ general elections, with a significant 47 per cent of advance voting at the 2017 general election compared with 29 per cent in 2014 and 15 per cent in 2011.^{^[3]}

37. A third argument against using booth voting for local elections is the complexity of the local election voting process. Compared with parliamentary elections, voting in local government elections takes more thought and more time, making booth voting impractical.

38. In Auckland for instance, electors need to vote for the Mayor, one or two councillors for their ward, between five and eight local board members, as well as district health board (DHB) members and, in some cases, licensing trust members. Using an actual example from the 2016 local elections, a Waitākere Ward/Henderson-Massey Local Board elector had to make a choice between 74 candidates standing for 21 positions, as follows:

· Mayor: 19 candidates for one position

· Waitākere Ward: nine candidates for two positions

· Henderson-Massey Local Board: 24 candidates for eight positions

· Waitākere Licensing Trust (Ward 2): six candidates for three positions

· Waitematā DHB: 16 candidates for seven positions.

Making the trial happen

39. To organise the trial, Auckland Council is partnering with eight other councils. They are Gisborne District Council, Marlborough District Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hamilton City Council, Tauranga City Council and Wellington City Council.

40. The nine councils have obtained in-principle political and executive approval to trial online voting at the 2019 elections, have formally entered into a participation agreement and have formed an Online Voting Working Party.

41. The working party is working closely with the DIA to ensure the necessary legislative and regulatory framework is in place on time to enable the proposed trial in 2019.

42. The working party is following a three-phase approach to organise the trial as detailed below.

Phase 1 – July to December 2018

43. The working party is currently developing a business case, which will define the scope and costs of the proposed trial, and explain how any risks to the security and integrity of the solution will be managed. The business case will also outline how the nine councils will share the costs of the trial.

44. As part of the business case development, the working party issued a request for a proposal to potential suppliers in September 2018. Responses are being evaluated by a panel of representatives from the working party and ICT experts. A preferred provider will be selected by mid-November 2018.

45. Based on the business case, the governing bodies of the nine councils will be asked to confirm their participation in the trial in December 2018.

46. In the case of Auckland Council, the business case and report seeking the approval of the Governing Body will be presented at the 13 December 2018 meeting and will include feedback from local boards.

47. During this phase, the participating councils are also engaging with the parties that will be involved in the trial, including regional councils, DHBs and licensing trusts. Auckland Council staff have started engaging with representatives from all Auckland DHBs and licensing trusts. Overall, their reaction to the trial has been positive, but the additional costs will ultimately be a decisive factor in securing their support.

Phase 2 – January to ‘go/no-go’ date

48. After the list of participating councils has been confirmed, the councils will enter into an agreement with the provider and start developing the online voting solution.

49. The trial can only proceed if the regulatory framework is in place on time, otherwise there will be insufficient time to be ready by October 2019. The working party and the supplier will agree the date by which regulations need to be in place for the trial to proceed – the ‘go/no‑go’ date.

50. If the decision is ‘no-go’, the working party will negotiate with the supplier how to proceed. Options will be to either continue to develop a system to use for any by-elections, or shelve the work for a future trial.

Phase 3 – ‘Go’ date to October 2019

51. If regulations are in place on time, phase 3 will include:

· development, testing and audit of the online voting solution

· deployment of the solution for the elections

· evaluation of the trial after the elections.

How it will work in practice

52. Full details of how the online solution will work and how it will integrate with the election providers’ systems to ensure the integrity of the whole election process is maintained will only be available once the tender process is completed and a vendor has been selected.

53. The chart below provides an overview of the experience of an elector choosing to cast their vote online:

Security and integrity

54. No information technology (IT) or voting system is 100 per cent secure, but the Online Voting Working Party is committed to developing an online voting solution that will guarantee a similar or higher level of security than currently offered by postal voting.

55. The request for proposal to vendors includes stringent requirements to ensure that the integrity and security of the online voting solution will be maintained at all times.

56. The solution will be independently audited by international IT security experts.

57. The participating councils are assisted by the former Chief Information Officer for the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which has been using online voting in their state elections, as well as ICT security experts from the Government Chief Digital Office. The participating councils have also enlisted additional external ICT security resources to assist with the evaluation of the vendors’ proposals and, in a later stage, with the design, implementation and testing of the online voting solution.

Selecting a subset of electors eligible to vote online

Why a subset, and what subset

58. Any new voting system must meet the test of being free, fair and regular, provide for universal, equal and secret suffrage, and be fully trusted by voters. It therefore needs to be robustly tested and trialled.

59. A trial will also increase public awareness of online voting and enable users to become familiar with the new technology, thereby building trust and credibility in the system. Building trust and gaining support is one of the most critical parts of the process. Without trust, the system will be unusable, and the integrity of the whole electoral system could be called into question.

60. Central government considers that trialling online voting for the whole Auckland electorate, equalling approximately a third of the New Zealand electorate, is too big a risk. Auckland Council will only be allowed to trial online voting with a specified class of electors (a subset). Choosing a representative sample of eligible voters is therefore important to ensure that evaluation of the trial is robust.

61. The other eight councils participating in the trial intend to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

62. The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that it is the regulations that will authorise the use of online voting by a specified class of elector for the trial. The bill defines a class of electors as:

· an area or subdivision in which the specified class of electors is eligible to vote, or

· any other characteristic that makes online voting suitable for the specified class of electors.

63. The recommendation to the Governing Body will be to ask the central government that the subset of Auckland electors eligible to vote online be made of:

· overseas voters

· people with a disability

· voters in specific local board areas.

Selection parameters for the subset

Size

64. The first consideration for defining the subset is its size. The subset should be of reasonable size for implementation and risks to be manageable, but significant enough to enable testing, research and a robust evaluation.

65. The initial thinking presented to the Governing Body was to include in the sample approximately 110,000 voters, or 10 per cent of the voting population. Estimating the potential uptake based on overseas experience with online voting, it is believed a maximum of 30 per cent of voters within the subset would actually use the solution and vote online. This means an online voting solution would be built for a potential 33,000 voters using the solution; or only around 3 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

66. It is now being considered to increase the size of the subset to approximately 330,000 voters, or 30 per cent of the voting population. With the same estimated uptake of 30 per cent, approximately 99,000 voters would use the online voting solution; or about 9 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

67. Confirmation is pending from the DIA as to how large a subset the Minister of Local Government would allow Auckland Council to include in the trial.

68. For comparison purposes, the other larger participating councils are the Wellington city and Hamilton city councils, with respectively an approximate 153,000 and 103,000 voters eligible to participate in the online voting trial.

Accessibility

69. It is considered the trial should benefit those who are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the single postal method. Therefore, it is recommended having overseas and disabled voters as part of the subset. This group constitutes an estimated 30,000 voters.

70. Because overseas and disabled voters will be enrolled across the Auckland region, they will potentially vote online for all the wards and local boards.

Representativeness

71. The subset must be defined in such a way that it cannot call into question the neutrality and integrity of the electoral process or of the elections results.

72. It needs to be representative of the Auckland voting population, based on a range of criteria that correlate with voter turnout. These include:

· age

· ethnicity

· income

· education level.

73. Having a representative sample will also help conduct a more robust evaluation of the trial.

Other considerations

74. The cost and ease of implementation of the solution must also be considered. The more voters take part in the trial, the higher the cost. Offering online voting as an option to a subset of electors will also require a targeted communication campaign. A complex subset will make communication and logistics costlier and has the potential to confuse voters. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid geographical areas where the boundaries between wards and local boards are no longer aligned, following the review of representation arrangements which is to be implemented for the 2019 local elections.

75. It was considered whether internet accessibility needed to be a criterion. The most recent data available, which comes from the State of the Internet report released by Internet New Zealand in 2017, shows that 93 per cent of New Zealanders have access to the internet, either at home, work or both. Therefore, it is not a belief that internet accessibility will be an issue for Auckland, except for Great Barrier Island.

Selecting the geographic area(s)

76. The council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) has conducted in-depth statistical analysis of the population across Auckland’s 21 local boards. The analysis compares the population in each local board area against the overall Auckland population using age, ethnicity, income and qualification levels. The results of the analysis are included in Attachments A and B.

77. The analysis considered the average voter turnout in each area compared to Auckland overall, but this added parameter did not impact the results, so it was therefore removed from the graphs provided for simplicity purposes.

78. The analysis shows that certain local board areas have a more diverse population make up than others, and that no single board is perfectly representative of the overall Auckland population. The subset will therefore need to be made up of a combination of local board areas, allowing larger discrepancies to cancel each other out and making the sample representative as a whole.

79. The final combination will depend on the total number of voters allowed in the subset and will be finalised once DIA confirms that number.

80. The final recommendation on the subset will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting. As part of this report, local board feedback is being sought on the possibility of this local board area being included in the final subset, to be reported to the Governing Body when they are considering the final recommendation.

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

81. Trialling online voting will impact elections in all local board areas.

82. Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for its consideration when making the final decision regarding the selection of the subset and the continued participation in the trial.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

84. Findings from a recent qualitative research project focusing on Pacific and Māori revealed that online voting was popular among a large majority of participants. Participants did not express concerns about online voting, and some saw the solution as more secure than postal voting.

85. A representative sample of the Auckland Māori population will be included in the subset to participate in the trial, as Māori ethnicity is one of the criteria used to choose the geographic subset.

86. At this stage, no formal engagement has been conducted with Māori groups and community. Staff will engage with communities and stakeholders, including Māori, as part of the development of an online voting system should a trial be confirmed to proceed for the 2019 local elections.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

87. The full costs of implementing an online voting solution will be known after the tender process is completed and a vendor selected.

88. The budget for the online voting trial is not included in the long-term plan and will require approval from the Governing Body, as the financial decisions relating to election costs is part of its responsibilities. A business case detailing the costs and benefits of participating in the trial will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

89. Risks and mitigation measures are covered in the analysis section of this paper.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

90. Feedback from the local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Governing Body on 13 December 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards A-M	33
b ⇩	Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards O-W	35

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2018/20845

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

· alphabetical order of surname

· pseudo-random order

· random order.

3. Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order, and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4. Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5. The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013 and 2016 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

Horopaki / Context

Options available

7. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1) The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2) Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3) If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4) If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8. In 2013, the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order.

9. In 2016, there was only a minimal additional cost to use random order due to changes in printing technology. An analysis of the 2013 election results was conducted to assess whether there were any effects due to being listed first. The analysis showed there was no compelling evidence of bias towards those listed first. Most local board feedback was to continue listing candidates alphabetically and the Governing Body resolved to use alphabetical order.

10. All district health boards (DHBs) in the Auckland Council area decided to use random order of names. In the voting pack that Auckland electors received, voting documents for Auckland Council elections were alphabetical and voting documents for district health board elections were random.

11. The following table shows the order decided by city and regional councils for the 2016 elections:

Auckland Council	Alphabetical
Hawke's Bay Regional Council	Alphabetical
Invercargill City Council	Alphabetical
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council	Alphabetical
Northland Regional Council	Alphabetical
Southland Regional Council	Alphabetical
Taranaki Regional Council	Alphabetical
Upper Hutt City Council	Alphabetical
West Coast Regional Council	Alphabetical
Bay of Plenty Regional Council	Random
Christchurch City Council	Random
Dunedin City Council	Random
Canterbury Regional Council	Random
Hamilton City Council	Random
Hutt City Council	Random
Napier City Council	Random
Nelson City Council	Random
Otago Regional Council	Random
Palmerston North City Council	Random
Porirua City Council	Random
Tauranga City Council	Random
Waikato Regional Council	Random
Wellington City Council	Random
Wellington Regional Council	Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

12. Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13. A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion, as it is not possible for the supporting documents (such as the directory of candidate profile statements) to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter from taking part.

Alphabetical order

14. The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar and easier to use and understand. When there is a large number of candidates competing for a position, it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15. It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16. The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

17. An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013 and 2016 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

· impact on vote share (did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected?)

· impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18. The analysis shows that for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be statistically expected if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19. There is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last three elections.

20. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that statistical analysis of previous election results show does not exist.

Online voting

21. Auckland Council intends to offer online voting to specified classes of electors for the 2019 elections, which is the subject of a separate report on this agenda. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

22. Online voting should present the same voting document to users as the paper equivalent. If names are in random order on the voting document, then the same random order will need to be presented to the online user. This could increase the complexity of the voting solution.

23. On balance, staff consider that alphabetical order of names is preferable for an online voting trial.

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

24. Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when the Governing Body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. There are no financial implications associated with the options for order of names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. If names are ordered alphabetically, there is the risk of perceived bias. If names are randomised, there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The statistical analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Order of names on voting documents	41

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Auckland Regional Services Trust grants process and criteria

File No.: CP2018/19218

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the process and criteria for the distribution of reallocated funds from the legacy Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Local Government Act 1974 provided for the dissolution of the Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) fund, and for the assets to be paid out to the territorial authorities in the Auckland region.

3. From the $1.6 million allocated to the North Shore City Council (NSCC), the NSCC made a grant of $300,000 to the Shore Exhibition Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna. Around $30,000 of this funding was spent during the initial planning and business case stage, leaving a balance of $270,833.33.

4. As the project is no longer proceeding, the remaining funds have been reallocated to four local boards on the North Shore.

5. The Upper Harbour Local Board has received $55,650 which is allocated to the 2018/2019 work programme line 1781 for arts and culture purposes.

6. From the options outlined in this report, staff recommend allocating this budget as a contestable arts and culture grant, using an expression of interest (EOI) process with agreed assessment matrix criteria (refer Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of $55,650 legacy Auckland Regional Services Trust fund, in work programme line 1781, to a contestable grant process.

b) approve the assessment matrix criteria for the fund (refer to Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki / Context

7. In December 2009, NSCC made a grant of $300,000 to the Shore Exhibition Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna.

8. Approximately $30,000 of this funding was spent during the planning stage, leaving a balance of $270,833.33.

9. In October 2017, it was determined that the project would not proceed (resolution number DT/2017/227), and the funds would be reallocated to local boards within the boundaries of the former NSCC.

10. The remaining balance of funds was allocated to the following four local boards:

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Hibiscus and Bays

· Kaipātiki

· Upper Harbour

11. The funds will be allocated in accordance with the Community Grants Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy.

12. The Upper Harbour Local Board has received $55,650, which is allocated to the 2018/2019 work programme line 1781 for arts and culture purposes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. Staff have identified two potential options for how the available $55,650 budget can be allocated.

Option 1: Contestable fund

14. Staff recommend allocating this budget as a contestable arts and culture grant, using an expressions of interest (EOI) process with agreed assessment matrix criteria.

15. The process will be administered through ‘Smartygrants’ grants management system as per other contestable local board grants and will be advertised through council’s promotional channels.

16. Staff will assess the EOIs against approved criteria (refer Attachment A) and recommendations will be presented to the local board at a business meeting for decision.

Option 2: Non-contestable fund

17. The local board can allocate the available funding to a specific organisation or project as a funding agreement, to be developed by the council Arts Advisor in liaison with Local Board Services.

18. The advantages and disadvantages of options 1 and 2 are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1: Contestable fund (recommended option)

· The EOI process provides an opportunity for artists to share their ideas with the local board without needing to undertake the work required for a full application. The local board can then request a comprehensive proposal from the project/s it determines best meet its criteria.

· The process is transparent and accessible.

· There may be a high number of applicants from the EOI process, which can be mitigated by using assessment criteria.

· An EOI process can take a few months to complete, whereas a non-contestable grant can be allocated immediately.

Option 2:

Non-contestable fund

· The local board can allocate funding to a project that they were not able to include in the 2018/2019 work programme.

· Funding can be allocated to the group more quickly than with an EOI process.

· The local board may not have suitable lead organisations or facilities to use this approach.

· There may be a perceived lack of transparency if the fund is allocated through a non-contestable process.

19. Staff recommend Option 1 for allocating the available budget as it allows the local board to explore options using a transparent approach.

20. The local board can approve the criteria for the EOI assessment matrix to manage expectations of the contestable fund for applicants and assessors. It can also add additional criteria as required.

21. Staff recommend assessment matrix criteria (refer Attachment A) that has taken into consideration the previous ARST funding criteria, local board priorities and the Community Grants Policy.

22. The criteria recommend prioritising projects and groups that:

· are of significant scope or size (by scale/reach of the project or size of the audience)

· are new events or projects, not ongoing operational activities

· promote innovation and/or excellence in the area of arts and culture

· are of local impact or benefit, but may be of regional significance

· raise the profile of the arts and promote arts and cultural development.

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

23. This funding is additional to current arts funding available through grants and the work programme, so is offering the community an opportunity for further arts opportunities.

24. The local board can approve the process and criteria for how the available fund will be allocated, to ensure that it responds to their local community needs and priorities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. Applications for a contestable funding approach will be assessed for their delivery of Māori outcomes and this will be included in the funding agreements of successful projects.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. Local board 2018/2019 work programme line 1781 has a budget of $55,650 from a legacy ARST fund to be allocated to arts and culture groups and projects.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. If funds are allocated using a non-contestable process, there is a risk that the approach will be perceived to be non-transparent. To mitigate this risk, staff recommend that the fund is allocated through a contestable EOI process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. Staff will implement the approved funding allocation process and draft funding agreements for the successful community group or project recipients.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Assessment matrix criteria	51

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Catherine George – Regional Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location map - 2 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville	55
b ⇩	Aerial map - 2 Buckley Avenue, Hobsonville	57

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications

File No.: CP2018/19670

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in round one of the 2018/2019 Upper Harbour Quick Response grants (refer Attachment B).

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 19 April 2018 (refer Attachment A). The document sets out application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $113,425 for the 2018/2019 financial year. The local board allocated $46,651.50 in Local Grants Round One 2018/2019. This leaves a total of $66,773.50 to be allocated in one local grants and three quick response rounds.

5. Fifteen applications were received for the Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2109 grants, with a total amount requested of $35,217.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications, as outlined in the following table:

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1917-105	Meadowood House	Community	Towards a barbeque, music, entertainment, community activities, smoothie bike, and Santa photographer for the event ‘Carols at Meadowood 2018’	$1850	Eligible
QR1917-107	New Zealand Chinese Veterans General Federation	Community	Towards the purchase of a computer, camera and printer and administrative and marketing costs	$3750	Eligible
QR1917-113	Greenhithe Community Trust	Community	Towards lighting on the Greenhithe Community Hub building to provide lighting in the carpark	$1772	Eligible
QR1917-115	Merge New Zealand	Community	Towards tutor fees to teach New Zealand Sign Language to primary school children at Upper Harbour Primary School	$1000	Eligible
QR1917-116	Literacy Auckland North Incorporated	Community	Towards the cost to deliver the family literacy programme	$1920	Eligible
QR1917-118	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards a contribution for the free Youthline crisis help phone line for youth in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-120	Albany Chinese Association Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire, English and singing teacher fees, microphone system and a karaoke player for the weekly Chinese cultural and social group from 1 January to 30 June 2019	$8108	Eligible
QR1917-119	Environmental Education for Resource Sustainability Trust	Environment	Towards the purchase and delivery of 450 native trees and 75 recycling bins to Upper Harbour schools and preschools participating in the Paper4trees programme	$2842	Eligible
QR1917-117	The Korean Society of Auckland	Events	Towards venue hire, volunteer and equipment hire costs for the 2019 Korean Day event to be held in March 2019 at the North Shore Event Centre	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-108	North Harbour BMX Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	To purchase materials to install rails, posts and concrete for 15m of fencing at the North Harbour club	$1722	Eligible
QR1917-103	Windsor Park Board Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the manager's wage at the multisport hub in Windsor Park	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-104	East Coast Bays and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards costs for match scorers between December 2018 to April 2019	$1500	Eligible
QR1917-106	Tennis New Zealand Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the event and venue set-up costs for the New Zealand Tennis Championships at Albany Tennis Park on Oteha Valley Road from 11 to 16 December 2018	$2000	Eligible
QR1917-109	North Shore United Hockey Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards storage rental costs for the club gear over the summer months	$753	Eligible
QR1917-114	Harbour Sport Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the annual Shore-to-Shore 5km fun run and walk on 31 March 2019 in Milford Reserve	$2000	Eligible
Total				$35,217

Horopaki / Context

6. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 19 April 2018 (refer Attachment A).

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board will operate two local grant rounds and three quick response rounds in this financial year. Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 closed on 5 October 2018.

10. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $113,425 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. The aim of the local board grants programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in its local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

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

13. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Upper Harbour Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grants programme.

14. The local board is requested to note that Section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states:

We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.

15. A summary of each application received through the Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 is provided (refer to Attachment B).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

18. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $113,425 for the 2018/2019 financial year. The local board allocated $46,651.50 in the Upper Harbour Local Grants Round One 2018/2019, leaving a total of $66,773.50 to be allocated to one local grants round, and three quick response rounds.

19. Fifteen applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $35,217.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

22. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for round one quick response grants, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Grants Programme 2018/2019	65
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications	69

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Erin Shin - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

File No.: CP2018/20967

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To receive a summary of consultation feedback from local board residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, and to provide feedback on recommended changes to the document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently developing a new Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be managed in Auckland. It provides a framework to minimise the spread and impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach. Once operative, the Regional Pest Management Plan will provide a regulatory framework to support the council’s biosecurity activities, including those funded through the natural environment targeted rate.

3. The Proposed Regional Pest Management plan was approved for public consultation by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167) and consulted on in February and March 2018 alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

4. A workshop was held with the local board on 4 October 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5. Upper Harbour Local Board residents provided 41 submissions on the plan, representing 3 per cent of overall submissions. The views of local board residents were similar to regional views, with high levels of support across all topics, excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

6. This report requests the local board’s formal feedback on recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan arising from key submission themes. Submission themes and corresponding changes are summarised in Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive a summary of consultation feedback from Upper Harbour residents on the Proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

b) provide feedback on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan based on consultation feedback.

Horopaki / Context

7. Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy. The new Regional Pest Management Plan will prescribe council’s approach to pest management to reflect best practice and changes to various pest plants and animals in the Auckland region. The review is also in direct response to, and compliant with, the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

8. The review of the Regional Pest Management Plan began with an issues and options paper discussed with elected members, followed by a public discussion document which was used as a basis for engagement with mana whenua, stakeholders and elected members.

9. At its November 2017 meeting, the Environment and Community Committee approved the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan for public consultation alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. Consultation on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan took place in February to March 2018 alongside consultation on the long-term plan (LTP) and other statutory planning documents. A total of 1262 submissions were received, which represents a significant increase on the approximately 400 submissions that were received on the 2015 discussion document. The breakdown by submission type is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan breakdown

by submission type (Auckland-wide)

Submission type	Number of submissions	Percentage of submissions
Online form	1035	82%
Hardcopy form	183	15%
Non-form (e.g. email, letter)	44	3%

11. Of the 1262 submissions received, 23 were pro-forma submissions from Forest and Bird. The number of submissions received by local board area is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

submissions by local board area

Local board	Number of submitters	Percentage of submitters
Albert-Eden	116	9%
Devonport-Takapuna	53	4%
Franklin	50	4%
Great Barrier	24	2%
Henderson-Massey	46	4%
Hibiscus and Bays	85	7%
Howick	52	4%
Kaipātiki	98	8%
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	17	1%
Manurewa	18	1%
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	51	4%
Ōrākei	64	5%
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	7	1%
Papakura	21	2%
Puketāpapa	12	1%
Rodney	162	13%
Upper Harbour	41	3%
Waiheke	37	3%
Waitākere Ranges	87	7%
Waitematā	51	4%
Whau	41	3%
Regional	5	0%
Not Supplied	69	5%
Outside Auckland	55	4%
Total	1262

12. The consultation feedback form included eight questions relating to key programmes in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan that were described in a summary document (see Attachment B for details around each of the proposed approaches). The responses received for each question from residents of the Upper Harbour Local Board area are summarised below in Table 3 and show a high level of support across all these topic areas.

Table 3: Feedback from Upper Harbour residents on the

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

Question	Response	Percentage of submissions local board	Percentage of submissions regional
1. What is your view on the proposed approach to pest plant management in parks?	Full support	30%	26%
	Partial support	21%	17%
	Partial do not support	0%	3%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	48%	53%
2. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing kauri dieback?	Full support	26%	27%
	Partial support	39%	29%
	Partial do not support	3%	5%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	32%	37%
3. What is your view on the proposed approach to prevent the spread of pests to the Hauraki Gulf Islands?	Full support	50%	46%
	Partial support	18%	19%
	Partial do not support	11%	12%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	21%	21%
4. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Aotea/Great Barrier?	Full support	39%	44%
	Partial support	30%	20%
	Partial do not support	4%	4%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	26%	30%
5. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Kawau Island?	Full support	48%	43%
	Partial support	20%	23%
	Partial do not support	8%	7%
	Full do not support	0%	4%
	Other comments	24%	23%
6. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Waiheke Island?	Full support	42%	44%
	Partial support	31%	21%
	Partial do not support	4%	5%
	Full do not support	0%	3%
	Other comments	23%	28%
7. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of rural possums?	Full support	54%	38%
	Partial support	15%	28%
	Partial do not support	8%	7%
	Full do not support	0%	4%
	Other comments	23%	23%
8. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of freshwater pests?	Full support	57%	46%
	Partial support	26%	23%
	Partial do not support	4%	4%
	Full do not support	0%	3%
	Other comments	13%	25%

13. In addition to the eight themed questions covered in Table 3, a further open-ended question elicited responses about a wide range of other topics covered in the proposed plan.

14. The most commonly raised topic in the open-ended question was the issue of cat management. A wide range of views on this topic were expressed, including requests for increased cat management beyond that in the proposed plan. The majority of submissions on this topic voiced concerns about cats being included as pests. These submitters cited animal welfare issues and concerns that domestic cats throughout Auckland would be at risk under the proposed plan. Staff are exploring options for mitigating these concerns, which in many cases reflect a perception of more extensive cat control than was envisaged in the plan. Options for mitigating concerns include clarifying the spatial extent of the proposed approach in the final plan, and alternatives to the use of the term ‘pest cat’.

15. Staff have worked through submissions to determine any changes to be recommended for the final plan. Attachment A identifies key themes where amendments to pest management programmes in the proposed plan were sought by submitters, along with proposed staff responses. Feedback themes have been grouped according to the questions in Table 3 (above), along with an ‘other’ category to capture feedback related to other topics.

16. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board at its November 2018 business meeting on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in response to consultation feedback.

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

17. During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. In addition to these regional issues, the Upper Harbour Local Board provided feedback on locally specific issues of importance to the area, including pigeons, weeds on council land, rabbits, and the importance of education around pests.

18. At its 17 August 2017 business meeting, the board provided formal feedback on these proposed management approaches. A copy of this feedback is appended in Attachment C.

19. A recent workshop with the board was held on 4 October 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and the recommended amendments to the plan, as set out in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. Section 61 of the Biosecurity Act requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out the effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship between Māori, their culture, their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

21. Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland region during development of the plan, and formal submissions were received from the mana whenua groups listed below. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, and providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species.

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Te Uri o Hau

· Te Tira Whakamātaki - Māori Biosecurity Network.

22. Submissions were largely supportive of the approaches set out in the proposed plan, and key themes noted in feedback from mana whenua included:

· the need to enhance rather than protect ecosystem function and resilience

· the need to recognise ecological value outside Significant Ecological Areas

· the need to identify performance measures to enable people to readily evaluate success

· the need to adopt management strategies that incentivise good management approaches

· the importance of community education and involvement in pest management

· mana whenua participation in pest management in collaboration with Auckland Council.

23. Staff have prepared a summary of mana whenua feedback, including proposed staff responses. This document will be circulated to mana whenua submitters for their consideration in November and December 2018. This content will be included in the final submission summary that is reported to the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019, alongside the final plan. This content will be made available to all local boards prior to the committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. The Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan presents a major change in pest management in Auckland, and therefore requires a significant increase in investment. As part of consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the council sought community views on two options for increased investment in the natural environment funded by a targeted rate.

25. On 31 May 2018, the Governing Body approved the introduction of a natural environment targeted rate to raise $311 million for environmental initiatives. These initiatives include addressing kauri dieback and targeted ecological protection (resolution number GB/2018/91).

26. This level of investment allows substantial (approximately 80 per cent), but not full, implementation of the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. Some changes to the proposed plan will be made to fit the funding envelope, most notably reducing the spatial extent of parks supported by pest plant control in buffer zones and removing the moth plant good neighbour rule from the Hauraki Gulf Islands. These changes are addressed in further detail in Attachment A.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. There are no significant risks arising from the local board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the local board chooses not to give feedback, this would create a risk that their views will not be reflected in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

28. If adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan is delayed, this will create significant risks to the council’s ability to achieve targets for protecting native biodiversity, through effectively regulating the control of pest plants, animals and pathogens.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29. Attachment A has been prepared to facilitate local board feedback on the recommended changes to the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

30. Staff will progress development of the final Regional Pest Management Plan in line with the process and indicative timeframes outlined in Table 4 below. A copy of the final plan and supporting information (including a full submissions analysis report and staff recommendations) will be provided to local boards for information prior to adoption by the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019.

Table 4: Timeframes for the finalisation of the Regional Pest Management Plan

Action/Milestone	Indicative timeframe
Mana whenua engagement to address changes proposed in submissions	September – October 2018
Local boards resolve formal feedback at business meetings	November – December 2018
Environment and Community Committee workshop	November 2018
Staff draft final plan	December 2018 – February 2019
Environment and Community Committee adopt plan	March 2019
Closing the loop with local boards and submitters	April – May 2019

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key submission themes and recommended amendments to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback	133
b ⇩	Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - summary document	143
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan	155

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/20727

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. It is estimated that the Auckland region has a shortfall of 45,000 dwellings to meet current demand for housing. A further 313,000 dwellings and work places to support 250,000 jobs will be required by 2050 to meet expected growth. To manage this growth, the council has identified the:

· location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

· location and type of infrastructure required to support growth - through the Development Strategy and structure plans

· when and where it will invest $7.2 billion of growth-related infrastructure in the next 10 years to support development - through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (10-Year Budget).

3. Growth-related capital expenditure has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget. The council has also updated its projection of development growth across the next 10 years. The council will repay the borrowing raised to pay for the investment in infrastructure through general rates, targeted rates, user charges, third party funding (like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidies) and development contributions (DCs).

4. A review has been undertaken of the current contributions policy and the council has adopted a draft Contributions Policy 2019 (refer Attachment A) for consultation, which includes a number of changes.

5. To recover the increased investment in growth-related infrastructure, the indicative urban DC price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST). As a result, the DC revenue the council expects to collect will rise to $2.7 billion, from $2.23 billion under the current policy.

6. The demand placed on transport by different types of development has been reviewed. The analysis shows that retail and commercial development place substantially higher demand on transport infrastructure than is reflected in the current policy. The draft policy includes higher unit of demand factors for transport, and hence prices, for retail and commercial development, with smaller decreases for other development types. This would more fairly reflect the demand different development types place on the need to invest in infrastructure.

7. The draft Contributions Policy 2019 also proposes:

· extending the timeframe for the payment of DCs on residential construction; this will better align the time that residential builders pay DCs to the time they sell the developments

· refining and changing funding areas to better match investment with beneficiaries, including adding areas for:

o transport, to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

o reserves, to provide more detail on projects and their location

· minor amendments, including changes to development types.

8. Consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is taking place from 19 October until 15 November 2018, including:

· five have-your-say events held across the region

· engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

· opportunity for submitters to personally present their feedback to councillors on 23 November 2018.

9. Local board November meetings will consider the draft Contribution Policy 2019 and resolve feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision-making in December.

10. Consultation is supported by consultation document and supporting information (refer Attachments B and C respectively), which set out:

· an overview of how the council is responding to growth and how DCs fit within this context

· a description of how the council sets DC charges

· the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why these have been proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

Horopaki / Context

11. The current policy is known as the Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A) and reflects the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. DCs have recovered approximately $400 million of funding for growth projects in the last three years.

12. Council reviewed the current policy and recommended that it be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-Year Budget. At its meeting on 30 April 2018, the Governing Body agreed to consult on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018.

13. Feedback from the development community requested more detailed supporting information and a longer period for consultation on the draft policy. In response, at its meeting on 27 June 2018, the Governing Body agreed to extend the current policy until 31 January 2019 so that additional supporting information for the policy could be prepared and further consultation on the 2019 policy undertaken.

14. The policy has been reviewed in accordance with the following principles:

· purpose and principles of DCs under the Local Government Act 2002

· equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of the community, having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the benefits

· equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different funding areas

· revenue predictability for the council and cost certainty for developers

· administrative simplicity

· ensuring legislative compliance.

15. Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of DCs as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy sets out how the council will fund capital and operating expenditure for each of its activities, including its decisions to use DCs to fund growth capital expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital expenditure and funding for Auckland’s growth

Capital investment and DC revenue

16. The following table below sets out the changes in DC revenue by activity between the current policy and the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

DC revenue by activity ($ billion)	Current DC policy	Draft DC policy 2019
Transport	0.7	1.1
Stormwater	0.5	0.5
Parks and community infrastructure	1.0	1.1
Total	2.2	2.7

Contributions pricing

17. The 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 assumes that a Contributions Policy 2019 will be adopted reflecting the Revenue and Financing Policy position that growth-related infrastructure investment should be funded from DCs. The 10-Year Budget assumes that the policy will provide for DCs to recover $2.7 billion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

18. The indicative urban DC will rise from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST). DCs vary widely depending on the type of development and the infrastructure needed to support growth in different locations.

19. Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth, regardless of location. Under the proposed policy to recover these costs, every development would pay $8090 per housing unit equivalent (HUE) for regional infrastructure. However, the sub-regional and local requirements for infrastructure vary depending on the infrastructure required to support growth in that area and the capacity of existing infrastructure. As a result, DC prices would vary across the region, for example:

· Manurewa-Papakura - new DC price will be $42,182 to reflect increase in stormwater and parks investment

· Manukau Central - new DC price will be $22,572 as there is capacity available in existing network infrastructure.

Impact of increasing DC price

20. Raising the price of DCs:

· better aligns DCs with actual cost of infrastructure

· increases certainty that infrastructure will be delivered

· encourages developers to more accurately price land purchased for development to reflect future DC costs

· negatively impacts developers who have paid for land based on current DC prices.

21. Economic research indicates that increasing the DC price does not generally increase house prices. House prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand. Development is only cost plus where the value of land for housing is the same as its value in alternative uses, i.e. agriculture. The price of land that can be developed for housing or business use in Auckland is much higher than its value in agricultural use.

22. Developers generally establish the price they will pay for land based on:

· expected sale price of finished house (as set by the market – supply and demand)

- less land development costs

- less construction costs

- less council cost, including DCs

- less profit margin

- equals the price paid for land.

Alternative options considered

23. There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in DCs:

· defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

· increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

24. The increase in DC price over the period of the 10-Year Budget is forecast to provide an additional $500 million of revenue. Without this revenue, the council would need to reduce its planned capital expenditure by between $1 billion and $4 billion, depending on which projects were prioritised. This sum exceeds the loss in revenue because DCs make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects ^{^[4]}. This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

· maintain service levels in the face of growth pressures

· support making land available for new development in both the greenfields and brownfields.

25. To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing DCs would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum. This is equivalent to an additional general rate increase of between 3 and 13 per cent. Land owners, developers and the owners of new construction are the beneficiaries of the portion of investment in infrastructure that supports growth. This option was not proposed as it is appropriate that the growth share of funding comes from the beneficiaries via DCs, not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of community infrastructure

26. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use DCs to fund a broader range of community infrastructure (including for example, public swimming pools and libraries). If this legislation passes, the council can consider changing its capital budgets and amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure.

Unit of demand factors

27. Different types of development place different demands on infrastructure. The council uses unit of demand factors to fairly share the cost of infrastructure across development types.

28. Demand factors are set relative to the standard residential dwelling of between 100m² and 249m². A standard residential dwelling is referred to as a household equivalent unit (HUE). For example, a retirement unit is charged at 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays, i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

29. Transport demand factors are calculated using data on the daily volume of trips generated from each development type. For residential development, the demand factor is adjusted for relative occupancy levels between residential development types.

30. A review of the statistical trip generation data shows that retail and commercial developments generate substantially more trips than residential and other development types. These results are consistent with staff experience of case-by-case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts from this type of development.

31. The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the following table. Because non-residential developments are usually larger than residential dwellings, the demand factors are translated into HUEs per 100m².

Units of demand per 100m²
Development type	Current DC Policy	Draft DC Policy 2019
Commercial	0.37 HUE	0.73 HUE
Retail	0.47 HUE	2.79 HUE
Education and health	0.37 HUE	0.37 HUE
Production and distribution	0.29 HUE	0.10 HUE
Other non-residential not specified above	0.36 HUE	1.00 HUE

32. These transport demand factors are comparable with those for other councils. Hamilton sets the rate for high demand non-residential at 2.75 HUEs (which includes retail), and Queenstown 2.83 HUEs. Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

33. The demand factors derived from the analysis above produce substantial price changes for retail and commercial development. As this type of development represents a small proportion of overall development, the price reduction for other development types is lower.

34. As the transport component of DCs varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area, the exact price effects will vary. In broad average terms, the DC transport price for retail will rise by $18,000 per 100m², and $2900 for commercial, if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors. These will fall by $1450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling. The impact is illustrated below with examples based on two recent developments:

· 5,000m² retail mall development in the north would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors, whereas it would be $224,000 under the current demand factors

· 50,000m² production development in the south would pay $410,000 under the proposed demand factors, whereas they would pay $1.15 million under the current demand factors.

35. Two alternative options to making the changes to non-residential transport unit of demand factors were considered:

· retaining the status quo

· move to the new factors in equal steps over a three-year period.

36. Retaining the status quo was rejected on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that transport demand is much higher for retail and commercial development than for other development types. At present, other development is effectively subsidising retail and commercial development. Large developers operating nationwide will be aware of these differences in DC prices.

37. As the price increases are substantial, the council could consider a three-year transition. This option was rejected as it would extend the current subsidisation. The price changes are substantial; however, the subsidisation is also large. It is likely that developers operating nationwide will have been expecting this change for some time.

38. It was also noted that a transition could create administration issues and present revenue risks that may be difficult to forecast. Developers often lodge consents early when they become aware of pending changes to contributions prices. A transition of this nature would create incentives for all development types around the staging of transitional price changes. Retail developers may try to lodge consents prior to the date of changes and others may delay applications. This is likely to have implications for both our revenue forecasts and our consenting and DC assessment teams.

Reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities

39. The council’s unit of demand factors for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities are based primarily on the relative occupancy of different types of residential development compared to a standard residential dwelling.

40. Council staff are reviewing the relative use of reserves and community facilities by the occupants of different residential development types. Part of this review involves undertaking an extensive survey of usage of reserves and community facilities by Aucklanders. This is to ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

41. The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year. Council staff will report the results of the review, including the survey data, in the first quarter of next year. If the review suggests changes should be considered to the units of demand for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities, the policy can be amended at that time following consultation, if appropriate.

Remissions for Māori development and social housing

42. The current contributions policy does not provide for remissions or waivers of DCs. Feedback from Māori and social housing developers is that the requirement to pay DCs is an additional challenge to overcome that presents a further barrier to development. Iwi have raised the many difficulties associated with developing Māori land, as well as noting their recent gifting of land for parks and the historic confiscation of land for public works.

43. Council staff do not recommend the use of DC remissions. Support for Māori development and social housing is better made transparently from a fixed grant budget or considered on a case-by-case basis. Grants enable the council to make decisions on the relative merits of individual proposals rather than automatically supporting or rejecting applications on predetermined criteria.

44. The council currently offers support for DCs for Māori development through the Marae and Papakāinga grant made available through the Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund. The policies governing the fund are currently being reviewed and will be considered by the Community Development and Safety Committee later this year.

45. Council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of DCs for social housing. The council’s position to date has been that social housing is a government responsibility. However, the council did provide a one-off grant of $475,000 to the City Mission for the development of the HomeGround facility. The grant was based on an estimate of DCs and consenting costs. Council staff recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for DCs for social housing, this should be through the development of a grants scheme as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020. A grant can be used to fund any development costs and not just council fees, as was the case with the HomeGround grant.

46. DCs are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of DCs would reduce revenue. The loss of revenue from a remission scheme cannot be recovered from other developers as they are only required to pay the cost of the demand they place on infrastructure. Remission of DCs for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

47. Revenue would instead need to be made up by reductions in expenditure or increases in general rates. Remissions administered under the Contributions Policy would need to provide for automatic trigger tests and hence an unconstrained budget.

48. Further discussion of remissions for Māori development and social housing is set out in Attachment D.

Payment timing

49. Developers prefer to pay DCs as close as possible to the potential realisation of their investment e.g. sale of land or buildings. The current payment timing for the main development types (other triggers make up a very small proportion of DCs) are at the issue of:

· land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

· building consent for residential development – around six to 12 months before sale

· code compliance certificate for non-residential development – around time of sale.

50. DCs invoiced on building consent for residential development are approximately 25 per cent of total DC revenue. Residential developments are currently required to pay DCs when the building consent is issued. Council staff propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

· A consent that creates five or more dwelling units will be treated as a non-residential development. This will allow the DCs to be invoiced at the time the Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) is applied for. This will extend the time until council receives payment by an average of 12 months.

· All other residential consents will be invoiced six months after building consent is issued.

51. This change will support residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay DCs with developers’ cash flows. Reducing the amount of capital investment required prior to construction will make it easier for developers to finance and progress residential projects. This proposal formed part of the consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018 and was supported by all 17 submissions that commented on it.

52. The proposed changes will lead to a one-off reduction in the council’s DC revenue of $10 million for 2018/2019. The council can manage this change within its present budget. The change is not material over the 10-Year Budget period as all developments will still pay, just slightly later.

53. The council includes the interest cost of the difference between the receipt of DCs and the timing of investment in growth-related projects. The cost of receiving DC payments on residential building development slightly later will be factored into the DC price. The proposal will increase the DC price by between $100 and $200 (or less than 1 per cent) on average, depending on the units of demand used for transport.

54. Consideration was also given to retaining the status quo. However, preference was given to easing the cash flow demands on residential builders, rather than land developers focusing on subdivision and non-residential builders. Residential builders are often operating at a smaller scale with more limited access to capital. Providing them additional time eases their cash flow demands and supports the dwelling construction the council is seeking.

55. Neither the proposal or the status quo present any risk to the council in terms of payment security. The council has statutory powers to recover unpaid DCs, including registering a statutory charge on property where DCs have not been paid. While the council has some aged DC debt, this is a very small proportion of the DCs invoiced over the last eight years. In this time, the council has written off less than $100,000 of DC debt out of $740 million invoiced.

56. Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement. Developers who require a land use consent, but cannot be assessed for DCs on a resource consent or building consent, will be required to pay on land use consent. At present, non-residential developments are required to pay on the issue of a CCC or certificate of public use (CPU). Some developments do not require a CCC or CPU to operate and are avoiding payment. It is proposed that all non-residential developments will be required to pay 24 months after the issue of a building consent at the latest. This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for council.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

57. The draft Contributions Policy 2019 includes seven additional funding areas for transport. These funding areas allocate the cost of transport infrastructure to the priority growth areas in the north-west, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure (mainly road sealing) for the benefit of rural areas in the north, west and south.

58. Changes have also been made to the funding areas for reserves to provide a more refined allocation of these costs to development areas. The greenfield, urban and rural funding areas have been replaced with Northern Greenfield, Southern Greenfield, North-west Greenfield and Urban funding areas. As a result, the DC costs better reflect the differences in investment required to meet the needs of future growth. A new funding area has also been created for reserves and community facilities in Greater Tamaki to reflect the specific needs and plans for that area.

59. Two new stormwater funding areas have also been added where investment is now planned; Hauraki Gulf Islands and Omaha/Matakana.

Development Types

60. Amendments are also proposed to the following development types to better reflect the demand they place on infrastructure or clarify definitions. Maintaining the status quo for these areas was rejected to ensure an appropriate level of cost was recovered and to reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Student accommodation

61. Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (to be administered by schools/universities). This category will have a lower price for transport and open space than a standard residential dwelling because of lower occupancy.

Small ancillary dwelling units

62. Change the size definition of small ancillary dwelling units to those with a gross floor area less than or equal to 65m². This aligns the Contributions Policy with the definition in the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Retirement villages

63. Amend the definition of a retirement village to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Accommodation units for short term rental

64. Amend the definition of accommodation units to clarify that they include properties used for short term rental. Long-term rentals will continue to be treated as dwelling units.

A long-term view of growth infrastructure costs

65. The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of investment for Auckland including significant investment to support new development over the next 10 years. This investment is not, however, sufficient to enable all future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

66. The proposed contributions policy seeks to recover a fair share of the infrastructure costs currently planned from developments that are enabled by or benefit from this planned infrastructure. In areas that already have sufficient infrastructure, or where it is planned within the next 10 years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

67. For areas where the infrastructure provision is not already provided or scheduled for the 2018-2028 period, development cannot yet proceed due to the infrastructure constraints. The council will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges included in the draft Contributions Policy 2019 do not yet fully reflect the true cost of providing infrastructure in those areas. For some of these development areas, particularly greenfield areas, the council infrastructure cost per house has been estimated at around $70,000. Once the costs and funding arrangements are clear, growth charges will be updated to ensure they are paying their fair share when the areas are able to be developed.

68. Limits on the council’s ability to borrow mean that additional investment, even if it is eventually funded by developers, would require new or alternative financing mechanisms. Council continues to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If council can do this successfully, it will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public consultation

69. Public consultation will run from 19 October to 4pm on 15 November 2018.

70. Five have-your-say events (HYSE) have been planned to take place during the public consultation period:

· South - Manukau

· North - Takapuna

· Central – CBD

· Retirement village developers - CBD

· Western Springs Garden Hall (evening).

71. The location and timing of HYSE are scheduled to provide for developers and the public to engage with the council at locations and timings organised to suit their needs and preferences. These five HYSE provide an opportunity for developers and other interested parties to learn more about the draft policy and provide feedback. All comments will be captured and reported through to the Finance and Performance Committee to help inform decision-making on the final policy.

72. It is planned to ask those providing written feedback if they would like to register their interest in personally presenting their feedback to councillors on Friday 23 November 2018. This will provide time for 30 presentations, allowing 15 minutes for each presentation including questions. Seventeen submitters expressed an interest to be heard following the May 2018 consultation. The invitation will note that it may not be possible to make time to hear everyone if the event is over-subscribed given the need to manage costs and limitations on councillors’ available time. If necessary, slots would be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.

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

73. The DC price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The funding areas are set out in the attached policy documents.

74. Council staff provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October 2018.

75. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to give input on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

76. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the Contribution Policy 2019 in December 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

77. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Māori will be similar to the impact on other developers.

78. Feedback from Māori received in the May 2018 consultation has been considered as part of the development of the revised draft Contributions Policy 2019. Key issues raised were that the Contributions Policy should:

· reflect the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome to support Māori identify and wellbeing, for example by exempting (remitting) DCs for Māori developments

· include specific development types for Māori development.

79. The remission of DCs for Māori development is discussed in this report.

80. Development types are created based on evidence that different types of development generate different levels of demand for infrastructure. The policy does not currently contain specific Māori development types. Māori developments are categorised under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae fall under community facilities. As more Māori developments occur, evidence of demand generation can be used to reclassify developments or create new development types.

81. Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that include new forms of development that may not fit into existing development types. Legislation provides for the reconsideration of DC assessments for individual developments where evidence is available to show that the demand it will generate is less than its classification under the existing policy. Council also proactively reviews the availability of evidence for demand, and amends the Contributions Policy for new or adjusted development types and demand factors as evidence becomes available. Council will continue to work with Māori to ensure that the Contributions Policy, in its design and its application, appropriately reflects the realities of Māori development.

82. Feedback from iwi on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 will be sought as part of public consultation and via engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. Mana whenua will also be invited to present their feedback to councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

83. The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

84. Investment in DC funded growth-related infrastructure carries the risk of development projections, and therefore DC revenue, not being met. These risks will be managed through monitoring consent applications and DC revenue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

85. Public consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is to be held from 19 October to 15 November 2018 as above. Feedback would be reported to the Governing Body workshop on 29 November 2018. Council staff would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December 2018 meeting of the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Contributions Policy 2019	173
b ⇩	Consultation document	259
c ⇩	Supporting information	281
d ⇩	Remissions of development contributions for Māori development and social housing	301

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

File No.: CP2018/21277

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

3. In response to these challenges, the Environment and Community Committee approved the scope of a strategy for Auckland’s waters at its June 2018 meeting (resolution number ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved management for water in all its forms. It will establish the outcomes needed for Auckland’s waters, as part of implementation of the Auckland Plan.

4. Staff from across Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have started developing the draft Auckland Water Strategy by first identifying Auckland’s water issues.

5. A comprehensive engagement programme has also commenced. This has included mana whenua engagement through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, as well as separate workshops with operational kaitiaki.

6. Staff have also attended workshops with all 21 local boards, the Governing Body and subject matter experts to present the progress of the strategy, and to introduce key topics to be addressed in the strategy.

7. A draft discussion document is now being developed. This document will set out the key water topics and propose a framework for the water strategy for public feedback.

8. This report provides an update on the development of the strategy and requests formal feedback from the local board on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (refer Attachment A). A template to guide local board feedback has been included as Attachment B to this report.

9. Feedback from local boards will be summarised as part of a report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of a water strategy discussion document ahead of public consultation from February to April 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

b) note that local board feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy will be included in a report to the Environmental and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of the draft Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation in early 2019.

Horopaki / Context

10. The health of Auckland’s waters is a significant issue. Decades of pressure have had negative impacts on water quality and on freshwater and marine environments. This pressure will continue to increase if changes are not made to the way that water is valued and managed. Population growth and climate change will further amplify the challenges, with greater demand for water services and an increased risk of flooding and coastal inundation.

11. The Auckland Plan notes a key challenge of ‘environmental degradation’ and identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions (focus area five of the Auckland Plan’s environment and cultural heritage outcome). Other focus areas of the Auckland Plan speak to the need to future-proof Auckland’s infrastructure, make sustainable choices, and fully account for past and future impacts of growth.

12. The Environment and Community Committee agreed to the development of the Auckland Water Strategy at its 12 September 2017 meeting. The committee noted that water is often described and managed in categories, such as stormwater, wastewater and drinking water. An overarching strategy for Auckland’s waters, in all their forms, was identified as a way of ensuring the full range of desired outcomes for water are defined and achieved in an integrated way.

13. Several drivers give weight to the timely development of this strategy. These include heightened public awareness of water quality risks, and strong support from the public for improvements to water quality through the 10-year Budget, central government initiatives (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Department of Internal Affairs review of three waters outcomes) and the need to update existing strategies due to significant population growth. It also responds to mana whenua aspirations surrounding te mauri o te wai.

14. Since the strategy’s initiation in September 2017, staff have undertaken preliminary analytical work and engagement across the council group. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council group’s current water-related activities, and analysing the public feedback on the proposed Auckland Plan and 10-year Budget.

15. An extensive local board and mana whenua engagement programme has been undertaken. In September and October 2018, staff presented the proposed topics to be addressed through the water strategy to all 21 local boards. Mana whenua have been engaged at both a governance and operational level. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum provided strategic direction, while operational kaitiaki provided direction on the values. Subject matter experts from across the council group, local boards and the Governing Body have also provided feedback on the key topics.

16. This report provides a progress update on the development of the strategy and also provides an opportunity for the local board to provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (refer Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Purpose and proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

17. The Auckland Water Strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group in how to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

18. The proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (see Attachment A) were developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council, including Watercare and Auckland Transport.

19. Attachment A describes the current strategic context, purpose, vision, values, issues, processes and principles that are proposed to inform the development of the discussion document for the draft Auckland Water Strategy.

Request for local board feedback

20. Further to the workshops held with local boards in September and October 2018, local boards are formally requested to provide feedback on the draft topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy ahead of the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration in December 2018. Attachment B provides a template to guide local board feedback.

21. The draft vision for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy is ‘Te mauri o te wai – the life supporting capacity of water – is protected and enhanced’. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether this vision is right for the communities they represent.

22. The draft values for inclusion in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback around whether these values cover the aspects of water that are most important to the boards:

· ecology

· water use

· culture

· recreation and amenity

· resilience.

23. The draft issues to be addressed through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the issues that are of greatest concern to them:

· cleaning up our waterways

· meeting future water needs

· growth in the right places

· adapting to a changing water future.

24. The draft processes to be worked on through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the processes that they are most concerned with:

· creating our water future together

· setting priorities for investment

· achieving net benefits for catchments

· applying a Māori world view.

25. The draft principles to be included in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether or not they agree with these principles:

· recognise that water is a taonga

· work with natural ecosystems

· deliver catchment scale thinking and action

· focus on achieving the right-sized solutions with multiple benefits

· work together to plan and deliver better water quality outcomes

· look to the future.

26. As the development of the strategy has progressed, it has become clear that it will need to be developed in stages. Many of the water challenges that have been identified require more analysis and public engagement before a strategy can be agreed. For this reason, the discussion document that is proposed to be released in early 2019 will be focused on identifying and agreeing the water issues that Auckland faces within a proposed framework of vision, values and principles. From there, the Governing Body will be able to review and agree a staged programme that builds on the framework towards a final strategy.

27. Local board feedback on the draft topics outlined in Attachment B will be summarised as part of the report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, requesting approval of a draft discussion document for public consultation. A further update on the Auckland Water Strategy will be provided to local boards in February 2019.

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

28. Local boards have a strong interest in improving water quality across the Auckland region and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

29. Staff attended a local board chairs’ meeting on 13 November 2017 to introduce the concept of the strategy and expected range of activities arising from the strategy. Board chairs indicated their interest in continued involvement.

30. Staff presented the scope, summary and the progress on the strategy’s development to all 21 local boards between 30 August 2018 and 23 October 2018. Key themes in the feedback provided by local boards at these workshops included the need to:

· acknowledge water as being a precious commodity that needs to be preserved as the population grows

· increase the focus on the health of Auckland’s harbours

· identify future drinking water sources

· educate people around resilience, water usage, and the impacts of their activities on the environment

· strengthen regulation and compliance to protect waterways.

31. This report presents the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, and seeks formal feedback from local boards ahead of the Environment and Community Committee approval of a discussion document in December 2018 for public consultation in early 2019. Key questions to guide local board feedback have been included as Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32. Mauri (life force) is a fundamental concept of the Māori world view. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

33. Enhancing the mauri of waterways is of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s waters. Early engagement with mana whenua to promote kaitiakitanga and embed mana whenua values into this work will be critical to the success of the actions outlined in this report.

34. The development of the Auckland Water Strategy has been guided by the strategic advice provided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Governance Forum. The forum has determined it will provide its own strategic advice, to ensure that core mana whenua principles and values are given the attention they need. The forum requested that one of their members be included on the governance group for the development of the strategy. This has been achieved with Auckland’s Water Political Reference Group, and recognises the longstanding whakaaro and kōrero that mana whenua have provided on this kaupapa.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. The budget to develop the Auckland Water Strategy was included as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This budget covers operational expenses (primarily staff time) and will be used to support public engagement.

36. The budget required to deliver any actions arising from the strategy will be sought through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37. An initial risk assessment for the programme has been carried out, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Auckland Water Strategy work programme risks and proposed mitigations

Risk type	Risk description	Consequence description	Rating *(High-Medium-Low)*	Mitigation/ Control
Scope expansion	Water is a broad subject and the level of detail and number of topics to cover can grow and change rapidly.	Unable to deliver to time and cost	Medium	Guidance from the Political Reference Group and Executive Steering Group
Central government changes to legislation and policy	There are several central government work programmes underway focusing on water, such as the Department of Internal Affairs Three Waters review and the Office of the Auditor Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government.	Unable to deliver to time and cost	Medium	Anticipate, where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders
Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy	The strategy is not adopted and reflected in the plans of the operational and delivery organisations of the council group.	Outcomes of the strategy are not delivered, substantive actions to deliver the strategy are not undertaken	Medium	Ensure that the delivery teams of the council group are engaged in the development of the strategy

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38. The next steps in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy have been outlined in Table 2:

Table 2: Timeframes for the development of the Auckland Water Strategy

Activity	Expected timeframe
Formal local board feedback sought on proposed topics of the Auckland Water Strategy for the discussion document	November 2018
Internal discussions on the topics for inclusion in the draft discussion document, and presentations to the Watercare and Auckland Transport boards	November-December 2018
Draft discussion document reported to Environment and Community Committee for approval ahead of public consultation	December 2018
Public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document	February-April 2019
Public engagement feedback presented to elected members	April 2019
Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee	June 2019

39. Local boards will receive a further update on the Auckland Water Strategy in February 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy	313
b ⇩	Local board feedback template for proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy	321

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Auckland Transport monthly report - November 2018

File No.: CP2018/20773

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To respond to requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), provide a summary of consultation material sent to the local board, and to provide transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. No specific decision is required this month. In particular, this report:

· notes the update to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for Rame Road

· attaches quarterly report material covering Auckland Transport’s activities over the July to September 2018 period

· notes consultation information sent to the local board for feedback and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee (TCC) as they affect the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update for November 2018.

Horopaki / Context

3. This report addresses transport-related matters in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

4. Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. AT reports monthly to local boards, as set out in the local board engagement plan. This reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport (AT). Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must also:

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

· be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s LBTCF allocation, as outlined in the following table, is $1,835,080 for the current political term. In addition, there is a sum of $764,795 which has been approved by the council and is available from 1 July 2018. This takes into account the increase of the LBTCF approved by the Governing Body during the council’s long-term plan (LTP) budgeting process.

Electoral term allocation 2016/17 to 2019/20 as at 30/06/18			$1,835,080
Budget committed to date (projects below)			$1,938,222
		STATUS
Gills Road pedestrian bridge	$297,222	Complete
School stay-put signs	$45,000	Complete
Chester/Wickham cycle route	$56,000	Complete
Rame Road upgrade	$1,540,000	Design
Current budget remaining to allocate in term			-$103,142
Additional budget in RLTP for 18/19 and 19/20			$764,795
New total budget remaining for electoral term			$661,653

7. The following table provides an update on the board’s current projects:

Project

Description

Status

Gills Road

footpath and pedestrian bridge

To construct a footpath along Gills Road

This project has been completed and is open to the public.

Rame Road upgrade

A full upgrade of Rame Road

The timeline is as follows:

· baseline data and surveys complete – 19 October 2018

· draft design complete – 14 December 2018

· present to the local board – December 2018

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board has submitted five new project applications to AT to assess following a series of workshops.

Quarterly report for July to September 2018

9. The following quarterly report material is attached to this monthly report:

· Attachment A – report from AT departments on their activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter

· Attachment B – report on Travelwise Schools activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area over the last quarter.

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

Issues investigated and responses

10. The local board has requested that the following issues be investigated:

Brigham Creek Road, Hobsonville Road and Williams Road intersection safety

11. AT has undertaken an initial review and further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of this issue. This investigation has been prioritised and the local board can expect to receive an update by early March 2019.

Teal Way parking

12. AT has reviewed the case again and at this stage, the decision not to install ‘no stopping at all times’ (NSAAT) restrictions at the Teal Way intersection remains unchanged.

13. Teal Way is not a narrow road and when coupled with very low traffic volumes, it does not warrant NSAAT restrictions. It is considered there is enough space for vehicles to enter/exit the driveway, even with a car parked directly opposite it. When visiting the site, the vehicles present were not parked within 6m of an intersection, which does not pose any accessibility problems for vehicles entering/exiting the street. AT is not aware of any concerns raised by waste removal contractors regarding accessibility on this street. However, it is illegal for any vehicles to park within 6m of an intersection.

14. AT will continue to monitor the situation on this street and take action if the need arises.

Road parking removal and afternoon/evening (PM) clearway

15. AT undertook observations related to removal of parking in Bush Road to install a clearway in the afternoon. These observations indicate that there is merit in a combination of parking removal and PM clearway installation for vehicles approaching the Albany Highway.

16. This proposal was discussed with Business North Harbour. They requested parking observations and a parking survey be undertaken and reported back to both the business association and the local board.

17. AT still needs to undertake internal/external consultation as per the normal process.

Issues still under investigation

18. The following issues are still under investigation on behalf of the local board and AT will report back once the work is completed:

· Caribbean Drive pedestrian crossing request

· Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association roading issues

· Hobsonville, Brighams Creek and Williams Roads intersection safety

· Meadowood Drive traffic counts.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

19. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for feedback, and are summarised here for information purposes only.

20. Following consultation, AT considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on, or amend the proposal if changes are considered necessary:

· proposed pedestrian refuge crossing at 139 Sunset Road

· proposal to improve road safety in Mulroy Place, Pinehill

· proposal to improve cyclist accessibility in Rosedale Road, Albany

· proposal to improve accessibility by introducing NSAAT in Knights Road, Rosedale

· proposal to improve parking opportunities in East Coast Road, Northcross

· proposal to improve road safety by signalising the intersection of Oteha Valley Road and Harrowglen Drive, Northcross

· proposal to improve visibility and accessibility by NSAAT around the bend on Georgia Terrace, Albany.

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

21. Decisions of the TCC during the month of October 2018 affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed in the following table:

Street (suburb)	Type of report	Nature of restriction	Decision
Bush Road, Rosedale	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	No stopping at all times (NSAAT), bus stop, bus shelter, footpath, flush median, edge-line	CARRIED
Red Shed Lane, Samuels Lane, Clemows Lane, Kristin Lane, Albany	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, traffic island, roundabout controlled by give-way	CARRIED
Brigham Creek Road, Hobsonville Road, Williams Road, Hobsonville	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	Lane arrow markings, flush median, shoulder marking, edge-line, traffic island, stop control, give-way control	CARRIED
Don McKinnon Drive, Civic Crescent, Rosedale Road, Bush Road, Munroe Lane, Rosedale	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, cycle lane, shared cycle path, lane arrow markings, traffic island, roundabout controlled by give-way, give-way control, flush median, traffic signal control, edge-line, shoulder markings	CARRIED
Bronzewing Terrace, Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, bus stop, flush median, traffic island, give-way control	CARRIED
Corinthian Drive, Don McKinnon Drive, Oracle Drive, Albany	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, roundabout controlled by give-way, traffic island, flush median, give-way control	CARRIED
Oakway Drive, Laurel Oak Drive, Schnapper Rock Road, Aberley Road, Medallion Drive, Fernhill Way, Masons Road, Oteha	Permanent traffic and parking changes combined	NSAAT, bus stop, bus shelter, traffic island, roundabout controlled by give-way, give-way control, flush median, edge-line	CARRIED

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22. Receipt of this monthly report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. There are no financial implications in receiving this monthly update.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. Receipt of this monthly report has no risks. AT has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. AT provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport activity report regionally and in Upper Harbour for the quarter ending September 2018	331
b ⇩	Travelwise Schools activities in Upper Harbour for the quarter ending September 2018	349

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

15 November 2018

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Upper Harbour Local Board for quarter one - 1 July to 30 September 2018

File No.: CP2018/20905

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2018/2019 work programme.

3. The work programme is produced annually, and aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· most projects are on track for delivery within the 2018/2019 financial year

· most funding agreements with external partners have been finalised

· four projects have an amber ‘red/amber/green/grey’ (RAG) status and action is being taken to address the issues contributing to delayed project delivery

· one project has been deferred to the 2020/2021 financial year.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (refer Attachment A). Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged).

6. The financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is attached (refer Attachment B). There are some points for the local board to note.

7. Overall, the net operational financial performance of the board is tracking slightly below the revised year-to-date budget (95 per cent). Revenue is ahead of budget for the year-to-date and relates to the Albany Stadium Pool and Albany Community Hub. From the local board’s locally driven initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year. Capital projects underway include:

· Community House development at Hobsonville Point

· coastal renewals at Christmas Beach

· sports park development at Hobsonville Point

· various small parks asset renewals.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2018.

Horopaki / Context

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/66)

· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/66)

· Libraries and Information, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/66)

· Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/66)

· Local Environment and Development, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/65)

· Local Economic Development, approved on 21 June 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/67)

· Community Facilities, approved on 19 July 2018 (resolution number UH/2018/78).

9. Work programmes are produced annually to meet the Upper Harbour Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan. The local board plan outcomes are:

· Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities

· Efficient and effective transport links

· Healthy and active communities

· A thriving local economy

· Our environment is valued, protected and enhanced.

10. The following graph shows how the work programme activities meet local board plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local board work programme snapshot

11. The work programme activities have two statuses; RAG status which measures the performance of the activity (amber and red show issues and risks); and activity status which shows the stage the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

12. The following graph identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey). It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Upper Harbour Work Programme by RAG status

13. The following graph identifies work programme activity by activity status and department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: work programme activity by activity status and department

Capital expenditure carry forwards

14. The Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards were approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 October 2018. A list of the carry forwards has been provided (refer Attachment C). However, as this was after the end of quarter one, commentary was not able to be provided. Commentary on these will be included in the quarter two update.

Key activity updates from quarter one

15. At this stage of the financial year, all programmes are showing as on track, except for the four featured in the ‘activities on hold’ section of this report. Key highlights are:

16. Arts, Community and Events

· Event Partnership Fund – Upper Harbour

o Three grants with a value of $14,000 have been paid out to recipients. Confirmed dates for funded events are:

- Mud Rush – 8 September to 9 September 2018

- Greenhithe Christmas Parade – 2 December 2018

- Albany Lakes Summer Series – 20 January 2019 to 24 March 2019.

· Movies in Parks – Upper Harbour

o Programming and delivery planning for two regional movies in parks series events are underway:

- Luckens Reserve, Antman and the Wasp – 8 February 2019

- Rosedale Park, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle – 13 April 2019.

· Meadowood Community House Funding Year 2

o During quarter one, payment was made to the group. Notable highlights include the close relationship with the Northern Corridor Improvements project team, and collaboration with the Albany Community Hub with projects like the fairy doors.

· Greenhithe Community Trust

o Staff met with the organisation’s chairperson to discuss projects for the 2018/2019 financial year. Staff negotiated a schedule of work and finalised the funding agreement for the trust.

· Hobsonville Community Trust

o Staff met with representatives from the Hobsonville Community Trust to discuss activities and aspirations for the Hobsonville community for the 2018/2019 financial year. Staff negotiated a schedule of work and finalised the funding agreement for the trust.

· Albany Community Hub

o The Albany Hub (currently under council management) is achieving participation rates of over 2000 people per week, with 25 permanent hiring groups. The biggest challenge facing the hub is ensuring the local community find out where it is and what is on. To address these issues, a Facebook page has been created, together with a term newsletter and a focus on events that attract the community to the hub.

17. Community Facilities

· Full Facilities contracts

o Due to the extremely wet winter, it was not possible for the full facilities contractor to mow parks and open spaces to the expected levels due to the saturated ground. On the whole, building maintenance has run smoothly with standard maintenance requests completed in a timely manner.

· Arboriculture contract

o The need to complete rectification work from the April storm had a similar impact on the arboriculture contractor’s ability to complete all requests for service.

18. Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Small Building Sites Ambassador – Upper Harbour

o The initial project planning phase is complete, and the contract is currently being finalised. The targeted initiatives team will assist with compliance in areas identified by the contractor after the education programme. This project is planned to commence in quarter two.

· Industry Pollution Prevention Programme

o Procurement has been finalised and the project is due to commence in quarter two.

· Upper Harbour North-west Wildlink Assistance Programme

o The allocation of the North-west Wildlink Assistance Programme funding has been collectively agreed through two meetings of the Upper Harbour Ecology Network, and funding agreements have been finalised with most of the successful recipients.

19. Parks, Sports and Recreation

· Urban Forest (Ngahere) Strategy

o Background analysis of the light detection and ranging mapping is underway to give an early indication of the extent of the Ngahere (urban forest) in the Upper Harbour area.

· Albany Stadium Pool operations

o At the Albany Stadium Pool, active visits have increased by 19 per cent more (22,105) compared to the first quarter last year. In the last three months, a total of 134,994 people visited, with 81,319 using the pools and 47,204 using the gym.

· Upper Harbour Ecological Volunteers and Environmental Programme

o Some 1200 volunteer hours have been recorded for ecological volunteers. A total of 4675 trees have been planted by volunteers.

Activities with significant issues

20. There are no red RAG status activities for quarter one.

Activities on hold

21. The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

· Placemaking - Albany CoCo Incorporated annual work schedule:

o Staff identified that the Albany CoCo Trust required significant assistance with governance, management, planning, and long-term development planning. After years of successful service delivery, the organisation did not have the community volunteers or resources to further develop a structure that would be capable of taking on additional responsibilities, staff and service contracts.

o Current status: the Albany CoCo Executive Committee decided they were no longer in a position to continue operating and resolved that they would wind up the organisation. Staff provided advice and guidance to the group regarding the winding up process. Some activity will continue through to November 2018 using existing financial resources.

o Next steps: in quarter two, staff will continue to provide the Albany CoCo Executive Committee with support and assistance.

· Inclusion and diversity: Support a Newcomers Network to identify the social, professional and recreational needs and develop a comprehensive programme to meet these:

o The Albany CoCo Executive Committee are no longer in a position to continue operating and resolved that they would wind up the organisation, meaning they would not be delivering a Newcomers Network.

o Current status: staff investigated opportunities to provide Newcomers Network activity with other groups in the area.

o Next steps: staff will seek to facilitate implementation of a Newcomers Network and engagement opportunities for the Upper Harbour community in quarter two.

· Hobsonville Headquarters - redevelopment, exterior landscaping and car park construction:

o Car park ground remediation scope has been added to contract. However, work required has resulted in delays to programme and costs. The car park will only be operational once local connecting roads are completed, likely in late 2018.

o Current status: physical works to complete the car park are nearing completion. Only surface sealing is still outstanding. Landscaping elements are yet to be started and cannot commence until surfacing works are completed. Minor items still requiring attention are being scoped. This includes signage and minor outstanding internal items within the Headquarters building.

o Next steps: complete the car park surfacing works and peripheral landscaping and services. Landscaping between the car park and Headquarters building will be completed by the local developer after completion of the car park. Minor internal items will be addressed.

· Greenways Plan - implement actions from the plan:

o Staff suggest that Greenways review is completed prior to further work being undertaken on this small section (Mallard Place to Calypso Way).

o Current status: the Greenways Plan is being reviewed by Community Services. More details of this project need to be determined before investigation can occur. The project description is for the Mallard Place to Calypso Way section of the plan.

o Next steps: confirm scope with the local board advisor and discuss the implementation of this section in light of the Greenways Plan review.

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

22. These activities are deferred from the 2018/2019 work programme:

· PC14 Waiarohia Ponds, Hobsonville Corridor:

o Funding for the restoration project has been confirmed and the business case has been finalised. The business case identified the project as an opportunity for developer funding through the stream offset mitigation programme. In order to align with the offset programme funding, delivery of the project has been deferred to the 2020/2021 financial year. Development Programme Office staff provided an update to the local board about the restoration project and deferral in August 2018.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

23. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2018.

Key performance indicators

24. As most of the long-term plan key performance indicators are annual measures and do not change quarterly, staff have removed them from the quarterly performance report and will present the key performance indicators only once in the annual report at the end of the year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. Storytime sessions in Te Reo were run during Matariki and Māori language week. Te Reo storytimes were also delivered at the Apollo Learning Tree childcare and the playgroup at the Albany Community Hub. A Raranga Putiputi (weaving flax) workshop was also run during the school holidays by library staff.

26. Many of the board’s on-going environmental programmes reflect the board’s role as kaitiaki (guardian or steward) of the local area. Mana whenua are routinely consulted and involved in the preparation of these programmes.

Financial performance

27. Operating expenditure relating to asset-based services (ABS) is tracking above budget by $120,000 for the year to date, while the LDI operational projects are currently $75,000 below budget. This is due to a variety of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations.

28. Capital spend of $720,000 represents investments in the Community House development at Hobsonville Point, coastal renewals at Christmas Beach, sports park development at Hobsonville Point and various small parks asset renewals. The board has also seen progress on a number of projects from their discretionary LDI capital fund.

29. Operating and capital projects that have been carried forward from 2017/2018 will be added to the revised budget in October and will be monitored closely to ensure they are completed in 2018/2019.

30. The complete Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31. This report is for information only and therefore there are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

32. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

33. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

34. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two, in December 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board work programme update for quarter one	359
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Financial Performance Report for quarter one	375
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board capital expenditure projects carried forward for quarter one	381

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] Awareness of and attitudes towards voting in the 2016 Auckland Council elections, by Auckland Council, Citizen Insight and Engagement, 2017. Available on http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1657&DocumentType=1&

[3] Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2017 General Election: Provided in accordance with section 8(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 (April 2018) p.13

[4] The proportion of DC funding differs for different projects i.e. reserve acquisitions are primarily DC funded whereas transport projects have a mix of general rates, NZTA and DC funding. Lower DC funding for parks would reduce capex by a similar amount. Lower DC funding for transport would remove projects of a higher value as we would lose access to the associated NZTA funding.

Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager