Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 October 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waiheke Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Stormwater - Denis Powell

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Denis Powell will be in attendance to address various issues pertaining to storm water.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) thank Denis Powell for his attendance and presentation.

9.2 Stormwater - Pita Rikys

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Pita Rikys will be in attendance to address various issues pertaining to storm water.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) thank Pita Rikys for his attendance and presentation.

9.3 Electric transport - Darleen Tana

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Darleen Tana will be in attendance to discuss electric transport aspirations on the island and introduce a group that has come together to awhi these aspirations.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) thank Darleen Tana for her attendance and presentation.

9.4 Kelp Forest Regeneration - Mark Russell

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Mark Russell will be in attendance to present a new conservation group, Kelp Forest Regeneration, that will be starting a project off the Waiheke coast in January.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) thank Mark Russell for his attendance and presentation.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Waiheke Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/21200

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to allocate $15,000 from the Waiheke Strategic Events Fund for 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Waiheke Local Board have approved a budget of $15,000 for allocation via the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019.

3. The Strategic Events Fund expression of interest (EOI) received four applications seeking a total of $27,212.50.

4. Staff assessed the funding applications received according to outcomes identified in the local board’s grants programme.

5. At the local board workshop on 21 September 2018, staff presented the funding recommendations for discussion.

6. Staff recommend that $13,000 of the fund be allocated to three of the four applicants and the remaining $2,000 be reallocated back to the contestable grants budget.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve the $13,000 funding allocation from the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019 as indicated in the table below:

Event name	Organisation	Amount requested	Recommended allocation
Fullers Waiheke Island Wharf2Wharf Fun Run and Walking Event	Waiheke Wharf to Wharf Fun Run Inc.	$5,000	$3,000
Cinema in the Courtyard 2019	Waiheke Island Community Cinema	$7,212.50	$5,000
Sculpture on the Gulf	Headland Sculpture on the Gulf Ltd	$10,000	0.00
Onetangi Beach Races	Onetangi Beach Races Inc.	$5,000	$5,000
Total		$27,212.50	$13,000

b) reallocate the remaining $2,000 in the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019 to the contestable grants budget.

Horopaki / Context

7. At the 28 June 2018 business meeting, the local board approved the Arts, Community and Events work programme (WHK/2018/136). The work programme included allocating budget of $15,000 for the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019.

8. The Strategic Events Fund expression of interest (EOI) round opened on 17 August 2018 and closed 14 September 2018.

9. Four applications were received, requesting a total of $27,212.50 for an available budget of $15,000.

10. Staff have reviewed the applications and made recommendations for funding allocations.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The applications have been assessed based on the outcomes detailed in the Waiheke Local Board Local Grants Programme (Attachment A).

12. The outcomes, also detailed in the local board plan, are:

· young people – supporting youth-centered initiatives that build engagement, resiliency and transitions to adulthood

· community elders – meeting the needs of the aging population

· the environment – restoring and protecting our natural environment

· culture and arts – creating a sense of identity and cohesion that reflects the island’s identity

· social cohesion – ensuring a resilient and connected community

· recreation and sport – helping our communities lead active and healthy lifestyles

· heritage – protection and conservation.

13. Details of the recommendations, including a full copy of all applications submitted, can be found at Attachment B.

14. Staff recommend allocating $13,000 of the available $15,000 Strategic Events Fund as follows:

Event Name	Organisation	Amount requested	Recommended allocation
Fullers Waiheke Island Wharf2Wharf Fun Run and Walking Event	Waiheke Wharf to Wharf Fun Run Inc.	$5,000	$3,000
Cinema in the Courtyard 2019	Waiheke Island Community Cinema	$7,212.50	$5,000
Sculpture on the Gulf	Headland Sculpture on the Gulf Ltd	$10,000	0.00
Onetangi Beach Races	Onetangi Beach Races Inc.	$5,000	$5,000
Total		$27,212.50	$13,000

15. The recommendation to not allocate funding to Sculpture on the Gulf was due to the existing support received from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development.

16. Given the proximity to the event season staff recommend reallocating the remaining $2,000 in the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019 to the contestable grants budget.

17. If another funding round was completed within the 2018/2019 financial year it would only be able to support events to occur in 2019/2020 due to event planning requirements. By reallocating the remaining funds to the local grants or quick response rounds it will enable the funding to be utilised for other community needs.

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

18. Staff presented the recommendations of the funding applications to the local board workshop for discussion on 21 September 2018.

19. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20. These funding recommendations are intended to provide support for events which are of interest widely across the local community and align with local board outcomes. They therefore do not benefit Māori specifically.

21. The events also do not have any identified significant adverse impact for Māori.

22. Event organisers will consult with mana whenua through the facilitation process where required. Consultation would be conducted on occasions where a resource consent is required and/or the utilisation of Sites of Significance.

23. For the events listed above no matters have been identified to date, but will be considered through the process of issuing event permits.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. The Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019 has an allocated budget of $15,000.

25. Staff recommend allocating $13,000 of the available budget to three of the four applicants and reallocating the remaining $2,000 in the Strategic Events Fund 2018/2019 to the contestable grants budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. Events may be postponed or cancelled due to weather events. In this instance the majority of the funds allocated will have been spent. Attempts will be made to recover any residual costs that cannot be accounted for by the applicant.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27. Following confirmation of the allocations, staff will notify each applicant of the outcome and work with council’s grants coordinators to administer funding agreements and payment.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waiheke Grants Programme	15
b ⇨	Waiheke Strategic Events Fund Applications received (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Mikaela Otene - Team Leader Event Facilitation Central

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

New community lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust at Surfdale Reserve, Surfdale

File No.: CP2018/21279

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To grant a new community lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust at Surfdale Reserve, 4 Hamilton Road, Surfdale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Waiheke Youth Centre Trust holds a community lease for part of the council-owned Surfdale Hall situated on Surfdale Reserve.

3. The trust’s current lease commenced on 1 February 2007 and reaches final expiry on 31 January 2022. In terms of the operative lease the trust currently has management and control of a small portion of the western corner of the building, known as The Rock.

4. The local board has indicated their preference to lease the entire hall to the trust to enable them to activate the space as a dedicated youth hub on the island. Subject to approval from the local board the group will surrender this existing lease once the proposed new lease is executed.

5. The lease of the hall to the trust is supported by staff from Community Leasing, Community Empowerment and Community Places.

6. This report recommends the Waiheke Local Board grant a new community lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust for the entire Surfdale Hall. The recommendation aligns with the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: thriving, strong and engaged communities.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) direct staff to transfer the management of the asset known as the Surfdale Hall from Community Places to Community Leasing

b) grant a new community lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust for the entire Surfdale Hall comprising 330m2 (more or less) at Surfdale Reserve, 4 Hamilton Road, Surfdale described as Lot 118 – 119 Deposited Plan 16354 (outlined in red on Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term: five years, commencing on 1 December 2018, with one five-year right of renewal

ii) rent: $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii) maintenance fee: $500.00 plus GST per annum

iv) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

c) approve the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust’s community outcomes plan as attached (Attachment B)

d) approve the contemporaneous surrender of the current operative lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust effective from 30 November 2018.

Horopaki / Context

7. This report considers a new community lease to the Waiheke Youth Centre Trust

8. The Waiheke Local Board holds delegated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Land and buildings

9. The Waiheke Youth Centre Trust occupies part of the land and council-owned building at Surfdale Reserve, 4 Hamilton Road, Surfdale described as Part Lot 118 – 119 Deposited Plan 16354.

10. Both lots are held by the Crown through the Department of Conservation subject to the Reserves Act 1977, classified as a local purpose (community buildings) reserve and vested in Auckland Council, in trust, for that purpose.

Waiheke Youth Centre Trust

11. The Waiheke Youth Centre Trust registered with the New Zealand Companies Office as a charitable trust on 5 October 1994. They provide activities and wellbeing services to the youth of Waiheke Island.

12. The trust currently occupies part the council-owned hall on Surfdale Reserve subject to an operative community lease which commenced on 1 February 2007 and reaches final expiry on 31 January 2022. The remainder of the hall is managed as a venue for hire by Community Places.

13. Recently the club has applied for a lease over the entire Surfdale Hall in order for them to manage the facility as a dedicated youth hub.

14. The trust has drafted a business plan setting out their objectives for the facility which includes:

i. to offer a service-based facility focusing on the youth

ii. to provide a safe space for young people to socialise

iii. to establish a recognised, dedicated, youth facility by the end of 2019.

15. In addition to establishing a dedicated youth hub the trust will ensure that it continues to make the hall available for wider community use.

16. In order to evaluate the trust’s performance, council staff have formulated a community outcomes plan against which the trust’s performance will be measured. The trust has reviewed and agreed to the plan (Attachment B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 sets out the criteria for community occupancy agreements. The procedure for a new lease of council-owned buildings is to call for expressions of interest from community groups. This allows an assessment of proposals to ensure the best community outcomes are delivered.

18. Local boards, however, have the discretion to forego seeking expressions of interest where suitable tenants are identified. The Waiheke Youth Centre Trust satisfies the required criteria specified in the guidelines in the following ways:

· it is a registered charitable trust

· it has complied with the terms of the current lease

· it has a history of delivering services to the local community

· the trust is managed appropriately, as evidenced by its longevity and history of service

· the trust has provided a sound business case clearly indicating the benefits to the community.

19. Under the guidelines, it is recommended that for leases over council-owned buildings the standard term be for five years with one five year right of renewal, providing a total term of 10 years. The local board has the discretion to vary the term if it wishes. However, the guidelines suggest that where the term is varied, it aligns to one of the recommended terms within the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

20. Where community groups have exclusive occupancy of council-owned buildings, the guidelines state that such groups are required to pay an annual subsidised maintenance fee of $500 (plus GST) per annum for buildings between 100 m2 and 500m2. The current building is approximately 330m2.

21. Public notification is not required as the reserve is classified as a local purpose (community buildings) reserve.

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

22. At its workshop on 11 October 2018, the local board expressed support for the proposed new lease to the trust for the entire Surfdale Hall.

23. Options regarding the types of occupancy were discussed and analysed in conjunction with staff from Community Empowerment, Community Leasing and Community Places. The board indicated its preference for a community lease.

24. The activities of the trust align with the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: thriving, strong and engaged communities. Additionally, the services provided by the trust will benefit the youth within the local community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

26. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally, it seeks to improve access to facilities and participation for Māori living in the Waiheke Local Board area.

27. Iwi engagement was initiated on 19 October 2018 and will be finalised on 20 November 2018. Mana whenua feedback will be relayed to the board during the business meeting for due consideration prior to granting the lease.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

28. There are no direct cost implications associated with the grant of a new community lease to the trust.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

29. If the Waiheke Local Board resolves not to grant the trust a new community lease, this decision will materially affect the ability to provide its services to the local community.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. Subject to the local board granting a new community lease, council staff will work with the trust to formalise the lease document.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Waiheke Youth Centre Leased Area	23
b ⇩	Attachment B Waiheke Youth Centre Community Outcomes Plan	25

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Gert van Staden - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

File No.: CP2018/21387

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 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 (see 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 / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (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 ten-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 (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 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 family, 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 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 a formal feedback from the local board ahead of 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 the 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 below.

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 focusing on water underway 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	33
b ⇩	Local board feedback template for proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy	41

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Endorsement of the draft Waiheke Water Plan

File No.: CP2018/21505

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the draft Waiheke Water Plan, which provides a long-term solution to water supply issues on Waiheke.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In November and December 2017, Waiheke experienced a water shortage due to a sustained period of dry weather. A communications plan was designed and implemented in conjunction with the Waiheke Local Board advising people to use water wisely.

3. A meeting was held with Hon Nikki Kaye, local board members, key Auckland Council staff and members of the community in late December 2017. This meeting identified the need for a long-term solution and public strategy for the provision of emergency drinking water in addition to the commercial suppliers on Waiheke.

4. Healthy Waters staff have since investigated supply options, including:

· the development of water treatment designs

· amending consent to adjust water takes

· promoting the use of council resources and planning for greater resilience in this space.

5. These focus areas form the basis of the draft Waiheke Water Plan for the board’s endorsement (see Attachment A).

6. Two new emergency water supply points will be provided at Mātiatia car park and Onetangi sportsground. These will be made available to the public during sustained periods without rainfall, when trigger levels are met (20 days with less than 10 millimetres of rain observed).

7. Following the board’s endorsement, the plan will be implemented and the monitoring of days without rain will commence. There will be a review of the actions in May 2019, and as required two weeks after any activation of the plan should the trigger level be reached during the 2018/2019 summer period.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) endorse the draft Waiheke Water Plan to address water supply issues on Waiheke.

Horopaki / Context

8. During November and December 2017, a Waiheke water shortage was caused by lack of rain for over 36 days. The Waiheke Water Wisdom document was developed, and circulated through numerous news outlets and through social media. A limited amount of water from Auckland Council-owned sites was provided to high risk members of the community (young and old primarily), which minimised the impact on the community.

9. Prior to Christmas 2017, the focus of Healthy Waters for Waiheke was understanding the nature of the potable water demand profile and immediate needs, public consultation, and planning to manage any water shortage should there not be any significant rainfall over the summer. Emergency water treatment options were considered and plans put in place to implement these should there be no significant rainfall over the holiday season. There was significant rainfall in January 2018 and this alleviated the immediate issue.

10. Healthy Waters then took the emergency plans and developed them into long-term solutions to reduce the risk of water shortages on Waiheke going forward. This has led to the development of the Waiheke Water Plan.

11. A workshop was held with the Waiheke Local Board in June 2018 to discuss the scope and purpose of the proposed Waiheke Water Plan. The board indicated the need for the plan to be well communicated to the public, and the need for public education around water usage. This feedback from the board has been incorporated into the development of the plan.

12. The purpose of the draft plan is to outline how Auckland Council and the local community will respond should there be another sustained period of dry weather. The draft plan allows for the provision of emergency drinking water from two new and one existing (if required) water treatment facilities established on Waiheke: Mātiatia car park, Onetangi sports field and Mātiatia wharf respectively. The two new sites have been established in response to the 2017 water shortage.

13. A working group (including representatives from both Auckland Council and the Auckland District Health Board) has developed the framework of the draft Waiheke Water Plan. A workshop has been scheduled with the Waiheke Local Board on 1 November 2018 to discuss the draft plan and confirm what is required to finalise the plan by the end of November 2018. This report presents the plan for the board’s formal endorsement ahead of implementation from December 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14. Following the December 2017 water shortage on Waiheke, Healthy Waters staff and wider Auckland Council staff have investigated options to provide a long-term solution to address these water supply issues. This included:

· assessing historical water usage, and the amount of water currently being taken (abstracted) from the Waiheke aquifer

· assessing saline monitoring requirements and establishing a baseline value of chloride (saltwater) in the aquifer

· reviewing communication documentation for circulation to the Waiheke community to improve water conservation

· reviewing and updating the resource consents for the Auckland Council-owned sites to facilitate the upgrade requirements

· reviewing and confirming requirements in the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008)

· designing and commissioning two new high-quality water treatment facilities exceeding the requirements of the Drinking Water Standards

· establishing trigger levels for the use of emergency water supplies (20 days with less than 10 millimetres of rain observed).

15. Findings of these investigations have been summarised below, and are further detailed in the draft plan (Attachment A).

Historical water usage on Waiheke

16. The analysis of historical household water usage for Waiheke indicated that average water usage is as low as 100 litres per day per person. The typical household on Waiheke would have at least one 22,500 litre tank.

17. It is recommended in the Waiheke Water Plan that residents refill tanks when less than a quarter or 5,600 litres remains, as this allows time for ordering and the delivery of water from a commercial provider on Waiheke. This would provide just over 11 days of water supply using a conservative 500 litres per day for a typical four person residential household.

Water abstraction

18. The amount of water currently being abstracted from the Waiheke aquifer has been reviewed, and there is sufficient groundwater on Waiheke to maintain supply for the existing population. The aquifer system is recharged each year and there is a robust monitoring system in place that will ensure the aquifer is managed appropriately.

19. The review confirmed that the current level of abstraction at the aquifer can be maintained and will not be adversely affected by an extended dry spell. The current limits of the three Auckland Council emergency water supply sites will be reviewed and adjusted as part of the Waiheke Water Plan implementation process.

Saline monitoring

20. If additional water in excess to the consented amount was to be abstracted, there is a potential risk of saltwater replacing freshwater. This could mean that a number of freshwater bores on Waiheke would be unusable for drinking water. As the amount of freshwater being abstracted from the aquifer is not projected to increase, it has been confirmed that there will be no change to the current consent requirement to monitor any potential saline intrusion.

Auckland District Health Board requirements for water treatment and supply

21. The new water treatment facilities at the Mātiatia car park and Onetangi sports field sites are being installed and upgraded in order to exceed current drinking water standards. Water Safety Plans for both sites will be developed in collaboration with the Auckland District Health Board and updated in early 2019 to meet these standards.

Infrastructure upgrades

22. In order to provide emergency drinking water for people on Waiheke, the design of the water treatment systems matches the standard designed and developed for the Heathy Waters Mātiatia Wharf project. The Mātiatia Wharf project involved an upgrade to the existing water treatment system to meet the need of the increased number of passengers using this facility. Upgrades at the new sites on Waiheke are as follows:

· Mātiatia car park – a new water treatment facility has been designed, installed and will be commissioned in December 2018 to provide both tanker and domestic filling points at the eastern end of the car park at Mātiatia

· Onetangi sportsground - an upgrade to the existing water treatment system has been designed, installed and will be commissioned in late November 2018 in order to provide both tanker and domestic filling points at the pavilion on the Onetangi sportsground site.

Auckland Council consents

23. The resource consents for both Mātiatia car park and Onetangi sportsground have been updated to ensure the sites meet all the land use issues and accommodate suitable traffic movements.

Consents for water providers

24. A letter has been sent to all water providers on Waiheke detailing the need for them to manage their supplies in conjunction with the consent documentation and Water Safety Plans. Water suppliers must update their consent documentation should they wish to use the Auckland Council water sources during an emergency, and this documentation will require Ministry of Health approval prior to the water being taken.

Monitoring requirements

25. The water quality monitoring requirements have been defined by Auckland Council’s consenting process, and will continue to be monitored as part of the consent condition requirements. This is not a change to the existing water quality monitoring regime, although the two new sites at Mātiatia and Onetangi will need to have their monitoring plans updated by the Auckland Council regulatory team to ensure compliance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008).

Trigger levels

26. The trigger levels for the provision of drinking water from the Auckland Council sites have been developed while considering factors such as:

· length of time without rain

· average household tank size

· average water usage per person.

27. Having considered the information above, Healthy Waters have recommended through the draft plan that the trigger level should be 20 days with less than 10 millimetres of observed rain.

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

28. The draft Waiheke Water Plan was developed in direct response to community concerns and to develop resilience during water shortages. The additional provision of drinking water to the local community in times of need will significantly reduce the pressure on the commercial water providers.

29. Workshops were held with the Waiheke Local Board on 7 June 2018 and 1 November 2018 to discuss the key points that the Waiheke Water Plan will cover. The board has indicated its support for the development of the plan, noting it would benefit the community in terms of education around water conservation and resilience in any future water shortages.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30. Engagement with mana whenua has been undertaken as part of the resource consent applications for the two new water treatment sites. The water plan will contribute to ensuring access to clean and sustainable drinking water for Māori living on Waiheke.

31. It is also not expected to have negative impacts on water quality or the mauri of waterways, as its focus is on using decentralised solutions and encouraging efficient use of water to maintain supply during dry periods.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32. The endorsement and implementation of the Waiheke Water Plan will have no financial implications for the Waiheke Local Board, as the capital investment in the new water treatment systems has been accommodated within existing Healthy Waters 2018/2019 capital budgets. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the new sites will be included as part of the existing Healthy Waters small waters maintenance contract.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

33. If the plan is not endorsed ahead of summer 2018 as outlined in Attachment A, there is a significant risk of a sustained drinking water shortage should the weather patterns of November and December 2017 be repeated. There is also a risk of reputational damage for Auckland Council and the Waiheke Local Board if the plan is not endorsed, in that there was a significant water shortage in 2017, and the delivery of a plan to minimise the risk of reoccurrence has been promised to the community.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

34. Following the local board’s endorsement of the draft Waiheke Water Plan, the final plan will be implemented as detailed in this report, and an update on the implementation of the plan will be provided to the Waiheke Local Board in early 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Waiheke Water Plan - November 2018	51

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Peter Brooks – Waterways Projects Team Manager

Authorisers

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

File No.: CP2018/21014

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 board on 11 October 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5. Waiheke Local Board residents provided 37 submissions on the plan, representing three 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 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 / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) receive a summary of consultation feedback from Waiheke 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 and other statutory planning documents. A total of 1,262 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 1,262 submissions received, 23 were pro-forma submissions from Forest and Bird. The number of submission 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	1,262

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 Waiheke 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 Waiheke residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

Question	Response	% submissions local board	Percentage of submissions regional
1. What is your view on the proposed approach to pest plant management in parks?	Full support	31%	26%
	Partial support	31%	17%
	Partial do not support	0%	3%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	38%	53%
2. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing kauri dieback?	Full support	46%	27%
	Partial support	32%	29%
	Partial do not support	0%	5%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	21%	37%
3. What is your view on the proposed approach to prevent the spread of pests to the Hauraki Gulf Islands?	Full support	61%	46%
	Partial support	29%	19%
	Partial do not support	4%	12%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	7%	21%
4. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Aotea/Great Barrier?	Full support	45%	44%
	Partial support	27%	20%
	Partial do not support	5%	4%
	Full do not support	0%	2%
	Other comments	23%	30%
5. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Kawau Island?	Full support	65%	43%
	Partial support	8%	23%
	Partial do not support	0%	7%
	Full do not support	0%	4%
	Other comments	27%	23%
6. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Waiheke Island?	Full support	55%	44%
	Partial support	26%	21%
	Partial do not support	3%	5%
	Full do not support	0%	3%
	Other comments	16%	28%
7. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of rural possums?	Full support	52%	38%
	Partial support	16%	28%
	Partial do not support	4%	7%
	Full do not support	0%	4%
	Other comments	28%	23%
8. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of freshwater pests?	Full support	52%	46%
	Partial support	22%	23%
	Partial do not support	0%	4%
	Full do not support	0%	3%
	Other comments	26%	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 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 Waiheke 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. Proposed approaches to be taken in relation to these issues were workshopped with the board in June 2017. At its July 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 11 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, 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 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 board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the 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 Environment and Community Committee adoption 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	69
b ⇩	Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document	79
c ⇩	Waiheke Local Board feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan - August 2017	91

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Waiheke local parks management plan – scope, engagement approach and approval for intention to prepare the plan

File No.: CP2018/18940

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the project scope, timeline and engagement approach for the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan and approve public notification of the intention to prepare the plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Waiheke Local Board has approved the development of the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan (the local parks management plan).

3. The local parks management plan will provide a policy framework to manage use, protection and development of the Waiheke local parks network.

4. The development of the plan will follow the process outlined in the Reserves Act 1977.

5. Staff are seeking approval from the local board to notify the intention to prepare a plan and to invite written suggestions, pursuant to section 41(5) of the Reserves Act.

6. The public notices are likely to be published in early December 2018 and the deadline for written suggestions will be 10 February 2019.

7. The local parks management plan will cover land for which the local board has allocated or delegated decision-making authority and include land held under the Reserve Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 2002.

8. Certain areas of open space are out of scope of the development of the plan. This includes areas not owned or managed by Auckland Council and areas for which the local board does not have a decision-making role (e.g. Rangihoua maunga and Tawaipareira Reserve, Stony Batter, unformed legal roads and drainage reserves).

9. For unformed legal roads and drainage reserves, the local board does have an advocacy role which can be expressed through the plan where these areas act as open space.

10. This report also outlines the engagement approach for the development of the local parks management plan, which provides engagement opportunities beyond the statutory requirements of the Reserve Act 1977 and seeks the local board’s endorsement for this approach.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) endorse the scope and engagement approach for the development of the Waiheke (omnibus) Local Parks Management Plan

b) approve public notification of its intention to prepare a combined (omnibus) Local Parks Management Plan for all local parks and reserves in the Waiheke Local Board area and invite written suggestions on the proposed plan.

Horopaki / Context

11. The local board has decision making responsibility for approximately 120 parks, reserves and other areas of open space on Waiheke Island. Eighty parks are covered by existing reserve management plans, of which 62 are covered in the Management Plan for County Reserves – Waiheke 1984.

12. In April 2018, the local board resolved to prepare an omnibus open space management plan for all local parks on Waiheke (resolution number WHK/2018/91).

13. This was followed in July 2018 by a local board decision to develop a separate management plan for Rangihoua Reserve and Onetangi Sports Park, concurrently with the Waiheke omnibus management plan, using the process outlined in the Reserves Act 1977 (resolution number WHK/2018/151).

14. This report outlines the scope of the omnibus open space management plan (local parks management plan) and presents an engagement approach for the local board’s endorsement.

15. This report also seeks approval to publicly notify the intention to prepare a local parks management plan, as required under section 41(5) of the Reserves Act.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Scope of the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan

What is in scope of the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan?

16. Reserve management plans are mandatory for most reserves held under the Reserves Act, but not for parks held under the Local Government Act (LGA).

17. It is proposed that the local parks management plan covers all local parks held under the Reserves Act and the LGA as the plan is intended to be the guiding policy framework for managing use, protection and development of the Waiheke local parks network.

18. The plan will include general management principles and policies which will apply to all parks or park types across the local board area, as well as park-specific policies and guidance where required and will replace all existing reserve management plans for local parks on Waiheke Island.

What is out of scope of the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan?

19. In addition to Rangihoua Reserve and Onetangi Sports Park being out of scope (resolution number WHK/2018/151), other park land out of scope of this plan, includes:

· Tawaipareira Reserve, and Rangihoua maunga and landscape amenity area. This is because the local board has delegated decision making to the Rangihoua and Tawaipareira Management Committee.

· Whakanewha Regional Park, as decision making for this sits with the Governing Body.

· Open space owned and managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), and where council does not have a formal management agreement with DOC, such as Stony Batter.

· Privately owned open space, such as the Forest and Bird Reserve at Onetangi.

20. Other open space out of scope of this plan are drainage reserves and unformed legal road, for which the local board does not have a decision-making role.

21. There are some areas for which the local board does not have allocated or delegated decision making, but does have an advocacy role, especially where those areas act as park land. Examples of those areas acting as park land are:

· Parts of some unformed legal roads e.g. road berms along Onetangi Beach and

· road to road accessways, e.g. Valley Road O’Brien Road Access in Rocky Bay.

22. Attachment A gives an overview of areas within scope, out of scope and those areas where the local board does not have a decision-making role but may wish to advocate for particular outcomes on their management, through the local parks management plan.

Approval to notify the intention to prepare a local parks management plan for Waiheke pursuant to the Reserves Act

23. In the interests of developing an integrated local parks management plan, compliant with both the Reserves Act and the LGA, it is prudent to prepare the plan utilising the procedures for developing reserve management plans set out in the Reserves Act (as outlined in Attachment B).

24. The process required under the Reserves Act includes two formal rounds of public consultation.

25. The purpose of the first round is to seek feedback to inform the development of a draft plan.

26. Staff are now seeking approval from the local board to publicly notify the intention to prepare the local parks management plan (as per section 41(5) of the Reserves Act).

27. Public notification of the intention to prepare the local parks management plan will invite written suggestions on the proposal to prepare a plan.

28. Notices are anticipated to be published in early December. The deadline for written suggestions will be 10 February 2019.

Community engagement for the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan – beyond statutory requirements

29. Staff are proposing to undertake consultation beyond the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act, by providing additional opportunities for key stakeholders and the wider community to provide suggestions. This is to ensure that as many people as possible will be given the opportunity to have their say.

30. Engagement activities will include opportunity for face-to-face discussions with staff, paper and online tools and the use of an innovative mapping tool to capture informal comments and suggestions on individual parks. Attachment C gives an overview of the proposed engagement activities.

31. Staff will work closely with mana whenua and the local board on the development of the draft local parks management plan.

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

32. The local board was briefed on the process of the development of the local parks management plan at a workshop on 4 October 2018.

33. Local board members provided informal feedback in support of the engagement approach and made some suggestions that were incorporated into the engagement activities presented in this report.

34. Local board members highlighted the importance of the Essentially Waiheke document as a source of information for community aspirations and how to work with local communities.

35. Local board members sought clarification about areas in and out of scope of the plan, as outlined in the analysis section of this report and detailed in Attachment A.

36. Further workshops will be held with the local board throughout the development of the local parks management plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

37. The Reserves Act is one of the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987. Section 4 of the Conservation Act contains an obligation to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti/the Treaty).

38. As such, in performing functions and duties under the Reserves Act, such as developing a reserve management plan, the local board must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti/the Treaty.

39. The principles of te Tiriti/the Treaty likely to be most relevant in making decisions on the Waiheke Local Parks Management Plan and classification work are:

· Partnership – mutual good faith and reasonableness

· Informed decision making – being well-informed of the mana whenua interests and views. Consultation is a means to achieve informed decision-making

· Active protection – this involves the active protection of Māori interests retained under te Tiriti/the Treaty. It includes the promise to protect rangatiratanga and taonga.

40. The LGA also contains obligations to Māori, including to facilitate Māori participation in council decision-making processes (sections 4; 14(1)(d); 81(1)(a)).

41. Staff introduced mana whenua to the local parks management plan project at the Parks, Sport and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum in June 2018.

42. Mana whenua representatives from Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Whanaunga expressed an interest in the project and attended two subsequent hui, to discuss proposed reserve classifications and the scope of the plan.

43. Ongoing involvement of mana whenua in the development of the local parks management plan will:

· enable te ao Māori to be incorporated into the management of the Waiheke local parks network.

· provide an opportunity for mana whenua to express their kaitiaki role.

44. Further hui are planned to help inform the development of the draft plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

45. Costs for public notices will be covered through Community Facilities existing operational budget.

46. Costs to support the engagement activities will be accommodated within the project budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

47. There are no anticipated risks from making this decision.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

48. Suggestions from the first round of consultation will be given full consideration in preparing the draft plan.

49. The second round of public consultation on the draft plan is anticipated to commence in April/ May 2019.

50. A high-level project delivery approach including key project and consultation milestones, local board workshops and reporting are set out in Attachment D.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Overview of scope for Waiheke local parks management plan	101
b ⇩	Overview of the steps for the preparation of a reserve management plan under section 41 of the Reserves Act	103
c ⇩	Overview of proposed engagement methods	105
d ⇩	Revised timeline for the preparation of the Waiheke local parks managment plan	107

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Nicki Malone - Service and Asset Planner

Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader

Helaina Farthing - Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Waiheke local parks land classification programme

File No.: CP2018/18939

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To declare and classify land held under the Local Government Act 2002, and to classify and reclassify land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and approve public notification where required.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A comprehensive land status investigation of all Waiheke local parks has been completed and identified a large number of unclassified reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977. This is a preliminary task in the development of a local parks management plan.

3. Of the 233 parcels of park land within the scope of the local parks management plan, the investigation identified 206 land parcels held under the Reserves Act, and 26 as held under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

4. Considerations associated with the decision to retain land under the Local Government Act 2002 or declare and classify reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 include; the current and likely future use, continuity with adjoining land parcels and the benefits and constraints of legislation.

5. For the 26 parcels of park land held under the LGA, the local board has the option to continue to hold land under the LGA or to declare the land as reserve under the Reserves Act and classify it appropriately.

6. Staff have individually assessed the merits of each option (refer attachment B, C and D) and propose that:

· 9 parcels are retained under the LGA (Attachment B),

· 16 are declared as a reserve and classified under the Reserves Act (Attachment C)

· one parcel declared and classified as a reserve requiring public notification, as it is not currently zoned as open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan is publicly notified (Attachment D).

7. Of the 207 land parcels held under the Reserves Act:

· 108 are unclassified and require classification to be included in the local park management plan, (Attachment E and F)

· 12 parcels require reclassification to better reflect current or future use of the reserve (Attachment G).

· 87 require no further action.

8. Each individual parcel of reserve land has been assessed. Classification actions for unclassified reserve land and reclassification actions for some incorrectly classified reserves are being proposed.

9. Staff have considered the benefits and disadvantages of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002 in managing and enabling the use, protection and development of each local park, and developed a set of criteria to guide assessment of each land parcel.

10. These criteria incorporate guidance from the Reserves Act 1977 Guide^{^[1]}, consideration of the local park’s values, current and likely future use of the local park, workshop feedback from the local board and consultation with mana whenua.

11. Staff recommend that the local board approve classifying the land parcels that do not require public notification; and notifying the classification or reclassification of other land parcels as outlined in this report.

12. Completing the reserve declaration, classification and reclassification processes will enable staff to proceed with preparing the draft local parks management plan once the first round of consultation has been completed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm nine parcels of land will continue to be held under the Local Government Act 2002 as described in Attachment B of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018) will continue to be held under the Local Government Act 2002

b) approve 16 parcels of land to be declared a reserve and classified according to their primary purpose, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as proposed in Attachment C of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018)

c) approve public notification of the intention to declare and classify one parcel of land described in Attachment D of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018)

d) approve the proposed classification of 98 parcels of reserve land pursuant to sections 16(1) and 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment E of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018)

e) approve public notification of proposals to classify 10 parcels of reserve land pursuant to section 16(4) of the Reserves Act 1977 as described in Attachment F of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018)

f) approve public notification of the proposals to reclassify 12 parcels of reserve land pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 described in Attachment G of the agenda report (dated 22 November 2018)

g) approve a hearing panel, consisting of a minimum of three local board members in preparation for any requests to speak to objections or submissions on the proposed classifications that have been publicly notified under clause c) and e) above. The role of the hearings panel will be to hear submissions make recommendations to the local board on classification decisions.

Horopaki / Context

13. Waiheke Local Board has allocated decision making responsibility for all local parks in the Waiheke local board area (the local board area).

14. In April 2018, the Waiheke Local Board resolved to prepare an omnibus open space management plan for all local parks on Waiheke (resolution number: WHK/2018/91) (the local parks management plan).

15. This was followed in July 2018 by a local board decision to develop a separate management plan for Rangihoua Reserve and Onetangi Sports Park, concurrently with the Waiheke omnibus management plan, using the process outlined in the Reserves Act 1977 (resolution number WHK/2018/151).

16. Decision making for the Rangihoua Reserve and Onetangi Sports Park Local Park Management plan, including land classification has been delegated to a committee (resolution number WHK/2018/190).

17. The local parks management plan will cover park land held subject to both the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) and Local Government Act 2002, including land covered by existing reserve management plans.

18. The local parks management plan will be a statutory reserve management plan prepared in accordance with section 41 of the RA.

19. As part of preparing the local parks management plan, it is necessary to review whether local parks to be included in the plan are held under the LGA or RA, and if they are held under the RA whether they have been appropriately classified.

20. The review of the land status of all local parks in the local board area has been completed. The outcomes of the investigation were presented to the local board at a workshop on 4 October 2018.

21. 347 land parcels, covering approximately 120 parks, were investigated. Of the 347 land parcels investigated, 233 are included in scope of the local parks management plan.

22. 114 land parcels are out of scope, as the local board does not have delegated decision-making authority for them. Examples of this are drainage reserves, land managed by the Department of Conservation, unformed roads and Whakanewha Regional Park.

23. Of the 233 parcels within scope, 207 are held under the RA, and 26 under the LGA.

24. Of the 207 parcels held under the RA, 108 are currently unclassified.

25. This report makes recommendations on actions for both land held under the RA and land held under the LGA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

26. The local board have the option to hold park land under the LGA or the RA.

27. For land held under the LGA the following options have been considered:

· continue to hold the land under the LGA,

· declare land currently held under the LGA to be reserve under the RA and classify appropriately.

28. For land held under the RA, the following options have been considered:

· classify according to its primary purpose,

· reclassify to align to its primary purpose,

· revoke the reserve status and hold the land under the LGA,

· continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve under the RA (status quo).

29. The option to continue to hold the land as unclassified reserve, has been discounted as it would mean that the local parks management plan would not comply with the RA, the council would not be meeting its statutory obligations under the RA and staff would not be able to recommend public notification of the draft plan (once completed).

30. Attachment A summarises the different options for land held under the LGA and land held under the RA, as well as the most common classes for land held under the RA.

31. In considering whether to proceed with the options for each land parcel, staff have considered:

· the intended purpose of the land when it was acquired, for example, was it vested as a recreation or esplanade reserve on subdivision;

· the long-term protection that the RA provides from inappropriate use and development;

· the benefits of unified and integrated management of individual parks and the local parks network as a whole;

· whether underlying Crown ownership of the local park prevents the reserve status being revoked;

· whether statutory processes and future decision-making will be streamlined;

· the need for greater flexibility and choice in how local parks are used by the public; and

· whether revoking the reserve status of a particular land parcel would materially lead to a greater range of park activities being able to occur.

32. The following sections outline in more detail the options for land held under the LGA and RA and the criteria on which assessments of each land parcel have been based.

Proposed actions for land held under the LGA

33. When reviewing the future land status options for land under the LGA, staff considered the following:

i. Why does the council own the land and how was it acquired?

ii. What is the primary purpose of the land?

iii. What is the status of adjacent parcels of land within the same park?

iv. What is the current and likely future main use of the land?

v. What potential does the land have for protection, enhancement and development?

vi. Is there likely to be a need to retain flexibility for future use?

Proposal to retain some land under the LGA

34. Applying the criteria above, 9 parcels of land have been identified as best suited to remain under the LGA (Attachment B). This is primarily because either the current use does not align with any of the classification options in the RA and/or there is a likely need to retain flexibility for future use. The Waiheke Backpackers Hostel is an example of an activity where this occurs.

35. No further action is required by the local board for land that is to remain under the LGA.

Proposal to declare and classify some land currently held under the LGA

36. Any land held under the LGA which the local board wishes to manage under the RA must be declared reserve and classified appropriately in accordance with the RA.

37. 17 parcels of land held under the LGA have been identified and recommended for declaring and classifying reserve under the RA (Attachments C and D).

38. The predominant reason for declaring and classifying these parcels is to reflect the primary purpose of the land. Most of these parcels align with either recreation or scenic classifications.

39. Section 14(2) of the RA requires public notification when declaring and classifying land as reserve, where land is not zoned open space in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

40. One parcel of land proposed to be declared and classified requires public notification, calling for any objections to the proposal (refer to Attachment D).

41. Staff recommend that the local board declare and classify the land identified in Attachment C; and publicly notify their intention to declare and classify the land in Attachment D as reserve under the RA.

Proposed actions for land held under the RA

42. As outlined above, there are three valid options for land held under the RA – classification, reclassification or revocation of the RA status.

43. In the context of this investigation, staff have not identified any parcels of local park that warrant the reserve status to be revoked and being managed under the LGA.

Classification of land held under the Reserves Act 1977

44. Classification involves assigning a reserve (or part of a reserve) a primary purpose, as defined in section 17 to 23 of the Act, that aligns with its present values. Consideration is also given to potential future values and activities and uses.

45. The investigation found 108 land parcels currently held as unclassified reserve under the RA, requiring classification.

46. Staff have considered the Reserves Act Guide^{^[2]} and the following questions when determining the primary purpose and appropriate classification for each parcel:

a) Why does council own the land? Why was it acquired?

b) What are the main values of the land or potential future values, uses and activities?

c) What potential does the land have for protection, preservation, enhancement or development?

d) What is the status of adjacent parcels of land within the park?

e) What potential does the land have for protection, enhancement and development?

f) Is there likely to be a need to retain flexibility for future use?

Attachment E identifies 98 land parcels that require classification under section 16(1) or 16(2A) of the RA. These proposals do not require public notification under the Act.

Public notification of classification

47. The RA requires public notification of the proposed classification of a reserve except where:

· the proposed classification aligns with the open space zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan,

· the reserve has been held under previous legislation for a similar purpose, or

· the proposed classification was a condition under which the land was acquired.

48. Attachment F identifies 10 unclassified reserves that require the proposed classification to be publicly notified under section 16(4) of the Act.

49. Objectors and submitters may request a hearing in which case it is proposed that a hearings panel consisting of at least three local board members is formed to hear any objections or submissions and to make recommendations to the local board on classification decisions.

Reclassification of some land held under the RA

50. Reclassification involves assigning a different class to a reserve (or part of a reserve) to better cater for its primary purpose.

51. During the land classification investigation, 12 parcels of classified reserves were identified as requiring reclassification (see Attachment G) for the following reasons:

· to better align with the current or anticipated future use of the reserve; or

· to correct previous classification errors.

52. Section 24(2)(b) of the RA requires all proposals to reclassify reserves to be publicly notified together with the reasons for the proposed change in classification.

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

53. Staff have discussed the outcomes of the land investigation and the proposed reserve classification programme with the local board at a workshop on 4 October 2018.

54. All parcels proposed to be reclassified were discussed, as well as parcels to be declared and classified, and parcels to be retained under the LGA.

55. Staff also gave an overview of the methodology and rationale used to determine the recommendations for unclassified reserves.

56. Feedback from the local board members was generally supportive of the rationale and proposals for classification and reclassification of reserves that were discussed.

57. Local board members expressed support to retain some land under the LGA. An example of this was the land parcels on which the Surfdale Hall is situated.

58. Amendments have been made to the proposed classification programme based on feedback from local board members present at the workshop.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

Engagement with mana whenua

59. Staff have been working with interested mana whenua on land classification as part of the local parks management plan. Two hui have been held to date.

60. At the first hui, held on 26 September 2018, staff gave an overview of the project and reserve classifications in general. Discussions on proposals for specific land parcels commenced.

61. At the second hui, held on 5October 2018, discussions continued specific land parcels. All parcels proposed to be reclassified were discussed, as well as parcels to be declared and classified and parcels to be retained under the LGA.

62. Proposed reserve classification information was also sent to interested mana whenua to review on 3 October 2018, prior to the second hui.

63. Mana whenua representatives from Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Whanaunga attended the hui. Mana whenua generally supported staff’s assessment, rationale and proposals for land classification.

64. For some of the land parcels, mana whenua expressed a desire to give them a higher level of protection under the RA, i.e. classify a reserve as scenic reserve, instead of the proposed recreation reserve classification.

65. Following engagement with the local parks and biodiversity staff, amendments were made to parcels to accommodate mana whenua feedback.

Engagement with mataawaka

66. Staff have communicated with the Piritahi Marae Committee in regards to the classification of the land the marae is situated on. With the assistance of the committee, staff have been able to confirm that no further action is required for the marae land parcels, as the land is already classified as local purpose (marae) reserve.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

67. Financial implications include costs for

· public notices to declare and classify land held under the LGA (where required)

· public notices to classify (where required) and reclassify for land held under the RA.

68. These costs will be covered through Community Facilities existing operational budget.

69. Costs for hearings that may be required to hear any objections to the proposals will be covered by the Hearings team.

70. There are no financial implications associated with retaining land under the LGA.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

71. The following table outlines the risks and mitigation associated with classification and reclassification of reserves and declaring and classifying land to be reserve.

Risk	Mitigation
Perception that the LGA offers park land less protection from sale or disposal than if it was held under RA	Both Acts require a public consultation process where land is proposed to be disposed of. Retaining land under the LGA has only been recommended where flexibility for future use is likely to be beneficial (e.g. commercial use).
RA classifications constrain the range of uses that land can be used for	Current and likely future use of each individual parcel proposed to be declared and classified under the RA has been assessed based on the considerations in paragraph 33 above and the Reserves Act Guide.
Public objections to proposed classifications delaying the management plan process	A small number (11) of parcels require public notification. Due to the small number of parcels, the potential impact on timeframes for the management plan is anticipated to be minimal.
Potentially high number of submissions on proposed classifications, because the notification will be coupled with the notification of the intention to prepare the plan.	Work with engagement team if additional resources are required.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

72. Next steps vary depending on whether land is held under the LGA or RA and on the action that is taken i.e. declare and classify (notified or non-notified) for land under the LGA and classify (notified or non-notified) or reclassification under the RA.

73. Attachment H outlines the next steps for each action for land held under the LGA and RA.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Possible actions under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Reserves Act 1977	117
b ⇩	Parcles to be reatined under the Local Government Act 2002	119
c ⇩	Parcels to be declared a reserve and classified (public notification not required)	121
d ⇩	Parcles to be declared a reserve and classified (public notification required)	123
e ⇩	Parcles to be classified (public notification not required)	125
f ⇩	Parcles to be classified (public notification required)	129
g ⇩	Parcels to be reclassified (public notification mandatory)	131
h ⇩	Overview of next steps for different decsisions to be made by the local board under the LGA and RA	133

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Nicki Malone - Service and Asset Planner

Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader

Helaina Farthing - Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Reserve Name	Physical Address	Appellation	Survey Area (in sqm)	Classification	Applicable section of the Act
Anzac Bay Reserve	306 Calais Terrace	Lot 6 DP 173104	3790	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Anzac Bay Reserve	37 Calais Terrace	Lot 5 DP 174122	2070	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Anzac Bay Reserve	Calais Terrace	Lot 4 DP 201403	2130	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Anzac Bay Reserve	29D Calais Terrace	Lot 4 DP 360116	1062	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Arran Bay Esplanade Reserve	192B Cowes Bay Road	Lot 6 DP 168989	255	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Awaawaroa Esplanade Reserve	215 Awaawaroa Road	Lot 12 DP 313056	3713	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve	176 Awaawaroa Road	Lot 7 DP 165463	8060	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve	176 Awaawaroa Road	Lot 8 DP 165463	640	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve	176 Awaawaroa Road	Lot 4 DP 210617	866	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve	176 Awaawaroa Road	Lot 3 DP 384887	982	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Belle Terrace Foreshore Reserve	57 Belle Terrace	Lot 3 DP 154034	385	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Catherine Mitchell Reserve	417 – 427 Sea View Road	Lot 5 DP 142106	4988	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 11 DP 146325	61600	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 12 DP 146325	6200	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 9 DP 146325	14900	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 10 DP 146325	36400	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 4 DP 154784	380	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 5 DP 154784	619	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	135 Nick Johnstone Drive	Lot 58 DP 169718	415	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Part Lot 15 DP 146325	22906	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Church Bay Esplanade Reserve	4 Ocean View Road	Lot 59 DP 177117	94	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Glen Brook Reserve	33 Glen Brook Road	Lot 489 DP 19224	44642	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Goodwin North Reserve	37B Goodwin Avenue	Lot 3 DP 82447	480	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(1)
Great Barrier Foreshore Reserve	51A Great Barrier Road	Lot 4 DP 161612	10500	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Great Barrier Foreshore Reserve	51A Great Barrier Road	Lot 3 DP 93989	1540	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Great Barrier Road Esplanade Res	87B Great Barrier Road	Lot 3 DP 175402	474	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Hekerua Bay Foreshore Reserve 1	6 Newton Road	Lot 3 DP 370053	612	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Hill Road Crescent Road East	77 Crescent Road East	Lot 4 DP 168995	260	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Hill Road Crescent Road East	77 Crescent Road East	Lot 425 DP 16816	3536	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(1)
Homersham Reserve	131 The Strand	Lot 1 DP 44564	931	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Kiwi Moa Accessway	26A Moa Avenue	Lot 3 DP 54943	228	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Kuakarau Bay Forest	40 Te Whau Drive	Lot 55 DP 156422	31745	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(1)
Kuakarau Bay Forest	Te Whau Drive	Lot 57 DP 152097	21452	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Kuakarau Bay Forest	Te Whau Drive	Lot 54 DP 156422	56183	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Kuakarau Bay Forest	40 Te Whau Drive	Section 1 SO 360896	200	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(1)
Kuakarau Bay Forest	40 Te Whau Drive	Section 2 SO 360896	706	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(1)
Makora South Reserve	60 The Esplanade	Lot 2 DP 54940	880	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Lot 296 DP 16816	873	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Lot 445 DP 16816	10218	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Lot 294 DP 16816	855	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Lot 293 DP 16816	847	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Section 2 Block II Waiheke SD	116	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Matapana Reserve	5 The Esplanade	Lot 295 DP 16816	865	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Matiatia Owhanake Walkway Link	10 Ocean View Road	Lot 51 DP 183455	2641	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Mawhitipana Reserve	55 Cory Road	Lot 444 DP 16816	22814	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Mitchell Reserve	Mitchell Road	Lot 145 DP 16354	2200	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Ostend Domain	The Causeway	Section 1 SO 55851	2940	Recreation Reserve	S16(2A)
Onetangi Sports Park (Rangihoua)	133-165 O'Brien Road	Lot 17 DP 184090	6850	Local Purpose (Accessway)	s16(2A)
Onetangi Sports Park (Rangihoua)	133-165 O'Brien Road	Lot 19 DP 184090	2200	Local Purpose (Accessway)	s16(2A)
Onetangi Sports Park (Rangihoua)	133-165 O'Brien Road	Lot 6 DP 204906	18860	Recreation Reserve	S16(2A)
Owhanake Matiatia Walkway	66 Korora Road	Lot 40 DP 183454	25280	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Owhanake Matiatia Walkway	66 Korora Road	Lot 9 DP 169561	25327	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Owhanake Matiatia Walkway	66 Korora Road	Lot 44 DP 183456	2060	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Owhanake Matiatia Walkway	66 Korora Road	Lot 43 DP 183454	8000	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Owhanake Reserve	69 Korora Road	Lot 42 DP 183454	19267	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 180 DP 16816	809	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 196 DP 16816	809	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 182 DP 16816	809	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 195 DP 16816	809	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 179 DP 16816	1619	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 194 DP 16816	809	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Palm Beach Reserve	53 Palm Road	Lot 183 DP 16816	908	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Park Point Walkway	Cable Bay Lane	Lot 42 DP 331964	30038	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Park Road Reserve	24 Moana Avenue	Part Lot 13 DP 16354	18127	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Piritaha Esplanade Reserve	88G Church Bay Road	Lot 8 DP 193750	3324	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Pohutukawa Reserve	22 Pohutukawa Avenue	Lot 18 DP 19224	3971	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Pohutukawa Reserve Onetangi	11 Third Avenue	Allot 130 PSH OF Waiheke	40638	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Putiki Reserve	14 Shelly Beach Road	Part Lot 23 DP 29734	11761	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Putiki Reserve	14 Shelly Beach Road	Part Lot 13 DP 33007	1014	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Sandy Bay Esplanade Reserve	119 Great Barrier Road	Lot 3 DP 97658	1776	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Sea View Esplanade Reserve A	322B Sea View Road	Lot 3 DP 182519	740	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Sea View Esplanade Reserve A	322B Sea View Road	Lot 3 DP 170479	903	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Squirells Reserve	616 Orapiu Road	Lot 5 DP 323898	11000	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Surfdale Hall Reserve & Foreshore	4 Hamilton Road	Section 1 SO 64396	1497	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Surfdale Reserve Accessway	46B Lannan Road	Lot 5 DP 319092	310	Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Aroha Reserve Accessway	Te Aroha Avenue	Lot 2 DP 58070	792	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Aroha Reserve Accessway	Te Aroha Avenue	Lot 3 DP 362320	111	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Awaawa O Makoha	53 Korora Road	Lot 3 DP 406036	6577	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Matuku Bay Esplanade Res 1	516 Orapiu Road	Lot 2 DP 124361	58750	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Matuku Stockyard Reserve	516 Orapiu Road	Lot 12 DP 180595	2090	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Matuku Stockyard Reserve	516 Orapiu Road	Lot 10 DP 180595	2693	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Uri Karaka Te Waera Reserve	150 Church Bay Road	Lot 6 DP 146325	162886	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 75 DP 185011	10650	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 63 DP 152097	63100	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 73 DP 160901	5817	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 62 DP 152097	6750	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 71 DP 156422	3150	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 61 DP 152097	58700	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 72 DP 156422	976	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Te Whau Esplanade Reserve 1	O'Brien Road	Lot 70 DP 156422	19596	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Third Reserve	26 Third Avenue	Allot 129 PSH OF Waiheke	11140	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Tin Boat Reserve	16 Fourth Avenue	Part Lot 105 DP 11377	5	Recreation Reserve	s16(1)
Tin Boat Reserve	16 Fourth Avenue	Lot 5 DP 21862	20	Recreation Reserve	s16(2A)
Tin Boat Reserve	16 Fourth Avenue	Lot 85 DP 11377	8559	Recreation Reserve	s16(1)
Upland Road Walkway	46 Omiha Road	Part Whakanewha Block	2087	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	s16(2A)
Wharf Road Esplanade Reserve	Wharf Road	Section 1 SO 64395	2100	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Wilma Foreshore Reserve	1B Wilma Road	Lot 4 DP 30841	2150	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)
Woodside Bay Esplanade Walkway	Woodside Bay Road	Lot 11 DP 186680	798	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	s16(2A)

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Waiheke Local Board for quarter one

File No.: CP2018/21131

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Waiheke 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 Waiheke Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. Key activity updates from this quarter include:

· commencement of the Waiheke Local Park Management Plan project which covers all parks and reserves in the local board area. A management plan process specific to Rangihoua Reserve / Onetangi Sports Park will run concurrently. Community engagement is due to commence in November 2018 with finalisation of the plans due April / May 2020. These are both key priority initiatives within the 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plan

· the feasibility study for the proposed swimming pool site is underway following appointment of a contractor. This is a significant step towards the development of a pool, which is a key priority for the community

· establishment of the Waiheke Area Plan working party which includes all board members. Regular workshops have been scheduled. The first stage of community engagement will commence shortly. Completion is planned for September 2019.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. 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). There are no activities with a red status this quarter.

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

7. The Net Cost of Service for the Waiheke Local Board in the twelve months ended on 30 June 2018 was $3.2 million.

8. Operating expenditure for the first quarter ended on 30 September 2018 was 74 per cent of the full year revised budget and operating revenue received was 23 per cent of the full year budget. An error in the accounting treatment of the full facilities contract invoices has inflated the spend figure in the local board accounts. This will be corrected in quarter two.

9. Capital works delivery is going as per Annual Plan budget. The board has spent 26 percent of its full year budget in the three months ending on 30 September 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Horopaki / Context

10. The Waiheke Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events

· Parks, Sport and Recreation

· Libraries and Information

· Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew

· Community Leases

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services

· Local Economic Development

· Plans and Places.

11. Work programmes are produced annually, to meet the Waiheke Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year Waiheke Local Board Plan. The local board plan outcomes are:

· Outcome 1: Inclusive planning and placemaking

· Outcome 2: A sustainable economy and positive visitor experience

· Outcome 3: Waiheke's environment is treasured

· Outcome 4: Thriving, strong and engaged communities

· Outcome 5: Vibrant places for people

· Outcome 6: Transport and infrastructure

12. The graph below 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

13. 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 of the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

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

Graph 2: work programme by RAG status

15. The graph below 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

16. 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 (see 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

Outcome 1: Inclusive planning and placemaking

17. Waiheke Area Plan: The working party has been established, which includes; all board members, the Waitematā and Gulf Ward Councillor and a representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The project team have commenced background research and regular workshops with the working party have been scheduled. Community engagement will commence shortly. The plan is due for completion around September 2019. The contract for the Lightscape Management Plan has also been awarded. This will help inform lighting requirements within the area plan.

18. Toilet facilities: Provision in Oneroa and Matiatia requires addressing, particularly during the holiday season. Community facilities have indicated funding will be available next financial year. In the meantime, staff have recommended hiring portable prestige facilities to cover this year’s busy period and that the board will be required to cover this cost (estimated at $10,000 for three months).

Outcome 2: A sustainable economy and positive visitor experience

19. Community and social economic development: Funding was granted to the Waiheke Community Childcare Centre to support the development of a concept plan for a Community Hub at Ostend Reserve.

20. Waiheke Community Art Gallery: During quarter one the gallery ran 72 off-site and 14 on-site programmes, which involved a total of 238 participants. The total number of visitors to the gallery was 13,917. The range of activities included exhibitions, workshops, artists residence and artist public talks. The highlights of this quarter were the Matariki exhibition, which became a massive community event, and the Mark Surridge Artist in Residence exhibition and workshops.

21. Artworks Theatre: During this quarter the theatre ran 20 programmes, with a total of 1876 attendees. The programmes included theatre productions and acting classes. Highlights included the production of Diary of Anne Frank, Last laughs, and Still Life with Chickens, as well as performances by the Tom Waits Tribute Band.

Outcome 3: Waiheke's environment is treasured

22. Ecological restoration contract: Programme activity in the first quarter has focussed on removal of persistent weeds at Rangihoua wetland and cemetery wetland area. 140 trees were planted by volunteers in this quarter.

Outcome 4: Thriving, strong and engaged communities

23. Youth Hub: A youth mini-conference was held where island youth had the opportunity to express their needs and aspirations for the youth hub. This will inform staff during scoping and planning for the project.

24. Christmas events: Once Upon an Island and the Waiheke Community Childcare Centre have been selected to run the parade and the night market. The Parade is going fossil-fuel-free and planning is well underway for the event, which will be held on 15 December.

Outcome 5: Vibrant places for people

25. Local Park Management Plan: Development of management plans for parks and reserves in the local board area was a key priority within the 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plan. This multi-park management plan will assist the board in managing use, development and protection of all parks and reserves. The classification workstream has commenced and community engagement is due to kick off in November. Completion is scheduled for April / May 2020.

26. Rangihoua / Onetangi Sport Park Management Plan: Development of this plan will run concurrently with the above multi-park management plan. Committee members have been appointed and the first meeting has been scheduled.

27. Sandy Bay Track remediation: The Sandy Bay track is open again after slip remediation work was completed. This required 95 soil nails as stability points that are anchored into the cliffside, as well as upgrading the drainage in the area. The work was then covered in matting and planted with native species.

28. Walkway and track renewal: It has been a busy few months for the Community Facilities team on tracks repairs and maintenance. Works are progressing on Kuakarau Bay, Musson and Trigg Hill tracks. Te Awaana O Makoha (pictured) and the main Tin Boat tracks are all complete. Waikare Reserve accessway has been repaired and the Newton track at Little Oneroa has also been completed, as has the Manuka track at Onetangi Sports Park, and Pio Rehutai.

29. Steps have been renewed at Matapana and there is new seating at Mawhitipana Reserve. Next steps will be the completion of Musson Track and progress to Trigg Hill. Consenting for Matiatia to Owhanake will also be progressed.

30. Onetangi beach structures: Recent weather events have resulted in damage to some beach access structures. Two were closed due to the significant health and safety risk, and have since been removed. Investigation, scoping and design for remediation and/or replacement for affected structures is underway.

31. Swimming Pool: Visitor Solutions Limited were awarded the contract to undertake a feasibility study for the proposed swimming pool.

Outcome 6: Transport and infrastructure

32. Greenways / Pathways Plan: The Waiheke Pathways Plan is a 10-year plan to improve our footpaths, roads and trails so that it’s safe and easy for people to walk, bike or ride around the island. Pre-engagement meetings on the draft consultation document have been held and public consultation on the plan is due to commence in November.

Activities with significant issues

33. At the end of this quarter there are no activities with a red RAG status.

Activities on hold

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

Activity name	RAG status	Activity status	Explanation and mitigation
Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew work programme
Catherine Mitchell Cultural Society - install drainage ID 2401	Amber	On hold	Project was on hold until Auckland Transport's Putiki Road kerb and channel works were complete. Works are now complete and the site will be monitored over the coming weeks to determine whether any further drainage works are required.
Island Bay Track, 80 Korora Road, Oneroa - remediate major slip ID 2403	Amber	On hold	Delay due to lack of funding and resource. Next steps: Commence design by September for early summer construction.
Little Oneroa - renew playground ID 2404	Amber	On hold	Commencement of design due to commence now location has been confirmed.
Putiki Reserve - renew public amenities ID 2413	Amber	On hold	Project to be delivered in conjunction with Waiheke - renew park toilets project.
Waiheke - renew park toilets ID 2424	Amber	On hold	Project to be delivered in conjunction with 2413 Putiki Reserve - renew public amenities.
Waiheke boat ramps and pontoons - improvements ID 2427	Amber	On hold	Referred back to Community Services for strategic assessment. Next steps: Determining project scope and requirements.
Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme
Matiatia Gateway Masterplan ID 2847	Amber	On hold	Handover of Panuku leases to Community Facilities pending, but delayed as Panuku need to complete lease variations and address identified maintenance issues before transfer.
Community Leases work programme
Waiheke Island Rugby Club Inc ID 2596	Amber	On hold	To be progressed in 2018/2019 once Reserve management plan details are considered.
Waiheke United Association Football Club Inc ID 2597	Amber	On hold	To be progressed in 2018/2019 once Reserve management plan details are considered.
Citizens Advice Bureau - Waiheke ID 2598	Amber	On hold	To discuss proposed changes to multi premises lease with legal services and Citizen Advice Bureau during quarter four of 2017/2018 and quarter one of 2018/2019.
Waiheke Island Riding Club Inc. ID 2602	Amber	On hold	Lease renewal cannot be progressed until the issues relating to a proposed Reserve management plan for the reserve have been considered. Deferred to 2018/2019
Waiheke Boating Club Inc ID 2605	Amber	On hold	Classification issue is being addressed through the Waiheke Local Park Management Plan, and staff intend on progressing this matter once the proper classification is in place.

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

16. These activities are deferred from the 18/19 work programme:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Explanation and mitigation

Piritahi Marae Trust

ID 2601

Gray

Deferred

This item is deferred. Due to the proximity of the expiry date it is recommended that the lease remain operative on a month-by-month basis and that the final renewal period be formalised during 2019/2020.

Cancelled activities

35. There are no cancelled activities during this quarter.

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

36. There are no activities merged with other activities for efficient delivery during this quarter.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37. This report informs the Waiheke Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2018.

Key performance indicators

38. As most of the 2018-2028 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

39. The Matiatia planning project aims to prepare a strategic plan for Matiatia which reflects the aspirations of the Waiheke community and respects the interests and rights of mana whenua for the future use of that land. The Cultural Values Assessment for Matiatia (prepared by Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust for the council) is a key document in this process and iwi representatives are members of the Matiatia project group.

40. During this quarter the local board met with the Piritahi Marae Trust to discuss the marae’s aspirations, strategic priorities and how the local board could effectively respond. Priority projects were identified, and budget was approved for two of these projects.

41. The board is awaiting resolution of a mandate dispute before further projects involving mana whenua can be progressed.

Financial Performance

42. Operating expenditure to date is showing an over spend of $2 million. This is due to an accounting treatment error, where accruals of over $1.5 million from the previous year were not matched with invoices received. These will be corrected in the next quarter.

43. Capital expenditure to date of $706,000, though has been more than budgeted for in the first quarter, is one-fourth of the annual plan budget for this financial year. The Sandy Bay Track slip has been remedied. Various projects are underway on the Artworks complex and walkway and track renewals. Initial stages of the Tahi Road flood mitigation work have commenced.

44. Operational and capital budgets carried forward from 2017/18 have been approved by the Governing Body and will be added to revised budgets in October. The board carried forward $150,000 of its Locally Driven Initiatives operational budget from 2017/18.

45. Revenue to date of $5,000 is in line with the expectations.

46. The complete Waiheke Local Board Financial Performance report for the three months ending on 30 September 2018 is detailed in Attachment C.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. 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.

49. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work programme update	149
b ⇩	Waiheke Local Board financial performance	161
c ⇩	Capital expenditure carry forwards 2018/2019 (from 2017/2018)	169

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor Waiheke
Authoriser	Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/20707

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 is short 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:

i) location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

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

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

3. Growth related capex has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget. We have also updated our projection of development growth across the next ten 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.

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

5. To recover the increased investment in growth related infrastructure the indicative urban development contribution price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excl. GST). As a result, the development contribution 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 development contributions on residential construction. This will better align the time that residential builders pay their development contributions with the time when they sell their developments

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

i) transport to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

ii) 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 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 their feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision making in December.

10. Consultation is supported by a Consultation Document and Supporting Information, Attachments B and C respectively, which set out:

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

· describes how we set development contributions charges

11. Details the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why we have proposed them.

Te tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

Horopaki / Context

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

13. Auckland 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.

14. 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.

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

· purpose and principles of development contributions 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.

16. Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of development contributions as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Our 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 Development contributions to fund growth capital expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital expenditure and funding for Auckland’s growth

Capital investment and development contribution revenue

17. The table below sets out the changes in development contribution revenue by activity between the current policy and the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Development contribution revenue by activity ($ billion)	Current development contributions policy	Draft development contributions 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

18. The 10-Year Budget 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 development contributions. The 10-Year Budget assumes that the policy will provide for Development contributions to recover $2.7 billion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

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

20. Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth irrespective of location. Under the proposed policy to recover these costs every development would pay $8,090 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, development contributions prices would vary across the region e.g.

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

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

Impact of increasing development contributions price

21. Raising the price of Development contributions:

· better aligns development contributions 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 development contributions costs

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

22. Economic research indicates that increasing the development contributions 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.

23. 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)

- Land development costs

- Construction costs

- Council cost including Development contributions

- Profit margin

= Price paid for land

Alternative options considered

24. There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in development contributions;

· defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

· increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

25. The increase in development contributions price over 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 development contributions make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects ^{^[3]}. This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

· maintaining service levels in the face of growth pressures

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

26. To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing development contributions would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum. This is equivalent to an additional general rates 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 development contributions not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of Community Infrastructure

27. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use Development contributions to fund a broader range of community infrastructure (including, for example, public swimming pools and libraries). If the 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

28. 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.

29. 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 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

30. 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.

31. 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 of this type of development.

32. The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the tables below. 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 Development Contributions Policy	Draft Development Contributions 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

33. 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. Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

34. 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.

35. As the transport component of development contributions varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area the exact price effects will vary. In broad average terms the development contributions transport price for retail will rise by $18,000 per 100m² and $2,900 for commercial if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors. It will fall by $1,450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling. The impact is illustrated with examples based on two recent developments below

· 5,000m² retail mall development in the North would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors whereas they would have paid $224k under the current demand factors.

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

36. 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.

37. 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 development contributions prices.

38. 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.

39. 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 development contributions assessment teams.

Reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities

40. 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.

41. Officers 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. To ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

42. The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year. Officers 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

43. The current contributions policy does not provide for remissions or waivers of Development contributions. Feedback from Māori and social housing developers is that the requirement to pay Development contributions 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.

44. Officers do not recommend the use of development contributions 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.

45. The council currently offers support for development contributions 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.

46. The council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of development contributions 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 development contributions and consenting costs. Officers recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for development contributions for social housing then 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.

47. Development contributions are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of development contributions 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. Remissions of development contributions for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

48. 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.

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

Payment timing

50. Developers prefer to pay development contributions 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 development contributions) are at the issue of:

· land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

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

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

51. Development contributions invoiced on building consent for residential development are approximately 25 per cent of total development contributions revenue. Residential developments are currently required to pay development contributions when the building consent is issued. Officers propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

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

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

52. This change will support residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay development contributions 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 consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May and was supported by all of the 17 submissions that commented on it.

53. The proposed changes will lead to a one-off reduction in the council’s development contributions 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.

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

55. Considered was also given to retaining the status quo. However, preference was given to the easing of 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.

56. 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 development contributions, including registering a statutory charge on property where development contributions have not been paid. While the council has some aged development contributions debt this is a very small proportion of the development contributions invoiced over the last eight years. In this time the council has written off less than $100,000 of development contributions debt out of $740 million invoiced.

57. Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement. Developers who require a land use consent but cannot be assessed for development contributions 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 issue of a code of compliance certificate (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 at the latest 24 months of issue of a building consent. This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for the council.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

58. 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 Northwest, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure, solely, mainly road sealing, for the benefit of rural areas in the North, West and South.

59. 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, Northwest Greenfield and Urban funding areas. As a result the development contributions 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.

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

Development Types

61. 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 reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Student accommodation

62. Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (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

63. 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

64. Amend the definition of a ‘Retirement Village’ to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Accommodation units for short term rental

65. 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

66. The 10-year Budget 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 the future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

67. 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 it is planned within the next ten years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

68. 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. We will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges for these areas 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.

69. 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. We continue to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If we can do this successfully this will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public Consultation

70. Public consultation will run from 19 October to 4.00pm on 15 November.

71. 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).

72. 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 events 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.

73. 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. 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 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

74. The development contributions 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.

75. Officers provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October.

76. 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.

77. 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

79. Feedback from Māori received in the May 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) development contributions for Māori developments

· include specific development types for Māori development.

80. The remission of development contributions for Māori development is discussed in this report.

81. 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.

82. Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that includes new forms of development that may not fit into existing development types. Legislation provides for the reconsideration of development contributions 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. the 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. the 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.

83. 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 the councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

86. 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. Staff would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December meeting of the Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft Contributions Policy 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Consultation Document (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Supporting information (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Remissions of development contributions for Maori development and social housing (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2018/20862

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, or

· 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

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Horopaki / ContextOptions 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 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, easier to use and to 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 expected statistically 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 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. 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 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	187

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

22 November 2018

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

File No.: CP2018/20515

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 seeking approval of the governing bodies of the nine councils 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 paper 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

That the Waiheke 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 have been organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Why online voting?

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 for 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^{^[4]}. 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 (four 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.^{^[5]}

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.^{^[6]}

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 paper 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. The 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 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; only three 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; about nine 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 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 paper, 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 boards areas.

82. Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for consideration when making its 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	203
b ⇩	Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards O-W	205

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke

[1] Local Government New Zealand and Department of Conservation (n.d), Reserves Act Guide, retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/legislation/reserves-act-guide.pdf

[2] Local Government New Zealand and Department of Conservation (n.d), Reserves Act Guide, retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/legislation/reserves-act-guide.pdf

[3] 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.

[4] 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&

[6] 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

Chairperson	Cath Handley
Deputy Chairperson	Paul Walden
Members	Shirin Brown
	John Meeuwsen
	Bob Upchurch

Milestone description	Date due/ completed
Local Board (LB) approval – classification and intention to prepare LPMP	November 2018
Public notification of classification	November/December 2018
Public notification of intention to prepare plan	November/December 2018
Mana whenua workshops	August 2018 – Feb 2020
Public consultation – stage 1 – intention to prepare plan complete and comments summarised	March 2019
Classification hearing (if required)	March 2019
Preparation of draft plan	May 2019
LB approval – notification of draft plan	June 2019
Public Consultation – stage 2 – draft plan complete	August/ Sept 2019
Plan preparation paused for Local Government elections September 2019 to Feb 2020
Hearings held (estimated 3-5 days)	February 2020
LB approval - final management plan	April 2020
Make any required amendments to final plan and provide mana whenua and stakeholders with link to plan	May 2020
Management plan handed over to business owner	May 2020

Park Name	Physical Address	Appellation	Survey Area	Reason for retaining under LGA
Catherine Mitchell Reserve	419-427 Sea View Road	Lot 36 DP 13801	3083	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Catherine Mitchell Reserve	419-427 Sea View Road	Lot 39 DP 13801	2969	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Catherine Mitchell Reserve	419-427 Sea View Road	Lot 38 DP 13801	2211	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Catherine Mitchell Reserve	419-427 Sea View Road	Lot 37 DP 13801	2211	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Fisher Road	Trig Hill Road	Section 1 SO 68406	161	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Fisher Road	Trig Hill Road	Marked C SO 68406	616	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Gordons Road Esplanade Reserve	334 Gordons Road	Part Lot 4 DP 7550	5279	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Surfdale Hall Reserve & Foreshore	4 Hamilton Road	Lot 1 DP 123689	731	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses
Te Toki Reserve	12 Wilma Road	Section 3 SO 444626	2999	Retain flexibility for future and ancillary uses

Reserve Name	Physical Address	Appellation	Survey Area	Classification	Applicable Section of the Act
Kuakarau Bay Forest	Te Whau Drive	Lot 56 DP 156422	39759	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 71 DP 19224	1148	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 79 DP 19224	1070	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 75 DP 19224	888	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 76 DP 19224	888	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 72 DP 19224	1014	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 73 DP 19224	845	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 80 DP 19224	1224	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 74 DP 19224	888	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 77 DP 19224	885	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Mary Wilson Reserve	30 Valley Road	Lot 78 DP 19224	959	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Oneroa Beach Reserve	Beach Parade	Section 1 SO 411379	1222	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Oneroa Beach Reserve	Beach Parade	Section 2 SO 411379	534	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	14 (1)
Sea View Road Reserve	Sea View Road	Lot 82 DP 13801	3119	Recreation Reserve	14 (1)
Te Matuku Bay Esplanade Res 1	516 Orapiu Road	Closed Road SO 44012	3283	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	14 (1)
Upland Road Walkway	46 Omiha Road	Lot 489 DP 20610	1255	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	14 (1)

Reserve Name	Physical Address	Appellation	Survey Area (in sqm)	Classification	Applicable section of the Act
Citizens Advice Bureau	141 Ocean View Road	Part Lot 128 DP 22848		Local Purpose (Community Use) Reserve	16 (1)
Glen Brook Reserve	33 Glen Brook Road	Lot 186 DP 19224	840	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Glen Brook Reserve	77 O'Brien Road	Lot 164 DP 19224	809	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 648 DP 16353	1217	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 647 DP 16353	1022	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 650 DP 16353	1419	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 651 DP 16353	1955	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 652 DP 16353	1518	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Kennedy Reserve	29 Kennedy Road	Lot 649 DP 16353	1141	Scenic Reserve 19(1)(b)	16 (1)
Omiha Beach Reserve	2A Glen Brook Road	Lot 465 DP 19224	7765	Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve	16 (1)

Author	John Nash - Programme Manager,Waiheke & Gulf Islands
Authoriser	Helgard Wagener - Relshp Mgr - Great Barrier and Waiheke