Agenda of Governing Body

Governing Body

25 July 2019

Update on response of Auckland Transport to recommendations of the Governance Framework review

File No.: CP2019/05879

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report back on the progress Auckland Transport has made in response to the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review. This report back was directed by the Governing Body on 22 March 2018 (GB/2018/43/44/45).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governance Framework Review began in 2016 to review aspects of the operation of the Auckland governance model implemented at amalgamation. A number of the resolutions from the review centred on Auckland Transport’s engagement with local boards.

3. In March 2018, the Governing Body considered Auckland Transport’s initial response to the resolutions, and directed another report back once Auckland Transport had made further progress. This is that report back.

4. Auckland Transport has made progress in a number of areas:

· a new local board engagement plan has been finalised and distributed to local boards

· a revised process for approving projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund has been developed

· a new budget has been identified for the next two years, dedicated to local safety projects

· Auckland Transport has developed protocols for communication with ward councillors, so as to provide a template for more consistent relationships with regional elected members.

5. Nonetheless, there is still considerable work to be done to fulfil the expectations of the Governance Framework Review. Auckland Transport needs to be committed to the overall goal of improved engagement and satisfaction among elected members (both local board and ward), including finding ways to tailor general practices to local needs and circumstances.

6. Auckland Transport has indicated through its 2019-2022 Statement of Intent, and a workshop held with councillors on 24 June 2019, that it is committed to improving its overall engagement with elected members (local and regional), businesses, and communities generally.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note the progress Auckland Transport has made in respect of the resolutions of the Governance Framework Review

b) request that Auckland Transport continues to work with local boards to refine the engagement plans over time to reflect local needs and circumstances, and implement the commitments outlined in the plans

c) request that Auckland Transport works with Local Board Services to finalise an implementation plan for the improved process for approving projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund by October 2019

d) request that Auckland Transport continues to ensure the community safety fund process includes opportunities for ward councillors to identify projects

e) note Auckland Transport’s proposed protocols for engagement with ward councillors, and request that it adopt these protocols with any changes recommended by the Governing Body

f) direct staff to report back to the Governing Body with a further progress report on the Governance Framework Review resolutions and resolutions b) to e) above, early in 2020.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Governance Framework Review began in 2016 to assess whether the Auckland Council governance model was working optimally to meet the aims of the Auckland governance reforms. In September 2017 the Governing Body considered the recommendations of a political working party established to assess the Governance Framework Review conclusions.

8. The Governing Body passed a number of resolutions in relation to the role of Auckland Transport, with particular focus on the respective roles of Auckland Transport and local boards in place-shaping (GB/2017/117 refers). The Governing Body directed Auckland Transport to provide a formal response back to the Governing Body on these resolutions.

9. An implementation plan setting out the specific actions required to deliver on the Governance Framework Review resolutions was presented to the Joint Governance Political Working Party in February 2018.

10. At its 22 March 2018 meeting, the Governing Body considered Auckland Transport’s initial responses to the Governing Body resolutions (GB/2018/43). It:

· endorsed Auckland Transport’s initial responses in respect of its engagement with local boards in relation to place shaping

· requested a report once further progress had been made

· directed council staff to report back annually on Auckland Transport’s compliance both with the specific resolutions but also the Governance Manual’s requirements around CCO engagement with local boards.

11. An initial report back to the Governing Body in March 2019 was deferred, pending a workshop to be held with Auckland Transport on its approach to engagement with elected members, businesses, and communities. This workshop was held on 24 June 2019.

12. This report provides an assessment of Auckland Transport’s progress in meeting the Governance Framework Review resolutions, incorporating the outcomes of the 24 June 2019 workshop.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The relevant resolutions of the Governance Framework Review for this report back are set out below (GB/2017/117) in the table, alongside comment on progress.

Resolution(s) (GB/2017/117)	Comment on progress
Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for substantive council-controlled organisations, with council staff to monitor compliance through annual reporting on this (resolutions k and l)	The key element of the Governance Manual requirements is the preparation of local board engagement plans. Appendix 10.5 of the Governance Manual sets out generic requirements, and specific requirements for each CCO. Auckland Transport has developed a new engagement plan (Appendix A). This sets out four key principles for Auckland Transport’s engagement with local boards, namely the integral role of local boards, the need to keep local boards well informed, involving local boards in all relevant projects, and the good faith basis of interactions with local boards. Auckland Transport included the engagement plan on workshop agendas so that local boards could provide feedback on it. A small amount of feedback was received. Auckland Transport has subsequently distributed the final engagement plan. Local boards will now have the opportunity to discuss practical implementation of the engagement plans, as part of regular Auckland Transport engagement with them. Council staff consider that the engagement plan is a reasonable start, as it sets out principles for putting into action the Governing Body direction for Auckland Transport to better support Local Boards in their place-shaping role. However, much will depend on the willingness of Auckland Transport to be open to further customisation of engagement plans for each board. Importantly, the focus also needs to shift to implementing the commitments outlined in the plans. This includes being open to developing unique relationships with each board and resourcing that appropriately reflects the different needs, concerns and stated priorities of the various local boards. A commentary on how well this is being done will be included in the next progress report. It should also be noted that Auckland Transport has begun to report on engagement activity as part of the quarterly performance report to the Finance and Performance Committee. This was included for the first time in the 2018/2019 quarter 2 report (September to December 2018).
Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, will: · ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes · improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals · provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects · be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor · take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes · provide a local work programme for each local board as soon as practicable each financial year (resolution m, with annual reporting on this – resolution n)	Some of these resolutions are covered by principles in the engagement plan referred to above and commit Auckland Transport to acting on them. For example, principle 1(c) confirms that many transport projects affect ‘place’ and the active role local boards have in place shaping. Principle 2(c) refers to the level of information provided to local boards being consistent with the impact of projects on place-shaping, and principle 3(a) commits Auckland Transport to early and regular engagement for all relevant projects. One example of these principles in action during 2018 was in the development of the new Half Moon Bay ferry and bus terminal. On this project, the local board and Auckland Transport worked closely on how the terminal looked and fitted with the local environment. All parties consider it has a strong sense of place and is a good destination, in addition to serving its functional purpose. Council considers this a good example, and looks forward to more of this happening in future. It is noted that Auckland Transport have also secured a budget within the Regional Land Transport Plan for local safety related projects. Auckland Transport has already presented this to the local board chairs’ forum, as this might provide another opportunity for investment in local areas (see also below). Auckland Transport provides each local board with a list of works in its area, and will keep this updated as this changes through the year (this responds to the request to provide a ‘work programme’).
Accountability review for CCOs to consider role of section 92(2) of Local Government (Auckland Council) Act in directing consistency with local board plans	The role of section 92(2) in respect of local board plans went to the Joint Governance Political Working Party and noted that section 92(2) can be applied on a case by case basis.
Increase the amount available in the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), and implement a more systematic work programme to identify projects and improve allocation of the Fund (resolutions p and q)	The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) increased to $20m from 2018/19 as part of the Long-term Plan. Auckland Transport has developed a new process in consultation with council’s Local Board Services department (Appendix C). This process will more systematically identify and agree projects to be funded by the LBTCF, in line with local board plans. A guidance document for staff has also been developed. Auckland Transport and Local Board Services staff believe the revised process can work well and respects the respective roles of the boards as governors and Auckland Transport as expert advisers on the transport system. However, the detail and practical implementation now needs to be worked through, and we note that its success will depend heavily on Auckland Transport commitment to implementation of it. This commitment should include a strong element of collaboration with the local boards themselves. Staff also note that Auckland Transport has secured an additional fund for local safety projects. It is anticipated that this fund will operate on a similar basis to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, albeit with a direct safety focus, and that it is only budgeted for two years. At the workshop on 24 June 2019, councillors emphasised the importance of also involving ward councillors in selection of projects, given their local knowledge. This would be consistent with the resolution of the Finance and Performance Committee on 22 November 2018 about what Auckland Transport should include in its 2019/2020 Statement of Intent: work collaboratively with ward councillors and local boards to identify ward-based safety projects to deliver outcomes for our community (FIN/2018/173)
Direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body councillors on transport projects within their ward areas (resolution r)	Auckland Transport has confirmed to staff that it will provide ward councillors with information and discuss issues about local transport projects, in addition to publicly available information which is already being supplied to local boards. The intention is not to second guess or be involved in local board decision-making but solely to be better informed about what is happening locally. However, the 24 June workshop discussed the need for Auckland Transport to be more proactive, positive and committed in its engagement with ward councillors. Councillors’ role is not just at a regional strategic level, but to represent a local area alongside local board members. A more consistent approach, coupled with the willingness to tailor engagement to the needs of individual councillors, would be helpful. To this end, Auckland Transport has developed a set of protocols for engagement with ward councillors. These are attached (Appendix B) and it is recommended that the Governing Body note these protocols, with any recommended changes, for adoption by Auckland Transport.

Resolution(s) (GB/2017/117)

Comment on progress

Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for substantive council-controlled organisations, with council staff to monitor compliance through annual reporting on this (resolutions k and l)

The key element of the Governance Manual requirements is the preparation of local board engagement plans. Appendix 10.5 of the Governance Manual sets out generic requirements, and specific requirements for each CCO.

Auckland Transport has developed a new engagement plan (Appendix A). This sets out four key principles for Auckland Transport’s engagement with local boards, namely the integral role of local boards, the need to keep local boards well informed, involving local boards in all relevant projects, and the good faith basis of interactions with local boards.

Auckland Transport included the engagement plan on workshop agendas so that local boards could provide feedback on it. A small amount of feedback was received.

Auckland Transport has subsequently distributed the final engagement plan.

Local boards will now have the opportunity to discuss practical implementation of the engagement plans, as part of regular Auckland Transport engagement with them.

Council staff consider that the engagement plan is a reasonable start, as it sets out principles for putting into action the Governing Body direction for Auckland Transport to better support Local Boards in their place-shaping role.

However, much will depend on the willingness of Auckland Transport to be open to further customisation of engagement plans for each board. Importantly, the focus also needs to shift to implementing the commitments outlined in the plans. This includes being open to developing unique relationships with each board and resourcing that appropriately reflects the different needs, concerns and stated priorities of the various local boards.

A commentary on how well this is being done will be included in the next progress report. It should also be noted that Auckland Transport has begun to report on engagement activity as part of the quarterly performance report to the Finance and Performance Committee. This was included for the first time in the 2018/2019 quarter 2 report (September to December 2018).

Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, will:

· ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes

· improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals

· provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects

· be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor

· take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes

· provide a local work programme for each local board as soon as practicable each financial year

(resolution m, with annual reporting on this – resolution n)

Some of these resolutions are covered by principles in the engagement plan referred to above and commit Auckland Transport to acting on them. For example, principle 1(c) confirms that many transport projects affect ‘place’ and the active role local boards have in place shaping. Principle 2(c) refers to the level of information provided to local boards being consistent with the impact of projects on place-shaping, and principle 3(a) commits Auckland Transport to early and regular engagement for all relevant projects.

One example of these principles in action during 2018 was in the development of the new Half Moon Bay ferry and bus terminal. On this project, the local board and Auckland Transport worked closely on how the terminal looked and fitted with the local environment. All parties consider it has a strong sense of place and is a good destination, in addition to serving its functional purpose. Council considers this a good example, and looks forward to more of this happening in future.

It is noted that Auckland Transport have also secured a budget within the Regional Land Transport Plan for local safety related projects. Auckland Transport has already presented this to the local board chairs’ forum, as this might provide another opportunity for investment in local areas (see also below).

Auckland Transport provides each local board with a list of works in its area, and will keep this updated as this changes through the year (this responds to the request to provide a ‘work programme’).

Accountability review for CCOs to consider role of section 92(2) of Local Government (Auckland Council) Act in directing consistency with local board plans

The role of section 92(2) in respect of local board plans went to the Joint Governance Political Working Party and noted that section 92(2) can be applied on a case by case basis.

Increase the amount available in the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), and implement a more systematic work programme to identify projects and improve allocation of the Fund

(resolutions p and q)

The Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) increased to $20m from 2018/19 as part of the Long-term Plan.

Auckland Transport has developed a new process in consultation with council’s Local Board Services department (Appendix C). This process will more systematically identify and agree projects to be funded by the LBTCF, in line with local board plans. A guidance document for staff has also been developed.

Auckland Transport and Local Board Services staff believe the revised process can work well and respects the respective roles of the boards as governors and Auckland Transport as expert advisers on the transport system.

However, the detail and practical implementation now needs to be worked through, and we note that its success will depend heavily on Auckland Transport commitment to implementation of it. This commitment should include a strong element of collaboration with the local boards themselves.

Staff also note that Auckland Transport has secured an additional fund for local safety projects. It is anticipated that this fund will operate on a similar basis to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, albeit with a direct safety focus, and that it is only budgeted for two years.

At the workshop on 24 June 2019, councillors emphasised the importance of also involving ward councillors in selection of projects, given their local knowledge. This would be consistent with the resolution of the Finance and Performance Committee on 22 November 2018 about what Auckland Transport should include in its 2019/2020 Statement of Intent:

work collaboratively with ward councillors and local boards to identify ward-based safety projects to deliver outcomes for our community (FIN/2018/173)

Direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body councillors on transport projects within their ward areas (resolution r)

Auckland Transport has confirmed to staff that it will provide ward councillors with information and discuss issues about local transport projects, in addition to publicly available information which is already being supplied to local boards. The intention is not to second guess or be involved in local board decision-making but solely to be better informed about what is happening locally.

However, the 24 June workshop discussed the need for Auckland Transport to be more proactive, positive and committed in its engagement with ward councillors. Councillors’ role is not just at a regional strategic level, but to represent a local area alongside local board members. A more consistent approach, coupled with the willingness to tailor engagement to the needs of individual councillors, would be helpful.

To this end, Auckland Transport has developed a set of protocols for engagement with ward councillors. These are attached (Appendix B) and it is recommended that the Governing Body note these protocols, with any recommended changes, for adoption by Auckland Transport.

Waiheke pilot

14. The Waiheke pilot is a three-year initiative generated from the Governance Framework Review process. It is designed to explore greater flexibility and autonomy in decision-making. It is supported by an agreed memorandum signed by the Waiheke Local Board chair and Auckland Transport chief executive on 23 May 2019.

15. As part of the pilot, Auckland Transport is working with the Waiheke Local Board to improve its relationship and engagement. A forum has been established to enable community representatives, the local board and Auckland Transport to discuss transport issues and support the alignment of investment and longer term strategy. This approach potentially provides a model for adoption by Auckland Transport and other local boards.

Elected member survey

16. The most recent 18-month elected member survey was undertaken in February 2019. Results were recently released.

17. In general terms, satisfaction with Auckland Transport among elected members is trending down from the 2017 and 2016 surveys. Local board member satisfaction with Auckland Transport’s engagement and reporting to local boards is at around 40 per cent. Auckland Transport’s responsiveness to constituent queries is even lower at 26 per cent. This latter result is confirmed in a number of the verbatim comments, which stress that if constituent queries were dealt with more efficiently, this would allow local boards (and ward councillors) to focus more consistently on their governance roles rather than trying to solve often very minor local issues.

18. On the other hand, satisfaction with the elected member relationship managers assigned to local boards by Auckland Transport is high at 70 per cent overall, and for many boards over 80 per cent.

Conclusions

19. Since the Governance Framework Review resolutions in 2018, Auckland Transport has made considerable efforts to put in place the building blocks for a more consistent and more comprehensive approach to engagement with local boards, along with ward councillors and the community more generally. This includes the work areas noted above, such as putting in place new engagement plans, a new process for better allocation of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, and developing new initiatives such as the Waiheke pilot. The pilot, if successful, could potentially point the way to new, more tailored relationships with different local boards around the region.

20. On the other hand, the results of the elected member survey indicate that there is still ongoing frustration with the overall level of service and engagement from Auckland Transport. While the basis for improvements has been laid, much will depend on the effort put into ensuring the new tools are implemented successfully.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Staff from Auckland Transport have been closely involved in the development of the Governance Framework Review recommendations in respect of Auckland Transport and local boards. Auckland Transport has been consulted on and supplied information about its progress in respect of the key areas referred to in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. Local board views and the perspectives of the Local Board Services team at council are integral to the subject matter of this report and have been incorporated throughout.

23. A key issue for Local Board Services is about how Auckland Transport’s improvement in engagement will be tracked over time. Information about this is provided in the next steps below.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. There are no specific implications for Māori from this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. There are no direct financial implications from this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. Failure of Auckland Transport to engage appropriately with local boards and also ward councillors may mean that local perspectives are not adequately factored into its work programmes and projects. This may mean suboptimal outcomes for the community, but also carries reputational risks for council if the community perceives it is not being engaged sufficiently in local transport decision-making.

27. The actions identified in this report will mitigate this risk if they are implemented by Auckland Transport.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Councillors can provide feedback on the ward councillor protocols either directly at the committee meeting or directly to staff at a later date.

29. The next elected member survey will take place in mid to late 2020. This will provide an objective look at how the implementation of the GFR resolutions is improving engagement results.

30. Taken together, the elected member survey and Auckland Transport self-reporting on progress should provide efficient verification of whether engagement is improving. When the results from the elected member survey and Auckland Transport’s internal survey are available, staff will look for an opportunity to communicate and discuss them with councillors.

31. The next report on the Governance Framework Review resolutions will be in the first quarter of 2020 (January-March), to summarise activity of the previous six months. The focus of this reporting will be self-reporting by Auckland Transport on its progress, along with the perspectives of council staff who work with elected members.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Final Auckland Transport and Local Board - Engagement Plan 2018	17
b ⇩	DRAFT - Auckland Transport protocols for engagement with Ward Councillors March 2019	19
c ⇩	Local Board Transport Capital Fund - project identification process	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Kerri Foote – Acting Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Food Safety Information Bylaw - Statement of Proposal	25

Governing Body

25 July 2019

Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012: Hearings Panel report

File No.: CP2019/10474

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt changes to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable a decision on whether to adopt proposed changes to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012, an appointed Hearing’s Panel has deliberated and made recommendations on public feedback to the proposed changes (proposal).

3. The proposal sought to improve dog management in Auckland. The Governing Body adopted the proposal for public consultation on 28 February 2019. At the close of public feedback on 10 May 2019, approximately 8,025 feedback responses were received.

4. The panel recommends the Governing Body adopt the proposal with changes in response to matters raised in public feedback (Attachments A and B) including to:

· remove duplication from the Bylaw, which will simplify future amendments

· reorganise Schedule 2 (dog access rules) in a consistent manner

· provide a consistent approach to multiple dog ownership

· provide a consistent definition of the time and season rule

· apply a standard lambing season rule in regional parks

· extend council’s ability to protect flora

· amend dog access rules for the protection of wildlife in Glenfern Sanctuary, Muriwai Regional Park, Long Bay Regional Park and Whatipū, Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

· incentivise responsible dog ownership for owners of dogs that have been classified as ‘menacing’ due to their behaviour.

5. Adopting the proposal with these changes will reduce confusion, improve voluntary compliance, and standardise dog management rules across the region.

6. There is a reputational risk that some people or organisations may not feel the council has listened to their concerns. This can be mitigated by communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who gave feedback.

7. If adopted staff will publicly notify the decision, update the bylaws when they come into force on 1 November 2019, and implement any operational changes

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the panel recommendations on proposed changes to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in Attachment A and Attachment B of the agenda report

b) confirm that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage dogs in Auckland

c) approve that the amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in Attachment C of the agenda report:

i) are the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii) are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

d) adopt the amended Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in Attachment C of the agenda report with effect from 01 November 2019

e) approve the distribution of this report and associated minute to local boards and advisory panels for their information

f) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the bylaws in Attachment C of the agenda report and correct errors or omissions.

Horopaki

Context

8. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act), Auckland Council must have a policy on dogs. The Act lists several requirements the council must include in its policy. Under the Act, the council is required to make a bylaw to implement aspects of its policy.

9. Kaupapa mo ngā Kurī 2012, the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (Policy) and the Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kurī 2012, the Dog Management Bylaw 2012, aims to keep dogs as a positive part of Aucklanders’ lives. The policy achieves this by maintaining opportunities for dog owners to take their dogs into public places, while also enforcing measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs.

10. On 14 February 2019, the Regulatory Committee appointed a panel^{^[1]} to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback on proposed changes to the policy and bylaw (REG/2019/6)

11. On 28 February the Governing Body adopted the proposal for public feedback (GB/2019/10).

12. The proposal seeks to improve dog management in Auckland by:

i) removing duplication from the bylaw, which will simplify future amendments

ii) reducing confusion about dog access rules and improve voluntary compliance by:

A) presenting the dog access rules in a consistent manner

B) applying a consistent definition of the time and season

C) applying consistent rules to multiple dog ownership

iii) extending the council’s ability to make temporary changes to dog access rules for the protection of flora

iv) promoting responsible dog ownership amongst owners of dogs classified as ‘menacing’ based on their behaviour

v) reviewing dog access rules in regional parks.

13. The proposal was notified for public feedback from 1 April to 10 May 2019. People were able to provide feedback either online, by post or in person at eight Have Your Say events, and a stakeholder event. Approximately 8,025 individual feedback responses were received.

14. The panel deliberated on the public feedback to the proposal at public meetings on 21 June, 26 June, and 4 July 2019.

15. More information about the proposal, public notification, and feedback can be viewed on council’s Have Your Say and hearing webpages.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The panel structured its deliberations and recommendations on the public feedback by topic (Table 1).

17. The Hearings Panel considered the topics in Table 1 which are further summarised below. A full summary of submissions is included in the background report to the Hearings Panel (Attachment D).

Table 1: Deliberation topics considered by Hearings Panel

Deliberation topics
Multiple dog ownership
Removal of duplication
Organisation of Schedule 2 (dog access rules)
Protection of flora
Incentivise responsible dog ownership
Time and season definition
Regional Parks – Standard lambing season
Regional Parks – Glenfern Sanctuary
Regional Parks – Muriwai Regional Park
Regional Parks – Whatipū, Waitākere Ranges
Regional Parks – Long Bay Regional Park
Regional Parks – all other regional parks
Miscellaneous amendments to the policy and bylaw
Other non-regulatory considerations

Multiple dog ownership

Submission insights

18. 5,822 responses were received regarding requiring a multiple dog ownership licence for more than two dogs in properties zoned as urban residential in the Unitary Plan.

19. Submitters raised concerns around the licensing process, including:

· the cost of the licence

· the type of breed and size of dogs owned

· property size and property inspection

· enforcement of rule

· requirement to seek neighbours’ consent

· keeping dogs for a short period of time.

Panel recommendation

20. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will require dog owners to obtain a multiple dog ownership licence if they own more than two dogs in properties zoned as urban residential.

21. To amend the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 to allow individuals to temporarily care for dogs (for 30 days instead of 14 days) without breaching the bylaw:

· Amend clause 12(1) to ‘no person may keep more than two dogs over the age of 3 months on any premises zoned as urban residential under the Unitary Plan for more than 30 consecutive days’

· Amend clause 12(2)(b) to ‘an application for a licence under subclause (2)(a) has been made within 30 days of the dogs first being kept on that premises’

· Amend clause 20(2)(b) to ‘the number of dogs over 3 months of age (other than a working dog) kept on the premises increases for more than 30 consecutive days.”

Removal of Duplication

Submission insights

22. 5,822 submissions were received on removing the list of access rules from the Bylaw that would make it easier for local boards to make future amendments.

23. Key issues raised by submitters include:

· support for making the process to amend dog access rules more efficient

· resistance to making it easier to amend dog access. These submitters wanted the Governing Body to retain oversight of the rules

· a perception that removing the duplication would result in changes to dog access rules without public consultation and that this would further restrict dog access.

Panel Recommendations

24. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will remove duplication of the schedule of access rules from the bylaw and will make it easier for local boards to make future amendments to local dog access rules.

25. The panel noted that under the Dog Control Act 1996, local boards would still be required to publicly notify and consult before making any changes to local dog access rules. In addition, local boards would have to consider the policy’s criteria for amending dog access rules.

Reorganisation of Schedule 2 (local dog access rules)

Submission insights

26. 7,728 submissions were received regarding the proposal to reorganise Schedule 2 (local dog access rules) in a consistent format, this would reflect a default access rule of dogs under control on a leash for areas not listed. These submissions included 1,961 pro forma submissions that were in support of a default access rule of dogs under control off leash.

27. Submitters raised the following key concerns:

· it is currently difficult to know where to take your dog. Reorganising the rules would make it easier to understand, improve compliance, and reduce confusion

· those that disagreed thought local boards should be able to make their own default dog access rule

· there is fear that reorganising the schedule of access rules would result in further restrictions to dog access.

Panel Recommendations

28. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will standardise the layout of Schedule 2 (local dog access rules) to reflect the default rule of dogs under control on a leash.

29. The panel noted that this process is not intended that any local access rules will change. Some rules which had not been accurately transferred from the current schedule of access rules have been amended by staff through the consultation process. These amendments to the list of off leash areas are highlighted in the marked-up version of the policy (see Attachment B).

Protection of flora

Submission insights

30. 5,676 submissions were received on the proposal to extend the council’s ability to make temporary changes to dog access for the protection of flora that are vulnerable to dogs (e.g. kauri dieback).

31. Submitters supported the idea of protected flora and Auckland’s natural environment. The following concerns:

· the availability of spaces to exercise dogs

· wanted more information around the definition of ‘temporary’ and the process around making changes

· the council using ‘temporary’ restrictions to make permanent restrictions

· those that disagreed thought that dogs are not to blame for the spread of kauri dieback and that the same rules should apply for people and dogs

· some views expressed that dogs should be on leash, versus prohibiting dogs from areas.

Panel Recommendations

32. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will extend council’s ability to protect vulnerable flora from dogs, such as kauri dieback.

Incentivising Responsible Dog Ownership

Submission insights

33. 5,800 submissions were received on incentivising responsible dog ownership for those owners of dogs classified as ‘menacing’ due to behaviour. That the classification may be reviewed if the owner provides evidence of completing a dog obedience course (at the owner’s expense) and not obtain any additional infringements over a 12-month period in relation to the dog.

34. Submitters who agreed with this proposal thought that dogs should have a ‘second chance’ to improve behaviour.

35. Submitters that disagreed did not think that a dog’s behaviour would change after the completion of a course, and raised the following concerns:

· the period of no infringements should be longer than 12 months

· to change the reference to ‘infringements’ to ‘incidents’

· quality of dog obedience courses available, council should suggest/approve courses or provide the course

· the cost of dog obedience courses may be a barrier for owners who want to be responsible

· council should complete an assessment of the dog’s behaviour before the classification is changed.

Panel Recommendations

36. To adopt proposal as publicly notified. This will encourage responsible dog ownership for those owners with dogs that have been classified as ‘menacing’ by behaviour.

37. The panel also recommends making the following amendments to the proposed Bylaw:

· to amend Clause 17(1)(a) to ‘the owner provides evidence of a dog behaviour assessment report, at the owner’s expense’

· Add subclause 17(1)(c) ‘the owner has obtained a responsible dog ownership licence’.

Time and Season Definition

Submission insights – regional standard definition or local variations

38. 7,834 submissions were received on the proposal to consider a regional standard definition of the time and season rule or to allow for local variation. This includes 1,961 pro forma submissions.

39. Fifty-nine per cent had a preference for allowing local variation and 34 per cent had a preference for a regional standard definition of time and season.

40. Submitters who supported a regional standard thought it would reduce confusion (for both dog owners and other users of public places) and improve compliance. Those in favour of local variations wanted local boards to reflect community preferences with regards to dog access rules.

Submission insights – definition preference

41. 7,793 submissions were received on the proposed regional standard definition of ‘10am to 7pm, from Labour Weekend to 31 March’ (this includes 1,961 pro forma submissions).

42. 1,832 submitters agreed with the proposed time and season definition.

43. Those submitters that disagreed with the proposed definition (5,575) predominantly raised concerns around the end time. Key themes noted were:

· some areas have peak times and others do not. 10am to 7pm is too long to be applied to quieter areas

· 7pm is too late and will impact lifestyles, including the: ability to swim or picnic with dogs (and family), the time available to exercise dogs (dog welfare), time available to spend with family, especially those with young children

· rural and city beach use is different

· later times should be applied to busier beaches and earlier times for rural areas (allow for options to reflect the needs of a location)

· preference for earlier time and shorter season

· safety concerns for dogs and their owners to be walking after 7pm

44. 3,591 submissions stated a preferred start time and 3, 734 submissions stated a preferred end time:

· 10am was the most commonly selected start time (1,769 submissions)

· 5pm was the most commonly selected alternative end time (1,178 submissions)

45. 3,625 submissions stated a preferred season start and 5,479 submissions stated a preferred season end (this includes 1,961 pro forma submissions):

· 1 December (1,405 submissions) and Labour Weekend (1,050 submissions) were the most commonly selected definition for the start of the summer season

· 1 March (3,432 submissions) was the most commonly selected definition for the end of the summer season.

Panel Recommendations

46. To adopt a regional standard time and season definition. This will reduce public confusion and improve voluntary compliance.

47. The panel noted that the intention of the policy when originally adopted was to have uniform definition of time and season consistently applied across the region.

48. The panel recommends amending the policy’s time and season definition as follows:

· time and season definition: 10am to 5pm from 1 December to 1 March

· that the time and season definition applies to regional parks

· that references to ‘winter’ be amended to ‘outside of summer’

· add an information note stating: “The Policy intends that the ‘outside of summer season rule provides more access than the summer season rule that applies to the same area”.

49. This recommendation intends to integrate dogs into public spaces and to only restrict their access where it is necessary to maintain public safety. This is also reflected in wording amendments made to the Dog Access Principles located within the proposed policy.

Regional Parks – standard lambing rule

Submission insights

50. 5,745 submissions were received regarding implementation of a standard lambing season rule to prohibit dogs from 1 July to 1 December in regional parks that have stock (Hūnua Ranges, Mahurangi, Ōmana, Pakiri, Tāpapakanga, Te Rau Pūriri, Waitawa, and Wenderholm).

51. Submitters raised concerns that dogs should be allowed on leash and that other areas should be made available if the lambing prohibition lasts for six months.

Panel Recommendations

52. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will implement a standard lambing season rule in identified regional parks.

Regional Parks – Glenfern Sanctuary

Submission insights

53. 5,622 submissions were received on the proposal to prohibit dogs from Glenfern Sanctuary for the protection of wildlife.

54. Submitters raised concerns about having dogs allowed on a leash and providing other alternative areas for owners to exercise their dogs.

Panel Recommendations

55. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will prohibit dogs from Glenfern Sanctuary for the protection of wildlife.

56. The panel noted this is the current sign-posted rule for Glenfern Sanctuary. Including this in the schedule of access rules will enable the rule to be enforced (if necessary).

Regional Parks – Muriwai Regional Park

Submission insights

57. 5,652 submissions were received on the proposal to amend the dog access rules in Muriwai Regional Park for the protection of wildlife.

58. Submitters supported further protecting wildlife, and those that disagreed believed that dogs should be allowed under control on a leash in the areas that are being proposed as prohibited to dogs.

Panel Recommendations

59. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will amend dog access rules in Muriwai Regional Park for the protection of wildlife.

Regional Parks – Whatipū, Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

Submission insights

60. 5,401 submissions were received on the proposal to amend dog access rules in Whatipū for the protection of wildlife.

61. Submitters raised the concern that dogs should be allowed on leash, versus prohibiting dogs from the road and tracks leading to Whatipū Scientific Reserve.

Panel Recommendations

62. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will amend dog access rules in Whatipū, Waitākere Ranges Regional Park for the protection of wildlife.

Regional Parks – Long Bay Regional Park

Submission insights

63. 5,517 submissions were received on the proposal to amend dog access rules in Long Bay Regional Park for the protection of wildlife.

64. Submitters raised concerns over prohibiting dogs north of Vaughan’s stream, including the walking track, and that dogs should be allowed on leash.

Panel Recommendations

65. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified. This will amend dog access rules in Long Bay Regional Park for the protection of wildlife

66. The panel also recommends to amend rule 8(a) to include ‘Dogs are prohibited north of Vaughan’s stream and east of Piripiri Park’. This would allow for the future provision of dog access when the farmland area in Piripiri Park is developed and integrated into the reserve.

Regional Parks – All other regional parks

Submission insights

67. 5,360 submissions were received on the proposal to retain the status quo dog access rules on all remaining regional parks.

68. Those that disagreed with the proposal identified additional parks for review. In most cases this was general feedback and did not provide sufficient evidence to support amending the rules through the consultation process (See Attachment D).

Panel Recommendations

69. To adopt the proposal as publicly notified for the majority of regional parks. This will retain the existing dog access rules in all other Regional Parks.

70. The panel also recommends amending dog access rules in the following regional parks:

· Amend the rules in Shakespear Regional Park, to protect the salt marsh ecology, while continuing to provide dog access in the area:

(a) Dogs are allowed under control on a leash on the tracks land between Okoromai Bay and Army Bay

(b) Dogs are allowed under control off leash on the flat grassland area north of Okoromai Bay and south of Army Bay.

· Amend the rules in Te Ārai Regional Park to make it clear that dogs will generally be prohibited:

(a) Dogs are allowed under control off a leash in the dog exercise area of the disused quarry at Eyres Point

(b) Except as provided for in (a), dogs are prohibited from Te Ārai Regional Park.

Miscellaneous Amendments

71. A range of other requests on the proposed policy and bylaw were also noted through the submissions process. These are summarised in the deliberations report.

72. The panel recommends making the following amendments to the Policy:

· page 2, Policy Objective to read: To keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders by: maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs into public places, adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs, and protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

· page 4, section 1(d) to read ‘…to support dog management activities and achieve this policy’

· page 4, number 2: remove reference to school education programmes

· page 4, include the definition of a ‘menacing’ and ‘dangerous dog’ and a hyperlink to the breeds of ‘menacing dogs’ from the Dog Control Act 1996

· page 5, add the exemption for working dogs with regards to a multiple dog ownership licence

· page 6, add a brief description of the Code of Welfare from the Animal Welfare Act 1999

· page 6, ‘what does Auckland Council expect of dog owners?’ add ‘…and adequate exercise as defined by the Animal Welfare Act 1999’

· page 8, heading amended to ‘provide a balanced use of public places for dogs and their owners that is safe for everyone’

· page 8, add ‘integrate, where practicable, dog owners and their dogs with other users of public places’.

· page 8, to include ‘provide dog access information to dog owners via signage and council website that is comprehensive, easy to understand, correct and up to date’.

· page 10, 7(g) add ‘…provisions of dog owner and dog amenities has been considered. Such amenities include, but are not limited to, seats, bins and bag liners for dog faeces, water stations and water play areas’.

· amend Schedule 2 to reflect lists by numbers rather than letters.

73. The panel recommends to make the following amendments to the Bylaw:

· clause 9 (1) to include the owner of any dog (including a dog classified as a dangerous dog that is muzzled)

· clause 16(2) box, to read: ‘…subject to an infringement and will still be required to neuter their dog’.

Other non-regulatory considerations

Submission insights

74. Across the consultation topics, submitters also raised concerns on many non-regulatory aspects related to the success of dog management. This includes the following issues:

75. Auckland Council website:

· inconsistency between the website and current rules located within the policy and bylaw

· presentation of the rules on the website is confusing

· difficult finding information on the site, poor search functions, overall usability

· suggested improvements: improved online platform/mobile app with clearly marked areas to take dogs, website updated accurately as a result of this review.

76. Signage:

· accuracy and consistency of signage

· signage often conflicts with the information on the website

· location of signage

· suggested improvements: plain English, maps/photos, explanation of prohibited areas, translation of information into other languages.

77. Enforcement:

· not confident in council’s ability to enforce the current dog management rules

· general request for additional resources to improvement enforcement in public places, including regional parks.

78. Activities to promote responsible dog ownership:

· dog owners were not “seeing” the benefit of their registration fees

· would like to greater incentives for being a responsible dog owner

· reminders/maps of dog access rules would be helpful to improve compliance and reduce confusion

· the availability of areas to exercise dogs, concern that designated dog exercise areas are not always desirable/safe for dog owners

· additional facilities/amenities, including: more dog bins, bags for owners, increased fencing for dog areas in regional parks/local parks, and additional dog exercise areas with equipment for dogs.

Panel Recommendations

79. In addition to the changes to the policy and bylaw outlined above, the panel also recommend that staff implement the following to improve access of information and dog management in Auckland:

· an improved website, including the following updates:

o timely updates of any changes made to dog access rules/information

o user friendly site that is easy-to use and includes visuals, a better search function to find places to take your dog – developed with the use of a focus group.

· use consistent signage to manage dog access rules, including:

o plain and easy to read English and follow the Māori Language Policy of Auckland Council

o include maps/consistent colours across signs

o ensure signage and website are accurate/consistent and reflect each other

· responsible dog ownership:

o highlight what dog owners receive for registration fees

o increase the profile of work already being done by Animal Management Officers (e.g. education events, amnesty programs).

80. Where panel recommendations in Attachment A result in changes to the proposal (as stated above), the changes recommended by the panel are shown in a marked up version of the proposed policy and bylaw in Attachment B.

81. The panel recommends that the Governing Body adopt the proposed changes in Attachment C, which incorporates changes recommended by the panel by making the necessary statutory determinations. Taking this approach will assist in improving dog management through implementation of the policy and bylaw.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

82. The proposed changes impact council units involved in regulatory compliance and regional parks. Input was sought through face-to-face meetings throughout the process. Council units are aware of the impacts of the proposed changes and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

83. Local boards were provided an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to the Hearings Panel in writing or in person at a local board session on 21 June 2019.

84. The fourteen local boards who provided input were largely in support of most aspects of the proposal. The topics and areas that raised concerns were around:

· multiple dog ownership licence: one local board had a preference for a requirement for more than one dog, one local board had a preference for three or more dogs

· organisation of Schedule 2: two local boards had a preference for a default off leash rule and retain status quo to avoid errors in the proposed list of access rules (Schedule 2)

· time and season definition: a majority of local boards opposed the proposed definition and stated a preference for local variation or an earlier end time and season

· lambing season rule: one local board supported allowing dogs on leash and one local board supported applying this rule to all council parks that have stock vulnerable to dogs

· a majority of local boards expressed the need for accurate (and improved) signage, more enforcement/resources, education.

85. Attachment E contains detailed feedback from local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

86. In August and September of 2018, staff engaged with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum to seek feedback as part of the statutory review process. Previous information received from members of the Forum were taken into consideration when developing the proposed policy and bylaw. Table 2 summarises this feedback.

87. Mana whenua were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback on-line or in person at ‘Have Your Say’ events.

88. No further submissions were received from organisations representing mana whenua or mataawaka.

Table 2: Feedback received from the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum

Feedback received	How feedback was considered into the development of the proposed policy and bylaw
Multiple dog ownership licence:
Consider whether hunting dogs are covered by the definition of working dogs. Dogs are only as good as their owners and could still harm native birds. Dogs should be on leash around protected wildlife.	Exemption of rural areas from multiple dog ownership licence requirements will reduce impact on owners of hunting dogs without reducing responsibilities.
Uncontrolled dogs:
Council should seize an uncontrolled dog. The dog should be neutered before being returned to the owner, rather than just being issued a fine. However, this may increase the number of dogs being abandoned at the shelter, particularly if owners cannot afford the fines.	Option considered but legal advice was that council cannot neuter dogs unless the dog has been relinquished.
Owners of dangerous and menacing dogs:
Concerns around the cost of registering dangerous dogs combined with potential costs of education/obedience courses (if made a requirement). Additional costs may be a disincentive to register dogs. Consider the enforcement of any new requirements for owners of dangerous and menacing dogs, and the behaviour change of dog owners.	Staff have now recommended incentivising participation in obedience courses rather than making it a requirement.
Classification of owners:
Serious offenders of the Dog Control Act 1996 should be disqualified indefinitely.	Council can impose a maximum five-year disqualification under the Dog Control Act 1996.
Time and season definition:
Ensure that local boards are not going to vary from the default time and season rule. Daylight Saving could be an easier marker for summer. Suggested communication approach: ‘change your clocks and remember dog rules have changed’.	The intent of the proposed policy is to apply a regional definition of time and season. Local boards hold the decision to decide where (location) and the type of access rule that would apply (on leash, off leash, prohibited, designated dog exercise area).
Privately owned public land:
Suggestion to connect with other co-governance organisations.	Co-governance organisations can determine their own dog access rules without amending the policy.
Environmental protection:
Mana whenua expressed the desire to also be able to identify areas that require protection.	Mana whenua can request temporary prohibitions be imposed without having to amend the bylaw.
Protection of native species:
Te Ārai and Pakiri Regional Park have tara iti nesting up there, rarest species that needs protection from dogs.	The proposed policy and bylaw allow council to create temporary changes to dog access rules for the protection of wildlife and flora that are vulnerable to dogs.
Te Henga /Bethells Beach is a native bird breeding area. Dogs running around on the beach are a hazard to native birds (for example in O’Neill’s Bay). Te Henga/Bethells Beach to Muriwai beach all need protection.	The proposed policy and bylaw allow council to create temporary changes to dog access rules for the protection of wildlife and flora that are vulnerable to dogs. Dog access rules for Muriwai Regional Park have been amended to protect the gannet colony. Te Henga/Bethells Beach is a local beach, the local board will have to consider how to protect vulnerable species during their next review of dog access rules.
Kauri dieback:
Waitākere Ranges and Hunua Ranges need protection against kauri dieback (rāhui). Dogs should not be allowed, as current cleaning stations have not been adapted for dogs.	The regional review of the Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 has recommended to include a temporary provision to make changes to dog access rules for the protection of flora. If this recommendation is approved, it will provide a mechanism to further protect against kauri dieback.
Dog aversion training:
If dogs are going into regional parks, then there owners should display ‘proof’ the owner has completed training. There will be issues with enforcement. Hunting dogs should be kiwi trained.	Training of dogs would be at the expense of the owner. While Council cannot require dog owners to kiwi train their dogs, through this review an effort will be made to improve the understanding of access rules to increase voluntary compliance of dog access rules to assist in those areas to protect vulnerable wildlife.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

89. Signage installation in off-leash area and sites where the access rules have been changed as a result of the decisions made will follow direction of the Governing Body at the time of adoption.

90. Enforcement of the bylaw will be done by Animal Management staff in alignment with their current risk-based approach to enforcement.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

91. There is a reputational risk that people who provided feedback may not feel council has listened to their concerns. This can be mitigated by staff communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who gave feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

92. If adopted, staff will notify the general public and people who gave feedback about the decision and publish updates to the policy and bylaw when they come into force on 1 November 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deliberations Tables	83
b ⇩	Panel recommendations - proposed Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019	103
c ⇩	Proposed Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019	199
d ⇩	Summary of Submissions Received	291
e ⇩	Local board feedback on proposed policy and bylaw	381

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Councillor Linda Cooper, Hearings Panel Chairperson

Governing Body

25 July 2019

Trade Waste Bylaw 2013: Hearings Panel report

File No.: CP2019/13207

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 and the new Trade Waste Control 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable a decision on whether to adopt proposed changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 and the new Trade Waste Control 2019, an appointed Hearing’s Panel has deliberated and made recommendations on public feedback to the proposed changes and new control (proposal).

3. The proposal seeks to protect people, the public wastewater system, wastewater treatment plants and the environment from any detrimental effects due to trade waste discharges. The Governing Body adopted the proposal for public consultation on 28 March 2019. At the close of public feedback on 10 June 2019, 28 written feedback responses had been received.

4. The Panel recommends the Governing Body adopt the proposal with minor changes in response to matters raised in public feedback (Attachments A and B) including to:

· clarify that unavoidable discharge of rainwater (for example) in trade waste from low risk businesses does not require a trade waste agreement if discharge is to a combined sewer/storm water network and there is no separate storm water system

· clarify the grounds for varying a trade waste agreement

· add definitions for completeness

· provide additional related information to better inform the public and dischargers.

5. Taking this approach will make the Bylaw more certain and better protect people, the public wastewater system, wastewater treatment plants and the environment from any detrimental effects due to trade waste discharges.

6. There is a reputational risk that some people or organisations may not feel council has listened to their concerns. This can be mitigated by communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who gave written feedback.

7. If adopted, staff will publicly notify the decision, update the bylaw and publish the control when they come into force on 25 July 2019 and implement any operational changes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the Panel recommendations on proposed changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 in Attachment A and Attachment B of the agenda report.

b) confirm that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to protect people, the public wastewater system, wastewater treatment plants and the environment from any detrimental effects due to trade waste discharges.

c) approve that the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) approve that the Trade Waste Control 2019:

i) is appropriate to give effect to the purpose of the bylaw

ii) is effective, efficient and reasonable

iii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

e) adopt the amended Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 and the Trade Waste Control 2019 in Attachment C of the agenda report with effect from 25 July 2019.

f) approve the distribution of this report and associated minutes to local boards and advisory panels for their information.

g) delegate authority through the Watercare Services Limited Board to a manager to make any amendments to the bylaw and control in Attachment C of the agenda report to correct errors or omissions.

h) request the New Zealand Government introduce legislation to empower local authorities to use infringement penalties for breaches of trade waste bylaws.

Horopaki

Context

8. Te Ture ā-Rohe Waiparu a Mahi 2013, the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) aims to protect people, the public wastewater system, wastewater treatment plants and the environment from any detrimental effects due to trade waste discharges.

9. The Regulatory Committee on 14 March 2019 appointed a Panel^{^[2]} to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback on proposed changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 and a proposed new Trade Waste Control 2019 (proposal) (REG/2019/11).

10. The proposal was adopted by Governing Body on 28 March 2019 for public feedback (GB/2019/23).

11. The proposal seeks to improve the Bylaw by making changes that:

· provide clearer rules to determine when trade waste activities are low risk and when they require a trade waste agreement

· introduce the Trade Waste Control 2019 (Control) that will include existing limits to flow rates and volumes for low-risk discharges, and to characteristics and substances in trade waste

· provide clearer information for pre-treatment and other conditions required for low-risk trade waste discharges

· clearly define matters taken into account when considering applications for a trade waste agreement

· remove all matters relating to transitional consents.

12. The proposal was notified for public feedback from 10 April to 10 June 2019. People were able to provide feedback either online, by post or in person at a Have Your Say event, or one-on-one events for stakeholders, Kaitiaki Forum members and Local Boards. Twenty-eight written and thirty in person feedback responses were received by 10 June 2019.

13. The Panel deliberated on the public feedback to the proposal at a public meeting on 5 July 2019.

14. More information about the proposal, public notification and feedback can be viewed on council’s have your say and hearing webpages.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The Panel structured its deliberations and recommendations on the public feedback by topic. Table 1 contains a summary of the panel recommendations to key parts of the proposal.

16. A full summary and panel recommendations is in Attachment A. This includes relatively minor recommended changes to the proposal to clarify some clauses and related information for improved understanding.

Table 1: Summary of key panel recommendations

Topic	Summary of Panel recommendation
Clearer rules are provided to establish whether a trade waste activity is low risk or whether a Trade Waste Agreement is required.	Amend proposal to: · clarify that the unavoidable discharge of rainwater (for example) in trade waste from low risk businesses does not require a trade waste agreement if discharge is to a combined sewer/storm water network · include additional information in the related information note.
The existing limits for characteristics of, and substances in, trade waste discharges are included in a Trade Waste Control.	Adopt proposal as publicly notified to provide better control of limits for characteristics of, and substances in, trade waste discharges.
More information provided about pre-treatment requirements for low risk discharges.	Amend proposal to include additional information in related information notes in Schedules 1 and 3 about macerators/ food disposal units and automotive/ engineering/ stone cutting activities.
More information provided about factors taken into account for Trade Waste Agreements.	Adopt proposal as publicly notified to provide more information about factors taken into account for trade waste agreements.
Other Trade Waste Agreements comments.	Accepted in part and proposal amended to: · add related information note to clarify interpretation of any other relevant matter · make it clear that variations to trade waste agreements will only occur if there is a change in the prescribed circumstances · provide additional information in a related information note about requests to change and objection process for trade waste agreements.
References to transitional consents removed.	Adopt proposal as publicly notified to remove references to transitional consents.
Prohibited Trade Waste (Schedule 3).	Accepted in part and proposal amended to: · include reference to cytotoxic waste in schedule 3 · include hyperlinks to relevant documents in related information.
Other changes.	Accepted and proposal amended to: · make editorial changes to clauses 6, 13(6) and the Control to improve certainty and add a definition of “bioaccumulation” to the Bylaw.
Trade waste discharges to the environment	The Panel recommends to the Governing Body that it consider advocating for infringement penalties for breaches of the trade waste bylaws.

17. Where Panel recommendations in Attachment A result in changes to the proposal, the changes recommended by the Panel are shown in a comparison table in Attachment B.

18. The Panel recommends that the Governing Body adopt the Bylaw and Control in Attachment C, which incorporate the changes recommended by the Panel, by making the necessary statutory determinations. Taking this approach will make the Bylaw more certain and better protect people, the public wastewater system, wastewater treatment plants and the environment from any detrimental effects due to trade waste discharges

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Watercare Services Limited is aware of the impacts of the proposed changes and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The impact of the issues addressed in the proposal occurs across Auckland.

21. Local boards were provided opportunities to input into the decision-making process in writing or in person at a local board session with the Panel.

22. The six local boards that provided input were supportive of the proposal, but expressed concern over hazardous industrial discharges directly to the environment. These discharges are outside the scope of the Bylaw as they are not discharging into the wastewater network.

23. One local board raised concerns about fat discharges from food businesses. These activities are controlled under the Bylaw and the proposed amendments make pre-treatment requirements for these businesses clearer (i.e. the use of grease traps).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum members were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback on-line or in person at ‘Have Your Say’ events or a Panel one-on-one event.

25. The proposal addresses Māori concerns by including clearer rules for identifying low-risk discharges, pre-treatment requirements and controls on substances discharged.

26. Māori expressed concern over hazardous industrial substances being discharged directly into the environment. This is outside the scope of the Bylaw.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. Public notification and implementation costs will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. There is a reputational risk that people who provided feedback may not feel council has listened to their concerns. This can be mitigated by staff communicating the reasons for the decisions to those who gave written feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. If adopted, staff will notify the general public and people who gave feedback about the decision, and publish updates to the Bylaw and the new Control after it comes into force on 25 July 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deliberations table	447
b ⇩	Comparison of proposed and Panel recommended changes to the proposal	459
c ⇩	Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 and Trade Waste Control 2019	465

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Councillor Richard Hills – Hearings Panel Chair, Auckland Council

Glenn Wilcox – Independent Māori Statutory Board

Catherine Harland – Watercare Services Limited Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council Top Risk Register - July 2019	499
b ⇩	Auckland Council Top Risks Register - Residual Risk Heat Map - July 2019	509

Governing Body

25 July 2019

2019 local government elections - meetings and decision-making until new Governing Body members make their declarations

File No.: CP2019/12274

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide for appropriate delegations between the final Governing Body meeting and the inaugural meeting of the new Governing Body.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The final Governing Body meeting is scheduled for 26 September 2019. Committees are discharged at the time new members come into office, except for the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee. There are no scheduled committee meetings in October 2019.

3. The term of office of members of the Maunga Authority continues until 10 December 2019. There are no scheduled meetings of the Maunga Authority in October 2019.

4. All demographic advisory panels will be disestablished one month prior to election day on 12 September 2019.

5. The term of office of current Governing Body members ends and the term of office of new members commences on the day following the official declaration of the election results. The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the terms of office of current members ending and the terms of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019.

6. Staff recommend that delegations be put in place for the period following the final Governing Body meeting to the end of the term of office of current members.

7. For the period from the commencement of the term of office of newly-elected members until the inaugural meeting when members are sworn in, decisions may be made by the Auckland Council Chief Executive under current delegations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note that the final Governing Body meeting will be held on 26 September 2019 and that all committee meetings will have ceased by the end of September 2019

b) delegate to any two of either the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole, the power to make, on behalf of the Governing Body, urgent decisions that may be needed between the final Governing Body meeting and the day the term of office of current members ends

c) note that during the period from the commencement of term of office of new members following the elections until the inaugural meeting of the Governing Body on 1 November 2019, decision-making will be undertaken by the Auckland Council Chief Executive under current delegations.

Horopaki

Context

Meetings

8. Following the elections, elected members come into office the day following the official public declaration of the results on 21 October 2019. Committees are discharged at that date. The incoming mayor will establish a new committee structure and appoint chairpersons which is formalised when the Governing Body adopts terms of reference for committees. This is likely to be when the inaugural meeting is reconvened on 5 November 2019.

9. The legislation governing the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee provides that this committee is not discharged and may be convened if required^{^[3]}.

10. No meetings that are part of the current committee structure and which involve councillors will be scheduled during October 2019.

11. Following the coming into office of Governing Body elected members (on 22 October 2019), Governing Body elected members cannot act as members until they have made their statutory declarations at the inaugural meeting on 1 November 2019^{^[4]}.

Advisory panels

12. The Governing Body at its meeting on 10 November 2016 adopted terms of reference for advisory panels which provide for the panels’ term to end one month prior to election day (GB/2016/251).

Maunga Authority

13. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, schedule 4, clause 2, states that the term of office of a member of the Maunga Authority ends on the 59^th day following local government election day. This will be 10 December 2019. The term of new appointees commences on the 60^th day following election day.

14. Whether the councillors who are presently members of the Maunga Authority are re-elected or not, they will remain members of the Authority until 10 December 2019. Currently no meetings of the Maunga Authority are scheduled for October 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. There are two distinct periods that impact on Governing Body decision-making:

· the period from the final Governing Body meeting until the day after the declaration of the election results, when current members’ terms of office expire

· the period from the day after the declaration of results, when new members’ terms of office commence, until the inaugural meeting on 1 November 2019, when new members will make their statutory declarations.

16. Staff recommend that during the first period, the same arrangements are put in place as for the Christmas close-down period. This provides for any decision that would normally involve a political meeting to be made by any two of the mayor, deputy mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole.

17. During the second period, the Chief Executive will exercise his current delegations. These are expressed as:

“The Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer all responsibilities, duties and powers to act on any matter, subject to the restrictions set out in the general rules applying to all delegations - Auckland Council, and excluding those matters in respect of which delegation is prohibited by any Act or regulation, or which are expressly excluded from this delegation at Schedule 1.

This delegation does not preclude the Chief Executive Officer from referring for any reason any matter to the governing body or a local board, or a committee (including a subcommittee) of the governing body or a local board, for a decision.”

18. Schedule 1 of this delegation limits the financial delegation to the Chief Executive acting alone to $20 million, subject to conditions (for example, expenditure being budgeted).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The reduced political decision-making over the election period has been communicated to the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The arrangements proposed in this report only apply to the Governing Body. Local boards will make their own arrangements to cover the election period.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. The arrangements proposed in this report do not affect the Māori community differently to the rest of the community.

22. As there will be no committee meetings during October, this will affect Independent Māori Statutory Board involvement in Governing Body committee decision-making.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. There are no significant financial implications

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. There is a risk that unforeseen decisions will arise during this period, such as a decision that is politically significant or a decision that exceeds the Chief Executive’s financial delegation.

25. This risk has been mitigated by scheduling meetings to the end of September and communicating to reporting staff that significant decisions should not be made during October 2019.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The decision of the Governing Body will be communicated to senior staff so that they are aware of the arrangements for the month of October 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Kerri Foote – Acting Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 July 2019

TIRA KĀWANA / GOVERNING BODY FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2016 – 2019 TERM

The Governing Body deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee

The Mayor may require any matter that would otherwise be reported to a committee, to be reported to the Governing Body. If that matter is already on a published agenda for a committee meeting, that meeting will not consider that matter unless invited by the mayor to make a recommendation to the Governing Body.

Lead	Area of work	Reason for work	Governing Body role (decision or direction)	Budget/ Funding	Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
					FY18/19	FY19/20
					Apr-Jun 2 May 30 May 27 Jun	Jul-Sep 25 Jul 22 Aug 26 Sep	Oct-Dec Nov Dec	Jan-Mar Feb Mar
Chief Operating Office	Americas Cup 2021	Location, infrastructure and funding	Approve preferred location Agree strategy for progressing resource consent applications Progress to Date: Report considered 14/12/17 and approval of Wynyard Basin option GB/2017/172 and agreed single hearing process through direct referral Report and revised decision and approval of Wynyard Hobson proposal 29/3/18 GB/2018/63 Workshop – 6/12/18 Report and decision on additional funding 6/12/18 GB/2018/199		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
	Chief Executive’s Performance Objectives	The Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money Committee has the delegation to set performance objectives. The Governing Body must then consider the recommendations and make a decision.	Approve performance objectives. Progress to Date: Recommendations considered 22/11/18 in confidential, open decision GB/2018/193		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
	City Rail Link	Construction of the City Rail Link in the central city	Approve City Rail Link Heads of Agreement Approve matters association with City Rail Link Note any matters raised by the Audit and Risk Committee about the project Progress to Date: Heads of Agreement approved 14/9/16 Conf Appoint chair of City Rail Link 15/12/16 Conf Note sponsors agreement and establishment of new entity City Rail Link Limited 29/6/17 Conf Report confirming role of Audit and Risk Committee 25/10/18 GB/2018/175 Report on funding commitment 2/5/19 GB/2019/33 Conf Report Shareholder approval of major transaction 27/6/19 Decision only released GB/2019/64		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Chief Financial Office	Annual Report	Statutory requirement	Adopt Annual Report		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Governance	Review of Code of Conduct	The experience of working with the current Code of Conduct indicates that it could be further improved. In particular, it could be clearer about complaint, investigation and resolution processes, as well as available sanctions	Adopt new Elected Members Code of Conduct Progress to Date: Initial report was considered 22/2/18 Approval 22/2/18 for review GB/2018/37 Workshop – 15/3/18 Workshop – 26/11/18 Report 13/12/18 and deferral GB/2018/209 to new political term		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Mayoral Office Governance	Terms of Reference	The Terms of Reference enables the governing Body to delegate to committees those power necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities to the most efficient and effective levels. Any changes to the Terms of Reference must be done by the Governing Body.	Adopt the Terms of Reference Adopt changes to Terms of Reference Progress to Date: Amend due of disestablishment of ACIL and two committee amendments 26/7/18 GB/2018/115 Amend to add Cr Paul Young to Committee’s 22/11/18 GB/2018/190		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Governance	Standing Orders	Statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 27 Originally adopted 16/12/2010	Amend standing orders Progress to Date: Report to amend 2/5/19 GB/2019/37		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Governance	Accountability Review of council-controlled organisations	The accountability review are to increase the accountability and value for money of CCOs by: • increasing the transparency of CCO decision-making • increasing the responsiveness of CCOs to the public and council • improving the recognition of ratepayer funding for CCO activity • increasing the ability to align CCOs to the direction set by the council. Reporting on a quarterly basis	Approve objectives as basis of review Approve scope and timing Progress to Date: Approve objectives, scope and timing 23/2/17 GB/2017/17 Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors with an update	Within timelines and budgets	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Co-governance	Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operations Plan	Section 60 of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority) and Auckland Council to annually agree an operational plan as part of the annual or long-term plan process. This requires the council to consult on a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Operational Plan (the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Plan). The Governing Body is also required to adopt the final plan.	Adopt Operational Plan and summary Progress to Date: Report to approve draft 13/12/18 GB/2018/204		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
People and Performance	Health, Safety and Wellbeing	The Governing Body has the role of the person or organisation conducting a business or undertaking.	Receive the quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report Progress to Date: August 2018 report received GB/2018/147 December 2018 report received GB/2018/203 February 2019 report received GB/2019/15		Q4 Jun	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Dog management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Report to Approve the statement of proposal 28/2/19 GB/2019/15	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Solid Waste Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Report to Approve the statement of proposal 2/5/19 GB/2019/34	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Trade Waste Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Progress to Date: Report to Approve the statement of proposal 28/3/19 GB/2019/23	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Signage Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Alcohol Control Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw Review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Social Policy and Bylaws	Freedom Camping	Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland Regulatory response may be required following completion of research and pilot	If regulatory response required: Approve statement of proposal Make the bylaw Progress to Date: Approve the statement of proposal 22/11/18 GB/2018/188	Review is within current baselines. Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Mayoral Office	Mayoral Housing Taskforce Steering Group	Oversee the progress and implementation of the June 2017 Mayoral Housing Taskforce report.	Setup, agree and approve membership of group Receive six-monthly updates Progress to Date: Taskforce setup 27/7/17 GB/2017/79 Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors updating progress Progress report 25/10/18 GB/2018/172		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Governance	Auckland Council Top Risk Register	The Audit and Risk Committee will refer the risk register to the Governing Body every quarter.	Note the top risk register and risk heat map Receive quarterly reports Progress to Date: September 2018 report 25/10/18 GB/2018/173 February 2019 report 28/2/19 GB/2019/9		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Governance	Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	The Crown negotiates settlements with iwi on a confidential basis and from time to time invites Council to express its views. The Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working party is accountable to the Governing Body and reports its findings to the Governing Body.	Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Finance	Value for Money Reviews (s17A)	Required under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002	Approve terms of reference for reviews Progress to Date: Information, Communication and Technology and Customer Services Report 24/5/18 decision GB/2018/84 Group Procurement Report 27/6/18 decision GB/2018/98 Group Financial Services Report 27/9/18 decision GB/2018/146 Legal and Risk Management Report 22/11/18 decision GB/2018/189 Human Resource Management Services Report 28/3/19 decision GB/2019/21 Customer Services Report 2/5/19 decision GB/2019/36 Finance Review Report 27/6/19 decision GB/2019/60	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3

Lead	Area of work	Governing Body role (decision or direction)	Detailed Decisions
Governance	2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting	Appoint presiding delegate to Annual General Meeting Appoint three other delegates to Annual General Meeting Approve councillors to attend conference	Report was considered 22/3/18 Approved the above GB/2018/47
People and Performance	Remuneration Policy	Approve the change to the policy.	Report considered 22/3/18 Approved 22/3/18 GB/2018/42
Chief Planning Office	Auckland Plan Refresh	Approve refresh of Auckland Plan	Various workshops throughout 2017/2018 Adopted summary information 21/2/18 GB/2018/25 Adopted by Planning Committee 6/5/18 PLA/2018/62
Chief Financial Office	Long-term Plan 2018-2028	Adopt consultation document and supporting material Adopt Long Term Plan and set rates	Various workshops throughout 2017/2018 Adopted consultation document and supporting material 21/2/18 GB/2018/24 Agree recommendation for adoption 31/5/18 GB/2018/91 Adoption report 28/6/18 GB/2018/108
Chief Financial Office	Regional Fuel Tax Proposal	Approve a Regional Fuel Tax for Auckland	Approved 31/5/18 GB/2018/90
Governance	Advisory Panels	Approve appointments to advisory panels	Initial appointments to demographic panels 23/3/17 Conf Appointments to the Youth Advisory Panel 25/5/17 Conf Replacement members appointed to Youth Advisory Panel 22/3/18 Conf
People and Performance	Chief Executive’s Employment Review Process	Approve performance objectives Agree to the review of the chief executive performance before 30 June 2018 Delegate the review if desired Decision on chief executives contract	Objectives approved and released 23/11/17 GB/2017/153 Process approved 19/4/18 GB/2018/71 Re-appointment confirmed 27/6/18 GB/2018/103
Governance	Independent Maori Statutory Board funding	Approve 2018/2019 funding agreement	Report received 27/6/18 and funding approved GB/2018/94
Governance	Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi	Approve submissions to the Crown as and when required Approve establishment and on-going implementation of co-management and other governance arrangements	Submission on Point England Development Enabling Bill 23/2/17 GB/2017/8 Submission on Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlements Bill 27/7/17 GB/2017/85 Report Upper Mangatangi-Mangarawhiri Catchments Co-governance Arrangements 24/8/17 GB/2017/99 Submission on Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill 22/2/18 GB/2018/36 Open Report Te Akitai Waiohua – Treaty Settlement Redress 19/4/18 GB/2018/69 Open Report Ngāti Paoa – Treaty settlement redress 24/5/18 GB/2018/85 Open Report on Maungauika – transfer of administration 27/6/18 GB/2018/97
Chief Financial Office	Annual Report	Adopt Annual Report	Adoption 27/9/18 GB/2018/153
Mayoral Office Governance	Terms of Reference	Adopt the Terms of Reference Adopt changes to Terms of Reference	Initial adoption 1/11/16 GB/2016/237 Review report 14/12/17 GB/2017/177 Review after by-election 22/3/17 GB/2018/57 Amend Appointments, Performance Review and Value for Money 19/4/19 GB/2018/71
People and Performance	Health, Safety and Wellbeing	Receive the quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report	March 2018 report received GB/2018/55 June 2018 report received GB/2018/119
Governance	Accountability Review of council-controlled organisations	Approve objectives as basis of review Approve scope and timing	Approve objectives, scope and timing 23/2/17 GB/2017/17 Memorandum 9/4/18 to councillors with an update
Governance	Representation Review	Approve the process for conducting the review of representation arrangements Approve final decision	Report and approval of process 14/12/17 GB/2017/175 Workshop – 16 October 2018 Recommendations report 18/10/18 and decision GB/2018/157-165
Social Policy and Bylaws	On-site Wastewater Bylaw	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Approve the statement of proposal 26/7/18 GB/12018/121 Hearings Panel report 25/10/18 and decision GB/2018/174
Financial Strategy and Planning	Contributions Policy	Adopt policy	Agree to consultation 30/4/18 GB/2018/79 Agree extension until new policy in place 27/6/18 GB/2018/96 Workshop – 15/10/18 Report for consultation 18/10/18 GB/2018/166 Stakeholder Submissions Workshop – 23/11/18 Feedback Session – 28/11/18 Workshops – 29/11/18 and 6/12/18 Report on feedback and adoption 13/12/18 GB/2018/206
Social Policy and Bylaws	Health and Hygiene Bylaw	Approve statement of proposal # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.	Approve the statement of proposal 26/7/18 GB/2018/120 Hearings Panel Report and confirm the bylaw 22/11/18 GB/2018/187
Social Policy and Bylaws	Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review	Approve statement of proposal. # Make/Amend/Revoke the bylaw. ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Length of time required to draft the statement of proposal will depend on the scope of amendments requested following the review findings.	Report to Approve the statement of proposal 27/9/18 GB/2018/148 Panel report to approve bylaw 28/3/19 GB/2019/22
Governance	2019 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting	Appoint presiding delegate to Annual General Meeting Appoint three other delegates to Annual General Meeting Approve councillors to attend conference	Report to appoint delegates and approve attendance 28/3/19 GB/2019/25
Governance	Advisory Panels	Approve appointments to advisory panels	Replacement members appointed to Youth Advisory Panel open process report 25/10/18 GB/2018/177 decision made in confidential
Chief Financial Office	Annual Budget 2019/2020 (Annual Plan)	Adopt consultation document and supporting material Approve Annual Budget	Public Consultation 13/12/18 GB/2018/205 Adoption of consultation material 13/2/19 GB/2019/2 & GB/2019/3 Decision-making meeting 22/5/19 GB/2019/40 Final adoption 20/6/19 GB/2019/56
Governance	Independent Māori Statutory Board funding	Approve 2019/2020 funding agreement	Report on funding 2/5/19 and funding approval GB/2019/35

[1] Councillor Linda Cooper (Chair), Councillor Cathy Casey, Councillor Wayne Walker, and Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox.

[2] Councillor Richard Hills (Chair), Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox, and Watercare Services Limited Director Catherine Harland.

[3] Section 12(2) Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

[4] Clause 14, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002

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

Date	Subject
21/3/19	Accountability Review Programme – Progress Report
24/6/19	Future of The FoodBowl – Te Ipu Kai
15/7/19	Haumaru Housing

Date	Workshop/Briefing
24/6/19	Auckland Transports response to the Governance Framework Review

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	535
b ⇨	Memo - Accountability Review Programme – Progress Report (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Memo - Future of The FoodBowl - Te Ipu Kai (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Auckland Transports response to the Governance Framework Review - workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Memo - Haumaru Housing (Under Separate Cover)

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