Agenda of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion - Deputy Chairperson G Wood - Cleaning of roadside channels and catch pits	11
b ⇩	D-TLB Resolution number DT/2016/225	13
c ⇩	List of Tetra Traps installed in D-TLB area	15
d ⇩	List of Enviropods intalled in D-TLB area	27
e ⇩	Tetra Trap fact sheet	35
f ⇩	AT Correspondence RE: Catch Pit Cleaning	37

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion - Member J O'Connor - Auburn Reserve Parking	41
b ⇩	Memo: Response to NoM - Auburn Reserve Parking	43

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion - G Wood - Devonport Public Transport Services	47
b ⇩	Devonport and Bayswater bus services prior to September 2018	49
c ⇩	Current bus services in the Devonport and Bayswater areas	51
d ⇩	Correspondence with Ms Gay Richards, Chairperson of the Bayswater Community Committee	53
e ⇩	Devonport and Bayswater timetable since September 2018	57
f ⇩	Devonport and Bayswater passenger numbers for 2019	71
g ⇩	Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan 2018 Extract (Pages 52, 53 and 54)	75

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion - Member R Jackson - Wairau Catchment and Beach Pollution	81
b ⇩	Wairau Valley Catchment - Water Quality Improvements Oppourtunies	85

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

18 February 2020

Belmont Centre Design Initiative - draft plan for consultation

File No.: CP2020/00447

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board on progress with the Belmont Centre Design Initiative.

2. To seek approval of a draft improvement plan for Belmont centre as a guide to the proposals for Belmont that are finalised for community consultation during March and April 2020 in conjunction with Auckland Transport-led Lake Road improvements project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. A project to develop an improvement plan for the Belmont local centre commenced in November 2019 and will be completed by June 2020. This project is included in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Work Programme 2019/20, with a $40,000 local board LDI budget contribution towards preparing and consulting on the improvement plan.

4. The project has worked alongside Auckland Transport’s Lake Road improvements project in 2019/20, for which a detailed business case (DBC) is being progressed. Public consultation on both the Lake Road improvements and Belmont centre projects is being coordinated to occur in March-April 2020.

5. A Belmont community stakeholder group of local representatives has assisted and advised the project team in developing principles for the centre and improvement options across four meetings in November and December 2019. Further meetings are to be held with the group. An internal stakeholder group involving key and relevant Council and CCO staff has also assisted in progressing the project.

6. An investigation into the issues and opportunities at Belmont centre has helped identify principles for future changes and improvements, and a community concept plan. This has informed the development of a draft improvement plan for how the centre could best accommodate Lake Road improvements and also identifies other improvements to the centre over time.

7. The draft improvement plan for Belmont centre utilises the eastern slip road for additional public space, enables a short northbound transit lane and protected cycle facilities through the centre, rationalises car parking, creates more public space at the corners of the intersection, and through establishing a new crossing of Lake Road can establish a clearer, lower speed core centre area.

8. This plan will be used as a guide in the preparation of a design proposal for Belmont centre, to be consulted on in conjunction with Auckland Transport-led Lake Road improvements project. Community feedback on the proposal will be presented to the local board after consultation. A revised improvement plan is aimed to be reported for adoption in June 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) note the design principles and ‘community concept’ for Belmont centre (at Attachments C and D) as developed in conjunction with the Belmont community stakeholder group in November 2019.

b) approve the draft improvement plan for Belmont centre (at Attachment E) as a guide to the design proposals for Belmont that are finalised for community consultation during March and April 2020 in conjunction with Auckland Transport’s Lake Road improvements project.

Horopaki

Context

Background

9. Key Move 5 of the Devonport-Takapuna Area Plan 2014 (the area plan) includes revitalising and developing town and local centres. It says that each centre offers opportunities for growth in ways that reflect their particular character and history, and they should be improved as accessible, attractive focal points.

10. Project 5.2 in the area plan is to investigate and implement physical improvements to the environment of Belmont local centre in ways that enhance its character. ‘Outcomes for key places’ further on in the area plan seeks that Belmont has an improvement plan prepared through engagement with the local community.

11. Auckland Council, through the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 2016 (the AUP), has enabled additional business and residential development in and around Belmont centre through introducing Mixed Use Zone around the centre and an area of Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (THAB) to the east.

12. Key initiatives under Outcome 3 in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan 2017 include ‘Work with AT to reduce congestion and deliver alternative modes of transport on Lake Road, including a bus way or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane’ and ‘Support AT to improve traffic flows between Esmonde Road and Belmont town centre’. A key initiative under Outcome 5 is to ‘Develop a town centre plan for Belmont’.

13. A 3-year work programme of the Plans and Places Department (Plans and Places), prepared as an outcome of local board workshops in mid-2018, included scoping of Belmont local centre planning in 2018/19, with a plan commencing “if necessary” in Year 3 i.e. 2019/20. The timing and need for the plan was “tied to AT confirmation and timing of Lake Road upgrade option”.

14. AT’s Lake Road improvements project is at the detailed business case (DBC) stage, for reporting by June 2020. The earlier indicative business case stage identified three options for the Lake Road corridor that were consulted on locally. The ‘medium’ investment option with a budget of $47 million has been taken forward to the DBC, including the intent to seek targeted transit lanes where possible. This option has been developed further in 2019/20 and will be consulted on in March and April 2020 to enable public feedback to inform the subsequent design that will be taken forward for implementation funding.

15. The Belmont design initiative project was included in the 2019/20 Local Board Work Programme, with a $30,000 LDI opex budget contribution approved by the local board in June 2019. An additional $10,000 was approved for the project by the local board in December 2019 through a reallocation of opex funding from the community grants budget.

Scope and programme

16. The above factors have combined to bring forward this initiative - a placemaking and urban design investigation of Belmont centre - in 2019/20. This is to enable the centre to best respond to and benefit from anticipated changes to transport, accessibility and development potential as a result of the Lake Road improvement project.

17. The centre and the project study area is defined as the Local Centre Zone and Mixed Use Zone area at Belmont, as shown in aerial plan and AUP zone maps at Attachment A.

18. The investigation will lead to the preparation of an ‘improvement plan’ for Belmont centre that:

· establishes principles for the functioning, amenity and development of the centre;

· addresses the centre’s layout, building frontage relationship with public space, and accessibility arrangements that integrate with a reconfigured Lake Road corridor;

· identifies opportunities for centre development in light of AUP zoning, that can help ‘future proof’ the transport and public space elements of the Lake Road corridor improvements;

· recommends actions to improve the physical environment, amenity, accessibility and functioning of the centre in light of likely and potential changes as above;

· identifies any gaps or requirements for improved, expanded or new community and open spaces in the centre, to support the centre and surrounding residential area.

19. The programme and timeline for the project to undertake the investigation and develop the improvement plan for Belmont is as follows:

Establishment/inception phase: October to early November 2019

Research and analysis phase: early to mid November 2019

Principles, outcomes and options phase: mid November to mid December 2019

Community consultation phase: March and April 2020

Refinement and plan finalisation phase: April and May 2020

Final plan reporting and adoption: June 2020

20. AT has worked closely with Plans and Places and other relevant departments to develop options for Belmont centre, to be included as part of the overall consultation for the Lake Road improvement project. The draft improvement plan identified through the Belmont initiative will be used as a guide or basis on which a design proposal for Belmont is finalised during February 2020. This proposal will be included within the Lake Road improvements project proposals to be presented for wider community consultation in March and April 2020.

21. Plans and Places appointed urban design specialists Urbanismplus Ltd in November 2019 to prepare an analysis of issues and opportunities at Belmont, work with the stakeholders to develop principles and options, and prepare the improvement plan for the centre.

Belmont community stakeholder group

22. A Belmont community stakeholder group of local representatives was brought together in November 2019 to advise and assist in developing the initiative outputs and appropriate approaches to wider engagement. This group has been particularly helpful in identifying challenges and opportunities at Belmont, defining principles for the centre and assessing possible options. A list of group members is shown at Attachment B.

23. Four meetings were held at Belmont with the community stakeholder group in November and December 2019. Attendance has been very good at the meetings, however it was difficult for some of the group to attend at the meeting times late in 2019. Separate meetings have been held with some of the group and also with other stakeholders in the area for both the Belmont project and Lake Road improvement project.

24. Further meetings of the stakeholder group are planned for 2020. A February meeting will outline what is proposed to be presented for community consultation along with the proposals of the Lake Road improvement project, and the proposed approach to the consultation. Another meeting in April or early May following engagement will help identify any aspects that need to be reviewed or changed in a final improvement plan to be completed in May 2020.

Principles and design development

25. As a result of a workshop process at the second stakeholder group meeting in November 2019, a set of design principles for the future of Belmont centre were prepared. These are shown at Attachment C and are a summary of the many opportunities, ideas and concepts identified by the group. These principles informed the development of initial design options for the centre, as prepared by Urbanismplus and council specialists in early December.

26. The principles were visualised into a ‘community concept’ for Belmont that identifies the physical opportunities in general terms. The community concept is shown at Attachment D together with a list of the main components.

27. The design principles and community concept closely informed the preparation of three initial design options for Belmont. These were presented to the community stakeholder group at its fourth meeting on 12 December 2019. To introduce the design options, a short list of ‘givens’ highlighted the elements that were common to the options as follows:

· Improved pedestrian amenity

· Northbound transit lane

· Bus stop directly on Lake Road

· Safe cycle lanes in both directions

· Strong desire for retention or increase in west-side parking

28. This was followed by an outline of the ‘trade-offs’ between other elements such as on-street parking, use of the slip road area, a planted median strip between north and south lanes, on and off-street cycle lanes, and removal or retention of the free left turns at the intersection. The ‘givens’ were generally accepted. The ‘trade-offs’ generated quite a lot of discussion and feedback, although the general direction of the options was commended.

29. The detailed feedback on the options from the stakeholders present was referenced in a subsequent workshop with the AT project team. This informed the development of a ‘preferred’ option, or draft improvement plan, prepared before Christmas and distributed to the community stakeholder group. The draft improvement plan was submitted to AT for consideration and amendment where necessary in order for a design proposal for Belmont to be included in the consultation for the Lake Road improvement project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Draft improvement plan

30. The preferred option for Belmont centre is shown at Attachment E. The main elements of the option combine the aspects that attracted the most support from discussions with internal and community stakeholders.

31. The preferred option is known as Option B2 due to it being based on Option B of the three initial options. The main elements are as follows:

· Two southbound traffic lanes on Lake Road at the north of the intersection and two northbound lanes on the south side of the intersection with one potentially being a transit lane. That transit lane can continue through the north side of the intersection with another traffic lane.

· Free left turns at the intersection removed (these are known to encourage unsafe traffic speeds) and larger new open spaces created. An additional crossing on Lake Road near School Road is proposed.

· East side slip road removed and footpaths west and east of Lake Road widened, with additional space created in front of, and better incorporated with, the Rose Gardens.

· Parallel parking retained on the west side and reduced number of angled parks on the east side directly off Lake Road. Additional on and off-street parking in the vicinity to be found.

· Bus stops relocated, with northbound stop brought closer to the core of the centre and southbound stop directly off Lake Road rather than through the slip road (this resulted in an unusual manoeuvre for buses continuing south).

· Continuous protected northbound and southbound cycle lanes between parking and traffic/transit lanes, and also cycle lanes introduced on Bayswater Avenue.

32. Other opportunities include scope for more appropriate and attractive planting and landscaping, creation of new urban spaces, potential for off-street parking on the west side if redevelopment occurs, and potential building redevelopment over time that addresses the revitalised street and public environment. This could include the use of lane ways to provide additional retail frontage and also additional open spaces within redeveloped western or eastern blocks.

Community consultation

33. Consultation with the community on the Belmont preferred option (draft improvement plan) will be incorporated with AT’s Lake Road improvements project consultation planned for March-April 2020. Details of the engagement are being prepared along with the expected online and hardcopy engagement material including a brochure.

34. A programme of staffed displays, events and drop-in opportunities will be developed and communicated with the local board and stakeholders. Consultation opportunities for Belmont residents, businesses and owners additional to those being prepared for the Lake Road project will be discussed with the community stakeholder group in February.

35. Consultation feedback will be compiled and analysed following the engagement period. A summary of responses will be prepared.

Process to completion

36. The feedback from consultation will be considered by the project teams for both the Belmont and Lake Road projects. In the case of the Belmont proposals, there will be a further discussion with the community stakeholder group towards the development of a proposed final improvement plan for Belmont.

37. Once further technical and overall project assessment and indicative costings are considered, a final improvement plan for Belmont will be reported to the local board for adoption, likely in June 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

38. The Belmont project is being coordinated with the Lake Road improvements project, which is seeking to achieve an increase in the people-moving capacity of Lake Road through public transport improvements and introduction of a transit lane. Together with separated and continuous cycle lanes, improvements in options for travel using other than private vehicles will help address the level of carbon emissions derived from transport on Lake Road.

39. Improvements in pedestrian access and provision of additional public space at Belmont will encourage more walking in and around the centre, contributing to a reduction in carbon emissions from vehicle use. Future more intensive redevelopment of the centre will also help reduce the number of vehicle trips per person in the vicinity of Belmont.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. Auckland Transport has worked closely with Plans and Places and other council departments including Parks Policy team, Auckland Design Office and the Community Empowerment Unit in scoping and developing the project and preferred option. Options have been developed with this input and feedback has informed the preferred option.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41. Representatives of the local Belmont community have been meeting with the project team since November 2019 to inform the development of the project and the emerging principles and options. This will continue until the final improvement plan is prepared, following community consultation along with the Lake Road improvement project in March-April 2020.

42. The initiative is a funded project in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board work programme 2019/20. The new local board was briefed on the project by memorandum in October 2019, and a local board member has participated in the community stakeholder group meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. The thirteen iwi who have a stated interest in this location were contacted about the project in 2019 and invited to be engaged on this initiative. Representatives from Ngati Maru and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki responded with an interest in the project and in meeting to further explore this. Engagement with these and other iwi who come forward will proceed through 2020.

44. Project staff representing Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa, the commercial investment company of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei group, were met in December 2019 regarding the project and their Devonport precinct development interests. The representatives were supportive of the project and its objectives, which they see as improving the opportunities for future residents of their development sites in and around Belmont. They will be involved as the project progresses, along with further engagement with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. Funding for project management and plan development is provided from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board 2019/20 work programme (approved LDI opex contribution and reallocated community grants funding), and council departmental staff budgets.

46. The current $47million budget held by AT for the overall Lake Road improvements project DBC, design and delivery will include related improvements through Belmont. However, this is will be limited to the core transport improvements. Funding of streetscape upgrades and work substantially beyond the core transport improvements will not be covered by the budget.

47. Following public consultation AT will assess costs, benefits and differences between the core transport improvements proposed at Belmont and the preferred option put forward by the draft improvement plan. AT’s core transport improvements are unlikely to incorporate changes to the southbound slip road, which is a major feature of the improvement plan concept.

48. Depending on feedback received and the potential availability of additional or other funding from the Council or the local board, decisions will be made by AT in consultation with the local board on the extent of work able to be delivered at Belmont.

49. There are opportunities for cost savings and efficiencies in coordinating the Belmont centre design project with AT’s Lake Road improvement project to achieve more substantial improvements to the centre, compared with it being a standalone project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. Risks include the level of continued involvement and support by the community stakeholders of the project and options identified. To date the group have been intensively involved in the project and have commended its outcomes. There are risks that community engagement does not gather sufficient feedback to gauge views of the wider public, which can be mitigated by preparing for well-publicised and accessible information and ways to provide feedback.

51. There are also risks that funding is not available to implement the design proposal and subsequent final improvement plan at Belmont, which may have gathered support from community feedback. This is noted above, and options to address this will need to be considered carefully by AT, the Council and the local board following the engagement and into identifying the final improvement plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. A further meeting of the community stakeholder group in February will assist preparations for community engagement on Lake Road improvements and Belmont design proposals in March and April. The local board will be appraised of the outcomes of the engagement in May 2020 and what is recommended to be adjusted in the design proposal for it to become a final improvement plan that is likely to be reported to the local board in June 2020 for adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Preferred option/draft improvement plan for Belmont centre	177
b ⇩	Belmont centre design initiative study area and AUP zones at Belmont centre	179
c ⇩	Belmont centre community stakeholder group	183
d ⇩	Design principles for Belmont centre	185
e ⇩	Community concept for Belmont centre	187

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

18 February 2020

Options to address parking issues at Auburn Reserve, Takapuna

File No.: CP2020/00819

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider short and long-term solutions to address parking solutions at Auburn Reserve, Takapuna (the reserve).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At the 18 November 2019 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board (the local board) business meeting, representatives of the Takapuna Croquet Club, who operate at the reserve spoke at public forum and raised several parking issues which is impacting their club and members.

3. The local board requested that Local Board Services staff work with Auckland Transport (AT) and council operational staff to develop options to mitigate and potentially resolve the issues at the reserve.

4. Six options have been developed for the local board to consider. The recommended option is to allocate spaces to groups, where authorisation is obtained through machines located in group and club buildings. All other carparks at the reserve will remain for public use.

5. The following process is required to implement the recommended option:

· a consultant will undertake an assessment and prepare a report to AT’s Traffic Control Committee (the TCC) with their recommended changes;

· the consultant’s recommendations will be discussed with the local board;

· the TCC will consider and make their recommendation;

· AT and council operational staff will implement the changes based on the local board’s capital budget allocation.

6. The cost to implement the recommended option is:

· up to $10,000 operational funding to undertake the assessment work;

· up to $20,000 transport capital funding to install two parking machines; and

· up to $20,000 capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.

7. These costs can be funded from the local board’s 2019/2020 operational and capital budgets.

8. Staff recommend that the local board also consider a long-term planning solution, such as a development plan, which can inform and guide future investment at the reserve.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) support option one: allocate spaces to groups, where authorisation is obtained through machines located in group and club buildings, and all other carparks remain for public use to improve the ongoing parking issues at Auburn Reserve, Takapuna.

b) allocate the following to enable and deliver the required parking changes at Auburn Reserve, Takapuna:

i) up to $10,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational funding to undertake an assessment to inform the necessary changes to be considered by Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee;

ii) up to $20,000 transport capital funding to install two parking machines; and

iii) up to $20,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.

c) request that the scope of the assessment consider:

i) the actual, and appropriate number of carparks to allocate to clubs and organisations located at Auburn Reserve, Takapuna;

ii) machines that are to be located in their respective group and club buildings as the preferred mechanism to ‘authenticate’ parking for their members and visitors; and

iii) the appropriate time restriction and hours of operation.

d) request staff scope and cost a development plan for Auburn Reserve, which can be considered as part of the local board’s 2020/2021 work programme.

e) note that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee is responsible for considering and approving all parking restrictions and length of stay at all carparks.

f) note that there is no formal mechanism for Auckland Council to provide permits to community groups and clubs located at Auburn Reserve, and that the provision of parking permits to resident groups and clubs cannot be considered as a viable option to address the parking issues.

Horopaki

Context

9. The process to set time restrictions and enable enforcement at the reserve was initiated by the previous local board in 2016. The local board allocated its operational funding for an external consultant to undertake an assessment and make a recommendation to the TCC. The consultant recommended that the maximum parking for any vehicle be 180 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday.

10. It is important to note that the TCC is responsible for considering and approving parking restrictions and length of stay at all carparks which will subsequently be enforced by AT parking staff. This process enables AT parking officers to manage and enforce the carpark in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015.

11. The local board is not the decision-maker for matters such as length of stay or time restrictions for parking at the reserve.

12. At their March 2017 meeting, the TCC approved the proposed parking restrictions of 180 minutes, between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday Auburn Reserve.

13. In March 2017 the local board allocated $20,000 from its locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital budget to implement new signage and road markings on the reserve.

14. At the 18 November 2019 local board business meeting, representatives of the Takapuna Croquet Club, who are resident at the reserve, spoke at public forum and raised several parking issues which is impacting their club and members.

15. The local board requested that Local Board Services staff work with AT and council operations staff to develop options to mitigate and potentially resolve the issues at the reserve.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Following the croquet clubs’ presentation, staff met to identify the issues, opportunities restrictions, and operational impacts associated with any changes to parking restrictions at Auburn Reserve. Staff raised and agreed that:

· any changes must be underpinned by an assessment and analysis to determine the appropriate parking times restrictions and hours of operation. Staff do not support any recommended changes to parking restriction times that are based on assumptions or anecdotal evidence;

· property development surrounding the reserve has created subsequent impacts and issues on its assets. This includes increased shadowing on playing surfaces at the croquet club, and apartment owners and their visitors using the carpark in the mornings and evenings. The increased utilisation for non-reserve purposes has created increased congestion and has limited reserve users’ access, which directly impacts on the resident clubs and groups being able to park in the reserve.

Due to the existing parking restrictions and hours of operation at the reserve, AT parking officers cannot prevent apartment owners and visitors parking in the reserve overnight, and into the morning. Legally, and applying the existing rules, anyone can park in the reserve at present from 6pm until 11am the next day during the week, and from 6pm Friday to 8am Sunday over the weekend.

· that the reserve is located in a metropolitan area, and as a result parking restrictions and hours of operation should reflect the area which offers services (i.e. entertainment, restaurants and recreation) well into the evening and weekends; and

· permits to community groups and clubs located at the reserve cannot be considered as an option to address the parking issues. This is because Auckland Council does not have an official system to create, monitor and renew permits for community groups or clubs operating on parks and reserves.

17. Based on factors identified above, staff have developed six options for the local board to consider. It should be noted that options four and five can be considered alongside option one (the recommended option). The following table provides an overview of each option, with respective benefits, costs, implications

Option one: Allocate spaces to groups, where authorisation is obtained through machines located in group buildings. All other carparks remain for public use. Recommended option
Description	Ticketing machines would be installed at the club / group buildings, where members and visitors would obtain a ticket and present this on their vehicle dashboard. All other parking spaces at the reserve will remain for public use.
Benefits	Creating dedicated spaces for the clubs and groups will provide them with the assurance for their members and guest to easily park in the reserve and access their buildings. The ticket, displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard will authenticate and permit group / club members to park in a dedicated space.
Costs / risks	This option will likely be the most expensive for the local board to deliver. Further consideration would need to be given to extending the hours of operation for enforcement and changing time restrictions.
Implications	Introducing the ticketing system is an official mechanism which can be supported, implemented and monitored by AT. Further work and assessment is required to understand the time allocation, hours, and number of exceptions required (actual, not desired).
Budget required	Up to $10,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational funding for consultant costs to undertake the assessment: Up to $20,000 transport capital funding to install two parking machines; and Up to $20,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.
Conclusion / advice	This is the recommended option, as it will ensure an authenticated approach which can be supported by AT to address the parking concerns at the reserve.
Option two: Paid parking, clubs will be exempt
Description	Users would pay for carparking at the reserve, however authorised vehicles (i.e. club users) would be exempt.
Benefits	Would remove ambiguity associated with length of stay and time allocation to park in the reserve. AT can monitor and enforce parking in the reserve by using the same approach as other AT carparks. There would be no need for time limits as paid parking will control demand. Highly likely that there will be behaviour change to parking at the reserve.
Costs / risks	The carpark is primarily for the benefit of reserve users and introducing paid parking could have a negative and detrimental impact on people accessing and enjoying the reserve. Would still need to consider extending the hours of operation for enforcement and changing the time restrictions. This option would still require regular and ongoing enforcement from AT staff.
Implications	Paid parking will likely result will a behavioural change at the reserve, which may lead to fewer people using the carpark for non-reserve purposes. Further work and assessment is required to understand the time restriction and hours of operation, and number of exceptions required (actual, not desired).
Budget required	Up to $10,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational funding for consultant costs to undertake the assessment: Up to $20,000 transport capital funding to install two parking machines; and Up to $20,000 capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.
Conclusion / advice	Installing parking machines at the reserve is a feasible option for the local board to consider.
Option three: Install signage and other assets at the reserve.
Description	The lack of signage at the reserve entrance from Auburn Street may have contributed to this issue over time. This option proposes to install signage and other assets at the Auburn Street entrance which clearly informs vehicles and other users that the area is a reserve, rather than a public carpark. It can be broadly assumed that most drivers believe the area is a public carpark to use while shopping in Takapuna, rather than a carpark for reserve users.
Benefits	Introducing signage and other assets (i.e. trees, fencing) at the Auburn Street entrance may change the public perception and appearance from a public carpark to a reserve. This could lead to a behavioural change where the reserve is not perceived as a place to park to go shopping, or to park overnight.
Costs / risks	It is difficult to assume that introducing signage will lead to a behavioural change for people using the area as a carpark. Signage often has limited impact in changing people’s behaviour, or they simply do not see it. There is a significant risk that signage and other assets will not achieve the overall objective to alleviate parking issues at the reserve.
Implications	None
Budget required	Up to $10,000 locally driven initiative (LDI) operational funding for consultant costs to undertake the assessment Up to $20,000 locally driven initiative (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.
Conclusion / advice	While installing signage will have positive outcomes by informing people that the area is a reserve (rather than a public carpark), is unlikely to resolve the issues. This option should be considered as complementary / secondary to the recommended option.
Option four: Reduce parking restriction times.
Description	To reduce to parking restriction times from P180 to a time which restricts long-term or overnight parking.
Benefits	This option would minimise overstaying and instead promotes turnover and availability of parking at the reserve.
Costs / risks	There is no evidence to suggest reducing the parking restriction times would improve or alleviate the issues at the reserve. It is currently unclear what the ideal time restriction is for the reserve. Many assumptions have been made, but an assessment by AT would be required to ensure the appropriate time restriction is applied to fully address the issues at play. Making a decision with no evidence is unlikely to solve the issues, which may lead to further frustration and complaints from the clubs and group resident on the reserve.
Implications	The appropriate time restriction will only be successful if it can be enforced and monitored by AT staff. Discussion with AT staff would be required to determine if they can monitor and enforce the new restrictions for the area, given they already have a significant area to enforce.
Budget required	Up to $10,000 locally driven initiative (LDI) operational funding for consultant costs to undertake the assessment Up to $20,000 locally driven initiative (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.

Option five: Extended hours for when parking restrictions apply.
Description	The existing hours for when parking restrictions apply, 8am to 6pm would be extended to allow a longer enforcement time. Property developments in the surrounding area have put further pressure on the reserve, as often apartment owners and / or their visitors use the carpark. Legally, a carpark user is permitted to use the area from 6pm until 11am the next day for free (applying the 8am-6pm hours, plus the P180 time allocation). A variety of start and end times could be applied, however as a starting point, 6am until 10pm is proposed. This is to ensure enforcement can occur when evening club meetings are held and discourage overnight use of the carpark from surrounding developments.
Benefits	Extending the hours would be consistent with the transition of Takapuna being a metropolitan centre where more services are provided, particularly in the evening. It would also enable enforcement of the area during periods when the clubs and groups have evening meetings. Extended the hours would also limit and restrict the ability of apartment owners and / or their visitors to park overnight, and well into the next day.
Costs / risks	Extended hours will only be successful if AT staff can implement and enforce the changes. Support and buy-in from AT would be required.
Implications	If the option can be implemented and enforced by AT, then it may have a positive impact and alleviate parking issues in the evening. This option will have minimal impact and changes during the day, as behavioural changes will only occur during the morning (e.g. if the parking restriction starts at 6am, enforcement can happen at 8am).
Budget required	Up to $10,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational funding for consultant costs to undertake the assessment Up to $20,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.
Option six: Do nothing.
Description	The local board resolves to not allocate any funds towards the assessment work and physical changes.
Benefits	There will be no impact on local board budgets, and funds can be retained to ensure strategic and community identified projects can be delivered.
Costs / risks	Does not deliver upon the clubs’ expectations to find a solution to the ongoing problems.
Implications	Parking issues at the reserve will likely continue.
Budget required	None

Long-term solution for Auburn Reserve

18. It is important to note that the analysis and recommendations outlined in this report should only be considered as a short-term solution to the parking issues impacting Auburn Reserve. Staff recommend that the local board consider a long-term planning solution, such as a development plan, which can inform and guide future investment at the reserve. This position is based on the following factors:

· completed developments (i.e. the Sargeson and Alba apartment buildings) surrounding the reserve have impacted the availability of parking for parks users, and residents and their visitors are using the carpark for overnight and weekend parking. These developments have also had impacts on the reserve’s assets (e.g. increased shadowing on the croquet club’s playing surfaces);

· other nearby developments being undertaken (i.e. the Paragon on ANZAC Street) may create further parking issues at the reserve;

· the area is more commonly identified by people as a carpark rather than a reserve. A development plan provides an opportunity to reconfigure the layout of the area and its assets so that the area can once again be identified as a reserve;

· this will ensure a fit-for-purpose space that reflects the clubs’ and the community’s needs in the ‘western’ area of Takapuna; and

· a development plan will complement and enhance other major local board projects, such as the upgrade to Patuone Reserve walkway.

19. If the local board supports this initiative, the project and its associated budget will need to be considered as part of the 2020/2021 work programme process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Following the local board’s recommendations, the process to begin considering parking changes at the reserve is as follows:

· a consultant will undertake an assessment and prepare a report to AT’s TCC with their recommended changes;

· the consultant’s recommendations will be discussed with the local board;

· the TCC will consider and make their recommendation; and

· AT and council operational staff will implement the changes based on the local board’s capital budget allocation.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. As noted in the options section of this report, the local board will need to fund both the assessment work, new assets and physical changes at the reserve from its own operational and capital budgets.

22. The following budget sources are available for the local board to fund and deliver the necessary work:

Component	Funding source	Comments
Assessment work	Operational funding	All operational budgets have been allocated as part of the local board’s 2019/2020 work programme. The only discretionary budget available where funds can be reallocated is the community grants budget. There is currently $154,820 in the community grants budget.
New assets (i.e. parking machines	Local board transport capital fund	New assets such as parking machines can be funded from the local board’s transport capital fund. There is currently $2,230,954 available to be spent on relevant transport projects.
Replacement of existing assets (i.e. signage)	Local board capital fund	Replacing existing assets such as signage, and changes to road markings can be funded from the local board’s capital fund. There is currently $70,00 available to be used towards capital projects.

23. Based on the availability of budgets outlined in paragraph 14, staff recommend the following allocations to undertake and deliver the required work to improve the parking issues at the reserve:

· up to $10,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational funding to undertake the assessment work;

· up to $20,000 transport capital funding to install two parking machines; and

· up to $20,000 locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital funding to replace and install signage and update other assets, such as road markings.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. It should be noted that the parking issues are not isolated to Auburn Reserve, as similar complaints and issues have been raised at Taharoto Reserve and Killarney Park.

25. There is a risk that clubs and community groups located at Taharoto Reserve and Killarney Park will request the same solution and outcome being undertaken at Auburn Reserve.

26. Staff recommend that:

· short-term solutions, such as the options outlined in this report be avoided where possible, as they are costly exercise for the local board to resolve; and

· the local board’s Local Parks Management Plan, which is currently under development be the primary and guiding document to resolve parking issues on parks and reserves.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Tristan Coulson - Senior Local Board Advisor Devonport-Takapuna
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

18 February 2020

Appointment of LGNZ Lead and nominee for LGNZ Conference 2020

File No.: CP2020/01103

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint a lead for Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) matters and nominate a representative to attend the 2020 LGNZ Annual Conference and General Meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Local boards are invited to appoint a lead (and alternate) on Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) matters. The lead will be the main contact for all LGNZ issues and will represent the local board at meetings of Auckland/LGNZ zone and any related meetings.

3. The LGNZ Annual Conference and General Meeting (AGM) takes place at the ASB Theatre Marlborough in Waiharakeke Blenheim from 8am Thursday 16 July to 3pm Saturday 18 July 2020.

4. Local boards are invited to nominate a representative to attend the LGNZ conference. This can be the local board appointed LGNZ lead or another member of the local board. Given the cost and overall numbers of elected member attendance, staff recommend that one member per local board attend.

5. In addition to the official delegates, LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members who wish to attend the AGM must provide their names to the Democracy Services Business Hub team by Friday 17 April 2020 to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.so that this information can be provided to LGNZ.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) appoint a lead and alternate for Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) related matters for the 2019-2022 triennium and task these members with representing the local board at Auckland/LGNZ meetings.

b) nominate one elected member per local board to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2020 Conference and Annual General Meeting in Waiharakeke Blenheim, Thursday 16 July to Saturday 18 July 2020.

c) confirm that Local Government New Zealand 2020 conference attendance, including travel and accommodation, will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

d) note that any members who wish to attend the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Conference and Annual General Meeting must provide their names to the Democracy Services Business Hub team by Friday 17 April 2020 to ensure that they are registered with LGNZ.

Horopaki

Context

6. LGNZ is an incorporated society of local government organisations whose primary objective is to represent and advocate for the interests of local authorities in New Zealand. LGNZ champions policy positions on key issues that are of interest to local government and holds regular meetings and events throughout the year for members. The schedule of meetings includes an annual conference and meetings of local government geographical clusters (known as LGNZ zones) and sectors.

7. LGNZ is governed by a National Council made up of representatives from member authorities as outlined in the constitution. Some of its work is conducted through committees and working groups which include representatives from member authorities.

8. Elected members who have been formally appointed to LGNZ roles are:

Mayor Phil Goff

National Council representative for Auckland

Auckland Council representative on the Metropolitan Sector Group

Councillor Pippa Coom

Local Board Member Richard Northey

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by Governing Body)

National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by local boards)

Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector

Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ (Auckland Zone)

9. As part of recent changes to the LGNZ Rules, Auckland Council is no longer part of LGNZ Zone 1 but is expected to organise itself, with its multiple local boards and Governing Body, as an informal LGNZ zone.

10. Meetings of the Auckland/LGNZ zone have been scheduled on a biannual basis. These meetings will be co-chaired by the two Auckland representatives appointed to the LGNZ National Council by the Governing Body (Councillor Pippa Coom) and local boards (Member Richard Northey).

11. Meetings of the Auckland/LGNZ zone will be open to all elected members but formal representation will sit with the nominated leads.

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2020

12. This year, the LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Waiharakeke, Blenheim, Thursday 16 July to Saturday 18 July 2020.

13. The conference takes place over the first two days commencing at 9.30am on Thursday 16 July 2020 and closing with the LGNZ Excellence Awards on the evening of Friday 17 July 2020.

14. The conference programme has the theme ‘Natural Capital’. The final programme will be publicly available at the end of February 2020. However, LGNZ has indicated that the programme is expected to include addresses from the Prime Minister, various political leaders and the President of LGNZ, and will also include sessions on the following topics:

· Natural capital - the Marlborough story

· Fishes in the river, fishes in the sea (water, aquaculture and the Resource Management Act)

· Tourism – working together to care for people, place and culture

· Building towards sustainable supply (housing)

· Resilience in the face of natural hazards (infrastructure and communities)

· Cultural wellbeing plenary session

· Interactive workshops on cultural, economic, environmental and social wellbeing

· Tours, showcases and dinners.

15. The AGM takes place on the last day of the conference from 9.30am to 12.30pm. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

16. Traditionally the four AGM delegates have been the Mayor, the Chief Executive and two Governing Body members who hold LGNZ roles. Delegates in 2019 were Mayor Phil Goff, Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore, Councillor Penny Hulse and Local Board Chairperson Pippa Coom.

17. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at its meeting on 27 March 2020 which includes the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff be the presiding delegate and the other three delegates be comprised of either:

· two members of the Governing Body who hold a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, or

· one member of the Governing Body who holds a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, and a local board member, or

· two members of the Governing Body who hold a formal representation role with LGNZ and a local board member.

18. In addition to the official delegates, LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Attendance at the AGM is not compulsory for conference participants.

Pre-conference meetings

19. On Wednesday 15 July 2020, there will be a pre-conference meeting of the LGNZ National Council as well as a Te Maruata Hui. Elected members belonging to these two groups and wishing to attend these meetings would need to arrive earlier than other meeting participants.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ (Auckland Zone)

20. Local boards are requested to appoint a lead for the 2019-2022 triennium. The lead’s responsibilities include:

· attending and representing the local board at meetings of Auckland/LGNZ zone and other LGNZ meetings, as appropriate

· being the main contact for the local board on all LGNZ matters

· sharing information from Auckland/LGNZ and other LGNZ-related meetings attended with the local board.

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2020

21. In 2020, with the venue in Waiharakeke, Blenheim, and given the cost and overall numbers of elected member attendance, it is recommended that one member per local board attend. Having one attendee per local board means a maximum of 21 Auckland Council local board members would attend the conference.

22. The annual conference and AGM are two separate meeting sessions.

23. Local board members are invited to attend and take part in the conference.

24. For the AGM, member authorities will be represented by officially appointed delegates. Members who are not appointed delegates can attend as observers, provided they are included on the AGM registration form. Local board members who wish to attend the AGM as observers must register their intention with the Democracy Services Business Hub team by Friday 17 April 2020 so that their names can be included on the AGM registration form.

25. Local board members who attend the conference and/or AGM are strongly encouraged to report back to their local boards on proceedings at the conference. This ensures members who do not attend can still benefit from this opportunity.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. Conferences and events involving multiple participants, especially those requiring long distance travel, can generate a sizable carbon footprint. This is due to emissions associated with flights, car and taxi travel, hotel and event site emissions.

27. Estimates for emissions associated with travel to Blenheim or travel within Auckland for local meetings have not been calculated at the time of writing this report. Emissions, when known, can be offset through a verified carbon offset programme at a small cost.

28. Other opportunities to reduce emissions include:

· reducing the number of delegates to the Blenheim conference as recommended

· encouraging participants to opt for public transport options when attending meetings in Auckland

· encouraging delegates to provide updates to their local boards, including the option of daily updates from the conference and meetings via the local board Facebook pages, so that non-attendance does not disadvantage other members

· ensuring elected members are aware of the session recordings that LGNZ will make available after the conference. LGNZ have advised that they do not webcast or live-stream any parts of the conference as they try to encourage as many people as possible to attend in person.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. There are no impacts for council-controlled organisations or departments of council as the focus is on elected member attendance at meetings, including the LGNZ conference.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. LGNZ advocates for issues that are important to local government. Many of these issues are aligned with local board priorities e.g. climate change. As such, there is interest at local board level in staying across the work of LGNZ and in identifying and harnessing opportunities to progress other advocacy areas that local boards may have.

31. Having a dedicated lead who can attend Auckland meetings on LGNZ matters and who can be part of future discussions about remits and other topics will enable local boards and their communities to continue to be informed and give considered input to work being led by LGNZ.

32. The LGNZ annual conference is always of interest to local board members. They provide a unique networking opportunity for local government leaders from around the country and the agendas of these meetings are designed to support local leaders in their roles and responsibilities. This is in line with the purpose of the elected member development programme which is to support elected members as governors and decision-makers.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. The work of LGNZ is expected to impact positively on Māori. LGNZ advocates on a variety of issues that are important to Māori including Māori housing, various environmental issues and council-Māori participation/relationship arrangements. In addition, LGNZ provides advice including published guidance to assist local authorities in understanding values, aspirations and interest of Māori.

34. The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. In the previous term, Councillor Alf Filipaina was a member of the sub-committee. Te Maruata will hold a hui on Wednesday 15 July 2020 from 10am to 4.30pm.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ (Auckland Zone)

35. Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ are a new initiative being introduced this triennium following amendments to LGNZ zones. The two meetings for 2020 are scheduled for 13 March and 11 September and are not currently budgeted for. Staff will use existing resources and liaise with Kura Kāwana to identify combined opportunities for these meetings dates.

36. Managing attendance numbers by only requiring attendance of leads, with others as optional attendees if they wish, should contribute towards keeping meeting costs down.

Annual conference and AGM 2020

37. The normal registration rate for the LGNZ Conference and AGM is $1410 (early bird) or $1510 (standard). The total cost for early bird registration for 21 local board members is $29,610, with flights and accommodation additional.

38. Costs of attendance for one member from each local board are to be met from the elected members’ development budget as managed centrally by the Kura Kāwana programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ (Auckland Zone)

39. The inaugural meeting of the Auckland Zone is planned for 13 March 2020. If a local board has not chosen an LGNZ lead by this date, they would need to select a member to attend this meeting as their official representative.

Annual conference and AGM 2020

40. The key risk is of delayed decision-making which can impact costs and registration choices. The sooner the registration for the nominated local board member can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference and flights, all done via bulk booking. Delayed information may also impact registration into preferred conference streams or events.

41. There is always a level of reputational risk associated with any financial expenditure. Large delegations to conferences can be costly, hence the advice that only one per local board attend.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

Meetings of Auckland/LGNZ (Auckland Zone)

42. There are two planned meetings for the Auckland Zone in 2020. The inaugural meeting is scheduled for 13 March and the second meeting is on 11 September.

43. Preparations for the inaugural meeting are being made by staff with guidance from the co-chairs. The agenda will include a report from LGNZ Executive and will also include an update on the ‘Localism’ project. The agenda will be made available to members closer to the time of the meeting.

Annual conference and AGM 2020

44. Once members are confirmed to attend, the Democracy Services Business Hub team will co-ordinate and book all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Linda Gifford – Programme Manager, Elected Member Development

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

18 February 2020

Inquiry into the 2019 Local Elections and Liquor Licensing Trust Elections, and Recent Energy Trust Elections

File No.: CP2020/01501

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make a submission to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 Local Elections, Liquor Licensing Trust Elections and Recent Energy Trust Elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In December 2019, the Justice Committee notified its inquiry into the 2019 local elections. Submissions close on 29 February 2020.

3. Its terms of reference include matters relating to the 2019 elections, in particular:

(i) low voter turnout

(ii) liquor licensing trusts

(iii) council staff releasing information that may affect the election outcome

(iv) disclosure of candidates having serious criminal convictions

(v) irregularities that could have compromised the fairness of the elections.

4. The committee also invites feedback on its recommendations arising from the inquiry into the 2016 elections, in particular:

(i) Electoral Commission to have responsibility for running local elections

(ii) same voting system to be used for all elections

(iii) foreign interference.

5. This report notes the outcome of submissions made to the 2016 inquiry, outlines recommended responses to the committee’s terms of reference, identifies recommended responses to other recommendations made by 2016 inquiry (disclosure of interests, probity and Māori wards) and adds recommendations in regard to election issues not yet considered by the committee:

(i) review of representation arrangements and council’s desire to have discretion to review the number of councillors

(ii) timing of a poll if one is required as the result of a petition.

6. A draft submission is attached as Attachment A.

7. A summary of recommendations made in the council’s submission is as follows:

Low voter turnout

· Note the research conducted by Auckland Council which is available on knowledgeauckland.govt.nz.

· Note the successful initiatives undertaken by Auckland Council including: Vote Friday and One-stop Shops.

· Consider that the response to low voter turnout may best be through a multi-modal approach which provides voters with options.

Liquor licensing trusts

· Note that with the passage of time, trust boundaries no longer align with local government boundaries in the Auckland area and this creates complexity in terms of the number of different combinations of voting documents that are required.

Disclosure of candidates or members with serious criminal convictions

· Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to align with the Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 1, with the effect that a person is not eligible for election if they have been previously convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or more (unless their record has been wiped by the clean slate provisions).

Electoral Commission to be responsible for local elections

· Further investigate the committee’s recommendation for the Electoral Commission to conduct local elections

Same electoral system, First Past the Post (FPP) or Single Transferable Vote (STV) in all elections

· Amend legislation to the effect that all elections run in conjunction with the elections of a territorial authority use the same electoral system and the same order of names on voting documents.

Foreign interference

· The council has noted the committee’s recommendations and supports them.

Disclosure of interests

· Review the Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1965.

· Provide a consistent framework across all local authorities for registers of interests.

Probity

· Auditor-General to republish guidelines on the use of council resources during the pre-election period.

Māori wards

· Records the council’s current resolved position.

Review of representation arrangements

· Amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to remove the specification that Auckland Council’s Governing Body will comprise 20 members in addition to the mayor so that Auckland Council has the same discretion as any other council to review its membership.

Timing of polls for creation of a Māori ward or change of electoral system

· Amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 so that if a petition for a poll in respect of a resolution relating to Māori wards or change of electoral system is received by 21 February in the year prior to an election, a council has the discretion to conduct a poll in conjunction with the next triennial elections.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide feedback to the Governing Body meeting on 27 February 2020 on the Inquiry into the 2019 Local Elections and Liquor Licensing Trust Elections, and Recent Energy Trust Elections.

Horopaki

Context

8. Following each local and parliamentary election, a select committee of Parliament, the Justice Committee, conducts an inquiry to receive submissions and consider legislative changes. Its full terms of reference for its inquiry into the 2019 local elections are:

The Justice Committee have opened for submissions on the Inquiry into the 2019 Local Elections and the Liquor Licensing Trust Elections, and Recent Energy Trust Elections

The terms of reference for the inquiry are:

1) Examine the law and administrative procedures for the conduct of the 2019 local elections, with particular reference to:

a) low voter turnout at local elections

b) liquor licensing trusts

c) the role of council staff during election periods around decisions to release or not release information or any public statements that may be construed to affect the election outcome

d) the issue of disclosure in respect of candidates or elected members with serious criminal convictions

e) any irregularities or problems that could have compromised the fairness of elections.

2) The inquiry will not be investigating allegations of any specific illegal behaviour by any person but is focussed on the issues of general law and administrative procedures.

3) Consult stakeholders and the wider public about the recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on the 2016 local elections, with particular reference to:

a) the recommendation that the Government consider giving responsibility for running all aspects of local elections to the Electoral Commission

b) the recommendation that the Government consider encouraging or requiring the same voting system to be used in all local elections

c) feedback on the committee’s recommendations on foreign interference.

4) Examine the law and administrative procedures for the conduct of elections for energy trusts held since 2016.

9. Submissions are to be lodged by 29 February 2020.

10. The committee’s inquiry into the 2016 local elections was extended to include the inquiry into the 2017 general elections, to consider petitions in relation to Māori wards and accessibility and to consider the matter of foreign interference in elections. Auckland Council submitted to this inquiry.

11. The committee’s report on its inquiry into the 2016 local elections was published on 10 December 2019 and the terms of reference for the current inquiry seek further submissions on key recommendations made by the committee.

12. This report firstly notes the responses to council’s submission to the inquiry into the 2016 local elections.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The following analysis considers:

(i) matters raised in the committee’s terms of reference regarding the 2019 elections:

· low voter turnout

· liquor licensing trusts

· the role of council staff

· disclosure of candidates or members with serious criminal convictions

· irregularities.

(ii) matters raised in the committee’s terms of reference regarding its recommendations arising from its report on the 2016 local elections:

· Electoral Commission to be responsible for local elections

· same electoral system in all elections

· foreign interference.

(iii) additional matters for consideration by the committee:

· disclosure of interests

· probity

· Māori wards

· review of representation arrangements

· timing of polls for creation of a Māori ward or change of electoral system.

Low voter turnout

14. Auckland Council has undertaken research into voter awareness in conjunction with the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections. The following are highlights from the survey results that might be of assistance to the committee in its investigation into low voter turnout.

15. After the 2019 elections, a random sample of 1871 Aucklanders were surveyed online. The survey tested respondents’ awareness of advertising and included questions relating to whether they voted or not. Of those who did not vote (643), the top four reasons given for not voting were:

· “I didn’t know anything about the candidates” – 11 per cent

· “I forgot to vote” – 11 per cent

· “I did not know when voting finished, missed the deadline” – 10 per cent

· “I was away from home over the voting period” – 8 per cent.

16. Of those who did not vote, 25 per cent had filled in all or part of their voting documents but did not cast their vote. The top four reasons given were:

· “I didn’t send it off in time / ran out of time” – 29 per cent

· “I forgot to send / complete it” – 21 per cent

· “I had other commitments during that time” – 17 per cent

· “I didn’t know anything about the candidates” – 8 per cent.

17. Non-voters were asked “What could Auckland Council do to encourage you to vote?”. The top four (unprompted) replies were:

· “Have online voting” – 19 per cent

· “It was my own fault” – 8 per cent

· “More advertising” – 7 per cent

· “Send reminders and notifications by post / email / txt” – 7 per cent.

18. All respondents were asked whether they preferred online voting or postal voting if they had the choice. Sixty-six per cent preferred online voting and 26 per cent preferred postal voting.

19. Of non-voters, 28 per cent said they would have been more likely to vote if it had been booth voting.

20. Research was also undertaken into the impact of different messaging on voter behaviour. The most effective message was a social norm message “74 per cent of Aucklanders are planning to vote. Join them and vote this election!”. As compared with other messages such as a message of concern about low voter turnout, this had a more positive effect. This indicates election administrators should be cautious about negative messaging such as highlighting low voter turnout.

21. Survey results are being written up for publishing onto the council’s website www.knowledgeauckland.govt.nz.

22. Auckland Council held 50 one-stop events which provided people the ability to enrol (the Electoral Commission attended) and to cast special votes. Council’s experience of these could be described as ‘social voting’. A lot of people made use of them, enrolled then sat down to complete their voting documents. Typically, venues where the one-stop shops were held were packed with people wanting to vote.

23. Another project was ‘Vote Friday’ through which business organisations gave staff time to fill out voting documents at work. Sixty organisations, representing 55,000 employees, took part.

24. One of the answers to lifting turnout might include a multi-modal approach which does not seek to identify just one way for voting but develops options for voters, for example:

· postal voting

· advance voting

· one-stop shops

· ‘Vote Friday’

· marae-based

· ballot boxes at convenient locations such as supermarkets

· online voting (once considered secure).

Liquor licensing trusts

25. The committee’s terms of reference include examining the law and procedures around liquor licensing trusts in the context of the 2019 elections.

26. Licensing trusts are established under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (or the earlier Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and continued under the 2012 Act). The Law Commission, when it reviewed alcohol legislation prior to the 2012 Act, noted that licensing trusts were well supported by their communities and there was the ability for the community to petition for those trusts with monopoly powers to become competitive. It recommended no change to the law around licensing trusts.

27. Of the licensing trusts in the Auckland area, only the Portage and Waitākere Licensing Trusts have the sole right to establish and operate on-licences in hotels and taverns, and off-licences in their districts. The other licensing trusts are the Birkenhead, Mt Wellington and Wiri Licensing Trusts.

28. The aspect of licensing trusts that impinges on election administration the most relates to trust areas. Because these are not aligned with local government areas, there are 26 more permutations of voting packs required in the Auckland Council area.

29. An example is the Birkenhead Licensing Trust; this was constituted in 1967 with its area being the whole of the then borough of Birkenhead. The area has not changed since then.

30. Any change to the western trust boundaries would have implications in terms of existing licences. However, it may be possible to align the boundaries of the other three trusts, say with local board boundaries. Staff have not considered this in depth.

31. The aspect that affects overall voting is the complexity licensing trusts add to council elections.

32. The draft submission notes the boundary issue.

The role of council staff

33. Auckland Council staff were involved in three types of scenarios regarding requests for information:

(i) Ordinary requests for information from the public which are dealt with under the procedures in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), which clearly states that decisions on requests are made by the chief executive. There was no change to normal procedures.

(ii) Requests for information from candidates. Staff noted that researching information for use by a candidate could be perceived as council resources being used for benefit of an election candidate. Given that LGOIMA still applied in such situations and requests for information had to be met, responses to requests for information from candidates were published to the website so the information would be available to all candidates. Staff also considered it was useful for candidates and the electorate to have factual information rather than be misinformed.

(iii) Proactive media statements of fact. If a candidate continues to make public statements that are factually incorrect, there may be the need to correct that through the media, particularly if there are incorrect allegations about council operations. However, such statements should be the exception - staff should not be involved in political debate.

34. Staff consider there is no need for legislative change in this respect.

Disclosure of candidates or members with serious criminal convictions

35. There were no issues in this respect with the Auckland Council 2019 elections. However, there was media coverage of candidates in other parts of the country who had previous convictions.

36. Under the Local Government Act 2002, an elected member will lose their position if convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or more. However, there is no requirement to disclose such offences if standing for election – there is no criminal check undertaken.

37. One argument is that all candidates are subject to the ballot box and a candidate who has committed serious crime in the past is unlikely to be elected.

38. An alternative approach is to amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to apply to candidates the provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 for sitting members. So that not only is a sitting member disqualified but a person is prevented from standing if they have had a criminal conviction of the same type of offence (unless their record has been wiped by the clean slate provisions). If this alternative approach is taken, then a candidate would need to declare on their nomination form that they are not prevented from standing by this requirement.

39. The draft submission supports this alternative approach as it creates consistency between the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Government Act 2002.

Irregularities that could have compromised the fairness of the elections

40. The term ‘irregularity’ has a legal meaning – if, as the result of an inquiry into an election, a judge determines there was an irregularity that materially affected the result, the judge may determine the election to be void.

41. The draft submission notes there were no irregularities of this nature in the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Inquiry into the 2016 local elections

42. The council submitted to the inquiry into the 2016 local elections. The committee supported many of the council’s recommendations.

43. A comprehensive table of the outcome of previous submissions is attached as Attachment B. The following summarises those council submissions which have already been incorporated into enacted legislation:

(i) ability to conduct online voting pilots

(ii) legislative confirmation that local authorities are to promote participation

(iii) access to data associated with the electoral roll.

44. The following summarises the council’s submissions which have been included into the committee’s recommendations to government:

(i) when a non-mayoral vacancy occurs within 12 months after a triennial local body election, the position be filled by the next highest polling candidate (or STV equivalent) at that election

(ii) shift the local election polling day to avoid the school holidays

(iii) align local election overseas voting processes with general election overseas voting processes

(iv) allow the electronic receipt of nomination forms and candidate statements and appropriate deadlines for them (consistent with the overall theme of wanting alignment between general and local elections)

(v) give local authorities access to the supplementary roll and the deletions file held by the Electoral Commission.

45. A full list of the committee’s additional recommendation is attached as Attachment C.

46. The committee has asked for feedback on specific recommendations and the following outlines the proposed council response.

Electoral Commission to be responsible for local elections

47. The options for the Electoral Commission being responsible for local elections range along a spectrum from the commission being responsible for a few key aspects working collaboratively with local authorities, to the commission being totally responsible. The committee’s recommendation is that the commission should be responsible for running all aspects of local elections.

48. The draft submission considers the following aspects of this proposal:

· the arguments around centralisation vs decentralisation

· efficiencies that could be created

· issues that will need to be considered

· effect on the voter experience.

49. The proposal has merit but also has issues that need to be addressed. The recommendation in the draft submission is that this proposal is considered further.

Same electoral system (FPP or STV) in all local elections

50. The council has previously submitted pointing out the complexity of its elections with electors having to also elect District Health Board (DHB) members and Licensing Trust members. Our previous submission was that DHB elections should be moved to a different year.

51. The committee does not support moving DHB elections and so requiring the same electoral system for all elections is the next best option. However, the committee indicated the standard voting system might be STV. From its report:

Some submitters suggested that the mixture of voting systems affects participation by confusing voters. Some suggested that all local elections should use the same system; the more popular system suggested was STV.

52. Reducing the complexity of the voting documents should contribute to higher voter participation and so the draft submission supports the recommendation to standardise the electoral system.

53. The submission also notes that additional complexity is provided by the council, district health boards and licensing trusts making separate decisions about order of names. This should be standardised.

Foreign interference

54. The committee was asked by the Justice Minister to look into the issue of foreign interference and the committee has asked for feedback on its recommendations. The committee’s recommendations are summarised in Attachment C.

55. The draft submission expresses support for these recommendations.

Disclosure of interests

56. The committee’s report notes inconsistencies between the requirements for Parliamentarians and for local authority members in terms of declaring interests and makes recommendations that government should introduce legislation setting out requirements for local authority members.

57. The existing legislation that applies to local authority members is the Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1965. This has been noted for some years as needing a complete review. In particular, Section 3 provides for a person to be ineligible to be an elected member if they have an interest in a contract with the local authority of over $25,000 per annum. Most contracts of that amount are let by staff under delegated authority and members do not participate in those decisions, yet their eligibility for office might be affected.

58. The committee’s report also notes that maintaining a register of interests is ad hoc; some councils include this in their code of conduct and others do not.

59. The draft submission states that the council supports a review of this legislation.

Probity in the 2019 elections

60. The committee’s report states there are not appropriate provisions for dealing with complaints about the conduct of local elections and recommends that the government introduce legislative changes to provide better mechanisms. For parliamentary elections, the commission has a key role in making determinations, which can be challenged in court.

61. A probity aspect which the report does not mention relates to the use of council resources during the pre-election period. The Auditor-General is responsible for monitoring the use of public funds and property and had published guidelines about communications and the use of council resources during the pre-election period but withdrew these guidelines during the 2019 pre-election period. There is now a lack of guidelines for providing consistent action by councils during this period. The draft submission makes this point and advocates that these guidelines be replaced.

Māori wards

62. The Justice Select Committee also considered the petition of Andrew Judd requesting that the legislative basis for establishing Māori wards is changed to become a part of a council’s representation review. A representation review addresses the number of councillors, whether they are elected by ward and if so, how many per ward.

63. The government members and National Party members of the committee had different views:

National Party members of the committee do not consider that any change is needed in this area. We consider that it is appropriate to continue to treat the creation of separate Māori wards as a matter of community choice.

Government members of the committee recommend that the Government consider aligning the process of establishing Māori wards with all wards through representation review.

64. The committee’s current terms of reference do not include reconsideration of the petition for legislative change around Māori wards.

65. The draft submission notes the council’s current resolved position on Māori wards.

66. If the Governing Body wishes to consider establishing a Māori ward for the 2022 elections, it must pass a resolution to that effect by 23 November 2020. This will be reported to the Governing Body closer to the time.

Issues arising from the review of representation arrangements

67. The review of representation arrangements is undertaken under the Local Electoral Act 2001 and is part of the overall election process.

68. Every other council is able to review the number of its councillors but the number of councillors on the Auckland Council Governing Body is set at 20 in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

69. Problems relating to this came to light in the recent review of representation arrangements. A workable option to address the under-representation in the Waitematā and Gulf wards would have been to increase the number of councillors, but this option was not available. Council made this point in its submission on the Local Electoral Matters Bill to the Justice Committee.

70. The set number of councillors was also noted as an issue when the Governing Body considered establishing a Māori ward. The Governing Body supported Māori wards in principle but did not proceed further because a member elected by a Māori ward would have to be one of the 20 members. The Governing Body wished to have discretion to increase the number of councillors.

71. The council has previously made submissions for this legislative provision setting the number of councillors to be repealed but this has not happened yet. The draft submission raises this matter again, though it is noted the committee may view this as out of scope of their terms of reference.

Timing of polls on STV or Māori ward

72. The current provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) for the council to resolve to change the electoral system (for example from FPP to STV) or to establish a Māori ward, allow for a petition for a poll of the community to be conducted. The LEA requires the chief executive to advise the electoral officer as soon as practicable once a valid petition is received. If received by 21 February in the year prior to the election, the electoral officer must conduct the poll within 89 days of receiving notice from the chief executive.

73. In the case of Auckland Council, conducting a standalone poll of over one million electors costs over $1 million.

74. On the other hand, the council has the discretion to initiate its own poll and may choose to hold a poll in conjunction with an election, which would lower the cost.

75. The draft submission requests legislative change so that a council has discretion to conduct a poll that it is required to conduct as the result of a petition, in conjunction with the next triennial elections.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

76. If election processes are modernised such that more electors become engaged with issues facing local government, this will likely facilitate addressing climate issues.

77. It is also noted that an election consumes a large amount of paper, with each elector being posted a candidate booklet and voting document. There were 1,065,383 electors for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

78. The global print and paper industry accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions (though this is minor as compared to 69 per cent of greenhouse gases from the energy and transportation industries).

79. Following an election, voting documents are kept by the district court for 21 days then shredded and sent for recycling.

80. Online voting may reduce the impact of elections on climate. However, this is not likely to occur for some time.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

81. Staff liaised with council-controlled organisations during the pre-election period in regard to protocols. Council-controlled organisations were keen to understand what protocols should be followed in terms of elected members taking part in events, facility openings or community consultation during the pre-election period. Guidance that is standardised for the country from the Auditor-General is helpful.

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

Local impacts and local board views

82. Due to the requirement to complete a submission by 29 February 2020 and the intervening holiday period, there has not been the opportunity to formally report the draft submission to local boards.

83. A presentation was given to the local board chairs forum and some local boards used their urgent decision-making processes to provide feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

84. Voter turnout among those of Māori descent in the Auckland Council local elections is a concern, being 11.3 per cent lower than non- Māori (24.7 per cent vs 35.9 per cent). This compares with voter turnout for those of Māori descent in the general elections being 9.3 per cent lower than for non-Māori (71.1 per cent vs 80.4 per cent).

85. During the 2019 elections, there was engagement with Māori through marae. Staff were also aware of an initiative at a marae on Waiheke Island to hold a voting event, though there was some concern by others in the community around normal election protocols such as ballot secrecy and offering inducements.

86. The matter of Māori wards was considered by the committee which was divided on including such wards in the existing reviews of representation arrangements which councils conduct. A deterrent to establishing a Māori ward is the potential cost of a referendum, which would be over $1 million for Auckland Council. The cost could be reduced if the legislation was changed to allow a council to hold a referendum in conjunction with the upcoming triennial election.

87. The Independent Māori Statutory Board’s (IMSB) previous recommendations to the Governing Body on Māori wards were:

“That the council establishes one or more Māori wards for the purpose of electing members of the council.

If a valid petition was received, that the council conduct a referendum on its own initiative in conjunction with the upcoming election in 2019

The Independent Māori Statutory Board in Auckland was created by an act of Parliament; the Board supports having both a Māori ward and an Independent Māori Statutory Board, not one or the other.

The Board considers that Māori wards are an investment into the future partnership and leadership of regions and is a tangible demonstration of how local government shows respect and regard for the Treaty of Waitangi and how they can give effect to this. That identifying the cost of $1m for a referendum as a risk is a poor way to consider this opportunity for a Māori ward/s. It perpetuates the misunderstanding that the general public have about Māori wards which is that it is a race-based approach to becoming an elected member to councils and therefore ratepayers funds should not be used for referendums of this type. It also perpetuates the ignorance that the general public have about the challenges and difficulties Māori face being elected onto councils due largely to the low turnout of Māori voters for local government elections.”

88. The Governing Body resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the report and reiterate to government the position adopted by Council in 2015 supporting the need for legislative change to allow Auckland to determine the number of members on the Governing Body and subject to that, agree in principle to establish a Māori ward and request for a consistent policy regarding Māori representation in line with legislation governing the composition of Parliament.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

89. The aspects of the submission that have financial implications are:

(i) consideration of the financial impact on councils if the Electoral Commission becomes responsible for the conduct of local elections

(ii) the request for legislative change to give councils discretion to hold a referendum in conjunction with the next triennial elections if a referendum is required to be held as the result of a petition, thereby reducing costs.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

90. In the wider context of elections, there are some risks, including the deterioration of the postal service and the declining turnout. These are risks to the democratic process itself. It is very important to address these issues.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

91. Following approval of the submission, it will be conveyed to the Justice Committee. The Governing Body needs to decide whether it will address the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Submission to inquiry into 2019 Local Elections	217
b ⇩	Outcome of Auckland Council’s submissions to the Justice Select Committee’s Inquiry into the 2016 Local Elections	229
c ⇩	Further recommendations made to Government by the Justice Select Committee in its Inquiry into the 2016 Local Elections	233