I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Emergency Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

 

Thursday, 16 April 2020

10.00am

These meetings will be held remotely and can be viewed on the Auckland Council website

https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 

Te Kāhui Ngārahu / Emergency Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

Councillors

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Angela Dalton

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

IMSB Member TBC

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

(Quorum 2 members)

 

 

 

Sarndra O'Toole

Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

 

9 April 2020

 

Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8152

Email: sarndra.otoole@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee is an ad-hoc committee of the whole of the Governing Body which is established in times of emergency.  It will assume the functions and power of all governing body committees (and sub-committees), except for the Audit and Risk Committee, and its responsibilities include all the responsibilities of the Governing Body which can legally be delegated as well as the responsibilities of all the committees it assume the functions and power for.

 

Powers

(i) All the powers of the Governing Body which can legally be delegated, except those of the Audit and Risk Committee.

 

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 

 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

8          COVID-19 briefing and Auckland Emergency Management status update            9

9          Submission on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill                                                                                                                                       11

10        Auckland Council submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package  35  

11        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

12        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 63

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Financial position and Annual Budget 2020/2021 Update (Covering report)                                                                                                                            63  

 


1          Apologies

 

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

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Emergency Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 April 2020, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

COVID-19 briefing and Auckland Emergency Management status update

File No.: CP2020/04468

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To enable the committee to be briefed on the COVID-19 pandemic and Auckland Emergency Management status.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Ian Maxwell, Director Executive Programmes and Mace Ward, Group Controller, Auckland Emergency Management will provide a written and verbal briefing.  The report will be circulated prior to the meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Emergency Committee:

a)      receive the report and thank Ian Maxwell, Director Executive Programmes and Mace Ward, Group Controller, Auckland Emergency Management for the briefing on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Auckland Emergency Management status update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarndra O'Toole - Kaiarataki Kapa Tohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Team Leader Governance Advisors

Authoriser

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

Submission on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2020/04294

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for the Auckland Council submission on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

The report was to be included on the Finance and Performance Committee 23 April 2020 meeting agenda; however, in light of COVID-19, it must now be considered by the Emergency Committee.

2.       Central Government has released the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill (the Bill) for feedback. The Bill is currently with the Māori Affairs Select Committee. Submissions will close on 17 April 2020.

3.       This Bill intends to support the development of housing on Māori land and modernise rating legislation affecting Māori land. The Bill proposes legislative amendments to:

·    expand the categories of non-rateable Māori land

·    empower council to write off arrears that cannot be recovered

·    enable users of a part of a Māori freehold land rating unit to be rated separately and to access the rates rebate scheme

·    treat rating units of Māori freehold land used as a single economic unit as a single unit for rating purposes to reduce the number of fixed charges that apply

·    require council to consider offering rates remissions for Māori freehold land being developed

·    protect Māori freehold land that was converted to general land under the Māori Affairs Amendments Act 1967 (MAAA 1967)

4.       The draft submission supports the Bill. The proposed amendments have a strong alignment to Council’s objectives for improving Māori outcomes. The proposed legislation will enable council to better work with and support Māori landowners, and address long standing issues such as the accumulation of arrears.

5.       Nearly all the changes proposed are already delivered by Auckland Council through its rating policy and Māori land rates remission and postponement policy. The proposed amendments therefore have no significant financial impacts for council and no major changes for the relevant landowners. Nevertheless, it is still advantageous to amend the legislation and have consistent treatment nationally.

6.       To ensure the equitable treatment of Māori freehold land with general land and between different kinds of land held in Māori ownership officers recommend that the Bill be amended to provide for:

·    unused parts of Māori freehold rating units to be treated as non-rateable

·    unused land returned for cultural redress and Māori freehold land converted under the MAAA 1967 to be treated as non-rateable

·    users of Māori freehold land converted under the MAAA 1967 to be rated separately and access the rates rebate scheme

·    residents of Maori housing developments to access the rates rebates scheme.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Emergency Committee:

a)      approve the submission on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill (Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      delegate to the chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and Group Chief Financial Officer to authorise any minor amendments and corrections to the submission.

 

Horopaki

Context

Purpose of the Bill and Proposals

7.       The Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill amends the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LG(R)A 2002) with consequential amendments to other acts. Submissions to the Bill close on 17 April 2020. The Bill will be considered by the Māori Affairs Select Committee in September 2020.

8.       The purpose of the Bill is to:

·    support the development of, and provision of housing on, Māori land

·    modernise rating legislation affecting Māori land.

9.       The proposed amendments to rating legislation provide:

·    additional protection to Māori freehold land

·    equitable treatment between land held in Māori freehold title and land held by Māori in other forms of title

·    equitable treatment between Māori freehold land and land held in general title.

10.     The key amendments proposed by the Bill are summarised below. A comprehensive comparison of the amendments proposed in the Bill with current legislation and the council’s approach to these issues is set out in Attachment B: Comparison of Amendments to Current Legislative and Council Policy.

11.     The Bill makes the following changes to the rating of Māori land that the council has already implemented through its rating policy and its Māori freehold land rates remission policy:

·        all marae and urupā, and land subject to a Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenant is made non-rateable

·        unused land is made non-rateable

·        Māori freehold land used as a single economic unit, for example a farm, can be treated as a single rating unit for the setting of rates

·        Māori freehold land converted under the MAAA 1967 which continues to be owned by the original landowner or their descendants will be protected from rating sales by local authorities.

12.     The Bill also:

·        enables separate rating areas to be established for Māori freehold land where parts of the land are being used separately

·        requires councils to consider applications for the remission of rates on Māori land under development

·        empowers local authorities to write off arrears on land in general, not just Māori land.

 

Māori land in Auckland

13.     Auckland has a relatively small amount of land remaining in Māori freehold land title.  Council has identified 265 rating units covering 8,600 hectares. Total assessed rates for these properties in the current year was $910,000.  While the majority of Māori landowners pay their rates, 57 properties are in arrears. Arrears for Māori land in Auckland is now $2.8 million, the majority of which is penalties.  Detailed information regarding Māori land in Auckland can be found in Attachment C: Māori Land in Auckland.

Auckland Council Māori Freehold Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

14.     Auckland Council’s rates remission policy for Māori land offers five remission schemes. These are:

·    full remission for land that is undeveloped and unused

·    partial remission for land where the nature of the land or its ownership mean that the highest and best use for the land is unlikely to be achieved

·    full remission for marae and urupā

·    partial remission for land used for non-commercial purposes for the community benefit of Māori

·    remission of rate arrears if current rates are paid for three years.

15.     In 2019/2020 council remitted $123,000 in rates on 85 properties for unused Māori land. Five properties received remissions totalling $4,300 for land used for community benefit. One property received a full remission of arrears after completing their three-year payment arrangement.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Support for the Bill

16.     The draft submission supports the proposed amendments to legislation contained in the Bill. The proposals align with council’s current policies regarding Māori land rates.  The Bill also provides council with new powers that will enable us to address longstanding issues with rating Māori land. The submission’s responses to the key amendments are summarised below.

Changes to rateability

17.     The Bill makes all marae and urupā, and land subject to a Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenant non-rateable. It also makes Māori freehold land non-rateable where the rating unit is entirely unused.

18.     Currently only some marae are non-rateable. There is a two-hectare limit for both marae and urupā, with the part of the land over the limit being rateable.

19.     The draft submission supports these changes.  Land used for marae, urupā or protected by Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenants provide benefits to the community and is not able to generate income to cover rates.  Unused Māori freehold land is often a consequence of barriers to development including multiple owners, lack of succession, poor land quality and lack of road access. As rates are a wealth tax it is appropriate to recognise the limited economic potential of such land.

20.     Auckland Council remission policy offers a full remission for marae, urupā and unused Māori land. The proposals will have no financial impact on the council.

Enabling multiple Māori freehold land rating units to be treated as a single unit for rating purposes

21.     The Bill proposes that where rating units of Māori freehold land are used as a single economic unit, for example a farm, they can be treated as a single rating unit for the setting of rates.  This will reduce the number of fixed charges that will apply to these properties. Currently multiple rating units are treated as a single unit for rating purposes where the land is in the same ownership and the land is adjoining or only separated by a road or a stream.

22.     The draft submission supports these changes as Māori land often fails this test as ownership differs between blocks as a result of succession. Auckland Council remits additional fixed charges for Māori land on multiple rating units that is used as a single economic unit through its general rates remission policy. This scheme is also available to farms generally.

23.     The effects of the proposed changes are already achieved by the council’s rates remission policy for Māori land. As such, the proposal will have no financial impact on council.

Protecting Māori freehold land made general land under MAAA 1967

24.     The MAAA 1967 required Māori freehold land with less than four owners to have its status changed to general land. This change in status was made without owner knowledge or consent. The MAAA 1967 was repealed in 1973 but affected land remained as general land and is not protected from alienation unlike Māori freehold land. The current Bill proposes that where former Māori freehold land converted under the MAAA 1967 continues to be owned by the original landowner or their descendants, this land will be protected from rating sales by local authorities in the same way Māori freehold land is protected.

25.     The draft submission supports these changes as they ensure this land is treated fairly with other Māori freehold land. Auckland Council has identified fourteen properties that possibly fit the above criteria. Such land is able to qualify for remission under the council’s remission policy for Māori land.

26.     Council already adopts a conservative approach to dealing with such land. The proposed legislation helps formalise the legal status of the land. It is a step towards rectifying the negative effects of the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 on Māori landowners.

Empowering council to write off uncollectable arrears

27.     The Bill empowers local authorities to write off arrears on land in general, not just Māori land.

28.     Currently local authorities are required to write off uncollectable arrears after six years for both Māori and general land. The effects of penalties on penalties quickly sees outstanding balances grow to unmanageable levels. Councils are able to adopt a remission policy to remit arrears prior to the six-year limit. Auckland Council’s remission policy for Māori land can remit all arrears if the current rates are paid for three years.

29.     The draft submission supports these changes as while council offers a remission scheme for arrears, officers consider that unmanageable debt acts as a barrier to landowners approaching council. Writing off uncollectable arrears sooner will also improve council’s outstanding debt balance. The financial impact of writing off these arrears will be negligible as council already makes provision for these debts not being collected.

Enabling the creation of separate rating areas

30.     The Bill enables separate rating areas to be established for Māori freehold land where parts of the land are being used separately. Local authorities will then be able to invoice the users of the land for their share of the rates. The Bill also amends the Rates Rebate Act 1973 so that the ratepayers of separate rating areas can access the rebates scheme.

31.     The LG(R)A 2002 requires rates to be invoiced to the landowner unless a registered lease exists. Auckland Council is currently limited in its ability to assist the users of Māori land where they are not the ratepayer for the land.

 

 

 

32.     The draft submission supports this amendment as it will enable the council to build relations with the occupiers of Māori land, by recognising them as ratepayers. It will clarify individual liability for rates where there are multiple occupiers of a rating unit. It will also enable occupiers who are liable for rates to access the central government’s rates rebate system. 

Remission of rates for Māori freehold land under development

33.     The Bill will require councils to consider applications for remissions for Māori freehold land that is being developed. The council is not required to remit rates but may choose to remit some or all of the rates after considering whether the development will benefit Auckland by creating housing, employment or providing support for marae.

34.     The LG(R)A 2002 requires Auckland Council to have a rates remission and postponement policy for Māori land. Legislation does not currently prescribe what remissions options must be considered in deciding on the form of the policy.

35.     The submission is neutral on this issue. Auckland Council does not currently offer rates remissions to support development of Māori land. The use of rates remissions to support development of Māori land was considered by council during the development of the current remission policy for Māori land. This option was rejected by council in favour of the development of a grants programme. Grants were preferred because they provided greater flexibility and transparency than remissions. The current grants programmes provide grants of up to $150,000 to support the development of marae and papakāinga (Māori housing developments). In comparison, the average rates for Māori freehold land in Auckland is $3,400.

Recommended changes to the Bill

36.     The draft submission includes some matters officers recommend be changed. These are set out below.

Unused parts of Māori freehold land rating units

37.     The draft submission supports amending the Bill to treat any residual rating area that is unused as non-rateable for Māori land that has been divided into separate rating areas. The Bill proposes that only rating units that are entirely unused are to be treated as non-rateable.

38.     The Bill also proposes to enable occupiers or owners of Māori freehold land to request the property be apportioned into separate rating areas so they can be rated directly only for the part of the property they use. This process may create a residual rating area. If this residual rating area is entirely unused, then it should be treated as non-rateable.

39.     Auckland Council’s remission scheme for unused Māori land can be applied to a part of the property. This has been used in circumstances where large parts of the property are in bush. 15 properties currently receive a remission for unused Māori land for part of the property.

40.     In general, most categories of land use that qualify as non-rateable under Schedule One of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 can be applied to part of a property. Auckland Council frequently apportions properties where the non-rateability use applies to part of the property.

41.     The option of treating unused parts of a property as non-rateable was not recommend by the Department of Internal Affairs due to the potential administrative burden and risk to finances for some local authorities. As Māori land only makes up a very small part of Auckland’s rating base this is not an issue for Auckland Council. 

 


 

 

42.     The draft submission notes that the administrative burden and financial risk could be reduced by limiting the application of non-rateability to any unused residual rating area for properties that have been apportioned into separate rating areas. The approach would have the following advantages:

·    additional administration would be minimal, as the unused part of the property would be assessed when the separate rating areas are created

·    provides an incentive for occupiers of Māori freehold land to establish separate rating areas, and enter a rating relationship with council

·    provides an incentive for land to be brought into part use without the risk of the whole property becoming rateable. This may result in a reduction of the number of fully unused rating units and an increase in the rating base.

Land returned for cultural redress

43.     The draft submission recommends that land in general title that has been returned for cultural redress and is unused is treated as non-rateable.

44.     Officers have identified five general land properties in Auckland that were returned under settlement for cultural redress which are unused. Of these properties, three are landlocked, and one is an islet. Such land has significant barriers to development.  Some of these properties accrued significant rates arrears that have been addressed through council’s remission policy.

45.     Council would not attempt to enforce rates collection against land returned for cultural redress, regardless of its legal status. The draft submission recommends that these categories of land be treated the same as Māori freehold land and be categorised as non-rateable where it is unused.

Māori freehold land converted to general title under the MAAA 1967

46.     The Bill proposes to protect Māori freehold land made general land under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 from rating sales, where the land continues to be owned by the original landowner or their descendants.

47.     Auckland Council has identified 14 properties in Auckland that may fit the above criteria. Of these, three are unused, one of which could be considered abandoned. The council has adopted a conservative approach in dealing with such land, largely treating it as it does Māori freehold land. Further clarification of the legal status of this land is welcome.

48.     The draft submission recommends further alignment of rating of this class of land with Māori freehold land. Such land that remains in Māori ownership faces similar impediments to its use and development as land that remains in Māori freehold land title. These include multiple owners, lack of succession of owners and access issues.

49.     If council is similarly proscribed from pursuing rating sales for Māori freehold land and land converted to general title under the MAAA 1967, then it would be equitable to offer similar mechanisms for preventing the accumulation of arrears on both classes of land. Officers recommend that land converted to general title under the MAAA 1967 should be:

·        treated as non-rateable if the land is unused

·        able have separate rating areas established where the land is used by separate occupiers.

Access to rates rebates for Māori housing developments and clarification of definitions

50.     The draft submission recommends residents of Māori housing developments that use licence to occupy tenancies should be allowed access to the rates rebate scheme. The Rates Rebates Act currently allows for residents of retirement villages that use licence to occupy tenancies to access the scheme.

51.     Auckland Council also requests clarification of the definition of unused land and the apportionment of rates charges to separate rating areas.

Implementation

52.     Auckland Council is able to implement proposed legislative amendments if they proceed. The council’s submission requests six months lead in time before the amendments take effect to allow for implementation and testing of changes to our rating system.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

53.     There is no climate impact from the issues considered in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54.     There will be no impacts on the council group as a result of the amendments proposed in the Bill. Views of the wider council group were not sought.

55.     Feedback on the submission was received from Maori Outcomes Leads within the following departments:

·    Treasury and Financial Transactions

·    Development Programme Office

·    Chief Planning Office

·    Infrastructure and Environmental Services

·    Customer and Community Services

·    Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56.     Rates are a regional responsibility. The amendments proposed in the Bill will not negatively affect individual local boards.  Those boards with Māori land may see improved rating outcomes for local Māori if the Bill is adopted. While changes in rateability for Māori land may shift the rates burden, the effect will be minimal as such properties already qualify for rates remission. A list of Māori freehold land by local board can be found in Attachment C: Māori Land in Auckland to the report.

57.     Feedback was not sought from local boards given the limited impact on the boards, the short timeframe for the submission, and the difficulty in undertaking a formal feedback process while the country is at COVID-19 Alert Level 4.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

58.     The impact on Māori has been considered in the body of this report.

59.     Feedback was sought from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Advice from board’s officers was considered in the development of council’s submission. The Independent Māori Statutory Board will not be providing a formal submission on the Bill.

60.     Feedback was sought from the Kaitiaki forum. Any feedback received from the forum will be appended to the submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61.     There are no financial implications in deciding to make a submission. There are no significant financial implications for the council associated with the implementation of legislative amendments proposed in the Bill.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62.     There are no risks in deciding to make a submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63.     If approved, the Auckland Council submission on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill will be sent by the deadline of 17 April 2020. If the council wishes to be heard a nominated elected member will present the submission at the Māori Affairs Select Committee.

64.     The government will consider changes to the Bill as it moves through parliament during its second and third readings.

65.     If the Bill is enacted, council will need to review its Māori Freehold Land Rates Remission Policy so that it is consistent with the provisions of the Bill.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council submission Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill

19

b

Comparison of Amendments to Current Legislation and Council Policy

29

c

Māori Land in Auckland

33

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay – Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 


 


 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 


 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

Auckland Council submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package

File No.: CP2020/04388

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek the approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

The report would normally go before the Planning Committee, however, in light of COVID-19, it must now be considered by the Emergency Committee.

2.       Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency is consulting on a collection of rule changes known as the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package. The package consists of nine proposals intended to support and improve accessible and affordable transport, safety and liveable cities.

3.       The package will clarify:

·    the types of vehicles and devices allowed on footpaths, shared paths, cycle paths and cycle lanes

·    how devices can use these spaces

·    how road controlling authorities may regulate pedestrians, devices and spaces like footpaths

·    propose changes to the priority given to a range of road users to remove barriers to walking, device use and cycling.

4.       The package generally aligns with the strategic direction of the council as set out in the Auckland Plan 2050 and other plans such as the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework.  The draft submission supports the intent of the package but seeks some changes to better achieve the intentions of the package and better align with council’s strategic goals.

5.       Submissions on the proposed package close on 22 April 2020.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Emergency Committee:

a)      approve Auckland Council’s submission (Attachment A of the agenda report) on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package which supports the intention of the package but requests that:

i)        amendments be made to some of the proposals

ii)       Waka Kotahi and/or the Ministry of Transport continue work to resolve some remaining issues outside of the scope of the package

b)      delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member to authorise any minor amendments and corrections to finalise the submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.

 

Horopaki

Context

The Accessible Streets Regulatory Package

6.       On 9 March 2020 Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency released a collection of rule changes, known as the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package, for consultation. These rules are intended to:

·   make footpaths, shared paths, cycle lanes and cycle paths safer and more accessible

·   accommodate the increasing use of micro-mobility devices like e-scooters on streets and footpaths

·   encourage active modes of transport and support the creation of more liveable and vibrant towns and cities

·   make social and economic opportunities more accessible

·   make buses and active transport such as walking and cycling safer and more efficient.

7.       Submissions on the package close on Wednesday, 22 April 2020.

8.       The package contains nine proposals, summarised below.

9.       Proposal One: Change current vehicle and device definitions and create new categories to allow better regulation of new and emerging devices and where and how they’re used. Broadly speaking the proposal would create the following categories:

·   pedestrians

·   powered wheelchairs

·   mobility devices

·   unpowered transport devices

·   powered transport devices

·   cycles and e-bikes.

10.     Proposal Two: Change who is allowed on footpaths and introduce conditions that users need to follow when using the footpath. For the safety of others sharing the footpath, people riding on the footpath under the new rule must:

·   behave in a courteous and considerate manner

·   travel in a way that is not dangerous for other people using the footpath

·   give right of way to pedestrians

·   travel no faster than 15km/h

·   ride a device no wider than 750mm, unless it’s a wheelchair, so multiple people can still use the footpath.

11.     Proposal Three: Clarify who is allowed on shared paths and cycle paths and introduce the conditions they need to follow. These changes will clarify that:

·   if a path is located beside a roadway, the speed limit on the path will match the roadway. If a path is not located beside a roadway, the speed limit will be 50km/h

·   all users must give way to pedestrians on shared paths

·   road controlling authorities can declare that a path is a shared path or cycle path by resolution.

12.     Proposal Four: Allow transport devices, such as skateboards and e-scooters, to use cycle lanes and cycle paths.

 

13.     Proposal Five: Introduce lighting and reflector requirements for powered transport devices at night. This proposed change would only permit transport devices on roads and paths at night if they are fitted with:

·   a headlamp

·   a rear facing position light

·   a reflector (or if the user is wearing reflective material).

14.     Proposal Six: Change the priority of road users by:

·   allowing cycles and transport devices to:

ride straight ahead from a left turn lane

pass slow-moving vehicles on the left

·   clarifying that turning traffic must give way to all people using separated lanes, including buses, if those people are travelling straight through at an intersection

·   giving greater priority to people on footpaths and shared paths when they’re crossing side roads with minimum markings (two white lines).

15.     Proposal Seven: Mandate a minimum overtaking gap (on the road) for motor vehicles overtaking cycles, transport devices, horses, mobility devices and pedestrians of:

·   1 metre, when the posted speed limit is 60km/h or less

·   1.5 metres, when the posted speed limit is over 60km/h.

16.     Proposal Eight: Clarify what is needed for road controlling authorities to restrict parking on berms and remove the need for signs. The proposed method is for a road controlling authority to pass a resolution and register the restriction with Waka Kotahi.

17.     Proposal Nine: Require road users to give way to signalling buses pulling out of bus stops in urban areas, when the speed limit is 60km/h or less.

Links to strategies, policies and plans

18.     The intention of the proposed changes is consistent with the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan 2050, which aims to:

·   encourage walking, cycling and public transport use by making these modes more accessible, reliable, safe and attractive

·   maximise safety for people in our transport system

·   minimise the environmental and health impacts of the transport system

·   increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland.

19.     The intentions of the package are also well aligned with the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework and with the in-principle changes to this framework endorsed by the Environment and Climate Change Committee (ECC/2020/12).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     A recommended position on the proposals contained in the package is summarised in the below table.  This is further elaborated on in the draft submission. 


 

 

Proposal

Recommended Position

Comments

One: Change current vehicle and device definitions

Support

Support the attempt to clarify the status and categories of small transport devices and bicycles within the current legislative framework.

However, the package does not change the status of powered transport devices not already declared to not be a motor vehicle (a list which to date only consists of e-scooters, YikeBikes and e-bikes). Neither does it remove the unsuitable use of power level as the primary means of categorisation and control.

Addressing these matters will require further/ broader changes outside the scope of the package. These changes should include:

·  removal, or at least replacement, of the current regulatory process required to declare a powered device not a motor vehicle, and the removal of the current 300W and 600W limits used in the Land Transport Act

·  introduction of a new legislative and regulatory framework that is focused on the main harm-reduction/safety factors – the speed and weight of the transport devices.

Two: Change who is allowed on footpaths and introduce conditions that users need to follow when using the footpath

Partial support

Support the intention of the proposal to give as many people as possible safe spaces to travel while maintaining and prioritising pedestrian access. Also support the new, clearer rules for people riding on the footpath.

While the proposal will improve the safety of cyclists and promote cycle use this will have some detrimental impact on the real or perceived safety of pedestrians.

The alternative proposal suggested by Waka Kotahi (allowing cyclists up to 16 years old to use the footpath) strikes a more appropriate balance between the needs of pedestrians and cyclists is supported.

The exemption allowing footpath cycling should also include:

·    permit users over the age of 65

·    accompanying caregivers

Staff consider that if an age limit is placed on the use of footpaths by cyclists this rule should:

·  allow accompanying caregivers to also use the footpath; and

·  apply equally to powered transport devices.

Staff are also considering whether the proposed 15km/h speed limit is appropriate or should be lower (10 or 12 km/h).

Three: Clarify who is allowed on shared paths and cycle paths and introduce the conditions they need to follow

Partial support

Support the attempts to clarify the status and rules for shared paths.

Changes should however be made to:

·  the default speed limit so that it is not tied to the adjacent roadway. A standard default limit should apply to all shared paths (25 km/h) and cycle paths (50km/h) to reduce the risk to the more vulnerable users of these spaces

·  give priority to cyclists over powered transport device users to recognise the importance of active transport and the physical effort required of these users to regain momentum

·  require speed limit signs where the speed limit differs from the default.

 

Four: Allow transport devices to use cycle lanes and paths

Support

The proposal to allow transport devices similar to cycles in cycle lanes and paths will improve the safety of these device users. This may be negated to some degree by more conflicts between users on devices and cycles travelling at different speeds; though this is considered preferable to having these conflicts occur between device users and cars.

 

Five: Introduce lighting and reflector requirements for powered transport devices at night

Partial support

Support the safety intentions of this proposal.

The rationale in applying a consistent approach to the lighting and reflector requirements for both cycles and powered transport devices is supported. It is unclear though why unpowered transport devices are not covered by a similar consistent approach.

It is also likely that the proposal will indirectly prevent the use of some devices at night. For instance, currently unpermitted devices like e-skateboards may, if approved in future, be unable to meet these requirements. Waka Kotahi states that the safety benefits will likely outweigh the costs yet given the unknown range of possible future designs and their level of popularity, it is difficult to know if this will be the case.

It is requested that Waka Kotahi consider whether different lighting requirements could be acceptable for devices using footpath at night compared to other parts of the road.

 

 

 

Six: Change the priority of road users by:

 

 

a. and b. allowing cycles and transport devices to engage in common, safe behaviours that are currently illegal

Support

These rules will improve the safety of cyclists by legalising safer behaviors.  This could be improved by extending and also introducing the ability for cyclists and device users to use the pedestrian phase of signalized intersections.

c. clarifying that turning traffic must give way to all people travelling straight ahead using separated lanes

Support

This proposal will improve the safety of cyclists and other cycle path users, such as e-scooter users, by giving them clear right of way in these circumstances.

d. giving greater priority to people on footpaths and shared paths when they’re crossing side roads with minimum markings

Partial support?

Support moves to give priority to more vulnerable and sustainable modes.

However, the proposal will likely only see this priority applied in a small number of locations seeing little change in priority for most users.  The rules should instead be applied more widely, preferably to all intersections.

AT have advised that the introduction of this form of priority as a blanket rule for all intersections will, in their view, necessitate a regionwide intersection upgrade programme bearing a significant cost.

Seven: Mandate a minimum overtaking gap

Partial support

Support the mandating of minimum passing distances and the minimum passing distance of 1.5m for roads with speed limits over 60km/h.

However, changes should me made so that:

·    the minimum 1.5m passing distance apply to roads with speed limits up to 60km/r as well

·    the minimum passing distance also applies to passing cyclists in unprotected cycle lanes.

Staff are currently considering the suitability of the proposed 1m passing distance for roads up to a speed limit of 60km/h and whether it should be increased to 1.5m.

Eight: Clarify berm parking situation

Support

Clarification of the rules and requirements for restricting parking on berms will enable a focus on implementing and enforcing these restrictions rather than arguing the legalities.  Some suggestions for improvements are made.

Nine: Require give way to signalling buses pulling out of bus stops

Support

This will enable the more efficient operation of Auckland’s bus network, reduce delays for bus passengers and reduce operating costs.

 

 

 

Alignment of the proposals with the council’s strategic direction

21.     There is general alignment between the stated intentions of the package and the strategic direction of the council as set out in the Auckland Plan 2050 and other plans such as the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework.  Changes suggested to the proposals in the package are made to better achieve the intentions.

22.     More detailed advice as to the alignment of the proposals with the council’s strategic direction, and any amendments that could be made to further improve that alignment, will be provided at the committee meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     The transport sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Auckland region with around 40 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions. Increased support and prioritisation of no and low emissions modes of transport, such as active transport, micromobility modes and public transport, will help reduce these emissions.

24.     This reduction would support the council’s ability to achieve its climate goals and is well aligned with the draft Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework and with the in-principle changes to this framework endorsed by the Environment and Climate Change Committee (ECC/2020/12).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     Relevant parts of the council, such as the Auckland Design Office, are engaged in establishing the recommended position and developing the submission. Engagement and feedback from the E-Scooter Steering Group (consisting of executive members of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT)) is helping inform the recommended position.

26.     As road controlling authority responsible for administering these changes in the Auckland region, AT will be particularly impacted by the proposed changes. AT are preparing their own submission on the package. We are working closely with AT staff and are part of their working group.

27.     AT reporting and approval timeframes differ from the council’s and as such there are no updates on AT’s position at the time of writing. An update on AT’s position will be provided at the committee meeting.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28.     The reporting timeline is insufficient to enable local boards to provide formal feedback to inform this paper. Nevertheless, it is noted that changing “the give way rule at side street crossings to favour pedestrians” is identified as a key initiative by the Waitematā Local Board in the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 and as an advocacy area in the 2019/20 Waitematā local board agreement.

29.     A memo was sent to all local board members on 19 March 2020 outlining the content of the package and with a link to the consultation material. Local boards have been invited to send their feedback through by Friday 17 April 2020. Any feedback will be appended to the main submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     The success of the package in achieving its goals of supporting and promoting active transport, micro-mobility modes and public transport would likely have some small positive impacts on Māori through:

·   improving the safety of Māori who are overrepresented in pedestrian related injuries

·   reducing transport emissions as Māori have higher exposure to air pollutants than other ethnic groups due to pre-existing social inequities, resulting in higher rates of chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

31.     Proposals which prioritise cyclists over other road users may have some negative impact on Māori who make up a relatively low proportion of Auckland’s cyclists. The main proposal where this may be an issue is Proposal Two. As previously mentioned, the proposed position of allowing only young and old cyclists to use the footpath attempts to strike an appropriate balance between the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

32.     A memo was sent to the Independent Māori Statutory Board members of the Planning Committee outlining the content of the package and with a link to the consultation material. Some questions and comments were consequently received, and this has helped inform the position reached in the draft submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     There are no financial implications arising from submitting on the package.

34.     As the road controlling authority for Auckland, the financial impact of the package’s introduction is likely to fall primarily on AT. The package does not directly require changes to infrastructure design and from this perspective, adoption of the package should have minimal financial impact on AT.

35.     However, changes to the way people use and behave on the transport network could necessitate changes in design standards and an increased level of infrastructure upgrades and improvements. Furthermore, application of the greater powers and responsibilities granted by the proposals, to prevent the use of devices in certain locations and to set local speed limits for footpaths, shared paths and cycle paths, could have financial implications for AT.

36.     Other proposals will help offset some of these costs, such as proposal nine which could reduce delays to buses by almost 30 hours per day helping reduce bus service operational expenditure.

37.     If more specific information is available from AT in time, this will be made available at the committee meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38.     Based on the initial review of the package the main risk with all the proposals is that people do not follow the new rules. For instance, riders on footpaths could exceed the speed limit or act recklessly around pedestrians, or car drivers could not give way to footpath users crossing a side street where they have right of way.

39.     To mitigate this a significant public education and awareness campaign should occur before the new rules come into force. A specific focus on education and, if necessary, enforcement of these rules from the police should also be considered until new norms are established. The draft submission includes a point to this effect.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     It is recommended that the committee delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member for approval of the final submission.

41.     The approved submission will be submitted to Waka Kotahi by 22 April 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Submission

45

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alastair  Cribbens - Principal Transport Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

     

 


Emergency Committee

16 April 2020

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Emergency Committee

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL:  Financial position and Annual Budget 2020/2021 Update (Covering report)

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains information around potential financial implications and emerging financial risks of COVID-19 in a highly uncertain environment. The release of this information could prejudice the position of the council and CCOs in sensitive commercial arrangements and negotiations

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.