Agenda of Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

12 May 2020

Attendance at local board meetings during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period

File No.: CP2020/04665

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend an amendment to the local board’s standing orders in order to provide for attendance of non-members at local board meetings via audio or audio-visual link.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report updates the local board on the temporary arrangements for local board meetings enabled by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 and provides options for implementing similar arrangements for non-members.

3. The COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 temporarily amends the existing legislative restrictions for local government on remote attendance for elected members and minimum quorum at local board meetings. This now enables meetings to proceed by audio-visual link, changes how meetings can be open to the public and how members of the public receive the agenda and minutes.

4. The current local board standing orders do not provide for non-members, specifically members of the public and Māori, to give input via audio or audio-visual link.

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that a person other than a member of the local board may participate by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met. (Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7, LGA). Local board standing orders do not currently allow for this.

6. Auckland Council will be using Skype for Business for local board meetings. Attendance by members and non-members (if approved) will be facilitated by phone (audio only) or Skype video (audio-visual) via Skype for Business app.

7. An amendment to Standing Orders to enable electronic attendance can either be reversed at a future date or maintained to support that attendance in the future, where it is available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the temporary amendments pursuant to the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 which allows members to attend meetings by audio-visual link, as of right and despite anything to the contrary in standing orders and to be counted for the purposes of quorum.

b) amend its standing orders by including a new Standing Order 3.3.10 that reads as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link

A person other than a member of the local board may participate in a meeting of the local board by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the person is otherwise approved to participate in accordance with Standing Orders Sections 6 and 7.

c) amend its Standing Order 7.8.5 to provide discretion to the chair of the meeting to decline Public Forum requests via audio or audio-visual link.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020

8. In late March 2020, central government enacted an omnibus bill that amended various acts of parliament including the LGA and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

9. The amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA enable local authorities to have meetings by audio-visual link (given the restrictions regarding physical distancing and Alert Level 4) and support the effective operation of those meetings by removing conditions associated with the right to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual link.

10. These amendments only apply while the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 is in force and will be repealed when that notice expires or is revoked.

Amendments to LGA

11. The amendments to the LGA modify Clause 25A, Schedule 7 so that a member of a local authority has the right to attend any meeting by audio or audio-visual link, regardless of what is provided for in the local authority’s standing orders. It also modifies clause 25A so that a member attending by audio link or audio-visual link is counted for the purposes of quorum.

Amendments to LGOIMA

12. The amendments to LGOIMA include modifying s 47 so that the requirement for meetings of local authorities to be ‘open to the public’ may be met during Alert Level 4 and other restrictions on physical distancing. The amendment redefines ‘open to the public’ to mean that the local authority:

a) if it is reasonably practicable, enables access to the meeting by broadcasting live the audio or video of the meeting (for example, by broadcasting it on an Internet site); and

b) does 1 or both of the following as soon as practicable after the meeting ends:

i. makes an audio or a video recording of the meeting available on its Internet site

ii. makes a written summary of the business of the meeting available on its Internet site.

13. This amendment does not anticipate public involvement as part of the meeting itself but ensures the public can access or view meeting proceedings online (either live or after the meeting) or through reviewing the summary.

14. Other amendments to LGOIMA include:

· Modifying s 46A so that agendas and reports for the meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· Modifying s 51 so that minutes of meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· The changes made by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 now supersede some of the provisions in the local board standing orders and the restrictions on physical distancing and from Alert Level 4 now limit the opportunity for public input.

Local Board Standing Orders

15. The LGA requires local authorities to adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (Clause 27, Sch 7). Each local board has adopted its standing orders which have been developed from a template.

16. As a result of the statutory amendments listed in this report, the follow standing orders have been temporarily superseded:

· 3.3.2 Member’s status – quorum and vote

· 3.3.3 Conditions for attending by electronic link

· 3.3.4 Request to attend by electronic link

· 7.3.1 Information to be available to the public

· 7.3.2 Availability of agendas and reports

· 8.2.1 Inspection of minute books

17. There are additional provisions in standing orders that may require further consideration if the local board wishes to enable these to continue during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. These relate to input and participation by Māori and the public.

18. Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7 of the LGA requires that a person other than a member of the local authority may participate by audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met.

19. The current standing orders do not currently provide for non-members, if required and approved to do so, to give input by means of audio link or audio-visual link.

20. Other participants at local board meetings include Governing Body members and staff. The LGA and the recent amendment provide the right for any member of a local authority or committee to attend any meeting of a local authority by audio-visual link (unless lawfully excluded). This can be interpreted broadly to extend to meetings where the elected member may not be a decision-maker or be participating in the decision at all. As such, Governing Body members participation may be by audio or audio-visual link and the process for providing them with speaking rights remains under standing orders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. In performing their role, local boards are required to act in accordance with the principles contained in s 14(1) of the LGA including the requirement for the council to conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner and make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all of its communities.

22. While the LGA does not specifically require public input to be provided for at local board meetings, the standing orders approved by the local board reflects the principles in s 14 LGA by providing for public attendance and enabling public input at meetings.

23. In order to continue to provide this opportunity as well as facilitate input by Māori and the public, the standing orders require amending.

Standing Orders Section 6 Māori Input

24. Speaking rights for Māori organisations or their nominees are granted under standing orders for the purpose of enabling Māori input, if any, to any item on the agenda of a meeting.

25. To ensure this right can be exercised during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision needs to be made enabling any input to be given by audio or audio-visual link.

Standing Orders 7.7 Deputations and 7.8 Public Forum

26. The provisions for public input in standing orders are one of the ways that local boards give effect to the requirements of the LGA (s 78 and s 79).

27. The LGA provides that in the course of its decision-making, a local authority must consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter. The LGA does not specify how those views are to be obtained or what form that consideration should take. It does not require a public forum at meetings.

28. However, the LGA gives local authorities discretion as to how to comply with s 78 and what to consider. Through their standing orders, local boards and the Governing Body have chosen to enable public input through deputations and public forum at their meetings as one way to obtain community views, among other things.

29. To ensure this opportunity can continue to be made available during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision must be made in standing orders to receive this by audio or audio-visual link.

Proposed amendment

30. This report recommends that input from non-members continue to be enabled during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. This requires an amendment to the standing orders.

31. An amendment to standing orders requires a 75% majority vote.

32. A similar amendment has been made by the Governing Body to their standing orders. It is desirable to ensure consistency across the governance arms of Auckland Council. The Governing Body resolutions are as follows:

Resolution GB/2020/33 (n) That the Governing Body amend standing orders by inserting a new Standing Order 3.3.10 as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link A person other than a member of the Governing Body, or the relevant committee, may participate in a meeting of the Governing Body or committee by means of audio link or audio-visual link in emergencies if the person is otherwise approved to participate under these standing orders (such as under Standing Order 6.2 “Local board input” or 7.7 “Public input”.)

Resolution GB/2020/33 (p) That the Governing Body agree to change Auckland Council’s Standing Orders to provide full discretion to the chair of the Emergency Committee to decline public input requests

33. The local board’s standing orders currently gives discretion to the chair to decline deputations but not public forum requests. Giving discretion to the chair to manage requests for public forum during this time can ensure the requirements of the LGA regarding the provision of the technology requirements, can be supported.

Technology options available

34. Where attendance by audio or audio-visual link is permitted, the LGA requires that the chair of the meeting ensures:

· that the technology for the audio link or audio-visual link is available and of suitable quality

· that the procedure for use of the technology will ensure that participants can hear and be heard by each other.

35. The chair’s discretion will need to be exercised where the technology and quality cannot be guaranteed.

36. The audio and audio-visual link options available for non-member input are provided by Auckland Council through Skype for Business:

Option	Ability
Audio link only Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.	· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting · Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone
Audio-visual link Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting	· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending · Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

Option

Ability

Audio link only

Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.

· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting

· Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone

Audio-visual link

Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting

· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending

· Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

37. If enabled under standing orders, non-members who wish to give input would need to contact the local board with a request to attend. If approved by the chair, information on how to join the meeting using audio and audio-visual link options above will be sent out to the attendee by staff.

Summary of meeting

38. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the public to attend the meeting through a broadcast and/or peruse a recording after it has happened, a summary of the meeting will need to be provided by staff.

39. A summary in this context would be different from the content of agendas, reports and minutes which are all separately required to be publicly available. It should contain the thrust or key points of the discussion or debate at the meeting keeping in mind that its purpose is to provide an alternative to an audio or video recording of the meeting, in a situation where the public is not able to attend and hear this discussion themselves.

40. The ordinary definition of a summary is a brief statement or account of the main points of something. While the appropriate level of detail is likely to vary depending on what is being discussed at meetings, a summary is not expected to include verbatim notes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. Staff attendance at meetings, while not specifically provided for, is a necessary part of local board meetings and as such is expected to take place using audio-visual link.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. This report seeks to amend the local boards standing orders to enable public input and Māori input at meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. This report seeks a decision that will ensure Māori input can continue to be given during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period.

45. This will ensure Māori are not prevented from giving input at a meeting on any matter that may be of interest to them.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The decision to amend standing orders is of a procedural nature and is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

47. The scaling up of technology to ensure compliance with COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 is being done at a cost to the council. The costs are not known at this stage and will be factored into operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The objective of the recent legislative changes is to reduce public health risks and ensure compliance with social distancing measures and other restrictions in New Zealand’s COVID-19 alert levels response plan.

49. While this is not specifically required by legislation, permitting public input by audio or audio-visual link, if practicable, can ensure the local board can receive and consider views of its constituents on decisions that they are making.

50. There is a risk that the audio-visual option would only be taken up by a small number of constituents as this would only be available to those who have the technical devices and internet access. The software that will be used for meetings is Skype for Business which is free to download and use. However, the internet access costs or availability of technology/devices can be a limiting factor for some constituents. Constituents who do not have internet access can participate, if approved, by phone.

51. The report is seeking discretion for the local board chair to decline public forum requests. This delegation should be exercised with caution so as to not undermine the intention of standing orders (which currently provided some limited grounds to decline public input). There will be instances where it is reasonable to decline (noting these examples are not intended to be exhaustive), such as:

· where the technology cannot be provided or quality cannot be assured

· a need to manage time allocations for the agenda

· the matter is neither urgent nor the subject of a decision to be made at the meeting

· the request is offensive, repetitious or vexatious.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. If approved, the amendments to standing orders can, if the local board chooses, continue beyond the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. Enabling these changes gives maximum flexibility for attendance of non-members at future meetings, including those with underlying health issues or compromised immune systems that may need to take extra precaution even after the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period has ended.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Manager, Local Board Services

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager, Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

12 May 2020

Claris Cemetery project

File No.: CP2020/03450

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board on the Claris Cemetery project and seek funding to complete the project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The local board selected Crossroads Reserve on Whangaparapara Road as the preferred location for the next cemetery on the island.

3. A resource consent and change of land designation have been granted for the site.

4. Several options for construction have been investigated and the optimum solution is proposed that replaces the existing sandy material with fill material that is suitable for burials.

5. The current actual expenditure for the project is $122,271, plus an outstanding commitment of $5,546.

6. The estimated cost to complete the construction and associated works is $285,000. This is based on:

· slightly raised finished ground levels to minimise cut and fill

· removal of all existing sand and then filling with suitable soil to accommodate 21 coffin burial plots, 48 ash internments and 17 eco-burial plots

· access to free clean fill

· substantial landscaping

· no shelter structure and no temporary shoring.

7. Staff seek approval from the local board to allocate funding to complete the design and construction of the cemetery as described above.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve discretionary capex funding of $285,00 to complete the design and construction of the proposed cemetery at Claris, which comprises $277,000 from Local Improvements Projects (LIPs) funds and $8,000 from Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capex funds, both in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Horopaki

Context

8. For many years now Aotea / Great Barrier Island residents have asked for cemeteries to be developed in the north and centre of the island so people can be remembered where they or their loved ones had lived. The former Auckland City Council started investigating possible sites for a new cemetery back in the 1990's. As part of Auckland Council, the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board has responded to these requests and spent considerable time and resources over the last eight years to advance this request.

9. In July 2015 the local board obtained authority for cemetery development on the island and in December that year approved the investigation of sites in the Okiwi and Claris areas that might be suitable for cemeteries.

10. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 declared an outcome of providing cemeteries in the north, centre and south of the island. The plan states, ‘The Governing Body has delegated authority to us to manage and plan for new cemeteries, allowing us to find a potential site at Claris’.

11. A specific project to establish a new cemetery was initiated in the 2016/2017 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Demand for Cemetery Services at Aotea / Great Barrier

12. At the 2018 Census there were 936 usual residents in the Aotea / Great Barrier area, essentially unchanged since the 2013. This includes 192 people (20.5 per cent) who identified as being Māori.

13. Over the next 30 years, the total population is expected to increase by 120 people, or four people per year. There is a large influx of visitors during summer, however they are unlikely to use the cemetery facilities on the island. In the past, people from the isthmus have expressed an interest in being buried on the island, however this has not translated to a significant number of additional burials. Therefore, the long-term demand for cemetery facilities is not expected to be governed by changes in the total population or demand outside of Aotea / Great Barrier.

14. Between 2011 and 2019, Statistics NZ data shows a reasonably consistent rate of six deaths per year in the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area. However, this data needs to be treated with caution as it has been randomly rounded to three to protect confidentiality.

15. Predicting the demand for services at the proposed Claris cemetery, based on the forecast number of deaths is problematic because of:

· alternative options for cemetery services, which are discussed below

· the age distribution of the residents and other factors affecting the likelihood of death such as gender, genetics, access to health care, exercise and lifestyle

· the trend towards cremations, that is currently not available on the island

· the uptake of proposed ecoburials, that is currently not available at the existing primary cemetery at Gooseberry Flat

· the cost of services

· the personal preferences of residents.

16. Alternative burial options for cemetery services include:

· the Gooseberry Flat cemetery carries out the majority of burials in the Aotea / Great Barrier area. It is in the south of the island and has limited capacity

· Whangaparapara cemetery is rarely used as it has sea access only and difficult topography. This may be a preference for residents who have family members buried at the cemetery

· Motairehe Marae and Kawa Marae urupa are only available to people associated with the respective marae

· private burial arrangements are rare but have occurred on large farm blocks

· currently residents from Aotea / Great Barrier move to the isthmus for aged care and other facilities. However, the number of these residents that do not return to the island is unknown. As high-tech medical technology is expected to continue to advance, this may attract further residents to move permanently to the isthmus for technology that is not available on the island.

17. The primary cemetery at Gooseberry Flat covers 3,532 square meters, however it is largely unusable space due to native bush and steep topography. The remaining capacity of the site is estimated at 44 plots, including 14 that have been reserved. Simplistically, if the current usage continues at a rate of two plots per year, this suggests that the cemetery will reach full capacity in 22 years.

18. The 2 018 Census showed that 24.5 per cent of residents in Aotea / Great Barrier were 65 or older, compared to 12.0 per cent for the rest of Auckland. A different set of data (produced by Statistics NZ in February 2017) indicates that the number of residents aged 65 or older is expected increase from 280 in 2018 to 340 in 2038 i.e. a 21 per cent increase over 20 years.

19. Two alternative sites have been investigated in the north of the island. However, they are not well located to serve the large number of residents in the centre and south of the island. Investigations have recently been postponed.

20. In the absence of any alternative cemetery services, the current demand for burial services at Gooseberry Flat is a reasonable indicator of future demand. Taking into account the expected 21 per cent increase in residents aged 65 or older, the cemetery at Gooseberry Flat is likely to reach full capacity in approximately 20 years from now.

21. If the proposed cemetery at Claris is developed, over the next 10 years the current demand for plots at Gooseberry Flat of two burials per year is expected to gradually transfer to the cemetery proposed at Claris.

22. The perception associated with the site will have a bearing on the usage. The proposed site is currently a poorly utilised sandy area. The sandy conditions and low-quality vegetation may have poor connotations for residents. This needs to be overcome by good quality landscaping and maintenance that is respectful of the deceased and cemetery visitors.

Preferred Site

23. Aotea / Great Barrier Island residents have a strong sense of community spirit and have expressed a desire to have cemeteries in the centre and north of the island that serve the local communities.

24. After the formal establishment of the project, various locations in the north and centre of the island were investigated for a new cemetery. In February 2017 the local board selected Crossroads Reserve on Whangaparapara Road opposite the sports club for further detailed investigation, which subsequently became the preferred location for the next cemetery on the island.

25. The proposed cemetery is centrally located. It is close to residents at Claris, Okupu, Whangaparapara and Port Fitzroy. While the Gooseberry Flat cemetery still has spare capacity, it could continue to serve the residents at Tryphena, Schooner Bay and Cape Barrier. Medlands is equidistant by road to both sites. Attachment A shows the location of the cemeteries and population distribution.

26. The proposed cemetery covers approximately 600m² of the total 13,481m²of reserve, which allows for considerable future expansion if required.

27. The proposed site is located across the road from the Claris Sports and Social Club which could be used for after-funeral receptions, by private arrangement.

Change to Reserve Classification and Resource Consent

28. A proposed change to the reserve classification of Crossroads Reserve was publicly notified in March 2019 to reclassify the land under the Reserves Act and then subsequently approved.

29. A resource consent to develop a cemetery was granted in September 2019, including three burial options:

· 21 coffin burial plots

· 17 eco-burial plots

· 48 ash internments.

30. The resource consent will lapse in September 2024 unless the consent is given effect to, or the council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

Earthworks and Soil Fill

31. A significant constraint for the project has been the difficulties associated with the sandy soil conditions that are not well suited for excavating graves. Several options have been investigated to mitigate this issue, including a trial of temporary shoring for grave burials. The trial concluded that temporary shoring is not a good option for this site.

32. Phasing the construction over several years has also been investigated. This is not considered to be economical due to the modest size of the site, availability of fill and disruption caused by ongoing construction.

33. It is proposed to remove the existing sandy material on site and replace it with material that is stable and suitable for burials. The depth of cut material will vary depending on the intended final use, such as landscaping, grave plots or ecoburials.

34. On Aotea / Great Barrier Island, the maximum quantity of fill coming from a donor site is generally 500 cubic meters. As the quantity of fill required is estimated to be approximately 800 cubic meters, two donor sites are intended to be used. It is expected that suitable hardfill will be available free of charge from existing stockpiled material. The landfill adjacent to Claris Airfield is proposed as one donor site. Another site has yet to be confirmed, however this is likely to be either from the stockpiles at Okiwi Airfield or surplus overburden material at Blackwell Quarry.

35. The excavated sandy fill will be taken to an approved fill site, that has yet to be confirmed.

Cost of Establishing the Cemetery

36. Following an initial cost estimate by a quantity surveyor, discussions with a contractors and specialists have taken place to get a more realistic estimate of the cost of construction and to identify opportunities to reduce costs. As a result, the cost estimated to complete the works has reduced significantly. The revised estimate below allows for 21 traditional coffin burials, 17 eco burials and 48 ash internments. The estimate is also based on raised finished ground levels to minimise cut and fill, with cut depths of approximately 1.8m for traditional coffin burials. This is a departure from the resource consent, which can be rectified with a minor amendment that is expected to be preferable for Regulatory Services.

Civil plant	$17,500
Civils - cut, fill, sediment control	$77,214
Access road - including drainage	$31,313
Burial area - octagonal ash plots, basic fencing	$10,071
Landscaping - mulch, native vegetation, planting	$35,994
Safety notices	$1,000
Signage for wayfinding, info, safety notices	$1,200
Contractor site costs	$25,994
Professional fees, council, consenting, 15% contingency	$85,714
Estimated total	$285,000

37. A shelter structure was originally proposed within the cemetery to provide shade, rain cover and collect rainwater. A very basic shelter has been designed that provides functional amenity but lacks aesthetic appeal. This feature has been removed from the proposal at this stage to save time and cost, as well as avoiding potential risks associated with consenting, conflicts with Māori traditions and unsuitable quality.

38. At a later stage a shelter could be added, with water facilities in an appropriate location and designed to a higher specification.

Impact on the Environment

39. A comprehensive assessment of environmental affects has been completed with supporting documentation from specialists commensurate with the scale and nature of the proposal. This assessment concludes that any adverse effects on the environment will be minor and will be adequately avoided, mitigated or remedied through appropriate design and management.

Costs and Affordability

40. The current actual expenditure for the project is $122,271, plus an outstanding commitment of $5,546.

41. The local board has enough discretionary funds to complete the construction of the cemetery, estimated at $285,000.

42. Fees and charges to the public for the proposed cemetery facilities are set each year at the discretion of the local board. This is likely to be influenced by the current fees and charges at Gooseberry Flat cemetery, with typical costs:

· body burial fees (aka digging fees) for an adult at single depth at $1,100.00 plus GST

· ash burial fees at $311.30 plus GST

· exclusive right to bury a body in the lawn area (aka plot fees) is currently not charged as the land was originally donated.

43. In addition to the cemetery fees, the public will have costs such as a funeral director, casket or shroud, flowers, celebrant, venue and memorial.

44. The ongoing costs of maintaining the site is mainly for mowing the lawn, as well as costs for garden and general maintenance. This is expected to be similar to Gooseberry Flat at $3,000 (excluding GST) per year. Burial costs are also expected to be similar at $3,000 (excluding GST) for each grave that is dug.

45. For instance, if there are two body burials per year, the net cost to Council would be $6,800 per year.

Timeframe

46. If budget were approved, design and specification could be finalised within approximately two months. The next step would be to proceed to invited tenders. The start of construction depends on the availability of contractor resources. Ideally, construction would take place over summer to help ensure the required soil compaction.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47. The main effect of this proposal on the climate will be from transpiration of the trees and grass, and the evaporation from the soil.

48. The works include the removal of seven mature pine trees and scrub. This will initially be replaced by grassed lawn and planted landscaped areas. In addition, as part of the eco burial process, approximately 17 commemorative trees will be planted, which will mature over time. Eventually the additional vegetation will benefit the climate by reducing temperatures at the site and removing air pollutants such as dust, ozone and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas).

49. Earthworks include the replacement of sandy material with organic soil that will better retain moisture, support vegetation growth and release moisture into the air. Although this will have a positive effect on the climate at the site, this will be offset by the reallocation of the sandy material to another location on the island that is yet to be determined.

50. Overall, the impact on the climate from the proposed works is expected to be a minor improvement.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. The Manager Cemetery Services has visited the proposed site and has expressed concerns about the sandy ground conditions that are not well suited to digging graves due to the poor stability of the material. As part of the construction of the site, the sandy material will be replaced by suitable fill material to achieve the required soil stability.

52. The proposed cemetery is not expected to impact on the Cemetery Services team as it is proposed to be managed by local staff, in the same manner as Gooseberry Flat.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. There are essentially two options for this project: to progress the development of the proposed cemetery immediately or defer the development for some years.

54. The primary considerations for the local board are balancing the wishes of residents for a new cemetery versus the costs of the proposed cemetery.

55. For many years Aotea Great Barrier residents have asked for cemeteries to be developed in the north and centre of the island so people can be remembered where they or their loved ones had lived. This is expressed in the 2017 Local Board Plan and has been progressed by obtaining a resource consent and change of land designation. Funds are currently available to complete the construction of the cemetery and there is a risk that funds will not be available in future.

56. The main cemetery at Gooseberry Flat is expected to reach full capacity in approximately 20 years from now. This is based on the low number of current burials which varies from year to year. Many factors will impact on the future demand at the proposed site, including the perceptions of locals about the proposed site. There is an option to delay the construction for several years, to land bank the site until the demand for cemetery services is more certain. The site is now designated as a cemetery and an extension to the resource consent could be requested prior to September 2024.

57. Delaying construction would increase the actual cost of construction, however this would be offset by savings from avoiding debt, depreciation and maintenance. For example, a superficial assessment of delaying the construction for 10 years is:

58. Costs:

Additional cost of construction (4.0% p.a.^{^[1]}) $114,000

Loss of benefits. This is subjective and influenced by alternative funeral services

Total costs = $114,000 plus the value of the benefits

59. Savings from avoided costs:

Debt financing (4.3% p.a.^{^[2]}) $122,550

Depreciation (access road 3%, fencing 7%, signage 7%^{^[3]}) $36,584

Ground maintenance ($3,000 p.a. increasing by 2.5% p.a.^{^[4]}) $37,500

Total savings = $196,634

60. For this example, capital appreciation of land is ignored as the land designation and ownership will continue in future. The land will appreciate if developed or not. Similarly, cemetery digging costs are ignored because they would likely still be incurred at the Gooseberry Flat cemetery.

61. From a purely financial perspective, this example suggests net savings from delaying the project, however this is based on many long-term variables. The overriding issue is the value of the subjective intangible benefits gained from developing a new cemetery.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Ngāti Rehua affiliates to Ngāti Wai. Aotea, also known as Great Barrier Island, is the ancestral land of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea.

63. There are two marae located in the north of Aotea; Kawa and Motairehe that have their own burial facilities.

64. On 31 October 2017, representatives of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust met with members of the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board and project representatives to discuss the proposed cemetery development. This meeting contributed to council’s commitment to Māori. The following issues that are particularly relevant to Māori were discussed:

· the whenua’s history, including the battles in the area and the subsequent lifting of the tapu

· grave orientation, detailed how the faces of the buried (the graves orientation) should face east so they receive the morning sun

· the spreading of ashes on the ground is not accepted cultural practice

· the requirements of ashes or burial plots not to interfere with kai sources e.g. water

· if the idea of the eco burials is supported, selected trees should not be kai trees

· a depth of two meters is required which limits the suitable areas. Importing fill will expand the area where burials can be undertaken

· the use of fill to extend the burial area up Whangaparapara Road is supported

· “Council Style” burial plots are not wanted. Breaking up burial plots into smaller groupings of approximately 10 graves each was suggested

· no concrete berms

· side by side burials were not supported

· an Archaeologist should visit the site and undertake an investigation of any known archaeology.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65. Community Facilities requests approval from the local board to allocate discretionary capex funding of $285,00 to complete the design and construction of the cemetery as described above.

66. The $285,000 discretionary capex requested is to be funded as FY2019/2020 $277,000 Local Improvements Projects (LIPs) and FY2019/2020 $8,000 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capex. The LIPs funding of $277,000 is the remaining capex funding that has been carried forward from FY2018/2019. This LIPs capex funding is unable to be carried forward to following financial year unallocated as per the financial guidelines; it must be formally allocated to a project prior to 30 June 2020.

67. If the board decides not to go ahead with the Claris cemetery project, the budget spent to date cannot be capitalised. This would mean the spend to date of $127,817 will have to come out of the local board’s 2019/2020 LDI opex budget. This would also mean, the local board would be reinstated with $127,817 of LIPS budget which would make total LIPS budget $404,817 and, as mentioned above, this budget will have to be allocated to a capital project before 30June 2020.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

68. The major risks and mitigations associated with this initiative are:

· there is a risk that the public do not support the use of the newly constructed cemetery. For many years now Aotea / Great Barrier Island residents have expressed a desire for new cemeteries in the centre and north of the island, which supports the need for a new cemetery. Council opted to publicly notify the resource consent; however, no formal feedback was received. The proposed cemetery is well located in the centre of the island serving a large nearby population. Demand for the proposed cemetery will also be impacted by the eventual closure of the existing cemetery at Gooseberry Flat. Good quality landscaping is proposed to help establish a respectful cemetery ambience and support public perception.

· there is a risk that suitable fill may not be available on the island when required. The material at the envisaged landfill sites need to be tested by a geologist or engineer to ensure that it is suitable. Arrangements can then be made to retain appropriate quantities of material for this project.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69. Community Facilities seeks approval from the local board to support the allocation of discretionary capex funding of $285,00 to complete the design and construction of the cemetery as described above.

70. The $285,000 discretionary capex requested is to be funded as FY2019/2020 $277,000 Local Improvements Projects (LIPs) and FY2019/2020 $8,000 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capex. The LIPs funding of $277,000 is the remaining capex funding that has been carried forward from FY2018/2019. This LIPs capex funding is unable to be carried forward to following financial year unallocated as per the financial guidelines; it must be formally allocated to a project prior to 30 June 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Great Barrier Island population map	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Cairns. Project Delivery Manager

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager, Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

12 May 2020

Local board decisions and input into the Annual Budget 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05175

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for local financial matters for the local board agreement 2020/2021, which need to be considered by the Governing Body in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process.

2. To seek feedback on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Our Annual Budget contains 21 local board agreements which are the responsibility of local boards to agree with the governing body. These agreements set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

4. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March 2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board agreements (Consultation part 1).

5. Since this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. The council is now considering what those impacts are likely to be, and plan to ask Aucklanders for their views on certain aspects of Auckland Council’s proposed ‘emergency budget’ in response to the financial impacts of COVID-19 (Consultation part 2).

6. Local boards are required to receive the feedback on the proposals in consultation part 1, which are not affected by the changes being considered by the council and therefore will not be subject to further consultation and make decisions on them. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway, so the scope of consultation part 2 is clear.

7. This report seeks decisions on local financial matters for the local board agreement.

8. The council received feedback in person at community engagement events and through written forms, including online and hard copy forms, emails and letters.

9. This report summarises consultation feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021, including on local board priorities for 2020/2021.

Feedback on Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

10. The local board consulted on the following priorities:

· sustainability priorities including Ecological Footprint, potable water, food security and ethical investment

· environmental priorities including Ecology Vision, marine protection, and marine biosecurity

· culture and community priorities including mana whenua aspirations, support for community groups and tourism

· infrastructure priorities including housing and connectivity

11. Two submissions were received on Aotea / Great Barrier local board priorities for 2020/2021 (attachment A). Both submissions were supportive of the local board’s proposed priorities.

Feedback on regional proposals in the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 from the Aotea / Great Barrier local board area

12. This report seeks local board views on the proposed regional Annual Budget topics including:

· the changes to rates and fees, key proposals:

o waste management targeted rate

o refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

o Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

· the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

· other budget information.

13. Local board views on these regional matters will be considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

14. Out of the 4,765 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021, two submissions were from people living in the Aotea / Great Barrier local board area.

15. Both submitters supported the waste management targeted rate and refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City.

16. One submitter supported the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.

17. Auckland Council also consulted on the Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Review at the same time. The feedback received on this will be presented at a later date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board priorities for 2020/2021.

b) receive consultation feedback on regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Aotea / Great Barrier local board area.

c) provide feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

18. Local board agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

19. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March 2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board agreements. This is now referred to as consultation part 1.

20. Since this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Work to date on the proposed Annual Budget will need to be adjusted to consider the new financial realities facing Auckland.

21. The financial report presented to the Emergency Committee during April 2020 indicated potential reductions in cash revenue of $350-650m for financial year 2020/2021, depending on the length and extent of the disruption caused by COVID-19. The Emergency Committee requested staff provide further information to the Governing Body on the impacts of the various scenarios modelled against a rates increase of between 0 per cent and 3.5 per cent. They also resolved that further public consultation on the Annual Budget would include considering whether to adopt a 2.5 per cent rather than 3.5 per cent general rates increase for the 2020/2021 financial year, among a suite of other measures aimed at offering support to all ratepayers, including businesses, facing hardship due to the impacts of COVID-19.

22. The council is planning to ask Aucklanders for their views on certain aspects of Auckland Council’s proposed ‘emergency budget’ in response to the financial impacts of COVID-19. It is anticipated this will be carried out from late May until mid-June 2020. This will be in addition to the Annual Budget 2020/2021 consultation we have already carried out from February to March 2020. This is referred to as consultation part 2.

23. Consultation part 2 is unlikely to revisit any of the specific proposals in consultation part 1. Therefore, the local boards and the Governing Body are required to receive the feedback on these proposals and make decisions on them. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway so it is clear what decisions have already been made, and what decisions will be made after consultation part 2.

24. Further, some of the proposed changes to fees and charges required a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) and the requirements for this were met in consultation part 1. It is important to complete this statutory process, especially where consultation part 2 will not be relevant to the decisions on these fees and charges.

25. This report includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Aotea / Great Barrier local board area.

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

26. This report allows the local board to agree its input and recommend other local financial matters to the Governing Body in May 2020. This is to allow time for the Governing Body to consider these items in the Annual Budget process.

Local board input on regional plans

27. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on the proposed Annual Budget.

28. Local Board Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide both the development of local board agreements and input into regional plans.

Council-controlled organisation (CCO) review

29. An independent panel was appointed by Auckland Council to examine three areas: (1) the CCO model, roles and responsibilities, (2) the accountability of CCOs, and (3) CCO culture. Local boards had the opportunity to provide input into this in March 2020.

30. Auckland Council also consulted on the review of CCOs during the same period as the Annual Budget, from 21 February to 22 March 2020.

31. After receiving feedback, the panel will report on key issues, community and stakeholder feedback to the council in May 2020.

32. The panel will provide a final report and recommendations to the council in July 2020.

Types of feedback

33. Overall Auckland Council received feedback from 4,765 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· Written feedback – 3,972 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters

· In person – through 58 Have Your Say events and community events.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback received on Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

34. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board consulted on the following priorities:

· sustainability priorities including Ecological Footprint, potable water, food security and ethical investment

· environmental priorities including Ecology Vision, marine protection, and marine biosecurity

· culture and community priorities including mana whenua aspirations, support for community groups and tourism

· infrastructure priorities including housing and connectivity

35. Key themes across all feedback received (through written and in person channels) were:

· Environment (including biosecurity and planting trees)

· Planning (including infrastructure and subdivision)

· Marine protection and biosecurity

· Roading

· Waste

· Connectivity

· Potable water

Feedback received

36. Two submissions were received on Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board priorities for 2020/2021. Both submissions were supportive of the local board’s proposed priorities.

37. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board held one Have Your Say event. There were two attendees.

Overview of feedback received on the Annual Budget from Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area

38. The proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 sets out our priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The regional consultation on the proposed Annual Budget focused on changes to rates and fees, the key proposals were:

· waste management targeted rate

· refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

· Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.

39. The submissions received from the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area on these key issues is summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Waste management targeted rate

40. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the waste management targeted rate. Both Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board submitters responded in support of this proposal.

Question 1: Waste management targeted rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions.

To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $19.97 a year or $0.38 a week (the total cost changing from $121.06 to $141.03 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.

Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

41. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City targeted rate. Both Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board submitters responded in support of this proposal.

Question 2: Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for the Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by $14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 incl. GST), and an additional $6.68 a year or $0.13 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191 to $211.91 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those living outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau cities.

Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

42. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate. One Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board submitter responded in support of this proposal.

Question 3: Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump out service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal of this service in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area said they wanted to keep the service. The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43.

Our proposal, for those in the Waitākere Ranges local board area who want the service, is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we do not do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers, including those who don’t use the service.

Feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

43. No feedback was received from the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board area on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The decisions recommended in this report are procedural in nature.

45. Some of the proposed projects these would fund may have climate impacts. The climate impacts of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

46. Some of the proposed projects these would fund will be specifically designed to mitigate climate impact, build resilience to climate impacts, and restore the natural environment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. The Annual Budget is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. Local boards have a statutory role in providing local board feedback on regional plans.

49. Local boards play an important role in the development of the Annual Budget. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the Annual Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.

51. Local board plans, which were developed in 2017 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.

52. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

53. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

54. Some of the proposed projects these would fund may have impacts on Māori. The impacts on Māori of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. This report is seeking local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.

56. Local boards are also providing input to regional plans. There is information in the consultation material for each plan with the financial implications of different options.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. Local boards are required to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the Annual Budget by 15 May 2020, to enable the Governing Body to make decisions on them when considering the Annual Budget in May.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

58. Local boards will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes.

59. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to the relevant governing body committees for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

60. The dates of these meetings are yet to be determined as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown are taken into account.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board Annual Budget FY2020/21 submissions	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Jacqui Fyers - Senior Local Board Advisor Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board
Authoriser	Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager, Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

12 May 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/04261

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board delegate authority to the local board chair to submit the local board’s formal views for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils, where this feedback is due before a local board meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central Government (and other councils) seek feedback through public consultation on bills, inquiries and other key matters. The consultation timeframes vary between four and eight weeks.

3. The Governing Body is responsible for making official submissions to Central Government on most matters except for submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to a local board area. Where the Governing Body decides to make an official submission on a Central Government matter, staff work to develop a draft submission for consideration by the Governing Body and will call for local board input so it can be incorporated. The Auckland Council submission needs to be approved within the consultation timeframes set by Central Government.

4. Local board input is required to be approved by the local board. Where local boards are unable to make these decisions at a local board meeting due to the constrained timeframes, another mechanism is required. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for the council.

5. In situations where timeframes don’t allow reporting to formal business meetings, staff recommend that the local board either uses the urgent decision process or delegates authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions. Both options provide an efficient way to ensure that local board formal input is provided when external parties set submission deadlines that don’t allow formal input to be obtained from a local board business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

b) note that the local board can continue to use its urgent decision process to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, if the chair chooses not to exercise the delegation sought in recommendation (a).

c) note that this delegation will only be exercised where the timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

d) note all local input approved and submitted for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission is to be included on the next local board meeting agenda for the public record.

Horopaki

Context

6. Government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils seek feedback on issues using both formal and informal consultation opportunities. Auckland Council has an ongoing opportunity to provide advocacy on public policy matters and this is often done by making a public submission. Submissions can be provided on other council’s plans, on policy and legislative reviews or on an agency’s proposed strategy.

7. Council submissions are the formal responses to the public consultation opportunities that are open to everyone, including all Aucklanders.

8. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the Governing Body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, where a Governing Body decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

9. Under the current allocation of decision-making responsibility, the Governing Body is allocated decision-making responsibility for “submissions to government on legislation including official submissions of Auckland Council incorporating local board views”. Local boards are allocated decision-making for “submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to that local board area only”.

10. Central Government agencies set the deadlines for submissions which are generally between four to eight weeks. These timeframes do not usually allow for formal reporting to local boards to input into the council submission. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards can sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for council.

11. Providing a delegation for Central Government submissions provides local boards with another option to give formal local views within prescribed timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. There are five options available to local boards to approve their formal views and input on submissions to Central Government. Where this input is sought within a time constrained process and is due before a meeting of the local board, only four of these options will be available.

Table 1: Options for mechanisms through which the local boards can approve their formal views on Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils

Options	Pros	Cons
1. Local board input approved at a business meeting	· Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines often don’t align with external agency deadlines.

Options

Pros

Cons

1. Local board input approved at a business meeting

· Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making).

· All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.

· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines often don’t align with external agency deadlines.

Options	Pros	Cons
2. Local board input approved at an extraordinary meeting of the local board	· Provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Extraordinary meeting needs to be called by a resolution (requires anticipation by the local board) or requisition in writing delivered to the Chief Executive. The process usually requires a minimum of three clear working days. · There are additional costs incurred to run an unscheduled meeting. · It may be difficult to schedule a time when enough local board members can attend to achieve a quorum.
3. Local board input approved using urgent decision mechanism (staff recommend this option)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Local board input can be submitted once the Chair, Deputy Chair and Relationship Manager have received the report providing the local board views and input. · The urgent decision needs the sign-off from two local board members (i.e. the Chair and Deputy Chair), rather than just one.	· The decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · Chair and deputy may not have time to properly consult and ascertain view of the full local board.
4. Local board input approved by the chair who has been delegated authority from the local board (staff recommend this option where local boards choose not to use the urgent decision process)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules and local boards don’t want to use the urgent decision process. · Local board input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · The chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board.
5. Local board input submitted and ratified at a later date	· Local board informal input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Local board input submitted is considered to be the informal views of the local board until they are approved. · Local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage. · Decision to ratify informal views, even if made in a public meeting, is unable to be changed in the council submission (can be perceived as non-transparent decision-making). · Inclusion of informal views in the Auckland Council submission will be at the discretion of the Governing Body. These may be included with caveats noting the views have not been ratified by the local board. · If the local board changes its views, there is a reputational risk for the council.

13. Options one, two and three are already available to local boards and can be utilised as required and appropriate. Option one should always be used where timeframes allow reporting. Option four requires a delegation in order for a local board to utilise this mechanism and should be used only when timeframes don’t allow reporting to a business meeting.

14. Local boards who wish to utilise option four are requested to delegate to the chair as this fits within the leadership role of the chair and they are more likely to be available because the chair is a full-time role. The role of this delegated member will be to attest that the approved and submitted input constitutes the views of the local board. The input should then be published with the agenda of the next formal business meeting of the local board to provide transparency. The delegate may choose not to exercise their delegation if the matter is of a sensitive nature and is something that the full board should consider at a business meeting.

15. Each local board will be in charge of its own process for considering and developing their local board input that will be approved by the delegated member. This can include discussions at workshops, developing ideas in a small working group or allocating it to an individual member to draft.

16. Where local boards do not wish to delegate the views to the chair, the recommended option is to use the urgent decision mechanism (where deadlines don’t align with local board reporting timeframes). The mechanism requires a staff report and the decision to be executed by three people (the Chair, Deputy Chair and the Relationship Manager). Local board input can be submitted within one to two days after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.

17. Option five is not considered best practice and local boards are strongly discouraged from using this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. This report proposes a delegation to ensure that staff can undertake the preparation of submissions in a timely manner, while receiving formal local board input on matters that are of local board importance.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. This report seeks to establish a specific delegation for the local board chair.

21. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. If local boards choose to delegate to provide their formal views on Auckland Council submissions, there is a risk that this mechanism is perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. This can be mitigated by publishing the submitted local board input on the next agenda.

25. There is also a risk that the chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board. This can be mitigated by encouraging the local board to collectively discuss and agree their input before it is submitted by the member who has been delegated authority.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. On those occasions where it is required, the delegation will be used to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager, Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Terms of Reference for the Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group	47

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent decision-making memo for AFSG crisis funding	53

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the Independent Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) Review	59

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier feedback on proposed amendments to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework	73

Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

12 May 2020

Formal feedback from Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board

File No.: CP2020/03268

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To retrospectively adopt the formal feedback submitted by the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board on the following:

· Inter-regional marine pest pathway management proposal

· Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

· Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964and related legislation

· Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections and liquor licensing trust and recent energy trust elections

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board provided formal feedback on four government consultations in February and March 2020.

3. Informal public consultation on potential approaches for inter-regional marine pest pathway management was undertaken between 18 March and 24 May 2019 in four regions: Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty. The consultation results showed a preference among submitters for consistent rules for boat hull-fouling across the four regions, and a preference for boat owners to maintain a clean hull at all times.

4. Auckland Council staff are currently progressing with an options analysis to identify a preferred option for marine pest pathway management and are collating further supporting evidence through the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity working group. The board submitted its formal feedback on Monday 2 March 2020 (Attachment A).

5. The Ministry for the Environment has released He Kura Koiora i hokia: A discussion document on a proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, including proposed wording for the national policy statement. Submissions close on 14 March 2020. The board submitted its formal feedback to the proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity on Monday 2 March 2020 (Attachment B).

6. The Ministry for Health is reviewing New Zealand’s legislation relating to death, burial, cremation and funerals in New Zealand for the purpose of updating relevant legislation so that it is modernised, fit-for purpose, reflects general trends in society and is compatible with other legislative documents.

7. The affected legislation includes the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, Cremation Regulations 1973 and the Health (Burial) Regulations 1946. Formal local board feedback on this review was submitted on 28 February 2020 and appended to the Auckland Council submission (Attachment C).

8. In December 2019, the Justice Committee notified its inquiry into the 2019 local elections. Submissions close on 29 February 2020. The board submitted its formal feedback on the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections and liquor licensing trust and recent energy trust elections on Wednesday 19 February 2020 through the urgent decision process (Attachment D).

Te tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board:

a) adopt the input submitted on the inter-regional marine pest pathway management (Attachment A of the report).

b) adopt the submitted feedback on Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (Attachment B of the report).

c) adopt the feedback submitted on the Death, Funerals, Burial and Cremation: a Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation (Attachment C of the report).

d) adopt the submitted feedback on the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections and liquor licensing trust and recent energy trust (Attachment D of the report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the inter-regional marine pest pathway management	85
b ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity	87
c ⇩	Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board feedback on the Death, Funerals, Burial and Cremation: a Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation	89
d ⇩	Aotea / Great barrier Local Board feedback - Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2019 local elections and liquor licensing trust and recent energy trust	91