Agenda of Whau Local Board - Wednesday, 22 September 2021

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Whau Ward Councillor's Update	9

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Reserve revocation of 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn

File No.: CP2021/10273

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks the views of the Whau Local Board on the proposal to revoke the reserve status of two reserves in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Finance and Performance Committee approved in principle the disposal of 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, as part of the Emergency Budget asset recycling programme in 2020. The two sites are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The committee’s approval of the disposals is conditional upon the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes. Eke Panuku Development Auckland (Eke Panuku) is undertaking the required statutory processes on behalf of the Council, including the reserve revocation process.

4. Eke Panuku publicly advertised the proposed reserve revocations and invited public submissions. The public submissions process for the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the two sites commenced in February 2021. Independent Commissioners have been appointed to consider the public submissions. A hearing is scheduled to be held in October 2021 to allow for submitters to speak directly to the Independent Commissioners.

5. Council departments have assessed 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, against the provisions for recreation reserves in s17 Reserves Act 1977 and against Council’s Open Space policies. The assessments confirm that the sites are no longer required by Council as recreation reserves or for Open Space network purposes.

6. Eke Panuku has provided the Whau Local Board with relevant property information and open space assessments for the two sites and now seeks the local board’s formal views regarding the proposed reserve revocations.

7. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee will consider the board’s views regarding the two sites, in addition to any recommendations made by the Independent Commissioners regarding public submissions. The PACE Committee will decide if the proposal to revoke the reserve status for the two sites should be forwarded to the Department of Conservation (DOC).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) endorse the proposed reserve revocation of the following sites as they are no longer required by Council as recreation reserves:

i) 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn; and

ii) Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn.

b) note that Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee will consider the local board’s views and any recommendations made by Independent Commissioners regarding public submissions.

Horopaki

Context

8. In 2020 the Finance and Performance Committee approved in principle the disposal of 13 Davern Lane and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent as part of the Emergency Budget asset recycling programme. This approval is subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes. Eke Panuku, on behalf of the Council, has subsequently commenced work on completing the required statutory processes.

9. As the sites are classified as reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, a process for the revocation of reserve status, including public and iwi notification, is necessary before they may be sold.

10. Public notices for the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the subject reserves were published in newspapers in February 2021. Letters were also sent to adjoining landowners and the proposal listed on the Auckland Council website. Public notices were also placed on the reserves. The public notice that was published and placed on reserves, letters and information on the Council website advised of Council’s proposal to revoke the reserve status, explaining the reason for the proposal and seeking public submissions.

11. Council appointed Independent Commissioners to consider the public submissions received for the proposed revocation of 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, and hearings were held in August/September 2021.

12. The PACE Committee will consider the local board’s views regarding the proposed reserve revocation of the two sites and any recommendations made by the Independent Commissioners regarding public submissions. The PACE Committee will decide if the proposal to revoke the reserve status should be forwarded to the Department of Conservation (DOC).

13. The local board has been consulted by Council’s Plans and Places team on the separate plan change process to change the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) – Open Space zoning of the two reserves before a disposal can proceed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property information – 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn

14. 13 Davern Lane is a small 300m² reserve containing a park bench located in a no-exit street. It was vested upon subdivision with the former Waitākere City Council in 1994. The site is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

15. Council’s Community Investment team (formerly the Parks and Recreation Policy team) assessed the site in January 2020 against Council’s Open Space Provision and Open Space Acquisition policies. The assessment also considered the provisions for a recreation reserve outlined in s17 Reserves Act 1977. This assessment confirmed 13 Davern Lane is not required by Council as a recreation reserve or for Open Space Network purposes. This is on the basis the site’s size and lack of facilities provides limited opportunities for a diverse range of recreational activities. Its location in a no-exit road restricts access to the wider community.

16. 13 Davern Lane does not connect existing parks and open space. It has no known significant ecological, historical heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values. It does not improve the accessibility or functionality of existing parks.

17. The site’s recreation value is low because of its small size and location. The nearby Lawson Park (2.41ha) is within 400 meters walking distance and is better placed to provide multiple recreation opportunities to service the open space needs of the community.

18. While 13 Davern Lane contains several mature trees, ongoing Council ownership is not required to protect the trees, with the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) tree protection rules in place for both public and privately owned trees.

Property information - Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn

19. Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent is a small 300m² reserve that was vested upon subdivision with the former New Lynn Borough Council in 1987. It is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

20. Council’s Community Investment team assessed Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent in January 2020 against Council’s Open Space Provision and Open Space Acquisition policies. The assessment also considered the provisions for a recreation reserve outlined in s17 Reserves Act 1977. This assessment confirmed Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent is not required by Council as a recreation reserve or for Open Space Network purposes. This is on the basis that it is located within a Kāinga Ora housing complex, does not connect existing parks and open space and its location restricts the opportunity for a wide range of open space activities.

21. The site is mainly covered by trees, scrubs and a power transformer. However, the trees present are not notable, and the trees scrub and power infrastructure result in a limited amount of useable open space. The site also has no significant ecological, historical heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. The two sites are not located in flood prone areas and are not coastal properties likely to be impacted in the future by rising sea levels.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. Council’s Community Investment team, with input from council’s Parks operational staff, assessed 13 Davern Lane and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent against Council’s Open Space policies and the provisions for recreation reserves in accordance with s17 Reserves Act 1977.

24. Additional consultation with Council’s Heritage team has been undertaken regarding historic or archaeological values associated with the sites. It was confirmed that Council’s heritage records and Geomaps overlays hold no known heritage values associated with the sites.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Eke Panuku has provided the Whau Local Board with an information memorandum and attended a September 2021 workshop regarding the proposed reserve revocations of 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn.

26. At the workshop, the local board provided informal feedback to Eke Panuku regarding Council’s 2020 Emergency Budget process and AUP tree protection rules.

27. The local board resolved (resolution WH/2021/16) in March 2021 to receive a notice of motion to oppose the proposed disposal and reserve revocation of 13 Davern Lane. The local board also noted the presence of mature trees on the site and requested more information from Council departments relating to any enduring Open Space provision resulting from its original vesting with Council. The local board also requested detail and modelling from Council departments relating to Open Space provision and anticipated population increase and associated community need.

28. Eke Panuku’s Planning and Consents team has reviewed the land use consent for the 1993 subdivision and advises that the vesting of the site was to satisfy the former Waitākere City Council’s objectives and policies relating to reserves. There are specific references in the consent regarding the vesting of the site, including seating and landscaping. There was also a requirement in the consent to protect three large trees during the development, one of which is still located on the reserve. However, there was no requirement for tree protection after the development was completed.

29. A desktop review on council’s Geomaps indicates the large tree on 13 Davern Lane is the only remaining original tree. The other two trees (located on other lots) appear to have been removed prior to 2001.

30. The local board should also note that the Community Investment Team assessment of 13 Davern Lane against Council’s Open Space Provision and Open Space Acquisition polices does consider the surrounding Auckland Unitary Plan zoning and the zone’s permitted level of intensification as part of its assessment.

31. This report provides the local board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding the proposed reserve revocations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. Nineteen mana whenua iwi authorities were consulted in 2020 regarding any issues of cultural significance associated with 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn. No issues of cultural significance were received in response.

33. Site specific mana whenua engagement was also undertaken regarding the proposed reserve revocations. A submission from Ngāti Paoa was received that objected to all the proposed reserve revocations across Auckland. The objection has been referred to the Independent Commissioners for consideration and for reporting to the PACE Committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. No financial implications are associated with the recommendations contained in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. There is a risk that the Minister for the Department of Conservation may not approve the proposed reserve revocations. In such a circumstance 13 Davern Lane, New Lynn, and Lot 6 DP 119411 Trojan Crescent Road, New Lynn, would remain as reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The local board’s feedback and the Independent Commissioner’s recommendations on the proposal to revoke the reserve status will be reported to the PACE Committee. The report to the committee will also seek approval to submit a request to the Minister for the Department of Conservation to uplift the reserve status for the two sites.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Images	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis – Senior Advisor, Portfolio Review, Eke Panuku Development

Authorisers

Matt Casey – Team Leader, Portfolio Review, Eke Panuku Development

Letitia Edwards – Head of Strategic Asset Optimisation, Eke Panuku Development

Ross Chirnside – General Manager, Value for Money

Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi

File No.: CP2021/13655

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The BID Team has implemented a review of the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi and supporting documents, as advised in the memo to local board members dated 23 April 2021. The memo can be found on the Auckland Council website, InfoCouncil.

3. The review sought informal and formal feedback from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council-controlled organisations (CCOs), council departments and other external stakeholders.

4. The review has focused on strengthening those parts of the policy relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, the financial sustainability of BID programmes.

5. The review also focused on elected member needs, identifying any political risks and mitigations.

6. The draft BID Policy (2021) has been before the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 18 August 2021. Feedback received has been incorporated into this version of the BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

7. Staff are now seeking formal feedback from local boards on the draft BID Policy (2021) provided as Attachment A.

8. Following formal feedback received from local boards, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, CCOs, council departments and other external stakeholders, the final version of the BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee for adoption on 9 December 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2021) and supporting documents by 1 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Auckland BID programme

9. BID-operating business associations are membership-based organisations independent of Auckland Council. The draft BID Policy (2021) supports the independent nature of the BID-operating business associations. They are responsible for the BID programme delivery, its success, and are accountable to BID members/BID affiliates.

10. Local boards have the primary relationship with BID-operating business associations in their area:

· Local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals. Working collaboratively achieves greater outcomes.

· Local boards have significant allocated decision-making responsibility for BID programme establishments, amending existing BID programmes, BID boundary changes, continuation/discontinuation and issue resolution.

11. Auckland Council requires BID-operating business associations to fully comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Kaupapa Hereā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (refer Attachment A).

12. The BID policy sets out the process for:

· establishing, continuing/discontinuing BID programmes

· changes to the BID programme boundary area/map

· changes to the BID targeted rating mechanism

· issue resolution

· key stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

13. The BID policy includes the engagement and reporting requirements for BID-operating business associations to ensure all BID members/BID affiliates have access to the relevant BID programme information. BID-operating business associations must use their Annual General Meeting (AGM) process to obtain formal member approval for the BID programme delivery, budget, and to confirm their BID targeted rate grant amount for the following financial year.

14. The BID policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability role council has for monies collected as a public sector organisation. This balance is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence with the Auckland Council BID programme.

The review

15. Commencing April 2021, the review of the current policy began with communicating with local boards and all stakeholders involved in the management and operation of BID programmes across Tāmaki Makaurau, both BID-operating and non-BID business associations, council departments and interested parties. The process to date has included informal feedback and comments on the current policy.

16. The review process focused on strengthening parts of the policy (and updating supporting documents) relating to issue resolution and, following local board feedback, financial sustainability of BID programmes.

17. The review has also provided the opportunity to clarify the documentation between Auckland Council (collecting the BID targeted rate and the funder) and the BID-operating business association relating to the BID Programme Agreement (2016) document.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Rationale for the review

18. The primary objective for reviewing the current 2016 policy is a focus on the issue resolution sections. Experience in this space over the last five years has illustrated gaps in the usefulness of the current policy to address and resolve issues in a timely manner.

19. The review provided an opportunity to update parts of the policy relating to Auckland Council changes in operation, current business practices and where the advancement of technology has contributed to how business is done, for example zoom meetings.

20. There was also an early opportunity to capture informal feedback from local boards and BID-operating business associations.

21. The information and informal feedback collected in May, June and July of this year has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy 2021 (Attachment A) and supporting documents (Attachments B and C). A summary of the BID Policy (2021) requirements is provided with this report (Attachment D).

22. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Participants in the review

23. In addition to local boards, there are a range of stakeholders involved in BID programmes, both internal and external to Auckland Council. The BID team set a programme of informal engagement, outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Key engagement activity

Stakeholder	Engagement	Dates
BID-operating business associations Business associations without BID programmes	BID communication including newsletters and emails: Sent to 50+ BID-operating business associations and other interested parties	March, April, May, June and July 2021
	Three network meetings	May, June and July 2021 An average attendance exceeded 20+ BID-operating business associations
	Four special workshops – topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 23+ BID programmes were represented at each workshop.
Local boards	Eighteen local board workshop presentations	June and July 2021 Introduction memo and BID policy review information
Local boards	Three special topic workshops - topics included: issue resolution, conflict of interest and developing a board charter	June and July 2021 An average of 16 local board elected members attended each workshop
Local Board Services Division Lead team	Presentation and information feedback received	Presentation on 18 June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee	Memo on BID policy review project	April 2021
Council departments including: · Legal Services · Connected Communities · Ngā Mātārae · Risk and Assurance · Finance and Policy · Local Board Services	Regular meetings, engagement and feedback	May, June, and July 2021
Independent polling agent	Engagement and feedback regarding the ballot/polling process	June 2021
Finance and Performance Committee workshop	The draft BID Policy (2021) V1 and support documents were presented and feedback received	18 August 2021

24. The process to undertake the review of the current policy (2016) takes place from February 2021 to June 2022. Progress to date is set out in Table 2 below:

Table 2 – Progress to date

Date	Progress
2021 Feb/March	· Project planning, stakeholder communications
April to July	· Directed consultation with local boards and stakeholders on the current BID policy and identified themes o issue resolution o conflicts of interest o board charter development
May/June	· Cross council, external engagement and feedback
June/July	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents created
18 August	· Finance and Performance Committee workshop
August/September	· Distribution of draft BID Policy (2021) for formal feedback

Informal local board feedback

25. Discussions with local boards during workshops centred around:

· issue resolution – how to do this fairly and in a timely manner

· operational issues – relating to management and governance of BID-operating business associations

· opportunities for collaboration and cost savings between BIDs

· elected members involvement with BID-operating business associations

· growth opportunities for BID-operating business associations

· continued dependence on local board funding.

Seeking local board formal feedback on the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

26. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (2021) and support documents (Attachments A, B and C). Local boards are encouraged to engage with BID-operating business associations in their local board area (where relevant/possible) to help to inform this feedback process.

27. Any feedback from local boards will help the further development of BID Policy (2021). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on proposed changes set out in Tables 3 and 4 below.

28. Feedback from local boards, external stakeholders and any further feedback from BID-operating business associations will be reviewed by staff and this will help inform the final version of the policy. Formal feedback can be sent to bids@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

29. Once the BID Policy 2021 is approved, other support material will be made available on the BID Auckland Council website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and include:

· BID-operating business association constitution (template 2021)

· BID-operating executive committee board charter (template 2021)

· individual BID programme area maps

· BID affiliate/BID business association membership qualification diagram

· local board BID representative position description

· template documents, including:

o AGM agenda

o AGM minutes

o BID programme income and expenditure budget (for BID grant $120,000).

Summary of changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

30. The key proposed changes incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Key changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Key change from current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Issue resolution	Improving the ability to resolve issues with a clear process in a timely manner	An issue is identified as non- compliance with the BID policy	3.5, Requirement 24
BID Programme Funding Agreement (2021) Attachment B	Replaced BID Programme Agreement (2016)	Clarifies the relationship between the parties	3.1, Requirement 18
Size and scale of BID programmes Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 No change from 2016	Minimum BID targeted rate grant $120,000 remains A new requirement for legacy BID programmes (11 in total) that currently receive less than $120,000pa to increase their targeted rate up to that amount over the next five years A variety of options are suggested to achieve this	This requirement is a result of local board feedback on concerns to continually fund non-financially sustainable BID programmes	1.4, Requirement 3 and 4
Exceptional or unexpected circumstances	Council may, at its discretion, depart from the requirement set out in section 2.4 (25% of total voting forms must be returned for the ballot to be valid	Council will consider evidence of support to date, what is fair and any impact from amending the voting threshold mandate	3.4.2
BID operating business association constitution (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their constitution to suit their local needs, on the basis is not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12
BID operating executive committee board charter (template 2016)	This supporting document was included as part of the current policy and now removed from the BID Policy (2021)	This allows the business association to amend their board charter to suit their local needs, on the basis it is not inconsistent with the BID policy A template document is provided on the www.bid.auckland.govt.nz website	1.1, 2.3.2 Requirement 12

31. Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) are set out in Table 4 below:

Table 4 – Minor changes made to the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents

Minor changes to current policy	Description	Note	2021 section, page
Other council funding	Organisational view on risk regarding BID-operating business association receiving other council funding	The draft BID policy acknowledges other council funding grants allocated to BID-operating business associations	2.3.4, Requirement 16
Local boards – other roles	Updated	Refer to elected member conflicts of interest policy A link to these documents can be found here	2.5.3
BID Annual Accountability Report (2021) Attachment C	Name change from BID Annual Accountability Agreement (2016)	To include BID targeted rate grant amount and copy of AGM resolution	3.2, Requirement 22, Table 2, item 9
Audit – provision for a review audit or full audit	Recognition of increased risk and increased reporting requirement based on the amount of targeted rate received	Set as a sliding scale BID targeted rate grants less than $200,000pa must commission a review audit BID targeted rate grants more than $200,000pa must commission a full audit	3.2, Requirement 23, Table 2, item 4
Rating mechanism - flat rate	Lifted the maximum flat rate amount from $500 to $900 per rateable property	To provide more flexibility for BID-operating business associations when considering BID programme budgets and the impact of BID targeted rates on ratepayers	3.1.2

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. The BID Policy (2021) focuses on the governance and accountability for BID-operating business associations. Individually the BID programme, through targeted rate-funding, can focus on advocacy and activities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Formal feedback will be sought from other council teams including CCOs and those who work and have an interested in the BID programme and business community space.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. Local boards have engaged with the review of the BID Policy (2016) and their informal feedback has been incorporated into the draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents. Table 1 outlines local board engagement to date.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35. Staff are working with Auckland Council’s Ngā Mātārae Unit to ensure that the BID Policy (2021) aligns with the Auckland Council Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. There are no financial implications for local boards under the draft BID Policy (2021).

37. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. Council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or Auckland Council that could result from the draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents.

39. The policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

40. The draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents set out the requirements and obligations for BID-operating business associations and are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, and to undertake and meet all requirements set out in the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Following formal feedback received from local boards, CCOs, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council departments, other external stakeholders and those with an interest in BID programmes, a final BID Policy (2021) and support documents will be updated and the steps outlined in Table 5 below will be completed by the BID team:

Table 5 – Progress to completion

Date	Progress
2021 August	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents updated to post Finance and Performance Committee workshop feedback
Mid-August to 1 October	· Draft BID Policy (2021) and support documents distributed to local boards, BID-operating business associations, council departments, CCOs and other stakeholders for formal feedback · Update www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz website with feedback link · Feedback open 24 August to 1 October
October	· Update draft BID Policy (2021) and supporting documents incorporating formal feedback
9 December	· Presentation of final version of BID Policy (2021) and support documents to Finance and Performance Committee meeting
2022 January/February	· Post Finance and Performance Committee approval actions, communications with local boards, BID-operating business associations, all stakeholders, and update www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz website
March to June	· BID Policy (2021) communication, support and advice · The BID team will provide assistance to the 50 BID-operating business associations to comply with the BID Policy (2021), including guidance with aligning their individual constitutions and governance documents to meet the timing of their 2022 AGM timeframes

42. The BID Policy (2021), if approved by the Finance and Performance Committee in December 2021, would become operational on 1 July 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft BID Policy (2021)	31
b ⇩	BID Funding Agreement	53
c ⇩	BID Annual Accountability Report	65
d ⇩	Draft BID Policy requirements	67

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Siddens – Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron – Manager CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Local board feedback on the kerbside refuse charging mechanism policy

File No.: CP2021/13528

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal feedback from local boards on the kerbside refuse charging model policy review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently committed to expanding the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) funding model for kerbside refuse collection across the Auckland region. This reflects the policy within our Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 to provide consistent waste services across the region.

3. This would involve moving the legacy Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas away from a rates-funded service to a PAYT funding model.

4. Before we make this shift, Waste Solutions is reviewing the evidence to support the decision to move these areas to a PAYT model to assess whether PAYT is still the best solution for achieving the objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5. Evidence gathered so far is being assessed against three options:

· all areas pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)

· keeping a hybrid model (currently, 55 per cent of the region’s refuse collection is rates-funded, 45 per cent PAYT)

· all areas rates-funded.

6. The options will have a different impact on each local board area, depending on the current service charging mechanism relative to the proposed service change (Attachment A).

7. A memo was circulated to all local boards on 23 July 2021 (Attachment B) outlining initial conclusions reached through the analysis of evidence gathered to date. This was used as a basis for discussion with local boards at workshops throughout August 2021 to understand their views on the risks and impacts of the potential options within their respective areas.

8. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards, using the template in Attachment C as a guide, to inform the recommendation that staff will present to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the kerbside refuse charging model policy review.

Horopaki

Context

9. The 2012 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) made provision to move all Auckland households towards a user-pays charging system for refuse collection, known in Auckland as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT). This transition to a consistent regional PAYT refuse service (weekly, changing to fortnightly over time) was confirmed in WMMP 2018.

10. The decision was based on:

· best evidence at the time that this was the most effective way to incentivise diversion from landfill and enable householders to reduce their waste costs

· the understanding that technology would be available to enable pay-per-lift charging through radio-frequency identification (RFID) chipped bins.

11. In legacy rates-funded areas, it was decided that the move to PAYT would take effect after the introduction of a food scraps collection service, to reduce the financial impact on households.

12. Since then, more information has become available about the effectiveness of PAYT, particularly in the context of the other complementary services that the council has rolled out, for example regionwide recycling and the pilot food scraps service, due to be rolled out regionwide from early 2023. Prior to making the change to PAYT, Waste Solutions is reviewing the evidence base for this shift.

13. In this review we are assessing several factors, including:

· the potential effects of each funding model on communities

· the potential waste minimisation impacts of each funding model

· the expected cost to implement each funding model taking into account the changing financial circumstances of both ratepayers and council.

14. To assist with this review, Waste Solutions commissioned independent consultants, Morrison Low, to examine the evidence currently available against the following aspects of the refuse collection service and its impact on the council, customers and the environment:

· waste minimisation

· cost effectiveness

· reputation

· technology

· household responsibility / accountability

· access / equity

· downstream impacts on the collections industry

· climate change

· amenity

· health and safety.

15. Evidence gathered so far is being assessed against three options:

· all areas PAYT

· keeping a hybrid model (currently 55 per cent rates-funded, 45 per cent PAYT)

· all areas rates-funded.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Currently, 55 per cent of Auckland households (legacy Auckland City and Manukau City) are provided with a rates-funded refuse service, with the remaining 45 per cent (legacy Franklin, Waitākere, Papakura and North Shore City Council) on a PAYT service provided by either the Council or a private operator. There is no Council refuse collection service in legacy Rodney, but under current policy there is a commitment to provide a PAYT service in the future. See Attachment A for a breakdown of Council refuse collection services by local board area.

17. Detailed analysis and advice were provided to local boards in a memo dated 23 July 2021 (Attachment B). This memo was marked confidential, but the need for confidentiality has now lapsed.

Conclusions on key issues

18. Aotearoa/New Zealand is unique in having side-by-side competition between private and Council services in the residential refuse collection market. This impacts the way PAYT operates and introduces a number of challenges not experienced overseas.

19. Financial modelling currently indicates that PAYT is less cost-effective for the Council than rates-funded solutions because of more complex systems, duplication of workloads by multiple suppliers and the Council’s need to offer the service to properties across the entire region.

20. Evidence from overseas found only a very weak link between marginal pricing changes and change in refuse quantities. This is consistent with a 2021 examination of refuse tonnages, which found no clear evidence that PAYT areas of Auckland produce less refuse per capita than rates-funded areas.

21. The current price in Auckland does not appear to be a sufficient economic driver to motivate behaviour change in households.

22. International evidence indicates the greatest waste minimisation is achieved through providing easy access to services that divert waste away from landfill (such as the recycling and food scraps collection services), good community education programmes, and reduced access to refuse volume to encourage use of the diversion services.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. Enhancing access to diversion and resource recovery, along with optimising efficiencies around collecting refuse at the kerbside, presents opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions directly, for example through the reduction of vehicle movements and diversion of organic material from landfill, and indirectly by encouraging better resource use.

24. Therefore, considerations to take into account when assessing options include the opportunities to minimise both direct and immediate impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, for example:

· emissions can be mitigated where the Council retains greater control over household behaviour and container size (larger customer base), to drive higher participation rates from households in the weekly food scraps service which is critical to reducing methane emissions from landfill

· emissions can be mitigated by choosing the option that will bring efficiencies to vehicle servicing routes. This includes reducing duplication of refuse collectors operating side-by-side in the same areas of Auckland.

25. The rates-funded option provides the opportunity to reduce total truck kilometres travelled from a sole supplier, the ability to specify the truck requirement through the procurement process and efficiencies in route design.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. This review is about the way in which council charges for domestic kerbside rubbish collections and so views have not been sought from the wider Council family.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Local boards provided feedback through the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 development process. All local boards supported the proposed WMMP. Only Devonport-Takapuna, Manurewa, Ōrākei and Papakura Local Boards expressed views on refuse charging mechanisms within their responses.

28. Staff provided a detailed memo to all local boards on 23 July 2021, outlining the early findings of the review, acknowledging that detailed works on costs and equity were still being completed.

29. Staff attended workshops with local boards between 29 July and 24 August 2021 to present on the key points of the review and seek views on the current refuse collection services. Informal feedback was noted during these workshops.

30. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board using the template provided in Attachment C to inform the recommendation to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua and mataawaka were engaged in the development of the 2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and identified priority actions for Māori.

32. The council partners with Para Kore ki Tāmaki – a Māori-developed and implemented programme that integrates mātauranga Māori and zero waste principles and practices to support marae, Māori organisations, Kura Kaupapa Māori and Kōhanga Reo to divert significant quantities of recycling and organic waste from landfill.

33. Staff outlined the purpose of the review and early findings to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Regional Hui on 9 July 2021 and then at a Regional Projects Workshop on 20 July 2021. Members of the forum receiving the presentation raised concerns that poorer communities had fewer choices in relation to controlling their waste production. Staff acknowledged that this was recognised by Waste Solutions and that multiple approaches are needed, including advocacy to central government on phasing out hard-to-recycle plastics and the introduction of product stewardship schemes.

34. Staff are also working with specialist community facilitators Rākau Tautoko and Waste Solutions community partners to hold targeted focus groups with Māori and Pacific communities during August and September 2021 to seek their views on different refuse collection payment mechanisms. These views will inform the recommendation to Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. In terms of cost-effectiveness, when comparing rates funded with PAYT models, the Morrison Low study concluded that the rates-funded option provides greater cost-effectiveness for the council than both the current hybrid model and the PAYT option due to economies of scale.

36. This was based on:

· cost: results of financial modelling commissioned by the Council, using existing parameters and the weekly PAYT service, show that the cost of delivering a rates-funded service is similar, but costs the community significantly less overall when all service costs, including private collection costs, are included.

· cost sustainability: an estimated variation in cost per pickup based on the number of customers serviced by Auckland Council which shows that the cost of operating the Council service increases sharply when the Council is servicing less than 30 per cent of the community. At 30 per cent, it is approximately double the cost per pickup compared to 80 per cent.

37. Further analysis of costs is being carried out by council staff as part of this discovery phase.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. High level risks are outlined in Table 1. More detailed risks and mitigations will be examined as part of the development of options for Environment and Climate Change Committee throughout September.

Table 1: Kerbside refuse charging policy review high level risks and mitigations

Risk	Mitigation
The perception of unfairness in offering the same service/charge to all households: households that produce large amounts of waste are favoured under the rates-funded model, whereas households that produce less waste are favoured under the PAYT model.	Staff are investigating the cost of offering three different bin sizes (80l/120l/240l) under the rates-funded model to accommodate different households’ needs.
There is no agreement on which charging model works best for the whole of Auckland	Consideration of a hybrid model will be presented as part of the options analysis to Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.
The preferred option costs Council more to deliver than the current hybrid option.	Detailed costs will be provided for all three options. These will be presented at workshops with elected members and local board Chairs as part of the Annual Budget 2022/23 process. This will include analysis of the cost to the community and an estimate of the cost of failing to meet Auckland’s climate change goals.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Staff are currently engaging with elected members, local boards, industry and community groups, prior to developing options and recommendations to take to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for a decision on 14 October 2021.

40. Local board feedback received by 28 September will help inform the recommendation and will be included within the report.

41. In addition to the above, the following studies are currently underway, or have recently concluded:

· radio-frequency identification (RFID) trial to show whether this service will be able to be operated at scale, with a sufficiently low error rate to be considered feasible in Auckland

· detailed analysis of costs of all options

· investigation of the social impacts of the three options.

42. The results of these studies will conclude the desk-based discovery phase and will inform the final evaluation of options by Morrison Low. This final report will help to inform the recommendation that will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee on 14 October 2021.

43. If the Environment and Climate Change Committee decide to deviate from current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan policy by approving either the rates-funded or hybrid model option, the current proposal is to engage more widely on options through a special consultative procedure as part of the Annual Plan 2022/2023 process.

44. Local boards will be consulted on the preferred option, which will include a more detailed analysis of the timings of any changes to service, during that process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current refuse services and impact of options by local board area	77
b ⇩	Memo Kerbside Refuse Charging Review	79
c ⇩	Template for local board feedback – refuse charging	87

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire - Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood – General Manager Waste Solutions

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/13580

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed amendments to the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para / Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, staff have summarised the feedback and provided a structure for deliberations.

3. The proposal helps to protect the water and water networks from damage misuse and interference and assist in the provision of reliable, safe and efficient water and wastewater services in Auckland.

4. Council received responses from 46 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	To further define the rules regarding unauthorised taking of water from the water supply network
Proposal 2	To further define the rules regarding unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network
Proposal 3	Clarification of linkages to other legislation, bylaws and other documentation
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal and, if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel. Taking this approach will assist the panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

6. There is a reputational risk that feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 5 November 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive public feedback on the proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para / Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 in this agenda report.

b) provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw protects the water supply and wastewater networks

8. The Governing Body adopted the Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para 2015 / Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 on 25 June 2015 (resolution number GB/2015/62). This Auckland Council bylaw is administered by Watercare Services Limited.

9. This bylaw seeks to protect the water supply and wastewater networks by:

· requiring authorisation from Watercare to connect to or disconnect from the water supply or wastewater network and enabling Watercare to refuse connections where there is insufficient network capacity

· ensuring appropriate standards for any new infrastructure under Watercare's control

· protecting the quality of the water supply and prohibiting illegal use from hydrants

· managing work near the water supply and wastewater network to protect it from damage

· allowing for restricting the water supply to maintain enough drinking water in the event of drought or other emergency

· managing inflows and illegal dumping of material into the wastewater network to avoid wastewater overflows.

10. The bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework. Issues related to access to private property are addressed under the Local Government Act 2002 while those related to the compliance with water quality are addressed under the Health Act 1956.

11. In addition, uniquely to Auckland, Watercare has a contractual relationship with its customers. This enables the bylaw to focus on matters relating to the impact of household and businesses’ behaviours on the public assets, while the customer contract addresses the rights and obligations for each customer’s water and wastewater connection.

Council proposed amendments to the bylaw for public feedback

12. On 25 February 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to make amendments to the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2021/11).

13. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Water and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

14. The proposal helps to clarify and further define the rules in the bylaw by clarifying:

· the rules around the unauthorised taking of water from the water supply network

· the definitions around unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network

· linkages with other bylaws and documentation.

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 43 people and three organisations. In addition, the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received 396 hits.^{^[1]}

Process to amend Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

Graphical user interface, text, application, chat or text message

Description automatically generated

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

16. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

17. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

18. The nature of the local board views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area

19. No public feedback was received from the Whau Local Board area. There was majority support for proposals 1, 2 and 3 from all people who provided feedback across the Auckland region, as outlined in the following table:

Support of proposal in the Auckland region

Topic	Total support from people across Auckland
1: To further define the rules regarding unauthorised taking of water from the network	70 per cent
2: To further define the rules regarding unauthorised discharges to the wastewater network	79 per cent
3: Clarification of linkages to other legislation, bylaws and documentation	76 per cent

21. The full proposal can be viewed in the link provided. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution and, if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 5 November 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The bylaw impacts the operations of many Watercare teams in charge of the operations and the planning of water sources and water and wastewater networks. It also impacts some Auckland Council teams involved in compliance and stormwater management. Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Local board members were invited to give feedback on the bylaw in December 2019. This included an offer by staff to present workshops to interested local boards at their meetings.

26. Communication was received from one local board in relation to wastewater overflows, a matter unrelated to bylaw and already covered by the Resource Management Act 1991.

27. This low interest in the bylaw review is consistent with the Auckland Council’s classification of the bylaw as ‘low impact and low interest to local boards’ under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019.

28. An update on the findings and options stages were included in Watercare’s local board communications in June 2020.

29. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. The bylaw contributes to the Māori plan’s key directions and aspirations of Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life ‘Satisfaction with our environments and standard of living’) and Kaitiakitanga (Ensure Sustainable Futures ‘lntergenerational Reciprocity’) by ensuring the public water supply and wastewater network is future-proofed and not contaminated or damaged, which would be detrimental to the people and the natural environment.

31. Input by mana whenua was sought at a special hui of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in January 2020. The main concerns related to environmental issues beyond the bylaw scope, such as archaeological sites and clarifications of asset ownership and responsibilities.

32. Staff sought input by mana whenua on the proposed options in June 2020. A meeting with the chairperson of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum confirmed his support for the direction taken and recommended a written update at the June 2020 forum to carry on the engagement.

33. Watercare staff presented an update of the bylaw review process to the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in mid-October 2020.

34. Those respondents who identified as Māori during the public consultation were all generally supportive of the three proposals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. On 5 November 2021, the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in February 2022 (refer to the ‘Process to make the amend the Water and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015’ diagram in the ‘Context’ section of this report).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report	95

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sharon Danks – Operations Delivery Manager – Watercare

Authorisers

Mark Bourne – Chief Operations Officer – Watercare

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to make a new Public Trading Events and Filming Bylaw 2022

File No.: CP2021/13017

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposed new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022, before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The proposal helps to minimise safety risks, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places (for example footpaths, local parks and civic spaces) by continuing to regulate trading, events and filming activities.

4. Council received responses from 78 people and organisations including late feedback received from one organisation after the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Continue to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current Bylaw.
Proposal 2	Clarify the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are.
Proposal 3	Clarify which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the Bylaw.
Proposal 4	Update the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with.
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters.

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 20 October 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive public feedback on the proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui 2022 / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 in this agenda report.

b) provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation (a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in (b) to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board Chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in (c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw regulates trading, events and filming in council-controlled public places

8. The current Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 / Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Hokohoko, Whakahaerenga i ngā Wāhi Tūmatanui 2015 seeks to protect public safety, minimise nuisance and misuse of council-controlled public places caused by trading activities, events and filming.

9. The rules are enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

10. The current Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the:

· Reserves Act 1997, Resource Management Act 1991, Food Act 2014, Road User Rule 2004, Trespass Act 1980, Fair Trading Act 1986, Customer Guarantees Act 1993, Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 and Auckland Unitary Plan

· Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, Signage Bylaw 2015, Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 and Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019

· Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015.

11. The current Bylaw will expire on 26 February 2022 and council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

Council proposed a new bylaw for public feedback

12. On 27 May 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to make a new Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Tauhokohoko, Whakahaerenga me te Tango Kiriata Tūmatanui / Auckland Council Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 (Bylaw) for public consultation (GB/2021/51).

13. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 (see figure below).

14. The proposal helps to minimise safety risks, nuisance and the misuse of council-controlled public places (for example, in local parks, reserves and civic spaces) by:

· continuing to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current Bylaw

· clarifying the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are

· clarifying which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the Bylaw

· updating the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with.

15. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 59 people and 19 organisations. In addition, the ‘AK- Have Your Say’ webpage received 525 hits.^{^[2]}

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

16. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

17. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

18. The nature of the local board views is at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

19. One person and one organisation from the local board area provided feedback with split support for all Proposals.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Proposal	Total support from local board area	Total support from people across Auckland
1: Continue to regulate trading, events and filming in a similar way to the current Bylaw.	50 per cent oppose 50 per cent ‘other’	66 per cent (40/63 submitters)
2: Clarify the need for rental micromobility devices to be approved under their own licence instead of a mobile shop licence as they currently are.	50 per cent support 50 per cent ‘other’	72 per cent (47/65 submitters)
3: Clarify which activities require an approval, don’t require an approval as long as certain conditions are met, and are not addressed in the Bylaw.	50 per cent support 50 per cent ‘other’	72 per cent (44/61 submitters)
4: Update the title, structure, format, definitions, and wording to ensure that a new bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with.	50 per cent support 50 per cent ‘other’	80 per cent (48/60 submitters)

20. Key themes from feedback from people in the local board area are consistent with key themes from all public feedback. For example, that the proposal:

· should encourage better enforcement of the rules

· addresses the health and safety risks of rental micromobility devices.

21. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback. Attachment B contains a copy of all public feedback related to the Whau Local Board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

22. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 19 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The proposal impacts the operation of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, Events in Regional Service Planning, Investment and Partnerships Unit, Alcohol Licensing and Environmental Health Unit, Auckland Unlimited (previously known as Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development), and Screen Auckland. These teams are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

25. The proposal may also impact on the Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015. Auckland Transport is aware of the proposal. Auckland Transport has also made council aware of Auckland Transport’s review of its bylaw.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The proposed new bylaw impacts on local governance as it regulates trading, event and filming activities in council-controlled public places, for example local parks.

27. Local boards’ views were sought on a draft proposal in April 2021. The draft was supported in full by 13 local boards and with suggested changes by eight local boards.

28. A summary of local boards’ views and changes made to the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 11 May 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda, page 191 (Attachment B to Item 12).

29. This report provides an opportunity to give local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. Māori have strong bonds to the land as kaitiaki. The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by minimising the misuse of council-controlled public places and facilitating opportunities for Māori business owners.

31. The proposed rules for trading, events and filming in council-controlled public places apply to activities undertaken by Māori, particularly major or international events.

32. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

33. Those submitters who identified as Māori supported Proposals One, Three and Four which is consistent with the overall percentage of the Auckland-wide feedback. Comments included that the proposed regulation seems sensible and provides appropriate balance between mitigating risks and enabling businesses to operate. While the support for Proposal Two was split, submitters agreed that rental micromobility should remain regulated.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The following risks have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and organisations.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. On 20 October 2021, the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021 (refer to the ‘Process to make the new Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022’ diagram in Context).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel Deliberations Report	107
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Whau Local Board area	153

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Sam Bunge - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan

File No.: CP2021/13274

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek support for the draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The number and diversity of older Aucklanders is growing, and this creates challenges and opportunities for improving the age-friendliness of our environment, infrastructure, and services now and in the future.

3. Older people experience barriers to participation across all areas of life.

4. The draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua Action Plan (Action Plan) is our commitment to supporting older Aucklanders to participate fully in their communities.

5. It is a region-wide, cross-sector plan that commits the council, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and sector partners to improve outcomes for older Aucklanders through the delivery of tangible and meaningful short, medium and long-term actions.

6. To develop the Action Plan, staff listened to over 3,000 Aucklanders who shared their thoughts on what is needed to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

7. Engagement with kaumātua and whānau to hear what is important to Māori led to the development of our unique Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework. The Framework combines the World Health Organisation (WHO) domains with Te Ao Māori concepts and reflects the bicultural identity of Aotearoa and the diversity of Tāmaki Makaurau.

8. Many activities within the plan will benefit people of all ages and what we do now to improve older Aucklander’s accessibility and quality of life will also benefit future generations.

9. The Action Plan is constrained by actions needing to be delivered within existing resources, or as and when new funding can be secured. Greater or quicker impact could be possible in the future if budget is not such a limitation.

10. By working together council and cross-sector partners can, however, leverage resources to achieve greater collective impact and prioritise efforts to where it is needed most.

11. Over time the plan will help create an age-friendly lens that becomes embedded in the way council and partners design and deliver services and infrastructure. This will result in ongoing and incremental change that makes a tangible impact on the lives of older people.

12. Community engagement on the draft Action Plan is underway and will be completed in September 2021.

13. The final Action Plan will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events (PACE) Committee for adoption in November 2021.

14. The adopted Action Plan will enable Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland to join the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) support the draft Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan.

Horopaki

Context

15. Auckland Council has a strong interest in the wellbeing of older people, because:

· Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland is home to New Zealand’s largest population of older people^{^[3]} - this number will more than double between 2018 and 2043.

· of the current 65+ population, most are well-placed but some face hardship and this will increase^{^[4]} .

· diversity in life stage, needs and abilities, culture, language, living situation and financial stability affect how older people contribute and participate in the community.

16. In view of this, in July 2018 Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee resolved to become an Age-friendly City and seek membership to the World Health Organisation’s Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities (ENV/2018/88).

17. The network includes cities that are committed to supporting each other and creating inclusive and accessible environments for all people to enjoy. It identifies eight interconnected domains of urban life that contribute to improving the wellbeing and participation of older people.

18. To obtain membership to the network, council has led a process to develop a region-wide cross-sector Action Plan that will deliver over 80 actions to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

19. To develop the Action Plan, staff listened to over 3,000 Aucklanders who shared their thoughts on what is needed to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

20. The Action Plan has been created to ensure infrastructure, activities and services are developed or adapted to respond to the diverse needs of Auckland’s growing and increasingly more diverse ageing population.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The problem/opportunity

21. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s older population is growing faster than any other age-group and faces challenges and barriers to participation across all areas of life.

22. Our older people are taonga, and deserve to live full, meaningful lives where they can participate and are valued for the contribution they make to our communities.

Our services and infrastructure need to respond and adapt to older peoples’ diverse needs

23. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s growing and increasingly diverse ageing population means we need short-term as well as longer-term, system-level solutions to ensure older people can actively participate in their communities now and in the future.

24. The burden on the environment, infrastructure and on services such as healthcare will expand exponentially as the older population grows to a projected 432,800 Aucklanders by 2043. To enable older people to live active and full lives in Tāmaki Makaurau, we need to ensure infrastructure, activities and services are developed or adapted to respond to their diverse needs.

Older Aucklanders told us they face challenges related to accessibility across all areas including public space, buildings, transport, and housing options

25. Older people told us they need:

Older Aucklanders can find it difficult to access information and to keep up to date with technology

26. Older people told us they need:

Older people can feel invisible, disconnected, and discouraged from taking an active role in their community

27. Older people told us they need:

Our response to the problem/opportunity

28. The development of Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan (Attachment A).

29. This is a cross-sector action plan that responds to the diverse needs and aspirations of older Aucklanders to improve their wellbeing and quality of life; and to make Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland a more age-friendly region.

Strengths

A cross-sector action plan will deliver collective impact in an innovative, sustainable, and equitable way

30. Auckland Council has worked with a range of organisations and communities who are active in advancing the wellbeing of older Aucklanders including:

· nineteen organisations with different specialities, such as health, recreation, and housing

· regional and local organisations, ensuring a breadth of reach across communities.

31. Together we identified and developed actions that will address the challenges and opportunities raised by older Aucklanders. This approach:

· enables collaboration between the council, aged-sector organisations, and communities

· creates opportunities to leverage resources and deliver greater collective impact over time.

· develops an action platform for organisations to build upon

· encourages interest and participation from other organisations to be part of delivery

· recognises that improving the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland relies on many different groups and agencies playing their part

· ensures the delivery of actions that have impact for older Aucklanders of all ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs.

32. It is anticipated that having a shared vision for an age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau will continue to build momentum within the organisations who are responsible for delivering actions.

33. The intent is that over time an age-friendly lens will become embedded in the way Council and partners design and develop services and infrastructure across the region.

34. The result of this will be ongoing action and incremental change that makes a tangible impact on the lives of older people.

The Action Plan includes a mixture of over 80 new and existing actions

35. Impact will be delivered through a mix of short, medium, and long-term actions. They are spread across all ten domains, but not equally.

36. Some domains have more actions than others, for example the Housing Domain has fewer actions than the Respect and Social Inclusion Domain. This is because some things, such as refurbishing Haumaru Housing units take time and money to implement whereas supporting community-led social activities can use existing resource or may build upon activities that are already happening.

37. Council’s actions are primarily focused in the areas where most council services are provided. These are:

· Te Taiao - Council maintains outdoor spaces and facilities for the community,

· Respect and Social Inclusion - Council hosts region-wide and local community events and activities that foster belonging and inclusion for diverse Aucklanders, and

· Communication and Information - Council informs communities about what is happening and offers support through libraries and community centres.

It has a unique Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework to reflect our bicultural foundations

38. Staff developed the Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework in response to feedback from kaumātua.

39. The framework provides a holistic way to frame the plan that integrates the WHO domains with Te Whare Tapa Whā-a Māori wellbeing framework - and Te Ao Māori values.

40. It includes two additional domains and expanded another:

· Culture and Diversity and Kaumātua and Kuia domains were added to reflect Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s diversity and bicultural foundations

· The WHO Domain of Outdoor Spaces and Buildings was expanded to become Te Taiao, representing the natural and built environment.

41. The framework is unique to Tāmaki Makaurau. It ensures the actions within the plan are meaningful, achievable, and impactful for older Aucklanders.

42. The framework will continue to be used to guide how we collectively improve and evaluate the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

The Action Plan will have a wider community and intergenerational impact

43. The actions within the plan will benefit older people and others in the community now and, in the future. For example, ensuring all buses are accessible will benefit small tamariki (children) and disabled community members.

44. Many activities within the plan benefit people of all ages and stages and what we do now to improve older Aucklander’s accessibility and quality of life will also benefit future generations.

Constraints and limitations:

It will take time to see the full, long-term impacts of the Action Plan

45. The Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan will deliver impact but that will happen over time.

46. Some actions are small and local and will not have significant or regional impact. However, there is opportunity for these local activities to be expanded as the age-friendly vision and plan gains traction.

47. Some actions will be delivered immediately or are in progress, others will take time. For instance, making roads, buildings and parks more accessible will be achieved over time, subject to the roll-out of relevant capital works and renewal programmes.

Council, CCOs and partner organisations are constrained by the financial impact of COVID-19 and operating within existing budget and resources

48. The Action Plan has been developed on the basis that everyone is operating in a constrained financial environment and actions will be delivered within existing resources.

49. The current assumption is that:

· no additional budget will be available

· where new funding is required, it will need to be reprioritised from elsewhere, secured through grants, or considered through budget-setting processes.

50. Consequently, the first one to five years of the action plan focus on existing or new actions that are easier and more affordable to carry out within existing budgets.

51. There is potential for this to change as the Action Plan evolves and if more funding becomes available in the medium to long term (5-10 years).

Success relies on cooperation, ongoing commitment, and resources to support collaboration

52. The Action Plan relies on the dedication and commitment of Council and partner organisations working together to improve the age-friendliness of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland:

· many of the partner organisations are community-led with limited capacity and dependant on ongoing public funding

· larger entities and agencies (including government and council departments) may have competing priorities

· success is dependent on all parties continuing to prioritise age-friendly outcomes and delivering the actions they have developed.

53. Resources will also be needed to support sector collaboration. It will take time and effort to facilitate organisations working together and supporting each other to build an age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau.

54. As part of council’s commitment to the plan, council staff will play a key backbone role in keeping the Action Plan alive, bringing partners together, and monitoring implementation and impact.

Community views

55. Staff undertook extensive community engagement in 2019-2020 to ensure the voices of diverse older Aucklanders were at heart of the plan. We developed surveys, held workshops across the region, hui with kaumātua and had one-on-one interviews with rainbow community members.

56. Targeted engagement was facilitated by Age Concern, Toa Pacific, New Zealand Indian Senior Citizens Association, Hindu Elders Foundation Inc and The Selwyn Foundation to ensure we heard the diverse voices of older Aucklanders.

57. Over 3,000 people shared their vision for an Age-friendly Auckland and told council what actions they think will support older people to live full, active and healthy lives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

58. During our engagement we heard, particularly from kaumātua, that environmental wellbeing was missing from the WHO framework. The wellbeing of the natural environment is important to our own wellbeing, and we have a role in looking after our environment in all its forms.

59. In response, we have expanded the existing WHO Domain Outdoor Spaces and Buildings to include Te Taiao (the natural environment), to recognise that the environment’s wellbeing and our own are connected.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60. This Action Plan includes actions developed with CCOs including Auckland Transport.

61. The Seniors Advisory Panel acted as kaitiaki throughout the process, providing advice, guidance and feedback and contributing to workshops and action planning sessions.

62. The Seniors Advisory Panel will continue to provide support and guidance on the Action Plan as it is delivered.

63. Auckland Council, Seniors Advisory Panel and CCOs are aware of the impacts of the Action Plan and their role in implementation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64. Local boards have a strong interest in the wellbeing of older people. All local boards have outcomes that foster social inclusion and participation among their residents, and many have age-friendly specific goals and actions.

65. Community engagement was held at locations across the region in 2019-2020, from Warkworth to Pukekohe.

66. Two reports were produced on the findings, the Community Engagement Findings Report and the Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Report.^{^[5]} These were shared with elected members, stakeholders, and the community. These reports were also published on the council Age-friendly website.

67. Staff attended local board workshops in August and September 2021 to share the draft Action Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

68. The Action Plan is relevant to Māori as tangata whenua and kaitiaki of the sky, land and sea and supports the Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome within the Auckland Plan 2050

69. In the 2018 Census older Māori made up over four per cent of the Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland over-65 population.

70. Older Māori have lower levels of equity, income and rely heavily on superannuation. Actions that are focused on kaumātua delivered by Māori organisations and others will make a positive impact on wellbeing.

71. The involvement of kaumātua, whānau and organisations has been influential on the design of the Framework, work on implementation; and ensuring this is a living document.

Engagement to better understand the needs of kaumātua and Te Ao Māori

72. To ensure the Action Plan is relevant and effective for kaumātua, mana whenua and mataawaka were invited to a dedicated hui in February 2020. The hui was organised in partnership with Te Kōtahi a Tāmaki and hosted at Manurewa Marae.

Recognition of tangata whenua, hauora Māori concepts and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are important to kaumātua

73. Kaumātua also told us:

· Importance of building and marae accessibility – safety of our kaumātua

· Utilising marae more e.g., events, programmes, line dancing, tai chi, learning Te Reo

· Age-appropriate housing design

· More disability parking

· More Te Reo visible everywhere

· Environmental recognition – care for Papatūānuku and te taiao incorporated into plan

· Sport and recreation options available for older people and open areas for activities

· Affordable digital communication.

74. Te ao Māori values from the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s (IMSB) Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau are also imbedded in the Framework:

· Whanaungatanga (Develop Vibrant Communities), in relation to the different opportunities to engage and participate in their own and other cultures.

· Rangatiratanga (Enhance Leadership and Participation), in relation to the activities under Respect and Social Inclusion.

· Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life), in relation to the Action Plan’s outcome of improving the hauora of older Aucklanders.

· Wairuatanga (promoting distinctive identity), in relation to valuing and protecting Māori heritage and Taonga Māori.

· Kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to protecting Te Taiao now and in the future.

75. These values underpin the way people and organisations will work together to deliver this plan with, and for, our communities.

76. The Action Plan supports the IMSB’s Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021 by addressing social, cultural, environmental and wellbeing for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau.

77. The Age-friendly Tāmaki Makaurau Framework incorporates the WHO framework, Te Whare Tapa Whā and te ao Māori. The unique Framework contributes to the awareness, education and understanding of Māori perspectives.

78. Mana whenua and mataawaka will have an opportunity to provide further feedback during public engagement on the Action Plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

79. The Action Plan has been designed to be delivered within the existing budgets and resources of Council, CCOs and sector partners.

80. Where additional investment is desired by Auckland Council to implement new or joint actions this will need be considered through Long-term Plan or Annual Plan processes.

81. There are no financial implications to the local board for any decisions to support the Action Plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Risk	Mitigation
Adoption of a new plan may create expectations that there will be additional budget to support age-friendly outputs.	All public-facing communications and guidance about the new plan will reference that actions will be funded from existing budgets. Where new funding is required, this will be sought through grants and processes such as the long-term plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

82. Public engagement for the Action Plan is expected to be completed by the end of September 2021.

83. A summary of all feedback, including from local boards, and a final Action Plan will be reported for adoption by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in November 2021.

84. Following adoption of the Action Plan, staff will seek membership to the WHO network.

85. An annual progress report will provide details on the impact and success of our actions. This will include an update on the delivery of actions against the identified measures of success, high-level wellbeing indicators and examples of good and promising practice. This will be presented to the Governing Body, the WHO and shared with all organisations supporting delivery.

86. The Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua – Age-friendly Auckland Action Plan will be reviewed every five years.

87. Baseline research was carried out in 2017 - The Older Aucklanders: A Quality of Life Status Report. The research is across the domains that contribute to quality of life and wellbeing. This research is being conducted this year and will be carried out every five years to help monitor progress and guide the development of future actions.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tāmaki Tauawhi Kaumātua - Age-Friendly Tāmaki Makaurau (draft)	179

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cleo Matthews - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - General Manager - Community and Social Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Public feedback on proposal to amend the Animal Management Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/13436

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend Auckland Council’s bylaw and associated controls about animals before a final decision is made.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the local board to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to a proposal to amend the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls, staff have prepared feedback summary and deliberation reports.

3. The proposal seeks to improve the current Bylaw and controls to better minimise animal-related risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places.

4. Council received responses from 189 people and organisations at the close of feedback on 16 July 2021. All feedback is summarised by proposal and other matters as following:

Topic	Description
Proposal 1	Require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000 square metres (no approval currently required).
Proposal 2	Incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property.
Proposal 3	Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw and controls.
Other	Other bylaw-related matters raised in public feedback and other additional matters.

5. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, and if it wishes, present those views to the Panel. Taking this approach will assist the Panel and Governing Body to decide whether to adopt the proposal.

6. There is a reputational risk that the feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people and does not reflect the views of the whole community. This report mitigates this risk by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

7. The Bylaw Panel will consider all local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on 29 October 2021. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the public feedback on the proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 / Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 and associated controls in this agenda report.

b) provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal in recommendation (a) to assist the Bylaw Panel in its deliberations.

c) appoint one or more local board members to present the views in b) to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint replacement(s) to the persons in c) should an appointed member be unable to present to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

Horopaki

Context

The Animal Management Bylaw enables council to regulate the keeping of animals

8. Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015 / the Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) and associated controls (controls) seek to minimise animal-related risks to public health and safety, nuisance, offensive behaviour and misuse of council-controlled public places.

9. The rules are enforced by the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information, education and enforcement).

10. The Bylaw and controls are one part of a wider regulatory framework, including the:

· Animal Products Act 1999 and Animal Welfare Act 1999 for animal welfare

· Resource Management Act 1991 and Biosecurity Act 1993 to protect the environment

· Dog Control Act 1996 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 for the care and control of dogs.

Council proposed amendments to improve the Bylaw for public feedback

11. On 27 May 2021, the Governing Body adopted a proposal to improve the Bylaw and controls for public consultation (Item 11, GB/2021/50).

12. The proposal arose from a statutory review of the Bylaw (see figure below).

13. The proposal seeks to better regulate the keeping of animals by:

· requiring an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000 square metres (no approval currently required)

· incorporating rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property

· updating the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw and controls to make them easier to read and understand.

14. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 8 June until 16 July 2021. During that period, council received feedback from 177 people and 12 organisations.

The local board has an opportunity to provide views on public feedback

15. The local board now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal before a final decision is made.

16. Local board views must be provided by resolution to the Bylaw Panel. The local board can also choose to present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

17. The nature of the local board views are at the discretion of the local board but must remain within the scope of the proposal and public feedback. For example, the local board could:

· indicate support for matters raised in public feedback by people from the local board area

· recommend how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback from people in the local board area supports the proposal

18. A total of four people from the local board area provided feedback to the proposal via online and email feedback.

· for Proposals One, Two and Three there was majority support from the local board area, greater than the total support from all people who provided feedback.

Support of proposal in the local board area

Topic	Local board area feedback	Auckland-wide feedback
1: Require an approval to keep more than two standard beehives on urban premises with a land area of less than 2000 square metres (no approval currently required).	50 per cent support 25 per cent oppose (want more rules) 25 per cent oppose (want less rules) 0 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	34 per cent support 6 per cent oppose (want more rules) 48 per cent oppose (want less rules) 10 per cent ‘other’ 2 per cent no response
2: Incorporate rules from another bylaw about the feeding of animals on private property.	75 per cent support 0 per cent oppose 25 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	62 per cent support 15 per cent oppose 12 per cent ‘other’ 11 per cent no response
3: Update the definitions, structure, format and wording of the Bylaw and controls.	100 per cent support 0 per cent oppose 0 per cent ‘other’ 0 per cent no response	64 per cent support 10 per cent opposed 15 per cent ‘other’ 11 per cent no response

19. Key themes from feedback from people in the local board area are consistent with key themes from all public feedback. For example, that the proposal should:

· allow more hives than the currently proposed two

· consider the nuisance caused by bee excrement

· consider changing the size of the premises the rules apply to.

20. The full proposal can be viewed in the link. Attachment A of this report contains a draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report which includes a summary of all public feedback. Attachment B contains a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area.

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

21. Staff recommend that the local board provide its views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback by resolution, and if it wishes, present those views to the Bylaw Panel on 29 October 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The proposal impacts council’s Licensing and Regulatory Compliance team who implement the Bylaw. The unit is aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The Bylaw is important to local boards as a topic of high community interest.

25. Local board views were sought on a draft proposal in March and April 2021. The draft was supported in full by 13 local boards and with suggested changes by seven local boards. One local board opposed the proposal for public consultation.

26. A summary of local board views and changes made to the proposal can be viewed in the link to the 11 May 2021 Regulatory Committee agenda (Attachment B to Item 11, page 101).

27. This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide views on how the Bylaw Panel should address matters raised in public feedback to the proposal, before a final decision is made.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The Bylaw has significance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The proposal supports the key direction of kaitiakitanga in the Independent Māori Statutory Board Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by minimising the misuse of council-controlled public places.

29. The proposed amended bylaw also supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance by clarifying how the Bylaw applies to Māori and papakāinga. For example, the proposal clarifies that limits on the ownership of animals in urban areas do not apply to papakāinga within the Māori Purpose Zone of the Auckland Council Unitary Plan.

30. Mana whenua and mataawaka were notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to provide feedback through face-to-face meetings, in writing, online and in-person.

31. The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback support Proposals Two and Three (consistent with the overall public feedback). The majority of people identifying as Māori who provided feedback opposed Proposal One (consistent with the overall public feedback).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32. There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. The following risk has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
The feedback from the local board area is from a limited group of people.	The feedback may not reflect the views of the whole community.	This risk is mitigated by providing local boards with a summary of all public feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. On 29 October 2021 the Bylaw Panel will consider all formal local board views and public feedback on the proposal, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make a final decision in November 2021 (refer to the ‘Process to amend the Animal Management Bylaw 2015’ diagram in Context).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Bylaw Panel deliberations report	231
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in the Whau Local Board area	259

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Saralee Gore - Policy Advisor

Breanna Hawthorne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Local board feedback on Auckland Transport's Parking Strategy Review

File No.: CP2021/13527

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from local boards on Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy Review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport (AT) is currently reviewing its Parking Strategy (2015). The AT Parking Strategy sets out the objectives, principles and policies relating to AT’s management and supply of parking across Auckland.

3. Since 2015, there have been numerous changes in the local government setting. These require realignment of policy.

4. This report gives an overview of the approach being taken to the Parking Strategy review, including how staff are engaging with local boards.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the review of Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy by 30 September 2021, ahead of public consultation on the review.

Horopaki

Context

5. The AT Parking Strategy was developed subsequent to local government amalgamation, bringing together one regional strategy and set of policies for all AT managed parking.^{^[6]}

6. The current strategy was released in 2015 and is provided as Attachment A. The policies cover:

· management of on-street and off-street parking

· regulation methods (including pricing)

· parking permits and coupons

· comprehensive Parking Management Plans

· parking for different types of transport

· event management

· technology for parking management

· Park and Ride provision and pricing

· compliance and enforcement.

7. The Parking Strategy has worked well over the last seven years. It has led to various changes and successes:

· business/centre parking areas implemented

· residential parking schemes rolled out and expanded due to their success and popularity

· demand-responsive, priced parking implemented successfully, helping to manage parking demand and keep parking spaces turning over and available for customers

· a consistent approach applied across the region to parking issues, and a transparent approach.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The AT Parking Strategy needs to be reviewed

8. Since the AT Parking Strategy was developed in 2015, there have been a number of changes to policy and planning, as well as changes in the Auckland setting. Examples include:

· adoption of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Development signalled in the Unitary Plan will enable growth that may be difficult to service with public transport, meaning that some new suburbs will rely on car use for access

· market demand is pushing for more housing provision and density. Development is already showing evidence of less car-parking provision and more issues with car-parking compliance

· changes to travel behaviour, such as emergence of micro mobility (scooters, etc) and the growth of the delivery economy

· Auckland’s public transport network has matured over time, providing opportunities for further passenger uptake and efficiency related to park and ride management

· Auckland’s Climate Plan (and coming government strategy) will require changes to the land transport system, including parking

· of particular relevance is the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). This guides direction on urban development through district planning. The NPS-UD requires council to remove parking minimum requirements from the Unitary Plan. This means that developments will not be required to provide onsite parking. This will contribute to society and transport becoming less car-centric over time, however, it will lead to increasing pressure on public parking resources, particularly kerbside parking.

Developing a next-generation parking strategy

9. The overall approach that AT is taking to the review is to:

· realign the Parking Strategy objectives and outcomes with the central and local government policy and planning context

· discover and understand key issues for parking through focussed discussions with elected representatives, subject matter experts, industry representatives, partners and stakeholders

· fill any gaps with new policies (including those focus areas below)

· re-engage with Aucklanders on parking

· develop a strategy that is practical to implement.

10. The review will also focus on three key areas where there is a known need for improvements and updates to policies and guidelines. These include:

· Park and Ride – planning for growth and provision and managing demand

· Kerbzone optimisation – developing a framework to manage the space between the kerbside lane and adjacent land uses

· Comprehensive Parking Management Plans – these are parking management plans for more localised areas - we are reviewing the framework and guidelines to develop these.

What we are asking of local boards

11. Parking roles and responsibilities provide an important context for understanding how parking is managed and how to have best effect in appealing or advocating for change.

12. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, AT is responsible for all parking within the road reserve. AT manages a number of off-street carparking sites on behalf of Council, by delegation. In addition, AT manages Park and Ride sites. Auckland Council owns all underlying land assets.

13. We have reviewed local board plans, giving us some insight into how parking issues impact each local board area. Common themes are the desire for more Park and Ride and bike parking, as well as managing parking as part of new developments.

14. The recent Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) consultation also received feedback from local boards on the topic of enhancing Park and Ride facilities.

15. Auckland Transport welcomes further local board discussion and input to the Parking Strategy review. We are keen to hear from local boards what outcomes we should be aiming for and also what specific issues the strategy should address.

16. Local board feedback will enable us to shape the draft refresh of the Parking Strategy prior to public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri:Auckland’s Climate Action will require changes to the land transport system, including parking.

18. Government strategy and direction will also require changes, particularly the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which requires planning decisions to contribute to the development of urban environments that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Auckland Transport have engaged with key stakeholders and across the Auckland Council family, including with council’s Advisory Panels.

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

Local impacts and local board views

· June 2021 – introductory memo to local boards to introduce the Parking Strategy review and approach

· June 2021 – presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum to introduce the Parking Strategy review and discuss plans for local board engagement

· August 2021– workshops with those local boards who elected to have a workshop before public consultation questions, raise ‘pain-points’ and gauge any initial feedback (PowerPoint provided as Attachment B)

· September 2021 – opportunity to provide formal feedback ahead of public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. We are engaging with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish how best to incorporate views from Mana Whenua and mataawaka into the review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. There are no financial implications associated with the local board providing feedback on the review of Auckland Transport’s Parking Strategy.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. The direction taken by the updated Parking Strategy will include what levers should be pulled, how far they should be pulled, and how fast.

25. Lower levels of intervention, undertaken more slowly, will allow more incremental change, and plenty of time for Aucklanders to adapt, but will take longer to achieve the shifts that Auckland needs.

26. More intervention implemented more quickly will require significant changes in behaviour but will be a quicker route to the eventual outcome of a city that is less dependent on cars.

27. Each of these approaches will have their own risks and necessary mitigations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Feedback from local boards ahead of public consultation is required by 30 September 2021.

29. Public consultation will take place in October/November 2021.

30. Following consultation, all local boards will receive a summary of data and comments received during public consultation.

31. Those local boards who elected to have their workshop after public consultation have these booked in for February 2022.

32. Following these workshops, all local boards will have a further opportunity to provide formal feedback.

33. The final updated Parking Strategy is expected to go to the Planning Committee for adoption in May 2022, after which local boards will be provided with a final copy of the strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport Parking Strategy (2015)	275
b ⇩	Parking Strategy – PowerPoint presentation to local board workshops	315

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Whau Local Board

22 September 2021

Memo 9 September 2021

To: Ben Halliwell – Senior Advisor Operations & Policy, Local Board Services

cc: Adam Milina – Local Area Manager

From: Mary Binney – Senior Advisor

Subject: Feedback from the Whau Local Board to be included into in Auckland Council’s feedback on the Three Waters reform proposal.

Purpose

1. To provide feedback from the Whau Local Board to be included in Auckland Council’s feedback on the Three Waters reform proposal.

Context

2. For the past four years, the government has been exploring the challenges and opportunities facing the three waters system. They are seeking to address a complex set of issues relating to the regulation, funding, financing, and provision of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services (the three waters), and to deliver better outcomes for New Zealand’s people, environment, and economy. The reform proposes a comprehensive, system-wide change that aims to improve the safety, quality, and environmental performance of three water services. The Government is proposing to establish four publicly owned entities to take responsibility for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure across New Zealand.

3. In June, the government released its case for change, the key design features of a new water services system (including the number of entities, boundaries, the regulatory environment and governance arrangements) and information and analysis specific to individual councils. The government’s proposal is described below.

4. A full summary and analysis of the Three Waters reform proposal is set out in Attachment A. This includes information on:

· Government reform programme and announcements

· Council workshops and decisions

· Government’s case for change and water reform proposal

· Analysis

· Council decision making and consultation

· Areas where further information is needed

· Risks

· Iwi/Māori

· Climate Change

Feedback from the Whau Local Board

5. At its meeting of 28 April 2021, the Whau Local Board resolved (resolution number WH/2021/38) to delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy 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.

6. The Whau Local Board welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission on the Three Waters reform proposal. The local board believes that this is an issue where a strong, united regional voice will be critical for advancing Auckland’s best interests.

7. The Whau Local Board would note the following points, based in large part on feedback received from local communities over recent consultations:

8. The need for three waters reform in New Zealand

The Whau Local Board accepts that New Zealand has a major problem with its water infrastructure and accepts that there is need for reform at a national level. However, the extent of the problem varies from region to region.

It is essential that New Zealand is able to provide high-quality clean drinking water to its population, that stormwater and wastewater are separated, that rivers and lakes are swimmable, and that we are prepared for the challenges associated with climate change. These issues have been identified as being of high importance to the communities of the Whau Local Board area and, sadly, these goals are going to be difficult to achieve without significant reform.

9. The proposed Entity A (Auckland and Northland)

The Whau Local Board notes that, given Auckland’s size, governance arrangements, and the fact that its three waters needs are already served by a separate entity (the CCO WaterCare Services), is unique and does not easily fit into the ‘one-size-fits-all’-model being proposed. While the local board see some value in the proposal, it also notes comments by the Mayor of Auckland to this effect and shares some of the concerns expressed. The local board also notes recent indications from some other local authorities from the proposed Entity A that there may be a lack of buy-in across the proposed area, and it will be difficult to make the proposal workable without full buy-in.

The local board has some additional concerns around the proposed entity, in particular:

· The financial implications for Auckland Council, in particular in terms of its ability to borrow, if a large number of valuable WaterCare assets are suddenly removed from its books

· Control of water services will be out of Aucklanders’ hands when Auckland represents by far the largest proportion of the population of Entity A

· WaterCare Services is an entity that has had its challenges and there is a sense that is has not always met expectations, but these issues could be addressed separately, rather than disestablishing this Entity And replacing it with a new one only eleven years after its formation.

10. The proposed governance and representation arrangements

The Whau Local Board notes that Auckland Council staff have noted as a key concern the fact that this model is the complex governance arrangements that provide no control and limited influence by elected members. Auckland Council will contribute 94% of the assets, 91% of revenue, 97% of debt but only have up to 35% of representation on a Regional Representative Group which will only have indirect influence. The local board believes that this is unacceptable, and believes that it will be difficult to achieve public support for a proposal where decisions affecting Aucklanders are being made by a body heavily dominated by non-Aucklanders.

Noting the large number of assets currently held by Auckland Council, the local board would also want assurances that the management and operation of these assets would remain in public hands under the proposed governance structure and would urge that specific safeguards be put in place to prevent the control of these assets being devolved to the private sector or any other third-party entity.

The local board supports having a stronger role for elected representatives and more opportunities for local government entities to have significant influence at multiple levels within the process to ensure checks and balances and public accountability. The local board also notes concerns identified by Council staff around the loss of community or local voice within the proposed reform. This is addressed further in Section 12 below.

The local board supports having strong Maori representation in governance, and acknowledges that Maori are currently under-represented and have limited input in New Zealand’s current water managements systems.

11. The integration of land-use/growth planning and water services

The Whau Local Board is concerned that this proposal will add significant additional planning to Auckland Council’s already complex strategic and financial planning processes and cycles. It would be disadvantageous to local government entities, particularly larger ones like Auckland, if their ability to plan and budget independently and in the best interests of their ratepayers were significantly constrained by external decisions around water infrastructure.

However, it is difficult to predict how this will function and any potential advantages or disadvantages under the resource management system is reformed. The local board notes the risk identified by Council staff of fragmented and uncoordinated planning and provision of infrastructure leading to higher costs and poor community outcomes.

12. Local and community engagement

The Whau Local Board notes that the proposal includes obligations for engagement with affected local communities by the proposed entity but would need much more detail on what this would look like.

The local board is concerned that the proposal currently ignores local boards and does not recognise Auckland’s unique governance model. It is disappointing to have to reiterate in feedback once again that Auckland’s local boards are not like community boards and have statutory decision-making responsibilities over local non-regulatory matters in the Auckland region. This should be recognised in all situations in which central government consults with local government.

The local board notes that WaterCare Services has been relatively successful in building relationships with local boards and the communities they serve. Local boards and CCOs, including WaterCare Services, have recently developed “joint engagement plans” which outline key projects in each local board area and agreed engagement levels (with both local boards and the community). The joint engagement plans are agreed annually at public meetings and therefore provide a transparent mechanism for the public to understand key projects in their area and how they will be consulted on them.

The local board would take the opportunity to note the large number of complex and significant changes currently being progressed by central government directly impacting on local government. The local board is concerned that the public may not appreciate the quantum of change being proposed and would urge central government to consider its communications strategy to ensure that communities understand what is happening and feel that they have a voice.

13. Environmental regulation

The Whau Local Board supports in principle the approach to environmental regulation being proposed within the resource management reform process where the focus will be on positive environmental outcomes rather than the current mitigations-based system. It is clear that water quality is a huge concern for our communities. The poor water quality of the Whau River and Manukau Harbour are consistently raised as a key issue for people in our rohe. Strong environmental regulation and climate change preparedness must be top priorities if this proposal progresses.

14. The Whau Local Board looks forward to future engagement on this proposal.

Next Steps

15. This feedback is formal, being signed off under delegation, but will be reported to the 22 September 2021 meeting of the Whau Local Board to ensure transparent decision-making.

16. If staff have questions about any of the above feedback, please contact Mary Binney, Senior Local Board Advisor – mary.binney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Date: 9 September 2021

Kay Thomas

Chairperson, Whau Local Board

Date: 9 September 2021

Fasitua Amosa

Deputy Chairperson, Whau Local Board

Memorandum	30 August 2021
To:	All Local Boards
Subject:	Three Waters Reform – Council analysis of government proposal.
From:	Megan Tyler – Chief of Strategy. Alistair Cameron – Manager, CCO / External Partnerships. Claire Gomas – Principle Advisor, CCO / External Partnerships.
Contact information:	Claire.gomas@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Purpose

1. To outline the Government’s Three Water Reform (the reform) proposal and funding package, its implications for Tāmaki Makaurau and Auckland Council decision-making and the areas where local boards may wish to provide input into the council’s feedback to government.

Summary

Over the past four years central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater) – Three Waters Reform.

The Government has concluded that the case for change [7] to the three waters service delivery system has been made and during June and July 2021 it released information and made announcements on:

· the direction and form of Three Waters Reform, including proposals for new Water Service Entities (Auckland forms part of Entity A), their governance arrangements and public ownership

· individual Council data based on the information supplied by councils under the Request for Information (RFI) process and Water Industry Commission Scotland (WICS) analysis of that data

· a package of investment ($2.5b, Auckland’s share would be $509m) for councils to invest in the future for local government, urban development, and the wellbeing of communities, ensuring no council is worse off as a result of the reforms, and funding support for transition

· an eight-week process (ending 30 September 2021) for councils to understand the implications of the reform announcements, ask questions and propose solutions and for Government to work with councils and mana whenua on key aspects of the reform (including governance, integrated planning and community voice).

This report is to support Local Board feedback on the government proposal, to inform the Governing Body’s response to the government at the end of the 8 week period.

Context

Government reform programme and announcements

2. For the past four years, the government has been exploring the challenges and opportunities facing the three waters system. They are seeking to address a complex set of issues relating to the regulation, funding, financing, and provision of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services (the three waters), and to deliver better outcomes for New Zealand’s people, environment, and economy. The reform proposes a comprehensive, system-wide change that aims to improve the safety, quality, and environmental performance of three water services. The Government is proposing to establish four publicly-owned entities to take responsibility for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure across New Zealand.

4. In July, the Government in partnership with Local Government New Zealand announced a financial support package to support transition to the new three waters system, and to position the sector for the future. It consists of three broad elements:

· A ‘better off’ element: an investment of $2 billion into the future for local government and community wellbeing, consistent with the priorities of both central and local government. Allocation of this fund is based on a nationally-consistent formula, reflecting population (75%), deprivation (20%) and land area (5%). Auckland can expect to receive $509 million and this will be debt funded by the water service entities.

· A ‘no council worse off’ element: an allocation of up to around $500 million to ensure that no local authority is in a materially worse position financially to continue to provide services to its community as a direct result of the reform. According to the DIA’s Funding Impact Tool, Auckland Council doesn’t qualify for a share of this package.

· Cover of reasonable transition costs: package of $0.3 billion, intended to make sure council service delivery (including of water services) during transition is not disrupted.

5. In addition to the funding announcements, the Government has committed to further discussions with local government and iwi/Māori over the next eight weeks on:

· the boundaries of the Water Service Entities

· how local authorities can continue to have influence on service outcomes and other issues of importance to their communities (e.g. chlorine-free water)

· ensuring there is appropriate integration between the needs, planning and priorities of local authorities and those of the Water Service Entities

· how to strengthen the accountability of the Water Service Entities to the communities that they serve, for example through a water ombudsman.

6. As a result, the original timetable for implementing the reform and for councils to consult on a decision to opt out (or not), no longer applies.

7. Next steps are expected to be announced after 30 September 2021, which would include the timeframes and responsibilities for any community or public consultation.

8. It is also important to note that the Government has not ruled out legislating for an “all-in” approach to reform to realise the national interest benefits of the reform.

9. On the assumption that the reform goes ahead, it is anticipated that councils will continue to deliver water services until at least early 2024 and council involvement in transition will be required throughout.

10. In addition to the Three Waters Reforms discussed above, the Government has also announced further wide-ranging reforms of freshwater, resource management, climate change and zero carbon, all of which have potential to have significant impacts on the delivery of the Three Waters services. These impacts have regulatory rule, operations and cost impacts.

Council workshops and decisions

11. In October 2018, council’s Environment and Community Committee agreed an early position on reform of the three waters sector [ENV/2018/135], which stated:

· strong support for the government’s bottom line of continued public ownership.

· while the quality of Auckland’s reticulated water supply is consistently ‘Aa’, higher standards for water are likely to mean higher costs for some communities.

· any subsidies for communities should come from central government taxes, not from rates or user charges

· the council group is happy to offer its expertise to other councils on a contractual basis to achieve efficiencies of scale, noting that Watercare is currently in early negotiations to provide three waters services to the Waikato district on a commercial basis. This is premised on Auckland not being negatively affected and no cross-subsidisation occurring.

· there should be careful consideration of whether stormwater is included in changes to service delivery and offering to share the analysis around whether some stormwater functions should go to Watercare, once the council has made decisions on this.

12. On 27 August 2020, the council agreed to participate in the first stage of the water delivery services reform programme. That agreement represented a commitment to assess reform options in good faith, including the government’s preferred option. It did not commit the council to any change. This agreement expired in June 2021.

13. In March 2021, the government at a series of workshops presented to Council and local board chairs on their reform proposals. The meetings also raised a number of areas that council and DIA staff have been working together to address. These are

· Credit rating – how to achieve access to capital without reducing accountability and protect ownership and interests of Aucklanders

· Strategic alignment – what mechanisms are needed to ensure that council can plan and coordinate infrastructure for growth

· Veolia contract – to understand better this commercial contract and the implications of reform proposals on it.

14. In June 2021 the government released information and cabinet papers providing the business case and design elements of the three waters service delivery entities.

15. Briefing memos have been provided to elected members and LGNZ have made available briefings and workshops to ensure elected members are informed and have a chance to express their concerns.

16. On the 20 August, a briefing with local boards was held on the matters that government and LGNZ are seeking feedback on.

Government’s case for change and water reform proposal

17. Government’s modelling indicates that New Zealand will need to invest between $120 billion to $185 billion in three waters infrastructure over the next 30 years to meet drinking water and environmental standards and provide for future population growth. This equates to an average household cost for most councils on a standalone basis to be between $1910 and $8690 by 2051. It also estimated these average household costs could be reduced to between $800 and $1640 per household and efficiencies in the range of 45% over 15-30 years if the reform process went ahead. An additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and an increase in GDP of between $14b to $23b in net present value terms over 30 years were also forecast.

18. The Government has decided to:

· establish four statutory, publicly-owned water services entities that own and operate three waters infrastructure on behalf of local authorities;

· establish independent, competency-based boards to govern;

· set a clear national policy direction for the three waters sector, including integration with any new spatial / resource management planning processes;

· establish an economic regulation regime;

· develop an industry transformation strategy.

19. Advice on the approach for transitioning stormwater to the new WSE has been delayed and is now expected to be released by the end of the month. The reform assumes the new entities will take over the service delivery, infrastructure, and related functions, responsibilities and assets that currently sit with local government for all three waters, including stormwater. The cabinet papers indicate that there are a number of complex issues, practicalities and potential risks that need to be addressed as part of the transfer of stormwater assets and responsibilities to new water services entities, including in relation to the interface between:

· the wider stormwater system, local road drainage, and overland flow paths across parks and reserves

· the water services entities, territorial authorities, road-controlling authorities, regional councils, and other relevant agencies, such as Waka Kotahi

20. Although the detailed position has not been released, staff have identified additional risks and areas that need resolution:

· ensuring that land and water management is integrated in order to provide effective and efficient responses to challenges such as climate change, growth and hazard management

· retention of capability and tools required to satisfy Council’s remaining responsibilities.

· coordinated management of natural assets (such as urban streams) so that multiple outcomes can be realised for communities (ecology, amenity, bio-diversity, recreation and stormwater conveyance)

· how stormwater delivery would be prioritised within a three-waters entity.

21. The proposed safeguards against privatisation can be found on page 26 of the DIA’s summary of the case for change.

22. Both DIA and LGNZ have produced two page national overviews, available on the DIA website^{^[8]} and LGNZ websites^{^[9]} respectively.

23. The key elements of the reform that impact Auckland are:

· Auckland, along with the Far North, Kaipara and Whangerei councils form Entity A (connected population 1.7m)

· Auckland Council will be listed as an owner, on behalf of our community, in statute

· Auckland Councils, the Far North councils and mana whenua will have a joint overseeing role on a Regional Representative Group (RRG). This group will have some influence but not control of the new WSEs and will be responsible for:

o appointing (and removing) an Independent Selection Panel (ISP) that appoints and removes the WSE board

o issuing a Statement of Strategic and Performance Expectations, and

o monitoring the performance of both the ISP and the entity Board.

24. The new water services system is depicted in the diagram below.

25. These arrangements are anticipated to make water services more affordable, safe and efficient through:

· long-term financing arrangements through balance-sheet separation from debt-constrained councils

· the ability to spread costs across larger areas over time

· operational efficiencies

· developing and maintaining more sustainable career pathways in the water industry into the future

26. The new entities will come into effect 1 July 2024 and a transition agency will be established to manage the transition process.

Discussion

Overview

27. Staff have reviewed the information provided by the government and have developed an understanding of how the WICs and DIA modelling has been undertaken. In summary, there are a number of areas where staff disagree with the assumptions and conclusions that have been made. These include the quality of the assumptions used to determine that reform would be able to achieve 50% efficiency savings, and the resulting impacts on household costs.

28. Staff have focussed on the implications for council and the community from the government’s proposal. This includes considering the benefits and risks with the government’s proposal compared with maintaining the status quo (with the option of transitioning council’s Healthy Waters department to Watercare).

29. The main advantage in separating Watercare from the council group’s balance sheet is that it allows Watercare or a new entity to borrow more and bring forward additional investment projects. Another advantage is that there would be reduced risk to council with the entity being held responsible and meeting the costs for any small water suppliers defaulting on water quality regulations.

30. However, a key concern with this model is the complex governance arrangements that provide no control and limited influence by elected members. Auckland Council will contribute 94% of the assets, 91% of revenue, 97% of debt but only have up to 35% of representation on a Regional Representative Group. This group has only indirect influence on the water service entity.

31. There are also risks that would need to be mitigated, including: ensuring coordination, cooperation and integration with strategic, spatial, growth and local planning.

32. There are risks associated with transition to this model, many of which are outside of Council’s control. Managing these risks (disruption, resourcing challenges) will be common under all options and staff have not focussed on these yet.

33. Other Government reforms (Resource Management Act, Future for Local Government) pose opportunities and challenges with and without water reform.

34. The council has been invited to review the information provided and provide feedback. The government is particularly interested in ensuring effective representation, integration between growth planning and water services planning and how communities have a voice in the system and influence over local decisions.

a) Review of information provided for accuracy

35. Council and Watercare provided the Department of Internal Affairs with the information assessed and modelled by DIA/WICS. This information is summarised in the local authorities’ individual dashboards and government’s business case.

36. Watercare is identified by the government as a lead performer, with the key elements of each of Auckland’s water networks (the water and wastewater bulk network and stormwater pipes) being in good condition.

37. Auckland’s three water assets and debt as at 30 June 2020 are summarised in the table below.

	Assets	Debt
Water/Wastewater	$9.6b	$2.0b
Stormwater	$5.1b	$0.9b*
TOTAL	$14.7b	$2.9b

* Note there is no separately identified debt for stormwater. This figure was taken from the RFI numbers supplied to the DIA

38. At the end of June, DIA supplied to council a financial model created by WICS. This model shows the cost to water users, with the economic regulator proposed under the water reform proposals if councils ‘opted-out’ of Three Waters reform. The consequence of economic regulation was reflected in much higher capital expenditure (investment) and depreciation charges than those reflected in the LTP 2022-31. Over the next ten years, the Council have currently budgeted $11.1b of capital investment in the LTP. Under a regulated environment these costs are estimated to increase to $14.4b.

39. Capital expenditure is largely debt financed, which reduces the burden on current ratepayers and ensures future generations that also benefit from the investment pay their share. The higher capital programme necessary under a regulated environment would therefore require higher amounts of debt.

40. However, the model contained some assumptions that were clearly incorrect when considered in Auckland Council’s context. For example, Three Waters debt was capped at 2.5x (250%) revenue in the model, whereas Council’s Three Waters debt peaks at roughly 4x (400%) revenue in the LTP. The lower debt to revenue in WICS’ model means it forecasts price rises that are much higher than they could be.

41. The benefits identified by the government are predicated on the new water service entities being financially independent and able to raise debt. To achieve this the water entities’ balance sheet needs to be separated from councils.

42. Auckland Council has credit ratings from S&P Global and Moody’s. These agencies use different methodologies, with S&P including Watercare when it looks at the council group’s results and Moody’s eliminating them. Under S&P’s methodology, separating Watercare’s debt and revenue from the group improves the council’s debt-to-revenue ratio. DIA estimate this at $1.2billion, which does not appear to be materially inaccurate. However, as Moody’s already eliminate Watercare from their calculation, the separation of Watercare from the group has no impact on Moody’s credit rating analysis of the council. Therefore, the separation of Watercare does not create any additional borrowing capacity.

43. Regardless of whether Entity A is established, council and the new entity will face increased costs as a result of regulation.

44. Staff have not been able to quantify the costs associated with the ability of non-Council water supplies to meet standards and requirements and the risks to Council, as these are unknown at this stage.

45. The WICS model also assumes a level of efficiencies that will be achieved by the new water entities (up to 50 percent). Due to the number of assumptions built into the WICS model it is difficult to interrogate whether the level of efficiencies assumed for Entity A are realistic. However, it should be noted that Watercare is already a water entity of significant scale and maturity that has been operating for 10 years under a legal obligation to be a least cost provider. As such, Watercare has already achieved significant efficiencies. Although further efficiencies can be expected under regulation.

Independent reviews of government’s analysis

46. The government’s proposal and the DIA/WICS modelling have been independently reviewed by Farrierswier (review of WICS model) and Beca (comparison of the standards applied in the EU/ UK with New Zealand). Whilst generally supportive of the model scope and direction of reform benefits anticipated, they both raised a range of issues with the model application, which whilst technical in nature, could have large impacts on the currently published model results. They urged caution when using these figures for decision-making and note that the quality of management of the future water entities will have a critical impact on the achievement of the expected efficiency savings.

47. Both the Farrierswier and Beca reviews outline the similarities and differences between Scotland and NZ and discuss the risks of assuming the countries are similar. While Scotland and NZ have similar populations (5.46M v 5.11M), NZ has 3.44 times the land area of Scotland and population is sparser. Scotland has also not experienced the level of growth that Auckland has. Scottish Water is also a two waters entity, not three.

48. Farrierswier also noted that the use of English 2003-04 econometric models presents a number of problems when applied to NZ that required a range of scaling, fitting of models and special adjustments, all based on further assumptions.

49. The Beca report states that, on balance, the forecasts from the WICs modelling may underestimate the necessary investment costs as they may not accurately assess the impacts from new regulation standards, iwi/Māori interests, or Aotearoa’s seismic and resilience risks.

50. Regional impacts vary, and while every region is expected to be positively impacted by the reform proposal in terms of GDP and employment growth, relative to current regional GDP, metropolitan areas see the smallest relative gains when compared to the average impact nationally).

51. The Chief Economist unit has reviewed the publicly available material. Their key concern is whether Auckland will gain efficiencies through the reorganisation, translating into lower costs to Auckland residents. For many of the other regions in Aotearoa, the benefits arise from scale. Auckland is different. Watercare already provides scale benefits and has an independent board and while efficiency improvements can be achieved the benefits for Auckland are likely to be less than for other parts of Aotearoa.

b) The three areas where specific feedback is being sought

Governance arrangements

52. To allow the proposed water service entities the ability to raise debt and invest in water infrastructure, the proposed model has raised a number of issues to which the government is now seeking feedback and solutions. These are the:

· loss of local authority control, with complex governance arrangements and dispersed accountabilities

· resulting challenges in planning and coordinating infrastructure provision to support growth and development

· reduced community or local voice

53. These issues are caused by the need to achieve separation of the proposed water entities balance sheet from councils. The more control that councils have over the water entities, and the higher the degree of accountability to councils, the more likely the rating agencies are to consolidate the water entities debt onto the councils’ balance sheets. Therefore, the government’s proposal intentionally reduces the level of control of local government.

54. Under the government’s proposal, local government will have equal representation on the Regional Representative Group (RRG) alongside mana whenua. This group:

· appoints and monitors an independent panel, that is responsible for appointing and removing the board

· develops a Statement of Strategy Performance Expectations that will guide the entity in its formation of key strategic and planning documents.

55. The WSE have to take into account (but not comply) with these documents and formally report annually on their performance. Councils and mana whenua have no direct influence on the entity.

56. In the case of Entity A, to allow for Auckland Council’s significantly greater size, the RRG might be expanded to 14 members (seven for local authorities and seven for mana whenua), with Auckland Council appointing five of the council representatives (35 per cent).

57. Staff have considered alternative models (such as a shareholding model) for delivering water services and tested these against the Crown’s objectives. All of the models considered require some form of government support and reduced council ‘control’.

58. Auckland Council may wish to advocate for:

· greater representation on the Regional Representative Group

· direct board appointments

· approval and modification rights to the Statement of Intent

· advocate for the Government to explore other mechanisms to allow for greater investment in water infrastructure by the proposed entities, including other mechanisms for achieving balance sheet separation such as explicit government financial support (which result in a greater degree of control and accountability of the water entities).

Importance of integrated strategic direction and planning

59. Currently Council’s decisions across water, transport and community infrastructure are guided by the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and implemented through LTP and RLTP decision making processes. These enable us to align investment with future growth requirements in terms of location, sequencing and timing, and plan and provide for all the major infrastructure needs of these areas.

60. Alignment and coordination of infrastructure investment will be made more difficult with separation of water infrastructure. In particular, it is questionable under current financing and funding arrangements whether council would have the ability to match the water entity’s spend with respect to transport and community infrastructure. Without clear agreements over the timing and staging of growth with water entities Council would face significant challenges in delivering transport and community infrastructure in all areas of development capacity that the entity could enable through its investment.

61. How the entities determine the level of investment or priority given to maintenance, renewals or investment for growth across regions is unclear, or their requirements to coordinate any of this with council or council’s strategic documents. There are likely to be a number of factors which could make alignment with Auckland priorities challenging for the water entities, including:

· the economic regulator’s oversight of investment and pricing decisions

· in early years, the entities will likely focus on bringing poor quality infrastructure up to standard. This will change over time as the most urgent infrastructure upgrades are completed

· post resource management system reform the areas water entities cover will be subject to multiple regional spatial strategies and natural and built environment plans (two strategies and two plans – Auckland and Northland - in the case of Entity A).

62. The Auckland Water Strategy could potentially act as a tool for providing greater direction through the development of a set of targets for the water entity. These could include the targets around drinking water consumption, drought response, growth and land use, water sensitive design and ecological health. However central government’s current proposal for reform does not provide a mechanism by which council would direct a water entity to achieve any targets or be held to account for delivery.

Community voice and influence over local decisions in the three water reform proposals

63. The proposed model has the entities directly accountable to their board, Taumata Arowai for water quality, an economic regulator for price, regional/unitary authorities for discharge consents, and a consumer body. The government has indicated that the role of local authorities will include ensuring new water entities are responsive to local communities’ needs. However, the accountability back to local government through the suggested Regional Representative Group is weak. The main tool will be a non-enforceable Statement of Strategic Performance Expectations and through ‘softer’ influence. The opportunity for the community to influence a larger water entity will be less than at present under the proposal.

64. In considering ensuring all communities have both a voice in the system and influence over local decisions, we have focused on three aspects:

· community engagement on key strategies and plans

· community voice and influence over local decisions

· consumer rights.

65. The current proposal notes that the new water entities will be required to engage with consumers and communities on key strategies and plans that affect them. However, there is limited detail on what this would entail. We suggest that at a minimum, the set-up of the new entities should specify the requirements or principles for consultation, for example as they are set out in the Local Government Act 2002. Individuals and communities should be able to participate effectively in decision-making on strategies and plans, to ensure decisions are well informed. It would be helpful for Entity A to recognise Auckland’s unique governance structure and the respective roles of the governing body and local boards.

66. The current proposals do not specify how communities will be consulted or involved in local decisions and projects. This is important because the new entitles will be covering large geographic areas with bigger populations and there is a reasonable concern that community voices will be lost. Local three water projects have a variety of local impacts from smaller-scale traffic disruption to larger-scale impacts (for example the impact on sensitive environments, such as when replacing the treatment facilities at Huia). The proposals should therefore specify how communities can input into these projects at appropriate levels. Doing so, will ensure community voices are considered, including possible co-ordination of work in particular locations to reduce disruption. Note that there is likely to be high community interest in stormwater projects on local parks and governance of these projects also needs to be clarified.

67. Local boards and CCOs have recently developed “joint engagement plans” which outline key projects in each local board area and agreed engagement levels (with both local boards and the community). The joint engagement plans are agreed annually at public meetings and therefore provide a transparent mechanism for the public to understand key projects in their area and how they will be consulted on them. While these plans are still being refined, this is a model that could be considered for the new entities.

68. Detailed proposals for consumer protection (and economic regulation) are to be developed over a slightly longer timeframe – the Ministry of Business and, Innovation and Employment will consult publicly on these proposals in October 2021. The proposals will include:

· the ability for a regulator to mandate and monitor service quality standards (for example so consumers can be sure their drinking water is safe)

· the process for setting prices, including requirements for pricing transparency

· options for how to facilitate consumer advocacy, including for those who are vulnerable due to their age, health, disability, or financial position. This will include the establishment of a consumer advocacy council (or the extension of an existing body) to provide expert advocacy on behalf of consumers

· the design of an appropriate dispute resolution process.

69. We agree that to protect consumer rights, the proposals need to be clear how service standards and prices will be set and monitored, consumer advocacy ensured, and complaints processes and mechanisms set up for dispute resolution.

Council decision making and consultation

70. While the Government and LGNZ consider that national case for change has been made, Councils do not have a national interest test for their decision making. Councils are required to act in the interests of their communities and the community’s wellbeing (now and into the future), provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to their decision-making processes, ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the district or region (including planning effectively for the future management of its assets) and take a sustainable development approach^{^[10]}.

71. The DIA guidance to local authorities states that “no formal decisions are required” from local authorities at present, and expresses a view local authorities do not need to consult their communities on this matter at this stage.

72. Given the Government’s:

· 8 week period of engagement with mana whenua and councils

· commitment to explore issues such as council and community influence of service outcomes, integration with other reform proposals, spatial and local planning

· request for councils to give feedback on the proposal, identify issues and solutions

· and uncertainty around next steps, including whether the reform may become mandatory or legislative change will remove legal barriers to opting in

it would be premature to make a decision to opt out of the reform process and may expose the Council to litigation risk.

73. If reform is not made mandatory, to ensure sufficient information is available to meet the moral and legal requirements of Council decision-making, staff will further develop the analysis of options (based on further information from the Government, advice on next steps, and regional discussions) prior to Council decision making and consultation on future water services delivery. Whether this is ultimately required will be dependent on where the Government gets to with the reform process and the decisions it makes after 30 September 2021.

Areas where further information is needed

74. There are still issues that need to be resolved and areas where further information is needed, including:

· representation from and on behalf of mana whenua

· integration with other local government reform processes

· integration with spatial and local planning processes and growth

· the nature, role and timing of economic regulation

· prioritisation of investment

· what will a Government Bill cover and whether the reform will be mandatory

· conditions associated with the Government’s package of funding for local government

· transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

Risks

75. Significant risks, legal responsibility and financial implications have been identified in analysing the reform proposals and completing an analysis of options for this report. The table below summarises these risks along with opportunities to reduce them through the next stages of the reform.

Issues	Risks with government proposal	Opportunities/Mitigation
Strategy	· Direction is set by national GPS and may not reflect Aucklanders’ interests (e.g. a compact quality city, environmental restoration and enhancement, water consumption targets)	· Council continues to work with the Crown to influence key strategy elements (e.g. climate resilience,)
Land use planning	· Fragmented and uncoordinated planning and provision of infrastructure leading to higher costs and poor community outcomes · Inability for council to fund transport and community infrastructure to match water investment Lack of alignment of WSE work programme with Council’s policies and plans · Reputational risks	· Council continues to work with Crown to determine the mechanisms available to councils to influence land use and management of growth · Council provides leadership and examples of how to coordinate in areas of growth
Investment and Levels of services	· Levels of service are determined by economic regulator / WSE and may result in lower levels of service for Aucklanders · Auckland could be deprioritised to meet greater operational obligations /service levels outside Auckland · Stormwater could be deprioritised, at least initially, while the focus of the regulator is on water supply and wastewater	· Council advocates for ensuring that there is no reduction in current levels of service
Economic Regulation	· Economic regulation is likely to starting with information disclosure and price quality path · May reduce council’s ability to influence and direct WSE’s activities	· Council undertake work on areas of focus for economic regulator to help inform government’s proposal and response to consultation document.
Industry capacity / supply chain / efficiency	· There is not sufficient industry capacity to undertake all investment required · Potentially a loss of efficiency due to disruption associated with transition and competition for key staff between WSEs · Potential for duplication of functions within council and WSE · Potential loss of clarity between council roles and WSE roles	· Continue to build understanding of potential areas of duplication of function in Auckland. This work, would better prepare Council to limit the inefficiencies and capability challenges generated by transition. · Staff – gives key Auckland based staff certainty
Costs of reform	· The costs of water reform to council are unknown^{^[11]} but are expected to increase as a result of proposed economic and water quality regulation. · The responsibilities and therefore costs with the transfer of stormwater to the new WSE are unknown but may relate to the need to duplicate capability and tools in order to satisfy remaining council functions	· Work with transition arrangements to identify the functions, capabilities and costs required to serve each organisation and that these are allocated appropriately. Likely bespoke series of agreements between the organisations will be needed.
Integrated land and water management	· Decoupling of stormwater and land management functions will make developing and implementing efficient and effective responses to big challenges such as climate change, hazards and growth, more challenging. · Loss of capability and tools needed to carry out Council’s statutory responsibilities as a regional council. · Potential loss of ability to coordinate and direct the management of natural assets (such as urban streams) so that multiple outcomes can be realised for communities (ecology, amenity, bio-diversity, recreation and stormwater conveyance)	· Retention of capability and tools required to satisfy Council’s regional council responsibilities. · Retain control of natural assets such as urban streams where located on public open space.

Iwi/Māori

76. The issues covered in this paper are important for Māori. The Crown is currently leading the engagement with iwi/Māori, mana whenua. Council is in the process of engaging with the Kaitiaki Mana Whenua Forum, the Independent Maori Statutory Board and various operational mana whenua forums on their views of the reform proposals.

Climate Change

77. Climate considerations (both mitigation and adaptation), resilience and environmental impacts are drivers of the reform process. While there are no specific impacts arising from this report the decisions that occur post September 2021 will have an impact on climate and environmental issues.

Next steps

78. The future of water services delivery is a significant issue. This report however does not commit to the council to a decision relating to that reform. The government is expected to outline the next steps in the process following feedback from councils in October 2021.

[1] ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage ’hits’ comprised of 43 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey), 88 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document, visited a FAQ page or multiple project pages, or completed the survey) and 265 ‘aware’ participants (people who visited at least one page).

[2] ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage ’hits’ comprised of 54 ‘engaged’ participants (people who completed the online survey), 134 ‘informed’ participants (people who downloaded a document, visited a FAQ page or multiple project pages, or completed the survey) and 337 ‘aware’ participants (people who visited at least one page).

[3] Statistics New Zealand, 22.9% (163,161) estimated in 2017

[4] Ministry of Social Development. Briefing to the Incoming Ministers, October 2014, p.31.

[5] A systems analysis conducted by Auckland Council’s Innovation Unit.

[6] Management of Council parking is not covered by the 2015 Parking Strategy, unless Council has specifically delegated management to AT.

[7] Transforming the system for delivering three waters services (dia.govt.nz); https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/transforming-the-system-for-delivering-three-waters-services-the-case-for-change-and-summary-of-proposals-30-june-2021.pdf

[10] See for example sections 5 and 14 of the LGA.

[11] For e.g., who provides emergency water to non-connected dwellings (i.e. water supplier of last resort) or who assumes responsibility and liability for repairs from historically known flooding areas or unknown or newly created risks areas?

Chairperson	Kay Thomas
Deputy Chairperson	Fasitua Amosa
Members	Catherine Farmer
	Ulalemamae Te'eva Matafai
	Warren Piper
	Jessica Rose
	Susan Zhu

External organisation	Leads	Alternate
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Warren Piper	Catherine Farmer
Avondale Business Association	Kay Thomas	Warren Piper
Blockhouse Bay Business Association	Warren Piper	Fasitua Amosa
New Lynn Business Association	Susan Zhu	Kay Thomas Warren Piper
Rosebank Business Association	Fasitua Amosa	Warren Piper
Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust	Fasitua Amosa	Jessica Rose

Author	Rodica Chelaru - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Author	Mary Binney - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager