I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 30 November 2021

10.00am

Local Board Office
Online via Skype for Business

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Maria Meredith

 

Deputy Chairperson

Chris Makoare

 

Members

Don Allan

 

 

Debbie Burrows

 

 

Nerissa Henry

 

 

Peter McGlashan

 

 

Tony Woodcock

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Blair Morrow

Democracy Advisor

 

25 November 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 027 278 6975

Email: Blair.morrow@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                   5

2          Apologies                                                                                 5

3          Declaration of Interest                                          5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                         5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                    5

6          Acknowledgements                                              5

7          Petitions                                                                 5

8          Deputations                                                           5

8.1     Dianne Lasenby of Auckland Netball        5

9          Public Forum                                                                            6

10        Extraordinary Business                                       6

11        Governing Body Member's Update                    7

12        Chairperson's Report                                           9

13        Board Member's Reports                                   11

14        Three Waters Economic Regulation Submission                                                          13

15        Local board feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document                                                             21

16        Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document ‘Taking responsibility for our waste’                25

17        Reserve revocation of 37 Olive Road, Penrose, 12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie and 23 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington                                           29

18        Transfer of the Panmure Sign to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board                  39

19        Allocation of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Transport Capital Fund                          51

20        Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022                                                                      55

21        Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update: Quarter One, 2021-22                         111

22        Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022 (Covering report)                     137

23        Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents                           139

24        Record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Workshops                                                        145

25        Governance Forward Work Calendar             149

26        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

27        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                         153

C1       Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation         153


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)          confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 23 November 2021, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Dianne Lasenby of Auckland Netball

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Providing Dianne Lasenby of Auckland Netball with the opportunity to present to the board on her proposal to use the Ferguson Domain Courts for Netball.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As per standing orders the Chairperson has approved the deputation request from Dianne Lasenby of Auckland Netball.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      thank Dianne Lasenby of Auckland Netball for her attendance.

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Governing Body Member's Update

File No.: CP2021/18150

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on local activities that the Governing Body representative is involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To provide the Governing Body Member an opportunity to update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on regional matters.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Governing Body Member’s update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2021/18151

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To keep the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board informed on the local activities that the Chairperson is involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Providing the Chairperson with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Chairperson’s report for November 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Board Member's Reports

File No.: CP2021/18152

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To keep the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board informed on the local activities that the local board members are involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Providing board members with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the board members report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Three Waters Economic Regulation Submission

File No.: CP2021/16917

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To outline the Government’s Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper, circulated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and to seek feedback from local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 27 October 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a discussion paper, “Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand”.

3.       The discussion document describes how the economic regulator is envisioned to operate and what its statutory obligations would be. The discussion document also provides a brief explanation of why economic regulation is required in the face of three waters reform. Finally, it asks for feedback on several topics.

4.       The views of local boards on the proposal are requested by 6 December 2021 to enable those views to influence the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

5.       Final submissions from Auckland Council to Government on this topic are due at 5pm on 20 December 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      provide feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council’s submission on the Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper

b)      make the following points in the administrative areas of:

i)       the need for economic regulation

ii)       the type of regulation and who would pay the costs

iii)      what parts of three waters the regulation would apply to

iv)      should the regulation apply to all providers

v)      how and when should regulation be implemented

vi)      what should be the statutory objectives of the regulation regime

vii)     what should compliance and enforcement look like

viii)    who the economic regulator should be

ix)      whether we need additional consumer protections and how those are regulated

c)       make the following points in the policy areas of:

i)       how the regulator should liaise with local government to ensure the growth aspirations of Auckland are met

ii)       how the regulator should liaise with local government to ensure the social, cultural, and environmental aspirations of Auckland are met.

Horopaki

Context

6.       On 27 October 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) released a discussion paper, “Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand”.

7.       The issues of economic regulation and consumer protection for three waters services in New Zealand is related, but separate, to the broader issue of the Water Services Bill. They require separate submissions as they are two different processes run by two different bodies and on different timeframes. There is a separate process to provide feedback about the reform in general. This process is to provide feedback on only the proposed economic regulation.

8.       According to central government, economic regulation will have a crucial role to play in driving the level of efficiency that will be required to keep water services affordable in the long run.

9.       Economic regulation ensures that the best outcomes for consumers will occur when there are monopoly markets, and the suppliers have a large amount of market power.

10.     In this case, it is proposed that the economic regulator will also act as the consumer protection regulator and be funded through levies.

11.     It is proposed that the Commerce Commission act in both capacities to regulate the newly-formed three waters industry in New Zealand after the Water Services Bill is enacted.

12.     The discussion document describes how the economic regulator is envisioned to operate and what its statutory obligations would be. The discussion document also provides a brief explanation of why economic regulation is required in the face of three waters reform. Finally, it asks for feedback on several topics.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     What follows is a short summary of the discussion document and the areas where feedback is sought through the submissions process.

What is economic regulation and why do we need it?

14.     Economic regulation protects consumers from the problems that can occur in markets with little or no competition and/or a large amount of market power. The regulation is intended to make businesses in the market behave similarly to how they would in a competitive market.

15.     Utilities tend to be what is known as a “natural monopoly”. These markets are more cheaply served by one firm rather than many because of massive fixed costs.

16.     Without regulation, markets with natural monopolies tend to have higher prices and/or lower outputs and/or lower output quality.

17.     While consumer involvement in the governance of natural monopolies is helpful, it is not sufficient to ensure the best outcomes for consumers. Consumer involvement must work in concert with regulation.

18.     Ultimately, the purpose of economic regulation is to advance the long-term interests of consumers. This ensures that suppliers deliver high-quality services that reflect consumer demand and incentivises improved efficiency. It also ensures any gains by the suppliers are passed through to the consumers.

What type of regulation is being proposed and who would pay the costs?

19.     There are several types of regulation – price-quality, information disclosure, and quality-only. In this case, it is proposed that the regulator be a price-quality regulator.

20.     Price-quality regulators essentially set upper limits on the price that can be charged by the supplier while setting lower limits on the quality of service that must be delivered.

21.     Typically, price-quality regulators operate on regulatory cycles of four to six years. It is proposed that the economic regulator operate on a five-year cycle, with the possibility of the first regulatory cycle being shorter.

22.     Economic regulation has costs. These costs come from two places. On one hand, the economic regulator costs money to operate and administer. On the other hand, the suppliers incur compliance costs to meet the requirements of the regulator.

23.     It is proposed that the administrative costs of the regulator be recovered through levies. This is a straightforward, transparent, and standard way of recovering these costs. Ultimately these costs are borne by the consumers.

24.     The cost to the supplier of complying with regulation is also ultimately borne by the consumers. Since both categories of regulatory costs are borne by the consumers, it is necessary to design the regulations to ensure they are net beneficial to consumers.

25.     Given the amalgamation proposed by the Water Services Bill will increase the market power of the water providers, it is likely that regulation is necessary. Further, the research for the Water Services Bill finds that even the current absence of profit motives, and the obligations to promote the social, cultural, environmental, and financial wellbeing of communities has been insufficient to ensure delivery of effective and efficient three waters service. Put another way, there is probably a case for economic regulation, even in the absence of the proposed three waters amalgamation.

26.     Thus, the MBIE’s recommendation is that three waters be price-quality regulated.

27.     However, there is also a question as to whether the regulation should be applied generically across all suppliers or tailored to individual suppliers. Given the inflexibility of generic regulation and Government’s strong commitment to water service quality, it is recommended that the price-quality regulation be flexible to allow for different incentives to the different suppliers.

What parts of three waters should regulation apply to?

28.     The delivery of stormwater services is fundamentally different to drinking water and wastewater.

29.     While drinking water and wastewater services are delivered directly to the beneficiaries (that is, the person drinking the water or flushing the toilet), stormwater services have a public good element as well. When the stormwater in one area is managed, it could make other areas less likely to flood, for instance. This means that it is difficult to identify and charge the consumers of stormwater services.

30.     Additionally, while drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is easily identified, stormwater infrastructure is more difficult. Stormwater systems are often integrated into roading networks, use natural topographical features, and are owned by various land holders and infrastructure providers.

31.     Internationally, when stormwater systems are operated alongside drinking water and wastewater, they tend to be economically regulated.

32.     The preliminary view put forward by the MBIE is that stormwater should be economically regulated, but it will be less straightforward to demonstrate that it is net beneficial.

Should the regulation apply to all providers?

33.     Three waters reform is proposed to result in four main entities serving approximately 85% of the population. The remainder would be served by small community or private schemes, or through self-supply. A recent study for Taumata Arowai suggested that there could be between 75,000 and 130,000 unregistered drinking water suppliers.

34.     None of these small-scale suppliers serves more than 5,000 customers. There are only three non-defense force suppliers that serve between 500 and 5,000 customers. 

35.     For even smaller (less than 500 customers) providers, it is likely that the owners of three waters supplier and the consumers of the services are largely the same people. Therefore, it is less critical to have a regulatory framework to ensure consumer wellbeing.

36.     Since the goal of the reform is to further consumer wellbeing, these other suppliers should only be regulated if the cost of regulation is outweighed by the benefits.

37.     Given the small scale and relatively high compliance costs, the MBIE has recommended that regulatory framework only apply to the new water service entities created by the Water Services Bill.

How and when should regulation be implemented?

38.     To be effective, price-quality regulation requires high quality information on the assets, costs and quality of service provided by regulated suppliers. However, the Three Waters Reform Programme has found that the scope and quality of the available information is not currently at the level that would be required to implement an effective economic regulation regime.

39.     Because of this information gap, it is unlikely that the regulatory regime would be operational by the time the new three waters entities are set to begin operation in 1 July 2024.

40.     However, starting the new entities operations without a regulatory framework in place poses its own risk.

41.     Therefore, the Government’s recommendation is that there should be a graduated approach to implementing a conventional cost-based price-quality path, with the first regulatory pricing period beginning 1 July 2027. In the interim the industry would improve its data and the regulator would work with the industry on information disclosure.

42.     This interim period from 1 July 2024 through to 30 June 2027 would leave the supplies unregulated in terms of price-quality. There are two potential solutions to this gap. The first is that the regulator impose a price-quality path based on incomplete information but using its best judgment. The second option is that an interim price-quality path be implemented by government. There are significant pros and cons to each option and the MBIE is seeking feedback on this issue.

What should be the statutory objectives of the regulation regime?

43.     Recently in New Zealand, regulatory regimes are set to achieve four goals.

a)     There must be incentives to innovate and invest.

b)     There should be incentives to improve efficiency.

c)      That the efficiency gains must be shared with consumers.

d)     Lastly, suppliers are limited in their ability to turn profits. This point is irrelevant to the three waters reform scenario.

44.     However, there is scope for the economic regulator to have responsibility for a broader range of objectives (including issues such as climate change and Te mana o te Wai).

45.     There is also a question as to how Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations factor into the design of any economic regulatory regime for the three waters sector.

46.     The MBIE seeks feedback on what the precise role of the economic regulator should be and whether it should be expanded in the ways described above.

What should compliance and enforcement look like?

47.     Compliance and enforcement are essential for regulation to be effective.

48.     An economic regulator’s compliance and enforcement toolkit typically includes education initiatives, warning letters, infringement offences, pecuniary penalties, enforceable undertakings, and other civil remedies such as out-of-court settlements.

49.     The MBIE is seeking feedback on whether there needs to be any other tools in the toolkit.

Who should the economic regulator be?

50.     To be effective, regulators need to be at arms-length from government, transparent, accountable, credible, freely share information, and act in a coordinated way with policy agencies.

51.     There are three potential options for the economic regulator: Taumata Arowai, the Commerce Commission, or a new regulatory authority created specifically for economic regulation of three waters.

52.     The MBIE’s multi-criteria analysis suggests that the Commerce Commission is best suited to be the economic regulator. 

Do we need additional consumer protections and how are those regulated?

53.     Due to the nature of the three waters sector, there may be other consumer protections required. There likely needs to be rules around the acceptable likelihood and duration of supply outages, the acceptable level of leakage from reticulated supply networks, the level of resilience to natural and man-made hazards, and the amount of innovation and efficiencies delivered to consumers.

54.     These protections will be required because three waters is a natural monopoly and consumers cannot go elsewhere when unhappy with their service.

55.     Importantly, the current democratic, consultation, and governance mechanisms that are provided for in the Local Government Act 2002 will not apply to the proposed new Water Services Entities. In addition, the Ombudsman’s current role in dealing with complaints about local government agencies will cease.

56.     These points suggest that regulation needs to consider these angles of consumer protection above and beyond the standard roles of an economic regulator.

57.     There is also a need for additional protections for vulnerable consumers. It is recommended that that there should be a positive obligation on the regulator to consider interests of vulnerable consumers, and that minimum service level requirements are flexible enough able to accommodate a wide range of approaches to addressing consumer harm and vulnerability.

58.     The MBIE is seeking feedback on how the consumer protection regime could be designed in a way that contributes to equitable outcomes and mitigates unintended impacts on Māori. This includes impacts on different iwi/hapū, Māori landowners, urban Māori consumers, and rural Māori consumers. Additionally, views are sought on how the consumer protection regulator could be expected to consider Treaty obligations, and the cultural competency of the economic regulator to recognise the significance of water as a taonga for Māori.

59.     As with economic regulation, a multi-criteria analysis suggests that the Commerce Commission should be the consumer protection regulator.

How should consumer disputes be resolved?

60.     There are several ways that consumer disputes can be resolved.

61.     The preliminary preferred option put forward by the MBIE is for mandatory provision of consumer dispute resolution services, but feedback is sought as to whether this should be achieved through a new scheme or by expanding the mandate of an existing scheme.

62.     Traditionally, vulnerable populations face difficulties in accessing dispute resolution schemes. Therefore, it is important that both suppliers and the dispute resolution provider ensure that underserved and vulnerable communities can participate in processes that affect them including dispute resolution processes.

Local Board Feedback

63.     While the MBIE has posed 46 questions to submitters in the discussion document, only a few are acutely relevant. The following 11 questions are the most critical for the council family to provide feedback:

a)      What are your views on whether the stormwater networks that are currently operated by local authorities should be economically regulated, alongside drinking water and wastewater?

b)      Do you consider that the economic regulation regime should be implemented gradually from 2024 to 2027, or do you consider that a transitional price-quality path is also required?

c)      If you consider a transitional price-quality path is required, do you consider that this should be developed and implemented by an independent economic regulator, or by Government and implemented through a Government Policy Statement?

d)      What are your views on how Treaty of Waitangi principles, as well as the rights and interests of iwi/Māori, should be factored into the design of an economic regulatory regime for the three waters sector?

e)      Who do you consider should have primary responsibility for determining the structure of three waters prices: a. The Water Services Entity, following engagement with their governance group, communities, and consumers; b. The economic regulator; or c. The Government or Ministers?

f)       Who do you think is the most suitable body to be the economic regulator for the three waters sector? Please provide reasons for your view.

g)      What are your views on whether minimum service level requirements should be able to vary across different types of consumers?

h)      What are your views on whether the regulatory regime should include a positive obligation to protect vulnerable consumers, and that minimum service level requirements are flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of approaches to protecting vulnerable consumers?

i)       What are your views on how Treaty of Waitangi principles, as well as the rights and interests of iwi/Māori, should be factored into the design of a consumer protection regime for the three waters sector?

j)       Do you agree with the preliminary view that the Commerce Commission is the most suitable body to be the consumer protection regulator for the three waters sector?

k)      Do you consider that there should be special considerations for traditionally under-served or vulnerable communities? If so, how do you think these should be given effect?

64.     A recommendation requesting the views of local boards on the proposal is included in this report.

65.     Local board views are requested by 6 December 2021 to enable those views to influence the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66.     The discussion paper acknowledges that addressing climate change challenges and ensuring water service resilience is one of the drivers of the overall Three Waters Reform. However, the economic regulation regime is not being considered for these reasons directly.

67.     The proposed economic regulation framework does not have direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions or climate. However, it may be in the purview of the regulator to ensure consumer expectations are met with regards to environmental and climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

68.     Relevant council departments and council-controlled organisations have been identified and contributions will be sought from them in developing the council group’s response to the Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand discussion paper.

69.     While overall three waters reform will have a direct impact on council and council-controlled organisations, economic regulation put in place after that reform will not have any impact on council or remaining council-controlled organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

70.     Local board views are sought as part of the development of the council’s submission and will be reported back to Governing Body. Local board resolutions will be included as part of council’s submission. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

71.     The overall three waters reform is, in part, to recognise and provide for iwi/Māori rights and interests with a specific focus on service delivery. It is proposed that iwi/Māori will have a greater role in the new Three Waters system, including pathways for enhanced participation by whānau and hapū as these services relate to their Treaty rights and interests.

72.     On a price-quality basis, economic regulation of the three waters industry does not directly impact on Māori any differently than other three waters services consumers. However, the overall three waters reform and specific topics within the economic regulation of three waters are likely to be of significant interest. In particular, how treaty obligations are considered, the recognition of water as taonga for Māori, and the overrepresentation of Māori in the group of consumers vulnerable to price shocks.

73.     Māori outcomes leads within the council family are being consulted on these topics.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74.     The submission can be developed within existing budget provision and as part of business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

75.     There is little risk in making a submission on the economic regulation of three waters. Conversely, there is high risk if we do not make a submission. As the work programme progresses, staff can provide further information about the potential impacts on council’s activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

76.     The office of the Chief Economist is current drafting a submission on behalf of Auckland Council.

77.     Staff are preparing a report for the Governing Body seeking a delegation of Governing Body members to approve the council’s submission.

78.     The views of local boards on the proposal are requested by the 6 December 2021 to enable those views to influence the overall submission and to be included as an attachment to the council submission.

79.     The deadline for the final submission to Government is 20 December 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shane Martin - Senior Economist

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Local board feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document

File No.: CP2021/17917

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the local board’s formal input into Auckland Council’s submission on the National Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document, Te hau mārohi ki anamata: Transitioning to a low-emissions and climate-resilient future.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry for the Environment released a discussion document on 13 October 2021 for public consultation, seeking to inform the development of the first National Emissions Reduction Plan.

3.       The discussion document describes existing actions the Government has committed to and sets out new proposed actions it may include in the National Emissions Reduction Plan to further reduce emissions and meet climate targets.

4.       The document proposes a range of new strategies and policies for consideration which span every sector of the economy and include changes to our funding and finance system, the way we organise our urban areas, and a shift to a circular economy.

5.       The Government is required to publish the National Emissions Reduction Plan by the end of May 2022.

6.       Auckland Council already has existing strategic direction in emissions reduction through Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and has agreed positions that have recently been provided through previous submissions on climate change and transport emissions.

7.       As such, the council will not, in the main, be developing new positions through this submission, but will base it on relevant strategies and these existing agreed positions.

8.       At the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s 28 April 2020 business meeting, it delegated authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submission on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils (resolution: MT/2020/32).

9.       The local board’s feedback was provided to Auckland Council subject-matter experts prior to the deadline. A copy of the local board’s feedback is attached to this report (Attachment A).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the board’s feedback on the National Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document for incorporation into an Auckland Council submission (Attachment A) as authorised by delegation to Chair M Meredith.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board National Emissions Reduction Plan Feedback

23

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mal Ahmu - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board input into Auckland Council’s feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document ‘Taking responsibility for our waste’

File No.: CP2021/17919

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To inform the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board that a decision was made and approved under delegation to the chairperson to provide feedback to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       At the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s 28 April 2020 business meeting, it delegated authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submission on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils (resolution: MT/2020/32).

3.       On 15 October 2021, the Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document on proposals for a new national waste strategy together with other issues and options relating to new waste legislation.

4.       It describes existing actions the Government has committed to and sets out new proposed actions it may include in the new national waste strategy to transform the way New Zealand manages its waste.

5.       The consultation document sought feedback on the following three areas:

·     Part 1: seeking support for changes to how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its waste and support for moving towards a circular economy

·     Part 2: seeking feedback on a proposed new waste strategy

·     Part 3: seeking feedback on the development of more comprehensive legislation on waste: issues and options.

6.       A draft submission was prepared by staff for discussion and endorsement by the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Local board input into that submission was sought, with a deadline of 10 November at 5pm for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission or 22 November 2021 at 5pm for feedback to be appended.

7.       The local board’s Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation feedback is formal, being signed off under delegation, but is being reported to the 30 November 2021 business meeting of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to ensure transparent decision-making.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s feedback (Attachment A to the agenda report) approved under delegation to the chairperson to inform Auckland Council’s feedback on the Waste Strategy and associated waste legislation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document ‘Taking responsibility for our waste’

27

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mal Ahmu - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Reserve revocation of 37 Olive Road, Penrose, 12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie and 23 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington

File No.: CP2021/09665

 

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This report seeks the views of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on the proposal to revoke the reserve status of three reserves in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Finance and Performance Committee approved in principle the disposal of 37 Olive Road, Penrose, 12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie and 23 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington as part of the Emergency Budget asset recycling programme in 2020. The three sites are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

3.       The committee’s approval for 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 three sites commenced in February 2021. Independent Commissioners have been appointed to consider the public submissions. A hearing was held in August 2021 to allow for submitters to speak directly to the Independent Commissioners.

5.       Council departments have assessed 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road against the provisions for recreation reserves in s17 and local purposes reserves in s23 Reserves Act 1977 and against council’s Open Space policies. The assessments confirm that the sites are no longer required by council as reserves or for open space network purposes.

6.       Eke Panuku has provided the board with relevant property information and open space assessments for the three sites and now seeks the 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 three 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 three sites should be forwarded to the Department of Conservation (DOC).

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

i)       37 Olive Road, Penrose;

ii)       12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie; and

iii)      23 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington.

b)      note the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee will consider the 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 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road 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 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 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road and a hearing was held in August 2021.

12.     The PACE Committee will consider the board’s views regarding the proposed reserve revocation of the three 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 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 three reserves before a disposal can proceed.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property information - 37 Olive Road, Penrose

14.     37 Olive Road is an 819m2 reserve located in an industrial area. It was vested upon subdivision with the former One Tree Hill Borough Council in 1982.  It is a local purpose (amenity) reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

15.     Council’s Community Investment team (formerly the Parks and Recreation Policy team) assessed the site in April 2018 and again in July 2020 against council’s Open Space Provision and Open Space Acquisition policies. The assessment also considered the provisions for a local purpose reserve outlined in s23 Reserves Act 1977. This assessment confirmed 37 Olive Road is not required by council as a reserve or for open space network purposes. This is on the basis that the site has limited community benefit and is not required to help meet council’s open space provision targets.

Property information - 12R Rockfield Road, Ellerslie

16.     12R Rockfield Road is a 809m² reserve originally vested upon subdivision with the Crown in 1925. It was subsequently transferred to the former Ellerslie Borough Council in 1961. 12R Rockfield Road is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

17.     Council’s Community Investment team assessed the site in March 2019 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 12R Rockfield Road is not required by council as a recreation reserve or for open space network purposes.

18.     This is on the basis that while the site has landscape qualities and streetscape, it contributes little else in terms of open space qualities. Konini Reserve located nearby provides a range of recreational opportunities to meet the community’s recreation needs. 12R Rockfield Road does not connect to existing parks, nor have unique features or support the function of existing open space.

Property information - 23 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington

19.     23 Waipuna Road is a narrow 437m2 strip of land that is the balance of land acquired in 2007 from a land exchange between council and the developers of Sylvia Park. The site is a local purpose reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

20.     Council’s Community Investment team assessed the site in February 2019 against council’s Open Space Provision and Open Space Acquisition policies. The assessment also considered the provisions for a local purpose reserve outlined in s23 Reserves Act 1977. This assessment confirmed 12R Rockfield Road is not required by council as a reserve or for open space network purposes.

21.     This is on the basis that the subject area is a small local purpose reserve with limited access to a range of recreational opportunities, it does not connect to exiting parks and open space and doesn’t enhance the function and use of existing parks.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     12R Rockfield Road and part of 23 Waipuna Road are located in flood prone areas. The three sites are not coastal properties and are not 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 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road against council’s Open Space policies and the provisions for recreation reserves in s17 and local purpose reserves in s23 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.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     Eke Panuku and council’s Value for Money team has provided the board with an information memorandum regarding the proposed reserve revocations of 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road.

27.     As part of its feedback on council’s Emergency Budget 2020/2021, the board resolved (resolution MT/2020/104) in July 2020 that it endorses in principle the divestment of assets, as long as there is collaborative approach and the board is kept informed of opportunities; that it has a positive sentiment towards the disposal of the three sites; and that it recommends the process for property rationalisation continues but it would support process improvements where necessary.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.     Nineteen mana whenua iwi authorities were consulted in 2020 regarding any issues of cultural significance associated with 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road.

30.     Through the engagement undertaken Te Ākitai – Waiohua advised Eke Panuku that it has a cultural interest in 37 Olive Road, as the site is located close to Rarotonga (Mount Smart). Te Ākitai Waiohua further advised that it prefers to see the site remain as a reserve with the current open space zoning. Eke Panuku has acknowledged the notification from Te Ākitai – Waiohua and confirmed its interests have been noted on the property files and will be considered as part of the decision-making process.

31.     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 will be included in the report to the PACE Committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33.     There is a risk that the Minister of Conservation may not approve the proposed reserve revocations. In such a circumstance 37 Olive Road, 12R Rockfield Road and 23 Waipuna Road would remain as reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     The 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 of Conservation to uplift the reserve status for the three sites.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Images

35

     

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor, Portfolio Review, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

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

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Asset Optimisation, Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Ross Chirnside – General Manager, Value for Money

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Transfer of the Panmure Sign to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

File No.: CP2021/18251

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To confirm Auckland Transport’s transfer of the Panmure Sign and an associated budget of $250,000 to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Panmure Sign cannot be reinstated in its original position due to site constraints within the AMETI Eastern Busway footprint.

3.       A structural and geotechnical feasibility assessment (refer to Appendix A) concluded that the structural capacity of the existing Panmure Sign is not strong enough to meet current building standards. The report recommends to not reinstate the existing Panmure Sign as its potential failure would be a public safety risk.

4.       Although not required to by conditions of the consent, Auckland Transport will provide $250,000 for the reinstatement of the sign or to be put towards another local board project.

5.       If the local board accepts the $250,000 it will be at the discretion of the local board to determine the future of the sign and the appropriate use of the funds.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)  approve Auckland Transport’s transferal of the asset, Panmure Sign, as a local board asset.

b)  accept Auckland Transport’s offer of $250,000 to either assist with replacement of the sign in a new location or for delivery of another project at the Maungakiekie-Tamāki Local Board’s discretion.

Horopaki

Context

6.       The AMETI - Eastern Busway involves construction, operation and maintenance of a multi modal transport corridor providing for better connections and accessibility between (and within) Panmure and Pakuranga town centres for all transport users.

7.       It includes a segregated busway from Panmure Station to the Pakuranga Town Centre, improved pedestrian and cycling facilities, and the construction of a new busway bridge across the Tāmaki River adjacent to and along the northern side of the existing Panmure Bridge to accommodate people on buses, cycling and walking. The project also includes ancillary activities to mitigate adverse effects (including effects on cultural values). Construction commenced on 19 April 2019 and is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2021.

8.       As a consequence of the reconfiguration of the Panmure roundabout to a signalised intersection, the Panmure Sign was removed at the start of construction and has subsequently been stored by Auckland Transport at a safe storage facility off site.

9.       The sign was commissioned in 1994 by John Fallon. Its look was inspired by 1950s themes of space, stars and atoms as a homage to Panmure’s boom from the 1940s to the 1960s. It does not meet the definition of ‘historic heritage’. In addition, it is not identified as a scheduled heritage item within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

10.     Removal of the sign was addressed during the consenting phase of the project and was not challenged during the submission process. Furthermore, retention is not required by the consent to mitigate landscape or visual effects. Accordingly, there are no conditions of consent that require Auckland Transport to reinstate the sign.

11.     The sign cannot go back to the original position due to site constraints within the project footprint, there is simply not space within the new layout.

12.     Although not obligated by conditions of consent, Auckland Transport (AT) will provide the local board with $250,000, to enable the future management of the sign or to be put towards another Local Board project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     A structural and geotechnical feasibility assessment undertaken by Beca in August 2020 (refer to Appendix A) concluded that the structural capacity of the existing Panmure Sign, built 1994, has insufficient flexural capacity so cannot bend and flex to meet the requirements of current building standards.    Permanent loads and wind loads were determined from current AS/NZS1170 standards. The sign was assessed for a 25-year design life based on guidance from AS/NZS1170 and TNZ P/24.

14.     Based on these findings Beca do not recommend reinstating the existing Panmure Sign as its potential failure would be a public safety risk.

15.     Stellar Projects undertook a cost analysis in November 2020 (refer to Appendix B) to determine costs associated with fabricating a new sign that complies with current building code regulations versus retrofitting the existing Panmure Sign. Stellar Projects concluded a new sign of similar size would cost $234,723.20 (excluding GST) compared with $308,438.11(excluding GST) to retrofit the existing sign. Both figures include a 20% contingency allowance for any unknowns such as;unforeseen ground conditions, archaeology and consultation.

16.     The sum of $250,000 offered to the Local Board is based on the cost analysis undertaken by Stellar Projects in November 2020 (refer to Appendix B) for the construction of a new sign that complies with current building code standards.

17.     Auckland Transport’s advice is that the AMETI-Eastern Busway project team do not have the expertise or resourcing to lead a discussion about the following potential options identified in discussions between Auckland Transport, Panuku and Auckland Council:

a)   Re-building the original sign (which would require approximately an additional $ 50,000 from the local board’s discretionary funds).

b)   Building a new sign.

c)   Using the $ 250,000 to deliver another project or projects.

18.     Auckland Council Community Facilities’ advice is that $ 250,000 could be used to achieve a number of other local board projects. Some examples are:

a)   Funding shortfall of Jubilee Bridge renewal

b)   Sir Woolf Fisher Park – Increased play and active recreation provision

c)   Panmure heritage trail interpretive signage

19.     If the budget is accepted it will be at the discretion of the local board to determine the future of the sign and the appropriate use of the funds. Furthermore, it will be for the Local Board to determine if the transferred funds are allocated to their OPEX or CAPEX budgets.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20.     Auckland Transport’s core role is providing alternatives to private vehicle travel, reducing the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the public transport network. AMETI-Eastern Busway contributes directly to these goals and includes the provision of emission neutral (walking and cycling) and low emission (public transport and ride sharing) modes of transportation.

21.     While the project will contribute significantly to reducing the carbon footprint of East Auckland the Panmure Sign in and of itself does not have a measurable climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22.     Auckland Transport worked closely with Auckland Council during the consenting phase of the Project.

23.     With regard to this particular matter, it has been discussed with representatives from Panuku, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. The most significant financial impact is on Community Facilities, the council department that will hold and manage the $ 250,000 if it is approved by the local board.

24.     The estimate provided by Stella was based on three sites in the road corridor that are no-longer available as they sit inside the AMETI footprint. Further geotechnical, iwi and community consultation will be required to find a suitable location for the sign within the local boards park extent.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     This paper formalises ongoing discussions held between the project team and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board in 2020 regarding Auckland Transport’s position.

26.     Specifically, Auckland Transport invited the Local Board to provide feedback during a workshop on 24 November 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.     The reinstatement of the Panmure Sign within the project designation was presented to the collective mana whenua project table who have self-identified their cultural interest in AMETI – Eastern Busway at via the monthly Kaitiaki Forum on 30 July 2020.

28.     Overall, the collective does not support reinstatement of the sign within the footprint of the project. Specifically, the collective stated that if reinstatement of the Panmure Sign is agreed its placement should not detract from the cultural recognition elements that highlight the cultural relationship of mana whenua with the land directly affected by the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     This report has a significant financial implication in that acceptance of the report will allow Auckland Transport to transfer $250,000 to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to enable future management of the Sign or to be put towards another Local Board project.

30.     Auckland Transport confirms that the AMETI Project has sufficient funds available for the immediate transfer of $250,000 to the Local Board.

31.     In addition, Auckland Transport will cover all costs associated with the physical transfer of the Panmure Sign from the current off-site storage facility to the nominated storage destination of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. Following transfer, any ongoing storage costs occurred would be at the expense of the Local Board.

32.     Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Team has identified a budget line to hold the money while a discussion is held confirming its use.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33.     The proposed decision to receive the report requires that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board accept responsibility for the managing the future of the Panmure Sign.

34.     The sign’s recent history has been difficult with local community groups keen to have it re-instated.  By accepting the $250,000 the local board accepts the responsibility and risks associated with making a decision about the sign’s future. 

35.     The cost of building a new sign is hard to confirm, in July 201 the Community Facilities Department quantity surveyor reviewed the design for building a new and provided advice that the cost of concrete foundation and steelworks needed to be larger and that a more realistic construction cost is likely to be approximately $300,000. The review also highlighted additional costs for construction required including; design and construction monitoring fees, additional ground investigation, consenting and consultation which are estimated to be $70,000. This risk should be considered by the local board when making a decision about how to use the $ 250,000.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36.     If accepted, Auckland Transport will transfer the budget of $250,000 to the local board

37.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is provides Auckland Transport confirmation of whether they wish to salvage the sign in its entirety or if they only want portions (i.e. the letters that can be adopted onto another sign) to be transferred to another location or disposed of.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Existing Panmure Sign Reinstatement Feasibility Assessment, Beca

45

b

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki - Panmure Sign Costings, Stellar Projects

49

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Allocation of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2021/18277

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval from the local board for the allocation of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport manages the Local Board Transport Capital Fund on behalf of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.  On an as-required basis, Auckland Transport provides advice to support local board decision-making. A decision relating to the allocation of Local Board Transport Capital Fund is being sought.

3.       At this time, the Local Board Transport Capital Fund provides the local board with $ 1,922,645 to spend on transport projects this electoral term.

4.       Before, COVID 19 impacted Council budgets, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved to deliver the following projects and work has already been completed on some of them:

a)   Jubilee Shared Bridge.

b)   Second Tripoli Road raised crossing.

c)   Tamaki shared paths.

d)   Onehunga Mall raised crossings.

e)   Line and Taniwha Road raised crossings

5.       In this report, Auckland Transport recommends that the local board authorise delivery of two projects that the local board agrees should be delivered as soon as possible;

a)   Jubilee Shared Bridge costing $ 700,000.

b)   A Second Tripoli Road raised crossing costing $ 150,000

6.       The projects total cost is $850,000 which will leave $ 1,072,645 available for redistribution.

7.       Auckland Transport, and the local board propose to investigate a range of other projects in detail before confirming use of this money.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)   approve the allocation of $700,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to Auckland Council Community Facilities as a contribution to the Jubilee Bridge project.

b)   approve the allocation of $ 150,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to complete delivery of the Second Tripoli Road Crossing project.

c)   request Auckland Transport stop further Local Board Transport Capital Fund activity on the Line and Taniwha Road crossings because they are now included as part of the Glen Innes Links project.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The Local Board Transport Capital Fund is an Auckland Transport fund established in 2012, to allow local boards to deliver small projects in their local area that would not normally be prioritised by Auckland Transport. Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board receives approximately $ 926,065 per annum.

9.       Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board has previously resolved to deliver the following projects and work has already been completed on some of them:

a)   Jubilee Shared Bridge.

b)   Two Tripoli Road raised crossings, one of which has been delivered.

c)   Tamaki shared paths.

d)   Onehunga Mall raised crossings.

e)   Line and Taniwha Road raised Crossings.

10.     Through the Emergency Budget, the total Local Board Transport Capital Fund allocated across all Local Boards was reduced and any projects that funds allocated but not yet spent, were stopped until the impacts were assessed, and new budget confirmed. The Regional Land Transport Plan 2020 re-instated the original Local Board Transport Capital Funding to all local boards.

11.     In October 2021, Auckland Transport discussed these projects with the local board stating the board’s financial position as follows:

a)   Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board now receives approximately $ 926,065 p/a, and after reinstatement of the fund the board gets two years of funding, worth approximately $1,852,131.

b)   The board also has a ‘carry over’ of approximately $ 70,514 of unspent money from the previous Financial Year.

c)   Therefore, in total the board can allocate approximately $ 1,922,645 in this electoral term.

d)   Currently, the board has resolutions totalling approximately $ 1,566,866 worth of work to complete.

12.     During that discussion, it was also noted that the Line and Taniwha Road crossing would now be delivered by the Glen Innes Links project so no longer required local board funding.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     The process for planning how to use Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board’s transport funding started with written advice in memo format and an initial workshop on 21 October 2021.  Some of the information provided during the initial was wrong so some figures have been amended in this discussion to address the inaccuracy. After the mistake was identified all figures were re-checked and are accurate.

14.     Auckland Transport’s key advice is that the board should start by reviewing projects that are already in the programme. This ensures that historic investments are not lost, maintains the integrity of the board’s previous decision-making and maximizes efficiency of delivery.

15.     At this workshop, the local board also confirmed that they would like two existing projects to be delivered as quickly as possible the Jubilee Bridge and second Tripoli Road crossing projects.

16.     Further, at the workshop the local board asked for more information about the second Tripoli Road crossing. It can be reported that;

a)   The initial estimate for both crossings was $ 600,000.

b)   The first crossing is delivered and cost $158,661.

c)   A second crossing is planned located at 33 Tripoli Road. This is the crossing that is being considered in this report.

17.     The cost of this crossing has been reviewed and the new estimate is $ 150,000.

18.     The projects total cost is $850,000 which will leave $ 1,072,645 available for redistribution. Auckland Transport, and the local board will investigate a projects listed above in detail before confirming use of this money.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19.     Auckland Council has declared a climate emergency, Auckland Transport therefore urges the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board to consider prioritisation of projects that help reduce carbon emissions. Both of the proposed projects will encourage walking and cycling reducing carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20.     One of the two projects being considered involves a direct relationship with Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Team. This is a long-term project that is well known to the Council’s Community Facilities Team and is well-supported.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21.     Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board discussed this programme of work at two workshops with Auckland Transport and the board’s views are record in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     The actions being consider do not have specific impacts on Māori.  Both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are committed to meeting their responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori. Auckland Transport’s Maori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

23.     Any Auckland Transport project that requires consultation with iwi will include that activity within its project plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     This report requires consideration of a significant financial commitment of up to $1,266,866 by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board.

25.     The recommended course of action will leave the local with $ 424,470 available to investigate other projects.  A process for this investigation is discussed in the ‘Next Steps’ section of the report. If not allocated this money will be included in the next electoral term’s allocation.

26.     Local Board Transport Capital Fund allocated by the local board is considered committed, requiring a new decision before it could be reallocated.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27.     Funds transferred to Auckland Council to support delivery of a projects for instance the Jubilee Bridge are immediately transferred from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council so cannot be re-allocated without discussion with Council and board decision-making.

28.     Delaying a decision (i.e. not making resolutions at this meeting) could have a significant impact on delivery timelines.  A November decision allows work to be completed before the Christmas break, delaying the decision till December means that progress will be unlikely until the New Year.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     If the local board supports the recommendation then the Jubilee Bridge and second Tripoli Road crossing projects will start immediately. The Jubilee Bridge will involve transfer of $ 700,000 to Auckland Council’s Community Facilities to deliver the project and Auckland Transport will assign a project manager and team to the second Triploi Road crossing project.

30.     With regard to remainder of the fund Auckland Transport will estimate cost and provide advice on the list of new projects.

31.     Throughout this process Auckland Transport will keep the local board updated and when a decision is required a report will be made to a public meeting so the Members can consider it and decide.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Stephen Rainbow - Central Hub Manager, Auckland Transport

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022

File No.: CP2021/17900

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 (the draft policy).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Significance and Engagement Policy, adopted in 2014, is undergoing a policy refresh to make it more contemporary and user-friendly.

3.       The goal of the policy refresh is to provide for a simplified decision-making process through a high-level guiding document that allows for case-by-case assessments.

4.       Minor updates are needed in both the significance and engagement components of the policy.

5.       Updates around the significance component of the draft policy include:

·    the assessment of significance in terms of a continuum

·    taking a cumulative approach to a package of proposals or decisions

·    adjusting the list of strategic assets to include only assets critical for the delivery of services and clarifying that most strategic assets are identified as groups or networks of assets to reflect the way in which they deliver services

·    adding guidance for assessing the significance of decisions for assets that do not meet the criteria for being strategic.

6.       Updates around the engagement component of the draft policy include:

·    simplifying existing text to make the policy more user-friendly

·    ensuring the engagement principles capture a more diverse Tāmaki Makaurau

·    capturing the need to safeguard staff, elected members and the community during consultation and engagement

·    giving more visibility to the connection between the policy and the forthcoming and separate refresh of the Engagement Guidelines, which will support staff to operationalise the policy.

7.       The draft policy was adopted for public consultation by Governing Body at its 23 September 2021 meeting, resolution number GB/2021/111.

8.       Public consultation ran from 27 September to 18 October 2021.

9.       Adoption of the final policy is projected for February 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy as part of the overall consideration for final adoption in February 2022.

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Significance and Engagement Policy (the 2014 policy) was created and adopted in 2014 to fulfill the legislative requirements outlined in section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

11.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key document for decision-making and the consultation process. It is comprised of two interrelated sections on significance and engagement.

12.     The significance section sets out how and when communities can expect the council to engage before making decisions, describes the council’s approach to determining the significance of proposals and decisions, and lists the council’s strategic assets.

13.     The engagement section provides high-level principles on how to engage inclusively with the diverse communities of Tāmaki Makaurau. These high-level principles ensure that engagement is fit-for-purpose according to the level of significance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     Staff have undertaken a policy refresh as the 2014 policy has not undergone changes since its initial adoption.

15.     An internal assessment of the 2014 policy found that that it was largely easy to use, but minor improvements would allow for more efficient decision-making and more fit-for-purpose engagement processes.

16.     General high-level updates and clarifications are being proposed for the draft policy to create a more contemporary policy.

17.     The Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to be a prescriptive policy document, and any accepted changes to the draft policy will not change the purpose for which it is used.

18.     The proposed changes to the Significance and Engagement Policy 2021 were reported to the Governing Body at its meeting on 23 September – see Attachment A Significance and Engagement Policy: Approval of draft policy for consultation, also found online with associated documents.

Consultation

19.     Formal public consultation was held from 27 September to 18 October 2021. The consultation document is part of Attachment A, or online here.

20.     Given COVID-19 lockdown restrictions across the region, consultation was conducted entirely virtually and consisted of:

·    consultation materials and online feedback forms made available on the council’s engagement website (AK Have Your Say)

·    virtual workshops with community partners with demographic advisory panels

·    working with community partners to reach diverse groups.

21.     All feedback has been captured and will be reported through to the Governing Body meeting in February 2022 to inform decision-making on the final policy.

22.     A summary of the regional feedback received from submitters is set out in Attachment B and local board specific feedback in Attachment C.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     Accepting the proposed changes to the draft policy allows for a fit-for-purpose and contemporary significance and engagement policy that will encourage a richer engagement process during future consultations around climate change issues.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     Any strategic asset under the draft policy that is held or managed by a substantive Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) will be identified in the CCO Accountability Policy. CCO’s must comply with that policy when making decisions on strategic assets under their control.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     Local boards play a key role in engaging with their local communities. The change to enable more fit-for-purpose consultation and engagement for some asset-based decisions may provide local boards with greater flexibility to customise some engagement processes to better meet the needs of their community.

26.     Local board chairs were invited to a workshop held on 4 August 2021 that also included the Parks, Arts, Community and Events, and Finance and Performance committees for a high-level overview on proposed amendments to the draft policy.

27.     Formalised local board views from this workshop and report will be incorporated into the February 2022 Governing Body report for the policy adoption.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The refresh of the Significance and Engagement Policy will strengthen the council’s capacity and capability to engage with and meet the needs of the Māori community. This will be achieved through the delivery of bespoke training initiatives and resources which align to best practice engagement that responds to the needs and is supported by Māori. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau provides a foundation to build council’s engagement approach and supports initiatives already underway such as Te Matapuna 2 as a pilot for spatial-based engagement. Work on relationship agreements is progressing, and there is good support for capacity contracts. Further work is required to streamline engagement forums to ensure they are fit for purpose and respond to priorities from Māori.

29.     Ongoing collaboration on the development of the Māori engagement practice and approach will inform the Engagement Guidelines and will ensure council’s size and engagement reach is leveraged effectively. This collaboration will ensure that the operational execution of the Engagement Guidelines is well-informed and aligned with best practice in te ao Māori.

30.     This focus on practice, capacity and capability will guide operational performance so that the aspirations for Māori engagement in Tāmaki Makaurau are progressed, aligned and achievable. Further work on Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance measures will be aligned with the engagement approach as it continues to be developed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31.     The proposed changes to the significance section of the policy assists in the assessment of significance and may reduce the financial costs of engagement approaches that are not fit-for-purpose.

32.     Reclassifying some assets as non-strategic will also remove the burden of audit costs if the council seeks to make any future decisions around changing ownership or control of those assets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33.     The recommendation requesting local board views does not present any risk. The risks associated with refreshing the draft policy are set out in the report to the 23 September Governing Body meeting in Attachment A.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     Feedback from the consultation along with local board views will be reported to the 24 February 2022 Governing Body meeting as part of the materials for the finalised draft policy approval.

35.     The final Significance and Engagement Policy 2022 is proposed to be implemented following approval at the same Governing Body meeting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Approval of draft policy for consultation

59

b

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Summary of regional feedback

99

c

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board  Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Feedback

107

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Eddie Tuiavii - Principal Advisor - Democracy and Engage

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager Democracy and Engagement

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update: Quarter One, 2021-22

File No.: CP2021/17328

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board with an update on Council-controlled Organisation work programme items in its area, along with proposed changes to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A number of general changes are proposed for the Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plans, as part of ongoing work to improve and refine the approach to engagement with Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs).

3.       The four substantive CCOs – Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare – may also propose specific changes.

4.       General changes are shown in Attachment A. Attachments B-D include work programme updates from Auckland Transport and Auckland Unlimited.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Council-controlled Organisations Quarterly Update for Quarter One 2021-22

b)      adopt the updated Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 as agreed between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations: Auckland Transport, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland, and Watercare.

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       Each local board has agreed an engagement approach with the four CCOs for the 2021-2022 local work programme. 

6.       While the local board approves the Joint CCO Engagement Plan each year, it remains a live document and CCOs are encouraged to keep the document up to date.

7.       Changes are also proposed by Local Board Services, where improvements can be made to all 21 engagement plans.

8.       This report may include the following types of changes:

·    Additional work programme items, and proposed engagement level

·    Proposed changes to the engagement approach with the local board

·    Proposed changes to the extent of community engagement

9.       In addition, as part of implementing the Joint CCO Engagement Plan, the four CCOs provide a quarterly update on projects listed in the engagement plan.

10.     We are introducing these new reports gradually, so for Quarter One your report may not include updates from all four CCOs.

11.     For Quarter Two reporting, we expect to have updates from all four CCOs for all local board areas.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Changes proposed by Local Board Services

12.     The original discussions with local boards used the five levels of engagement outlined by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2): inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower. Feedback from local boards indicated that using all five levels was unwieldy, and in particular that there was confusion and disagreement about when ‘empower’ might be used.

13.     We are proposing that we reduce the engagement levels down to a simplified three step model of inform, consult and collaborate. This helps to better distinguish between projects and to clarify the kinds of engagement that are expected at each step.

14.     We have also moved the CCO work programme tables from being embedded within the engagement plan, to being a series of four attachments. This makes it easier to use the work programmes as the basis for quarterly reporting.

15.     Minor changes may have also been made to names of Local Board Services and/or CCO contacts.

16.     These changes are all shown as tracked changes in Attachment A – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022.

Auckland Transport

17.     Auckland Transport’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided as Attachment B.

18.     Auckland Transport has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Auckland Unlimited

19.     Auckland Unlimited’s work programme updates for Quarter One are provided as Attachment C.

Changes to the Auckland Unlimited work programme

20.     Auckland Unlimited had previously responded to local board requests to include more information on major events by adding a line item for each event.

21.     As part of ongoing work to improve and refine this process, we are proposing to replace all the individual major event lines with the three following lines:

·    Delivered Events (Diwali, Lantern Festival, Pasifika, Tāmaki Herenga Waka)

·    Sponsored Events (i.e., Elemental)

·    Supported Events (i.e., FIFA World Cup, World Choir Games)

22.     This change reduces the number of amendments and additions required to the engagement plan each quarter as events are completed and provides a more consistent update pattern going forward. 

23.     These proposed changes are reflected in Attachment A.

24.     Auckland Unlimited has not proposed any other changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

25.     Eke Panuku has not provided updates for this quarter’s report. Eke Panuku will be joining the combined reporting framework for Quarter Two.

26.     Eke Panuku has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Watercare

27.     Watercare has not provided updates for this quarter’s report. Watercare will be joining the combined reporting framework for Quarter Two.

28.     Watercare has not proposed any changes to the engagement plan work programme. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.     Updating the Joint CCO Engagement Plan between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to will.

30.     Each CCO must work within Te Taruke-a-Tawhiri: Auckland's Climate Action Framework and information on climate impacts will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31.     Adopting the updated Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 is likely to have a positive impact on other parts of the council as well as between the respective CCOs within each local board area.

32.     These plans will be shared with the integration teams that implement local board work programmes and will give council staff greater ongoing visibility of CCO work programmes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33.     Local board engagement plans enable local boards to signal to CCOs those projects that are of greatest interest to the local board, and to ensure that engagement between the local board and the four CCOs is focussed on those priority areas.

34.     Joint CCO engagement plans also give local boards the opportunity to communicate to CCOs which projects they expect to be of most interest to their communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.     Updating and adopting the Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 may have a positive impact on local engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka.

36.     While both CCOs and local boards have engagement programmes with Māori, the engagement plan will allow a more cohesive and coordinated approach to engagement, with more advance planning of how different parts of the community will be involved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.     The adoption of the Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022 between the local board and Auckland Council’s substantive Council-Controlled Organisations does not have financial impacts for local boards.

38.     Any financial implications or opportunities will be provided to local boards on a project or programme basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39.     It is likely that there will be changes made to work programme items in the engagement plan during the year, or to the level of engagement that the board or the community will have. This risk is mitigated by ensuring that the document states clearly that it is subject to change, contains a table recording changes made since it was signed, and will be re-published on the local board agenda quarterly, to ensure public transparency.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     The local board will receive the next quarterly update for Quarter Two in March 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Joint CCO Engagement Plan 2021-2022

115

b

Auckland Transport 2021-22 Q1 Report - Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

131

c

Auckland Unlimited 2021-22 Q1 Report - Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

135

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kat Ashmead - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Auckland Council’s Performance Report: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022 (Covering report)

File No.: CP2021/18292

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To inform the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board of a late report (Auckland Council’s performance Report: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for quarter one 2021/2022) which will be provided prior to the Board’s 30 November 2021 business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Local government elections 2022 - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2021/18316

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order; or

·        random order.

3.       Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4.       Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5.       The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6.       Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should continue to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname. 

 

 


 

Horopaki

Context

Options available

7.       Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1)  The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2)  Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3)  If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4)  If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5)  In this regulation, -

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where -

(a)  the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b)  all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the other of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8.       In 2013 the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order. From 2016 there has been no additional cost to use random order, due to changes in printing technology. 

9.       For the 2019 elections the following table outlines decisions of those regional and metropolitan councils whose data was available:

Council

Order

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Bay Of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Environment Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Otago Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Waikato Regional Council

Random

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Invercargill City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Upper Hutt City Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for 2022

Pseudo-random order and true random order

10.     Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is true random order, which means the order on every voting document is different.

11.     A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter.

Alphabetical order

12.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar, easier to use and to understand. When a large number of candidates compete for a position it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

13.     It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

14.     The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

15.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

·    The impact of ballot position on the number of votes received by candidates (i.e. the impact on the vote share) for local boards and wards

·    The impact of ballot position on whether an individual was elected or not (i.e. the impact on election outcomes).

16.     This analysis of Auckland Council elections data show that while there might be a small impact of being listed first on the percentage share of votes received in local board elections, there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last four elections. Given the relatively small sample size and variability in the data, these analyses may be less able to detect the real effects. Therefore, conclusions should be drawn with caution. That said, it is reasonable to conclude that results from the last four elections were not significantly affected by the use of alphabetical ordering on voting documents.

17.     Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2022 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of previous election results show does not exist. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     The order of names on voting documents does not have an impact on the wider group.

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

Local impacts and local board views https://aklcouncil.sharepoint.com/sites/how-we-work/SitePages/local-impacts-local-board-views-reports.aspx

20.     Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when it is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori and that such profile statements are contained in the candidate profile booklet in alphabetic order. Having voting documents in alphabetic order makes it easier for any voter to match the candidate in the profile booklet.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     There is no additional cost to the printing of voting documents if names are ordered using the random method.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     If names are ordered alphabetically there is the risk of perceived bias.  If names are randomised there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Workshops

File No.: CP2021/17924

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a summary of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops for 23 November.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Local board workshops are held to give board members an opportunity to receive information and updates or provide direction and have discussion on issues and projects relevant to the local board area. No binding decisions are made or voted on at workshop sessions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the local board record of workshops held on 23 November 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Muangakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Record of Workshops

147

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2021/17922

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the board with the governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is in Attachment A.

3.       The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

4.       The calendar is updated every month. Each update is reported to business meetings. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 November 2021 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Governance Forward Work Calendar

151

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Blair Morrow – Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

PDF Creator 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

30 November 2021

 

 

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

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

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

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

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

 

C1       Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains information covered in confidential Finance and Performance workshops and information relating to the draft Mayoral proposal which has not been finalised or released publicly. This report can be restated on 9 December once the final Mayoral Proposal and the material relating to the Annual Budget is available following the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 8 December 2021.

s48(1)(a)

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