Our performance in detail

1
Pārongo ā-tāone
Governance

We aim to build trust and confidence by being open, transparent, and accountable

The challenges we face

  • Improving on the low levels of participation in local elections (compared to national level)
  • Consulting and engaging in ways that residents find meaningful and convenient
  • Ensuring that all voices are heard, especially as the city becomes more diverse
  • Raising understanding of Council decision-making processes and opportunities for input
  • Demonstrating that decisions are made in the city’s wider interests

Our strategic approach

  • Building public confidence in our decisions and services by being transparent
  • Better communicating the reasons for our decisions and budgetary choices
  • Improving public participation in consultation through better engagement

In this section
​   
​   

1.1 Governance, information and engagement

1.2 Māori and mana whenua partnerships

Snapshot

1.1 Governance, information and engagement

What we did:

How we performed

Residents who are satisfied with the level of consultation (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents who are satisfied with the level of consultation.

Target met – consultation will continue to play a large role as we prepare the Long-term Plan 2018–28.

Residents who agree that decisions are made in the best interests of the city (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents who agree that decisions are made in the best interests of the city.

Strong improvement in decision-making indicators from last year has led to an increase in resident satisfaction.

Residents who are satisfied or neutral with regard to their involvement with decision-making (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing Residents who are satisfied or neutral with regard to their involvement with decision-making.

Target exceeded by 5% – there was a marked improvement in residents’ satisfaction with their involvement in decision making and our Customer Strategy work will continue to drive this.
* Measure reported incorrectly in 2015/16 Annual Report.

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity area are funded mostly through general rates, with a small portion funded through fees and user charges for Civic Information and City Archives.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
1.1.1 City governance and engagement          
Expenditure 9,181 9,433 9,921 10,909 988
Revenue (106) (29) (464) (385) 79
Net Expenditure 9,075 9,404 9,457 10,524 1,0671
1.1.2 Civic information          
Expenditure 5,364 5,334 5,072 5,542 470
Revenue (387) (569) (383) (319) 64
Net Expenditure 4,977 4,765 4,689 5,223 5342
1.1.3 City Archives          
Expenditure 1,194 1,207 1,885 1,967 82
Revenue (162) (153) (158) (186) (28)
Net Expenditure 1,032 1,054 1,727 1,781 54
1.1 Total Governance, information and engagement          
Expenditure 15,739 15,974 16,877 18,418 1,540
Revenue (655) (751) (1,005) (890) 115
Net Expenditure 15,084 15,223 15,873 17,528 1,655
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to staff vacancies and lower than budgeted organisational overhead costs.
2. Under budget due to lower than planned labour and organisational overhead costs.

Capital Expenditure
($000)
Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
1.1.1 City governance and engagement          
Expenditure - - - 116 116
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       30  

How we performed

Contact Centre response times – calls answered within 30 seconds (%)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing Contact Centre response times – calls (%) answered within 30 seconds.

Target nearly met (-9%) – resourcing and responding to the November 2016 events have made it a challenging year for the Contact Centre.

Residents who agree that Council information is easy to access (for example, from the website, libraries, or newspapers) (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing Residents who agree that Council information is easy to access (for example, from the website, libraries, or newspapers).

Target met – the number of residents who agree our information is easy to access has improved over the year and our digitisation of information continues to improve accessibility.

1.2 Māori and mana whenua
partnerships
Top

What we did:

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity area are funded through general rates.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
1.2.1 Māori and mana whenua partnerships          
Expenditure 202 274 279 295 16
Revenue (10) - 1 - (1)
Net Expenditure 192 274 280 295 15
Total costs
Net Operating Expenditure
($000)
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
GOVERNANCE 15,276 15,497 16,153 17,823 1,671
           
Capital Expenditure
($000)
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years          
Annual Plan budget amount 2016/17       116  
GOVERNANCE - - - 116 116

How we performed

Māori residents who are satisfied or neutral with regard to their involvement with decision-making (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing Residents who agree that Council information is easy to access (for example, from the website, libraries, or newspapers).

Target nearly met (-9%) -improvements have been made since last year and continued Māori involvement will feature as we prepare the Long-term Plan in 2018.

Residents who believe they have the opportunity to participate in city life (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing Residents who believe they have the opportunity to participate in city life.

Agreement that residents have the opportunity to participate in city life is trending down – see also updates on key projects in the “Social and recreation” and “Cultural wellbeing” sections.

Performance data

The following section outlines our performance data: outcome indicators, performance measures and supplementary tables.

We use outcome indicators to monitor our city over time, which provides information on trends that may influence our performance including those outside our control. We use performance measures to track how well we are delivering services against targets as set out in the Long-term Plan and Annual Plans.

Performance data – outcome indicators

The following section outlines outcome indicators for the Governance area of activity. Outcome indicators do not have targets – only trend data.

COUNCIL OUTCOME INDICATOR SOURCE 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Residents (%) who agree that decisions are made in the best interests of the city WCC RMS 2017 36% 36% 51%
Residents (%) who state that they understand how the Council makes decisions WCC RMS 2017 35% 33% 39%
Residents (%) who understand how they can have input into Council decision-making WCC RMS 2017   46% 43%
Mana whenua partners agree that the use and protection of the city's resources for the future is appropriate WCC Strategy and Research Both Agree 1 Agreed and
1 Partner was not sure
Both partners
were not sure
Residents (%) who believe they have the opportunity to participate in city life WCC RMS 2017 78% 74% 69%
Voter turnout in local elections, referendums, and polls WCC Democratic Services 2013
41.1%
  2017
45.6%
Performance data – Council performance measures

The following section outlines Council performance measures for our Governance services. It includes data for the last 3 years to show trends, and includes variances explanations for relevant areas.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Actual
2016/17
Target
% Variance
1.1 Governance, information and engagement          
To measure the quality of the public’s involvement in Council decision-making          
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the level of consultation (ie the right amount) 53% 54% 55% 55% 0%
Residents (%) who are satisfied or neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with regard to their involvement with decision-making 74% 70%* 79% 75% 5%
To measure the quality and timeliness of residents’ access to information          
Council and committee agendas (%) are made available to the public within statutory timeframes (2 working days prior to the meeting) 100% 94% 95% 100% -5%
Council and committee agendas (%) that are made available to elected members 5 days prior to the meeting and to the public 4 days prior to the meeting 65% 91% 79% 80% -1%
Residents (%) who agree that Council information is easy to access (eg from the website, libraries, newspapers, etc) 48% 49% 55% 55% 0%
Residents (%) who agree that the Council website is easy to navigate and get information from 62% 61% 64% 70% -9%
Although behind target, the “Agree and Strongly Agree” % increased to 64% while the “Disagree and Strongly Disagree” dropped from 15% to 11%. The result is combination of two questions – Do you agree or disagree with the statements: Wellington City Council’s website (www.wellington.govt.nz) is easy to navigate, and Wellington City Council’s website (www.wellington.govt.nz) is easy to get information from.          
Contact Centre response times – calls (%) answered within 30 seconds 84% 80% 73% 80% -9%
Contact Centre response times – emails (%) responded to within 24 hours 100% 93% 98% 100% -2%
* Previously reported result for 2015/16 of 59% was incorrect due to a calculation error.          
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
​Actual
2016/17
Target
% Variance
1.2 Māori and mana whenua partnerships          
To measure the health of our relationship with mana whenua          
Mana whenua partner satisfaction with Council relationship (satisfied and very satisfied) satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied met
To measure the engagement of the city's Māori residents          
Māori residents (%) who are satisfied or neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with regard to their involvement with decision-making 69% 65% 68% 75% -9%

Case study
Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and iwiTop

On 29 March 2017, Mayor Justin Lester led Wellington City Council in its first ever meeting at Pipitea Marae. During the meeting, the Council signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with its iwi partners, Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o te Ika and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Inc for Ngāti Toa Rangatira.

The MoU replaces previous agreements and takes the iwi–Council relationship to a new level. Previous agreements with local iwi acknowledged the special relationship of Māori with the natural environment and were focused on the detail of the Resource Management Act. Now, there is an added dimension to the relationship, with a focus on strategic planning at a leadership level – standing side by side, looking to the future together.

As part of the MoU, a senior leaders’ forum was formed between the Council and iwi partners that consists of both elected members and senior Council managers, and iwi mandated entities. The leaders’ forum has met a number of times to co-design the structure of the forum. In November, the forum aims to sign off the terms of reference and begin discussions on long-term planning.

This is a new stage in the Council’s relationship with mana whenua, in which we and our iwi partners will work closely together to decide what steps need to be taken for the city to grow and prosper.