Our performance in detail

2
Taiao
Environment

We aim to protect and enhance Wellington’s natural environment

The challenges we face

  • Meeting the additional costs of making core infrastructure more resilient
  • Reducing or offsetting greenhouse gas emissions
  • Encouraging more efficient use of resources such as water or energy
  • Reducing the amount of solid waste the city produces
  • Improving biodiversity and habitat restoration

Our strategic approach

  • Protecting natural areas and resources
  • Disposing of waste in sustainable ways
  • Reducing the city’s and organisations’ greenhouse gas emissions
  • Providing high-quality, accessible green spaces

In this section
​   
​   

2.1 Gardens, beaches and green open spaces

2.2 Waste reduction and energy conservation

2.3 Water

2.4 Wastewater

2.5 Stormwater

2.6 Conservation attractions

Snapshot

2.1 Gardens, beaches and green open spaces

What we did:

How we performed

Hours worked by recognised environmental volunteer groups and botanic garden volunteers

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing hours worked by recognised environmental volunteer groups and botanic garden volunteers.

High value biodiversity sites covered by integrated animal pest control or weed control (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing high value biodiversity sites covered by integrated animal pest control or weed control.

Target exceeded by 5%. This year we reached 62% as a result of new volunteers undertaking trapping in our reserves, and our work to integrate rodents and other small mammal into our animal pest control programme.

Progress made on our plan to plant 2 million trees by 2020

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing progress made on our plan to plant 2 million trees by 2020.

Target exceeded by 2%. The community continues to plant large areas of reserve with support from the Council’s Berhampore Nursery and community nurseries. An estimated 20,000 plants were grown by the community this year, and the figure is predicted to increase with the Wellington Rotary project Forest at the Heart of Wellington, which was launched in 2016 and continues to gain momentum in 2017.

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity are funded through a mixture of general rates and user charges.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.1.1 Local parks and open spaces          
Expenditure 8,497 7,851 8,799 8,791 (8)
Revenue (608) (501) (961) (422) 539
Net Expenditure 7,889 7,350 7,838 8,369 5311
2.1.2 Botanic Gardens         -
Expenditure 4,883 4,852 4,942 4,724 (218)
Revenue (417) (408) (498) (394) 104
Net Expenditure 4,466 4,444 4,444 4,330 (114)
2.1.3 Beaches and coast operations          
Expenditure 996 1,023 1,636 1,283 (353)
Revenue (50) (53) (60) (52) 8
Net Expenditure 946 970 1,577 1,231 (346)
2.1.4 Roads open spaces          
Expenditure 8,204 8,044 8,229 8,712 483
Revenue (614) (634) (833) (632) 201
Net Expenditure 7,590 7,410 7,395 8,079 6842
2.1.5 Town belts         -
Expenditure 4,283 4,491 4,513 4,722 209
Revenue (1,425) (358) (1,226) (255) 972
Net Expenditure 2,858 4,133 3,287 4,467 1,1803
2.1.6 Community environmental initiatives          
Expenditure 634 739 719 757 38
Revenue (1) (18) (13) - 13
Net Expenditure 633 721 706 757 51
2.1.7 Walkways          
Expenditure 569 532 586 604 18
Revenue - - (120) - 120
Net Expenditure 569 532 466 604 138
2.1.8 Biodiversity (pest management)          
Expenditure 1,663 1,673 2,214 1,824 (390)
Revenue (76) (32) (43) (39) 4
Net Expenditure 1,587 1,641 2,171 1,785 (387)
2.1.9 Waterfront public space          
Expenditure 7,726 5,404 6,001 4,856 (1,145)
Revenue (6,932) (6,325) (563) (307) 257
Net Expenditure 794 (921) 5,438 4,549 (888)4
2.1 Total Gardens, beaches and green open spaces          
Expenditure 37,455 34,609 37,640 36,273 (1,368)
Revenue (10,123) (8,329) (4,317) (2,101) 2,217
Net Expenditure 27,332 26,280 33,323 34,172 849
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to lower depreciation costs.
2. Programme impacted by retendering of the Southern Roading Corridor Contract, as well as earthquake and storm events.
3. Under budget due to unbudgeted vested asset income.
4. Interest allocation costs higher than budget, offset by savings in other Waterfront related activities (including Parking and organisational).
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.1.1 Local parks and open spaces          
Expenditure 1,116 1,368 2,385 705 (979)1
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       702  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       154  
2.1.2 Botanic Gardens          
Expenditure 681 405 2,059 530 (1,501)2
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       28  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       -  
2.1.3 Beaches and coast operations          
Expenditure 613 242 566 1,176 6103
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       610  
2.1.5 Town belts          
Expenditure 106 197 142 248 125
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       20  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       82  
2.1.7 Walkways          
Expenditure 624 565 949 1,014 64
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       40  
2.1 Total Gardens, beaches and green open spaces          
Expenditure 3,140 2,777 6,102 3,672 (1,680)
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       750  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       886  
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Over budget due to the unbudgeted purchase of the Forest Of Tane. This was purchase was approved by Council in February 2017.
2. Over budget due to additional costs for the Discovery Garden offset by external fundraising income.
3. Under budget due to delays in the upgrade work to improve resilience at Lyall Bay.

2.2 Waste reduction and energy conservationTop

What we did:

How we performed

Waste diverted from the landfill (tonnes of recyclable material)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing waste diverted from the landfill (tonnes of recyclable material) .

Target exceeded by 10% due to increased green waste and food waste recovery, both of which are diverted to our compost operations, as well as increased volumes of scrap metal diverted from landfill.

Residents who are satisfied with waste collection services (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents who are satisfied with waste collection services .

Target not met (-13%). The timeliness of collections has affected satisfaction. To address this we have provided an additional vehicle to meet demand in northern area, recruited more staff, improved training, and adjusted routes to improve efficiency.

Residents who are satisfied with recycling collection services (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents who are satisfied with recycling collection services.

Target nearly met (-9%) but trending downwards. However satisfaction level relatively good as % uptake of recycling services continues to grow.

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity are funded through a mixture of general rates, user charges, and other income.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.2.1 Waste minimisation, disposal and recycling management          
Expenditure 12,663 12,869 15,066 13,267 (1,799)
Revenue (13,308) (14,309) (19,896) (13,259) 6,636
Net Revenue (645) (1,440) (4,830) 8 4,8371
2.2.2 Closed landfills aftercare          
Expenditure 368 477 43 414 371
Revenue - - - - -
Net Expenditure 368 477 43 414 371
2.2.3 Energy efficiency and conservation          
Expenditure - 315 477 416 (61)
Revenue - (82) (165) (60) 105
Net Expenditure - 233 312 356 44
2.2 Total Waste reduction and energy conservation          
Expenditure 13,031 13,661 15,586 14,097 (1,489)
Revenue (13,308) (14,391) (20,060) (13,319) 6,741
Net Revenue (277) (730) (4,475) 777 5,252
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to revenue for contaminated soil and special waste to the landfill, as well as other landfill levies being well in excess of budget.
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.2.1 Waste minimisation, disposal and recycling management          
Expenditure 781 723 541 673 6771
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       545  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       609  
2.2.3 Energy efficiency and conservation          
Expenditure     65 65 -
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       38  
2.2 Total Waste reduction and energy conservation          
Expenditure 781 723 606 738 677
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       545 -
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       647  
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to delays on the Stage 4 landfill development, weighbridge replacement and transfer station refurbishment.

How we performed

Corporate greenhouse gas emissions – reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 (tonnes)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing corporate greenhouse gas emissions - reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 (tonnes).

Compared with 2003 reduce by 40% by 2020, 80% reduction by 2050. On track – as agreed by Council with the passing of the Low Carbon Capital Plan we have adjusted the 2003 baseline. Our only target is now 80% reduction by 2050 with 2015/16 as the new baseline.

Corporate energy use (including WCC general, pools and recreation centres, and CCOs)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing corporate energy use (including WCC general, pools and recreation centres, and CCOs).

Decrease from previous year. Target to decrease energy use each year was not met. Following last year’s record hot summer, most of this increase was due to the considerably colder equivalent period this year. This meant we had to heat offices, pools, and other high-use sites much more than last year during the months of January–March 2017.

Energy use per capita (MWh/person)

Source: Wellington Electricity

Bar graph showing energy use per capita (MWh/person).

2.3 Water / 2.4 Wastewater / 2.5 StormwaterTop

What we did:

How we performed

Residents satisfied with the wastewater service (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents satisfied with the wastewater service .

Target exceeded by 9%.

Residents satisfied with stormwater management (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents satisfied with storm-water management.

Target not met (-17%). The high incidence of flooding events in the last 3 years is believed to be an influencing factor in the low rating. Future upgrades are being planned but the scale of the problems requires significant ongoing investigation and catchment modelling to identify long term risk profiles.

Median response time for attendance for urgent call-outs

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing Median response time for attendance for urgent call-outs.

Target of less than 60 minutes out performed by 15%. This indicator has been mandated by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), with data collection having started in the 2015/16 financial year. We are successfully meeting the target response time.

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity are funded through a mixture of general and targeted rates.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.3.1 Water network          
Expenditure 22,798 23,511 24,889 24,358 (532)
Revenue (1,012) (1,709) (1,624) (35) 1,588
Net Expenditure 21,786 21,802 23,265 24,322 1,0571
2.3.2 Water collection and treatment          
Expenditure 14,318 14,922 15,809 15,934 124
Revenue (3) (3) 18 - (18)
Net Expenditure 14,315 14,919 15,827 15,934 106
2.3 Total Water network          
Expenditure 37,116 38,433 40,698 40,291 (407)
Revenue (1,015) (1,712) (1,606) (35) 1,570
Net Expenditure 36,101 36,721 39,093 40,256 1,163
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to savings on some projects through contract prices being favourable to budget, unspent contingencies as well as some project delays. This was partially offset by bringing forward work on the Prince of Wales/Omāroro Reservoir and work on the Community Infrastructure Resilience projects.
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
2.3.1 Water network          
Expenditure 13,266 14,927 14,431 14,915 484
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       -  
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.4.1 Sewage collection and disposal network          
Expenditure 19,348 18,833 19,908 20,058 150
Revenue (986) (1,911) (456) (627) (171)
Net Expenditure 18,362 16,922 19,452 19,431 (20)
2.4.2 Sewage treatment          
Expenditure 21,333 22,599 22,667 23,540 873
Revenue (1,833) (1,583) (530) (618) (88)
Net Expenditure 19,500 21,016 22,137 22,922 7851
2.4 Total Wastewater          
Expenditure 40,681 41,432 42,575 43,598 1,024
Revenue (2,819) (3,494) (986) (1,245) (259)
Net Expenditure 37,862 37,938 41,589 42,354 765
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to lower than planned wastewater treatment plant management costs and sewage disposal fees.
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.4.1 Sewage collection and disposal network          
Expenditure 7,959 10,872 10,671 11,236 5651
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       -  
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to delays in flow monitoring and the level of unplanned maintenance related work being lower than expected.
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.5.1 Stormwater management          
Expenditure 16,526 16,936 17,023 18,147 1,124
Revenue (922) (3,137) (762) (135) 628
Net Expenditure 15,604 13,799 16,260 18,013 1,7521
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to vested asset income of $0.660m, insurance and interest costs. Contract costs for sump maintenance were also favourable.
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2016/17
2.5.1 Stormwater management          
Expenditure 4,821 4,877 7,217 7,020 403
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       600  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       -  

How we performed

Median response time for resolution for urgent call-outs

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing median response time for resolution for urgent call-outs.

Target out performed by 19%.

Median response time for attendance for non-urgent call-outs

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing median response time for attendance for non-urgent call-outs .

Target not met (-24%). This indicator is mandated by the DIA, with data collection commencing in the 2015/16 financial year. The water supply non-urgent call out target was not met as a result of the November earthquake and storm event call outs. Our focus was on high priority, urgent jobs across the region, which therefore increased the median response time to lower priority, non- urgent works.

Median response time for resolution for non-urgent call-outs

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing median response time for resolution for non-urgent call outs.

Target out performed by 80%.

2.6 Conservation attractionsTop

What we did:

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity 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
2.6.1 Conservation visitor attractions          
Expenditure 6,104 6,384 6,755 6,989 234
Revenue - - - - -
Net Expenditure 6,104 6,384 6,755 6,989 234
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
2.6.1 Conservation visitor attractions          
Expenditure 2,677 2,725 1,956 817 (998)1
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       140  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years          
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Overspends for Zoo upgrades and renewals projects have been funded by unbudgeted external revenue from Wellington Zoo.
Total costs
Net Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
ENVIRONMENT 122,726 120,392 132,545 142,560 10,015
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       2,035  
Annual Plan budget amount 2016/17       38,398  
ENVIRONMENT 32,644 36,901 40,982 40,433 (549)

How we performed

Wellington Zoo – visitors

Source: Wellington Zoo

Bar graph showing Wellington Zoo – visitors.

Target nearly met (-4%). Zoo visitor numbers were slightly behind target and down on last year (- 12%) mainly due to earthquake impacts and poor weather.

 

Zealandia – visitors

Source: Zealandia

Bar graph showing Zealandia – visitors.

Target exceeded by 26%. Visitor numbers held up well (only slightly down by 0.6% on last year) despite earthquake impacts and poor weather.

Number of visitors to the Botanic Gardens (including Otari-Wilton’s Bush)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing number of visitors to the Botanic Gardens (including Otari-Wilton’s Bush).

Target not met (-19%) and volumes trending down. Wet weather over the spring to autumn seasons have contributed to visitor numbers being down. The accuracy of the people counters has resulted in a trial of a new type of counter this year.

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 Environment area of activity. Outcome indicators do not have targets – only trend data.

Council outcome indicator Source   2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Open space land owned or maintained by the Council – square metres per capita and total hectares WCC Parks, Sport and Recreation Sqm Per Capita 198.4sqm 188.1sqm 194.32sqm
    Hectares 3,967 3,833 4,040
Residents’ usage of the city's open spaces – local parks and reserves, botanic gardens, beaches and coastal areas, and walkways WCC RMS 2017   See supplementary tables   94% Parks
& Reserves
 
Residents (%) who agree that the natural environment is appropriately managed and protected WCC RMS 2017   78% 79% 78%
Hours worked by recognised environmental volunteer groups and botanic garden volunteers WCC Parks, Sport and Recreation   43,880 45,009 53,839
Water consumption (commercial and residential combined) – billion litres Wellington Water   26.6b litres 24.5b litres 25.1b litres
Freshwater biological health (macro invertebrates) – Makara, Karori, Kaiwharawhara and Porirua streams Greater Wellington Regional Council   See supplementary tables    
Freshwater quality – Makara, Karori, Kaiwharawhara and Porirua streams (note data for Owhiro Stream not available) Greater Wellington Regional Council   See supplementary tables   All streams returned "Fair" result
Energy use per capita (MWh) Wellington Electricity   6.60 6.67 6.29
Number/sqm of ‘green star’ buildings/space in the city NZ Green Building Council   141,365 m2 204,577 m2* 215,115 m2
Total kerbside recycling collected per capita (kilograms per person) WCC Waste Operations   59.16 kg 54.6 kg 53.8 kg
Total waste to the landfill per capita (tonnes per person) WCC Waste Operations   0.406 tonnes 0.411 tonnes 0.447 tonnes
Selected indicators from the City Biodiversity Index (specific indicators to be confirmed) WCC Parks, Sport and Recreation   New biodiversity index indicators are to be confirmed.
* Measure was reported incorrectly in 2015/16 Annual Report      
Performance data – Council performance measures

The following section outlines Council performance measures for our Environment 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
2.1 Gardens, beaches and green open spaces          
To measure the quality of the open spaces we provide          
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the quality and maintenance of green open spaces – local parks, playgrounds and reserves; botanic gardens; beaches and coastal areas; and walkways 87% 85% 86% 90% -4%
Number of visitors to the Botanic Gardens (including Otari-Wilton’s Bush) 1,354,681 1,147,067 1,042,044 1,280,000 -19%
To measure the quality of street cleaning services          
Residents (%) who are satisfied with the quality of street cleaning 75% 76% 74% 85% -13%
Street cleaning (%) compliance with quality performance standards 97% 97% 97% 98% -1%
To measure the quality and quantity of work we undertake to protect biodiversity          
We will plant 2 million trees by 2020   1,345,773 1,571,370 1,539,927
(77% of 2020 target)
2%
High value biodiversity sites (%) covered by integrated animal pest control or weed control 67% 52% 62% 59% 5%
Proportion of grant funds successfully allocated (through milestones being met) 100% 100% 100% 95% 5%

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17
Target
%
Variance
2.2 Waste reduction and energy conservation          
To measure the quality of waste reduction and recycling services          
Residents (%) who are satisfied with recycling collection services 86% 84% 77% 85% -9%
Waste diverted from the landfill (tonnes) 18,048 tonnes 17,431 tonnes 18,078 tonnes at least 16,500 tonnes of recyclable material 10%
Residents (%) who regularly use recycling (including weekly, fortnightly or monthly use) 61% 96% 98% 90% 9%
To measure the quality of our waste disposal services          
Residents (%) who are satisfied with waste collection services 85% 85% 78% 90% -13%
Energy sourced from the Southern Landfill (GWh) 7.6GWh 7.65GWh 7.44GWh 8 GWh -7%
To measure the amount (quantity) of the Council's energy consumption and emissions          
WCC corporate energy use (including WCC general, pools and recreation centres, and CCOs) – Decrease in energy use from previous year (kWh) 47,185,050 kWh 48,828,889 kWh 51,102,651 kWh Decrease in energy in use from previous year Not met, increased 4.7%
WCC corporate greenhouse gas emissions – reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 (tonnes) N/A 92,832 tonnes 92,681 tonnes 80% reduction by 2050  
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Target %
Variance
2.3 Water          
To measure the quality of water supplied to residents and the services that ensure security of supply          
Compliance with Drinking Water Standards for NZ 2005 (revised 2008) (Part 4 bacterial compliance criteria) and (Part 5 protozoal compliance criteria) 100% Achieved 100% Achieved 100% Achieved 100% Achieved 0%
Part 5 - Testing for Part 5 is taken at the water treatment plants. These treatment plants are all operated by GWRC. Water is supplied to the WCC zone from these treatment plants and is therefore compliant for three of the four treatment plants (Te Marau, Wainuiomata and Gear Island). Waterloo treatment plant has been assessed as non-compliant. Water from the bores at Waterloo treatment plant continues to be chlorinated, which ensures the provision of acceptable quality water to customers      
Maintenance of water supply quality gradings from Ministry of Health Maintained Maintained Maintained Maintain Met
Customer satisfaction with water supply 97% 91% 90% 90% 0%
Number of complaints about:
(a) drinking water clarity
(b) drinking water taste
(c) drinking water odour;
(d) drinking water pressure or flow;
(e) drinking water continuity of supply;
(f) responsiveness to drinking water complaints;
per 1000 connections:
DIA 13 13.84 <2015/2016 baseline Not met
Median response time for:          
a) attendance for urgent call outs DIA 50 min 51 min 60 min 15%
b) resolution for urgent call out DIA 2.8 hours 3.23 hours 4 hours 19%
c) attendance for non-urgent call outs DIA 28.7 hours 44.80 hours 36 hours -24%
d) resolution for non-urgent call outs DIA 46.35 hours (1.93 days) 2.93 days 15 days 80%
Percentage of real water loss from networked reticulation system 13% 12% 8% <14% 41%
Percentage of real water loss from water supply reticulation system for YE is less than the target. This is mainly due to the water conservation measures carried out in the city and quickly repairing major leaks/breaks in the water network.      
Average drinking water consumption/resident/day 273 litres per resident per day 369 litres per resident per day 364 litres per resident per day 375 litres per resident per day -3%
Number of unplanned supply cuts per 1000 connections nil 1.2 0.71 <4 82%
Year End figure is less than the target due to the low number of unplanned supply cuts in the network. The result for this KPI depends on the amount of reactive work on the water network, the level of which is subject to many variables such as pipe materials & age, ground movement, traffic loading, soil condition etc.      

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17
Target
%
Variance
2.4 Wastewater          
To measure the quality and timeliness of the wastewater service          
Number of wastewater reticulation incidents per km of reticulation pipeline (blockages) New 0.57 0.64 <=1.2 47%
Year end figure is less than the target due to the low number of pipeline (blockages) in the network. Results for this KPI depend on pipe blockages in the wastewater network, which cannot be easily predicted.          
Dry weather wastewater overflows/1000 connections DIA 0.55 0.46 0 Not met, but Improved by 16.4%
Customer satisfaction with the wastewater service 97% 84% 82% 75% 9%
Number of complaints about:
(a) wastewater odour
(b) wastewater system faults
(c) wasterwater system blockages
(d) responsiveness to wastewater issues
per 1000 connections
DIA 22 19.72 <2015/2016 baseline Met
Median response time for wastewater overflows - attendance time DIA 0.73 hours 0.77 hours
(~46 min)
<= 1 hour 23%
Median response time for wastewater overflows - resolution time DIA 2.35 hours 2.68 hours <= 6 hours 55%
To measure the impact of wastewater on the environment          
Breaches of resource consents for discharges from wastewater system. Number of:
- abatement notices
- infringement notices
- enforcement orders
- convictions
for discharges from wastewater system.
New 1 0 0 0
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Target % Variance
2.5 Stormwater          
To measure the quality and timeliness of the stormwater service          
Number of pipeline blockages per km of pipeline New 0.04 0.04 <=0.5 92%
Customer satisfaction with stormwater management 95% 68% 62% 75% -17%
The high incidence of flooding events in the last 3 years is believed to be an influencing factor in the low rating. Future upgrades are being planned but the scale of the problems requires significant ongoing investigation and catchment modelling to identify long-term risk profiles.          
Number of complaints about stormwater system performance per 1000 connections new 12 10.45 <2015/2016 baseline Met
Median response time to attend a flooding event new 49 min 57 min <= 60 min 5%
To measure the impact of stormwater on the environment          
Breaches of resource consents for discharges from stormwater system. Number of:
– abatement notices
– infringement notices
– enforcement orders
– convictions
for discharges from stormwater system.
new 0 0 0 0%
Number of flooding events DIA 1 6 trend only  
Number of habitable floors per 1000 connected homes per flooding event DIA 0.14* 0.11 trend only  
Percentage of days during the bathing season (1 November to 31 March) that the monitored beaches are suitable for recreational use 93% 100% 99.9% 90% 10%
The beach “suitability for use” measure is based on how many times the monitored beaches had information signs erected due to water quality criteria triggering a public health risk warning. Warning signs were erected for one day at the Taranaki St at Jumping Platform on 2nd of March following the protocol from MfE/MoH Microbiological Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas. Warnings were issued over Waitangi weekend in response to a wasterwater event at Moa Point.          
Percentage of monitored sites that have a rolling 12-month median value for E.coli (dry weather samples) that do not exceed 1000 cfu/100ml new 93% 96% 90% 7%
* Measure was reported incorrectly in 2015/16 Annual Report          
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Target % Variance
2.6 Conservation attractions          
To measure the success of our investments in conservation attractions          
Wellington Zoo – visitors 225,927 260,809 230,632 239,408 -4%
Zealandia – visitors 97,421 125,849 125,179 99,300 26%

Performance data – supplementary tables
Residents' usage of the city's open spaces - local parks and reserves, botanic gardens, beaches and coastal areas, and walkways Weekly
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Coastal areas or beaches 22% 21% 21%
Botanic gardens 6% 4% 5%
Parks and reserves 21% 22% 20%
Town Belt or Outer Green Belt 11% 12% 15%
Walking tracks 17% 16% 17%
Sportsfields 13% 11% 11%

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Residents' usage of the city's open spaces - local parks and reserves, botanic gardens, beaches and coastal areas, and walkways At least Yearly
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Coastal areas or beaches 96% 95% 95%
Botanic gardens 87% 86% 86%
Parks and reserves 96% 95% 94%
Town Belt or Outer Green Belt 78% 78% 80%
Walking tracks 82% 80% 81%
Sportsfields 60% 60% 59%

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Freshwater biological health (macro invertebrates) - Makara, Karori, Kaiwharawhara and Porirua streams 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Makara Stream 107 114 not measured
Karori Stream 92 85 85
Kaiwharawhara Stream 96 82 71
Porirua Stream (Wall Park) (new in 2014/15) - 81 81
Porirua Stream (Glenside) (new in 2014/15) - 94 100

Data for 2016/17 will be available in 2018

Source: Greater Wellington Regional Council

Freshwater quality - Makara, Karori, Kaiwharawhara 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Makara Stream Poor Fair Fair
Karori Stream Poor Fair Fair
Kaiwharawhara Stream Fair Fair Fair
Porirua Stream (Wall Park) (new in 2014/15)   Poor Fair

Data for 2016/17 will be available in 2018

Source: Greater Wellington Regional Council

Case study
Alternative water supplyTop

Following the November earthquake, Wellington Water began researching alternative sources of water to reduce its dependence on current supply lines. Wellington Water is now leading a world-first operation to drill for fresh water under the sea. If successful, this would mean the city has another source of water supply, in the event that the existing water pipeline from the Hutt Valley is damaged in another quake. Currently, most of the city's water is carried by pipes along the Hutt Road, crossing an identified fault line.

Exploratory drilling of Wellington Harbour started in late June 2017. The rig drills test bores into the Waiwhetu aquifer, which extends underneath the harbour floor, to see if it is a viable alternative water source for the city. The Waiwhetu aquifer, which fills a depression underneath the Hutt Valley, already supplies much of the drinking water for the Wellington region.

Mark Kinvig, Wellington Water Group Manager Network Strategy & Planning, says the project is part of wider community water infrastructure resilience initiatives.

“But resilience starts at home. For the first 7 days, each household should have enough stored water for 20 litres per person, per day.”