Dear Office of the Mayor,

I am writing to request information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), specifically regarding the operations of the Auckland Council Recovery Office.

In light of the recent increase in rates, and acknowledging the Mayor’s publicly stated commitment to avoiding unnecessary spending, I am seeking clarification on how the Recovery Office is managing its expenditure on sustainability initiatives, particularly in relation to the use of external consultants.

Specifically, I request the following information:

1. Use of Sustainability Consultants Despite Prequalified Panel Contractors
Auckland Council’s Deconstruction Panel was established through a competitive procurement process that placed strong emphasis on environmental and sustainability credentials. The panel consists of contractors with demonstrated expertise in sustainable deconstruction, structural dismantling, and house removal. As part of that process, several very capable companies, including Ward Demolition and Yakka, were found not to meet the required environmental benchmark and were therefore not appointed.

Given this context:
a. Why is the Recovery Office engaging additional sustainability consultants?

b. What specific capability gaps are these consultants addressing that are not already covered by the deconstruction panel contractors?

c. What steps are being taken to avoid duplication of expertise or unnecessary cost?

2. Cost Control and Value-for-Money Mechanisms

Please describe the internal processes, tools, or frameworks used by the Recovery Office to ensure sustainability-related spending delivers best value for money. In particular:

a. Are sustainability consultants engaged on a project-by-project basis, or are they retained more generally across the programme of work?

b. Are formal cost-benefit assessments, benchmarking tools, or similar evaluations applied before consultants are engaged?

c. Is there a requirement to demonstrate that consultant input cannot be sourced from within the existing Deconstruction Panel?

d. How is the performance and impact of sustainability consultants assessed following their engagement, and are those results reviewed or reported?

e. Are there any tools or evaluation methods used during or after a project that specifically measure and demonstrate the financial benefit of having these consultants on board?

3. Oversight by the Mayor’s Office

a. What oversight or review function does the Mayor’s Office have over the Recovery Office’s sustainability-related expenditure?

b. Has the Mayor or the Office issued any guidance, expectations, or thresholds to ensure that such spending is necessary, cost-effective, and aligned with Council’s procurement framework, particularly where qualified panel providers are already in place?

d. Can the Mayor’s Office confirm whether house relocation contractors have been subject to the same panel procurement process as deconstruction contractors? If not, what is the justification for this difference?

e. If contractors such as Ward Demolition and Yakka were excluded from the panel for not meeting environmental benchmarks, what criteria or process permitted the appointment of house relocators who may not have been held to the same standard? These contractors, along with others, invested thousands of dollars in preparing formal submissions and presentations to meet the Council’s benchmark requirements. Given that level of commitment and scrutiny, it is important to understand whether the same level of rigour has been applied consistently across all supplier categories.

Given the financial pressure currently being placed on Auckland ratepayers, I believe there is strong public interest in ensuring that Recovery Office spending is not only environmentally principled but also fiscally disciplined and consistent with Council procurement strategy.

Yours faithfully,

John Smith