City Builders Association Limited · Rōpū Hanganga Tāone

Investigations

The City Builders Association (CBA) reads the public documents published by Auckland Council, its council-controlled organisations and central government agencies. We compare them with each other and with earlier plans. Where figures or statements don't line up, we set out what each document says, link the source, and list the questions we're asking. We don't draw conclusions beyond what the documents show. Each item below is a question for the agency concerned, not a finding of wrongdoing.

Page numbers are PDF page numbers. Last updated 3 November 2026.

1. Public transport patronage target reported as "Met" despite a 2m shortfall

Auckland Transport's 2026 Annual Report lists public transport boardings for 2025/26 as "94m" (target) and "92m" (result), with a status of "Met". Bus boardings were 73m against a 75m target. (AT Annual Report 2026, p.20)

AT's board reports score results using bands of "Above Target 2% / Target +/- 2% / Below Target 2%" (AT Interim Board open agenda, 4 Sept 2026, p.20). On the rounded figures, 92m is about 2.1% below 94m.

Our question: What tolerance was used to rate the annual result "Met", and what are the exact target and result?

2. Two different growth figures for July 2026 in the same board paper

The Chief Executive's report says: "July boardings were 7% higher than July 2025" (p.15). The performance table in the same paper says: "8.1M boardings in July 2026, which is 840K or 11.5% higher than July 2025" (p.20). (AT Interim Board open agenda, 4 Sept 2026)

These imply July 2025 boardings of about 7.6m and about 7.3m respectively.

Our question: Which figure is correct, and what were the exact July 2025 and July 2026 boardings?

3. "Year-to-date" patronage figures don't add up

The September board paper says: "year-to-date July boardings reached 8.1m vs target of 8.2m" (4 Sept 2026, p.15). The October paper says: "year-to-date provisional September boardings reached 8.8m vs target of 8.9m" (AT Board open agenda, 19 Oct 2026, p.26).

If July alone had 8.1m boardings, a year-to-date total for July to September can't be 8.8m. The October figure looks like a single month labelled as year-to-date. The annual target is "103.8 million" (4 Sept paper, p.20), compared with the 92m achieved in 2025/26. That's about 13% growth in one year, which AT calls a "stretch target".

Our question: What are the true year-to-date figures and the monthly targets behind 103.8m? How much of the growth depends on the City Rail Link?

4. Parking prices went up, but parking revenue fell

From 1 February 2026, on-street and AT carpark prices rose "by 50 cents an hour across the region" (AT media release, 16 Jan 2026). Overnight on-street charging in the city centre was due to start in "March 2026" (AT Fast facts).

AT's Annual Report shows parking revenue of 48,526 ($000) for 2025/26, down from 50,459 in 2024/25 (AT Annual Report 2026, p.40). The final 2025/26 budget had 48,887 (AT 2025/26 final budget paper).

Our question: Why did parking revenue fall about 4% when prices rose and new charges began? Is demand dropping, have spaces been removed, or has compliance changed?

5. Different numbers for city centre parking supply and occupancy

AT says it manages "around 9,000 of the publicly available on-and-off-street parking spaces" and that on-street occupancy "is generally sitting around 90% most of the time", while its parking buildings are "generally 50-60% full" (AT Fast facts, undated). An earlier AT release refers to "8,400 council-owned parking spaces" (AT media release, 2025).

AT's parking strategy aims to keep on-street parking "at about 85% occupied" (Room to Move parking strategy page).

Our question: What is the current count of AT-managed city centre spaces? How many have been removed or added since 2024? What are the latest occupancy survey results?

6. Fuel costs already above the budgeted allowance

The Annual Plan 2026/27 forecasts fuel cost increases "between $25 million and $50 million, but could be more". It says "The council has identified $25 million of mitigations" (Annual Plan 2026/2027 Vol 1, p.56). In September 2026 the council's chief financial officer said the latest modelling put the extra cost at "$43m", an "$18 million gap to the budget" (Local Democracy Reporting, 7 Sept 2026).

Our question: How will the gap be funded, and what is the latest forecast?

7. The 3.5% rates target and the inflation assumption

The Mayor's foreword commits to "return to average residential rates increases of no more than 3.5 per cent over the medium term" (p.4). The same plan says bank forecasts suggest "inflation for 2027/2028 could reach 4 per cent, compared to 2 per cent currently assumed", which "will make it difficult to deliver the 3.5 per cent rates increase currently planned for 2027/2028" (p.38). (Annual Plan 2026/2027 Vol 1)

Our submission point: The Long-term Plan 2027-37 should publish updated inflation and interest rate assumptions, with a 4% inflation scenario.

8. Asset sales targets compared with recent results

The Annual Plan 2026/27 includes "the 2026/2027 asset sales revenue target of $38 million" (p.28), plus "$30 million of other asset sales cash proceeds" (p.56). In 2024/25, Eke Panuku reported "Asset recycling sales was $8.8m against the target of $60m" and Transform and Unlock sales of "$1.32m" against "$16m". Both were attributed to the slow property market. (Eke Panuku Annual Report 2025)

Our question: How much of the $38m and $30m has been achieved so far in 2026/27? What happens to the capital programme if the targets are missed again?

9. Eastern Busway opening timeframe at risk (watch item)

AT's October board report says "Eastern Busway: opening timeframes remain at risk". It says slippage "could delay the busway opening until April/May 2027", and notes "Our SOI commits Eastern Busway opening in quarter 4 2026/27 (by 30 June 2027)" (AT Board open agenda, 19 Oct 2026, p.27). This is still inside the SOI commitment, but the margin is narrowing.

Housing and planning: 1.5–1.7 million home capacity claim with no capacity assessment

Auckland Council says Plan Change 120 provides "an estimated theoretical housing capacity of around 1.5 to 1.7 million homes", and that "Modelling indicates roughly 140,000 homes could be built across Auckland over the next 10 years" (AK Have Your Say: Auckland's Future Housing Plan – PC120).

The Government's disclosure statement for the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill says the Bill reduces the requirement "from approximately 2 million dwellings to approximately 1.4 million dwellings". It also exempts Auckland Council from preparing a Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment or a Future Development Strategy for its 2027 Long-Term Plan, because "there is no stable development pattern or plan-enabled capacity on which to base those assessments at this time" (NZ Legislation disclosure, Bill 2026/294).

Under the Government's Housing Growth Targets, councils must enable "30 years of feasible housing capacity … using 'high' population growth projections". Capacity also needs to be "infrastructure-ready", with medium-term infrastructure funding "identified in a long-term plan" (Going for Housing Growth programme).

Our question: What modelling supports the 1.5–1.7 million figure, and how much of it is feasible and infrastructure-ready? How will the 2027-37 LTP fund infrastructure for growth without a capacity assessment?

Consenting: "more than 80 per cent" or "80 per cent" on time?

A council release says the council "processes more than 80 per cent - approximately 12,000 per year … within statutory timeframes". Its fact list then says "80 per cent (approximately 12,000 per year …) are processed within statutory timeframes" (OurAuckland, 19 Mar 2026). The Resource Management Act sets a statutory limit of 20 working days for non-notified consents. On the council's own figures, about 3,000 applications a year go over the statutory time.

The Auditor-General reports that "Auckland Council received a qualification related to data integrity issues for their new performance measure on the monitoring of high-risk resource consents" (Audit Office, Results of council audits in 2025, 21 Apr 2026).

Our question: What is the exact percentage of resource consents processed within the statutory timeframe for 2025/26, by consent type? How much was refunded in statutory discounts? What has been done about the audit qualification?

Tātaki Auckland Unlimited: two different non-rates revenue figures

TAU Trust's 2026 Annual Report says: "With 62 per cent of revenue through non-rates sources – equating to 59 per cent of expenses – TAUT just missed the SOI target of 60 per cent of operating expenses funded through non-rates revenue" (TAU Trust Annual Report 2026, p.11).

TAU's news release on the same reports says: "Non-rates sources continued to grow, this year providing 59 per cent of TAU Trust's operating revenue" (TAU news release). The release doesn't mention that the target was missed.

The annual report also lists "(19,869)" ($000) of "Capital funding not received from Auckland Council due to timing amendments to capital programmes" (p.38).

Our question: Which non-rates figure is correct? Which capital works were deferred, and to when?

Eke Panuku: asset sales targets keep being set above results

The Annual Plan 2026/27 includes "the 2026/2027 asset sales revenue target of $38 million" (p.28) and a further "$30 million of other asset sales cash proceeds" (p.56) (Annual Plan 2026/2027 Vol 1).

For 2024/25, Eke Panuku reported: "Asset recycling sales was $8.8m against the target of $60m", and Transform and Unlock sales of "$1.32m did not meet the target of $16m" (Eke Panuku Annual Report 2025). A council committee report also says "This downturn has also impacted sales in previous years" (CCO Direction and Oversight Committee agenda, 9 Sept 2025).

Our question: What sales have been achieved so far in 2026/27? Which capital projects depend on the proceeds?

Credit ratings: the two agencies are moving in opposite directions

The Annual Plan 2026/27 notes that "Moody's Rating has recently changed the outlook on Auckland Council to negative from stable but has affirmed the Aa2 rating" (p.55). On 2 October 2026, S&P "revised its long-term rating outlook on Auckland Council to positive from stable" (S&P Global Ratings).

This isn't necessarily an inconsistency: the council links the Moody's change to the national sovereign outlook. Ratepayers should be told how each rating affects borrowing costs.

Watercare: growth charges rising faster than water prices

The Commerce Commission (as Crown monitor) found Watercare was "increasing IGCs by 15.5%, which is equal to the minimum allowable rate of increase" for 2025/26 (Crown monitor letter, 30 Sept 2025). For 2026/27, Watercare says infrastructure growth charges "will increase by 20 per cent from 1 July. This is the minimum increase required under Watercare's current regulatory settings", while water and wastewater prices rise "by 7.2 per cent" (Watercare, 3 June 2026).

We found no breach: these increases are the minimums the interim Charter requires. The Commerce Commission's permanent price path doesn't take effect until 30 June 2028. Growth charges rising at nearly three times the rate of household charges matter for housing feasibility, and so for the capacity claims above.

Our question: What effect do the growth charges have on the cost of a typical new dwelling? Has the council taken this into account in its PC120 feasibility modelling?

Patterns across the findings

We looked across all our findings to see what keeps coming up. This section groups them into recurring patterns, contradictions between organisations, and points where the documents agree. Evidence ratings: Strong means several documents show it directly. Moderate means one or two documents show it clearly. Limited means it rests on a single source or on our reading of the numbers.

Pattern 1: Targets set well above recent results — Strong

  • Patronage. AT's 2026/27 target is "103.8 million" (AT board, 4 Sept 2026, p.20). The 2025/26 result was "92m" against a 94m target (AT Annual Report 2026, p.20). That's about 13% growth in a single year, after missing the previous target.
  • Asset sales. The council has a "$38 million" target plus "$30 million of other asset sales" for 2026/27 (Annual Plan 2026/27, pp.28 and 56). Eke Panuku's 2024/25 result was "$8.8m against the target of $60m" (Eke Panuku Annual Report 2025), and a council committee noted the downturn "has also impacted sales in previous years" (CDOCC agenda, 9 Sept 2025).
  • Rates. The Mayor's foreword commits to "no more than 3.5 per cent over the medium term" (Annual Plan, p.4). The same plan warns inflation "could reach 4 per cent, compared to 2 per cent currently assumed", making the 3.5% "difficult to deliver" (p.38).

Pattern 2: Summaries more favourable than the detailed figures — Moderate

  • AT rates patronage "Met" at 92m against 94m (Annual Report, p.20), but its own band is "Target +/- 2%" (4 Sept board paper, p.20).
  • TAU's annual report says "62 per cent of revenue" came from non-rates sources, "equating to 59 per cent of expenses", and that it "just missed the SOI target" (TAU Trust Annual Report 2026, p.11). TAU's news release says "59 per cent of TAU Trust's operating revenue" and doesn't mention the missed target (TAU release).
  • A council release says both "more than 80 per cent" and "80 per cent" of resource consents are processed on time (OurAuckland, 19 Mar 2026).
  • AT's board paper gives July growth as "7%" (p.15) and "11.5%" (p.20) in the same document.

Each example on its own is small. Together they show that headline wording should be checked against the underlying tables.

Pattern 3: Headline figures without published evidence — Moderate

  • The council cites "around 1.5 to 1.7 million homes" of housing capacity (PC120 page). The Government has exempted the council from preparing a capacity assessment for the 2027 LTP because "there is no stable development pattern or plan-enabled capacity on which to base those assessments" (Bill 2026/294 disclosure).
  • The "$26 million" AT share of CRL's yearly operating cost (Annual Plan, p.9) has not yet been found in AT's own published budget documents.
  • AT's "year-to-date" patronage figures (8.1m in July, then 8.8m by September) can't both be correct (AT board, 19 Oct 2026, p.26).

Pattern 4: Costs and risks pushed into later years — Moderate

  • Fuel. The council budgeted "$25 million of mitigations" (Annual Plan, p.56). Its CFO now models "$43m", an "$18 million gap" (LDR, 7 Sept 2026). He said any additional savings for 2027/28 would be considered through the long-term plan.
  • Capital investment. The 2026/27 figure is 3,639 ($m) against 4,102 in the LTP (Annual Plan, p.36).
  • TAU. "(19,869)" ($000) of capital funding was not received "due to timing amendments to capital programmes" (TAU Trust Annual Report, p.38).
  • Eastern Busway. Opening could slip to "April/May 2027", close to the SOI deadline of 30 June 2027 (AT board, 19 Oct 2026, p.27).

Contradictions between organisations

  • Council and Government on housing (Moderate). Government rules require "30 years of feasible housing capacity" that is infrastructure-ready (Going for Housing Growth). The Government has also exempted Auckland from the assessment that would show this for the 2027 LTP. Auckland's capacity figure (1.5–1.7m) is theoretical, against modelled building of about 140,000 homes over 10 years.
  • Moody's and S&P (Limited). Moody's moved Auckland's outlook to negative (Annual Plan, p.55), and S&P moved it to positive on 2 October 2026 (S&P). The council links the Moody's change to the sovereign outlook, so this is a difference of view, not necessarily an error.
  • AT and the council on CRL operating cost (Limited, not yet verified). The council's $26m figure has not been matched in AT's documents.

Where the documents agree

  • Savings. The council reported $97.2m saved against an $86m target in 2025/26 (NZX results document, from search results). The Annual Plan's "additional $20 million", which brings the 2026/27 target to "$106 million" (p.28), is consistent with this. The base figures look solid; the question is whether $106m will be enough given the fuel and inflation pressures.
  • Debt limits. A "224 per cent" debt-to-revenue ratio, "well below our prudential limit of 270 per cent" (NZX document, from search results), matches the Annual Plan's 224% for 2025/26 (p.36). This suggests the debt risk is in future pressures rather than current breaches.
  • Watercare charges. The Commerce Commission confirmed growth charges rose by the "minimum allowable rate" (15.5%) in 2025/26, and Watercare says the 20% rise in 2026/27 is "the minimum increase required". Prices are following the rules, so the issue is policy (the effect on housing feasibility), not compliance.
  • Parking budget. AT's 2025/26 parking revenue (48,526) is close to budget (48,887). Revenue matched what AT budgeted for. The open question is why the budget itself was lower than the year before, given the price increase.

Three strongest story angles

  1. "Plans built on hope." Patronage, asset sales and the 3.5% rates path all depend on targets well above recent results, and the documents themselves flag the risks.
  2. "Read the table, not the release." Small but repeated gaps between headline wording and detailed figures at AT, TAU and the council.
  3. "1.5 million homes, no assessment." A housing capacity headline that the Government has exempted from the assessment needed to test it, while growth charges rise 20% a year.

Questions we are asking (LGOIMA)

  1. For each of AT patronage, Eke Panuku asset sales and the 2027/28 rates increase, please provide the target-setting paper, the assumptions used, and any officer advice about the risk of not meeting the target.
  2. Please provide the scoring rules (tolerance bands) used to report "Met" or "Achieved" in AT, TAU and council annual reports for 2025/26, and any cases where the rounded figure differs from the exact result.
  3. Please provide a list of all 2026/27 costs, capital projects and funding deferred to later years, including fuel cost overruns, deferred capex against the LTP, and TAU capital timing changes, with amounts and new dates.
  4. Please provide the PC120 capacity and feasibility modelling, including how infrastructure readiness and Watercare growth charges were taken into account.
  5. Please provide AT's own breakdown of CRL operating costs for 2026/27 and reconcile it with the council's $26 million figure.