I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Great Barrier Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

1.00pm

Claris Conference Centre
19 Whangaparapara Road
Claris
Great Barrier Island

 

Great Barrier Local Board

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Izzy Fordham

 

Deputy Chairperson

Luke Coles

 

Members

Jeff Cleave

 

 

Susan Daly

 

 

Shirley Johnson

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Guia Nonoy

Democracy Advisor

 

8 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 301 0101

Email: guia.nonoy@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

 

18        Governance Framework Review recommendations                                                 5 

 

      


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

Governance Framework Review recommendations

 

File No.: CP2017/16100

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks local board feedback on the draft positions of the Governance Framework Review’s Political Working Party.

Executive summary

2.       The governance framework review (GFR) was initiated to assess how well the Auckland governance model (governing body/local boards) is meeting the aims of the 2010 reforms. The review was reported in late 2016 and a political working party (PWP) made up of local board and governing body members was established to consider the review’s findings and recommendations.

3.       The working party has considered the report’s recommendations in three broad workstreams:

·        policy and decision-making roles

·        local boards funding and finance

·        governance and representation.

4.       This report sets out the interim positions of the political working party on those three workstreams and seeks local board feedback on those positions. The working party will report back to the governing body on 28 September 2017 with recommendations for decisions, including local boards’ views.

 

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a)      Provide feedback on the following draft positions and recommendations of the Political Working Party:

Regional policy and decision-making

i.           Agree that council should implement new mechanisms that ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework that sets out, at a minimum:

·     A process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh;

·     Earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional decision-making processes

·     Requirements for analysis of local impacts and local interest of regional decisions and options, and reporting of this to local boards and the governing body

·     Specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions

·     Processes and methods for tailoring local board engagement in line with the local impact and local interest of regional decisions e.g. high categorisation requiring more specific local engagement and analysis, low categorisation requiring more cluster joint local board workshop sessions and less in depth analysis.

·     Specified methods for engagement and communication with local boards at all stages of the decision-making process.

ii.           Direct that local boards will be consulted on the details of these mechanisms prior to implementation.

iii.          Note that the Quality Advice programme is continuing to be implemented in order to improve the quality of advice to elected members for decision-making, in line with the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review.

iv.         Agree not to implement any formal policies or procedures that control when and how local boards may procure external or contestable advice, but note that, in principle, the Auckland Council organisation should be the first provider of advice to local boards.

v.          Agree not to implement any policy or procedure that would limit local boards’ ability to advocate to the governing body on regional issues.

Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

vi.         Note that an explicit call-in right is not possible under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 

vii.         Agree not to implement any mechanism that would have the effect of ‘calling in’ or allocating decision-making to the governing body for otherwise local activities or decisions that have regional implications.

viii.        Direct officers that, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area e.g. a sub-regional impact or an impact on regional networks, advice on those potential impacts is to be provided to the local board as a matter of course (for example through a regional impact statement).

Allocations and delegations

ix.         Agree that the governing body delegates, subject to the necessary statutory tests being met, the following Reserves Act 1977 decision-making functions for local reserves to local boards:

·   declaration

·   classification

·   reclassification

·   application for revocation of reserve status (limited to when there is a desire by a local board to manage open space under the LGA)

x.          Note that officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land was that it should remain with the governing body, with the relevant local board consulted on these decisions

xi.         Note that the working party did not reach consensus on this issue, and will consider the feedback of local boards before making a recommendation

xii.         Agree that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers remain delegated to staff, but where there is likely to be significant public interest, an independent commissioner should be engaged.

The role of Auckland Transport and local boards

xiii.        Note the critical interface between the local place-shaping role of local boards and Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction over the road corridor and transport networks.

xiv.       Note that the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs requires Auckland Transport, amongst other things, to:

·   develop, with local boards, a shared understanding of local board views and CCO priorities to inform the following year’s business planning, including through an annual interactive workshop ‘where local boards communicate their local board priorities and the CCOs communicate how their current year work programme will contribute to local board priorities’.

·   develop by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement plan, which includes a schedule ‘clearly indicat[ing] for each board, the projects and/or activities that it expects to report on, and the projects and activities that it expects to consult on, for the following year. This should be updated annually or more frequently if required.’  

·   report against their local board engagement plan in their quarterly performance reports to the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee.

xv.        Direct Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.

xvi.       Direct Auckland Council officers to monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance with the requirements for local board engagement, as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs, and to report this monitoring to the governing body at least annually.

xvii.       Note that the Mayor’s 2017 letter of expectation to Auckland Transport stipulated that council expects there to be:

·   better and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local boards;

·   active consideration by Auckland Transport of which of its decision-making powers it could delegate to local boards (within the constraints created by the regulatory environment, safety considerations, the needs of regional networks and the role played by NZTA in decision-making).

xviii.      Note that the following activity statement has been included in Auckland Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent:

‘Participation in the governance review which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant Council family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local boards to give effect to their governance role, particularly around local place-shaping.’

xix.       Note that the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential delegation of a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party recommends that additional work be undertaken to identify delegation opportunities

xx.        Direct Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:

·   Ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making

·   Improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes

·   Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance

·   Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events

·   Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes

xxi.       Direct Auckland Transport to report to the governing body annually on how it is meeting the directions given under recommendation xx.

xxii.       Note that the Quality Advice programme has been working with Auckland Transport to improve the quality of advice to local boards and will shortly begin regular six monthly surveys of local board members’ satisfaction with Auckland Transport advice, engagement and reporting to local boards.

xxiii.      Note that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is valued by local boards but that the level of funding means that some boards are not able to progress meaningful projects, and that improved local transport outcomes may be achieved if the size of the fund was significantly increased.

xxiv.     Direct officers to report to the relevant governing body committee, through the Long Term Plan process, on options for significantly increasing the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the method of allocation of the fund.

xxv.      Direct Auckland Transport to implement a more systematic work programme approach to assist local boards to identify potential projects and make decisions.

xxvi.     Direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body members (ward councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward areas.

 

Waiheke Local Board pilot

xxvii.     Agree that the governing body should endorse the Waiheke Local Board pilot project as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot project plan.

xxviii.    Note that the Waiheke Local Board will maintain oversight of local implementation of the pilot.

Local boards funding and finance

xxix.     Agree that the enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.

xxx.      Agree that the additional work to support the Enhanced status quo model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.

xxxi.      Agree that further work on the implications of the local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making etc.

The optimum number of local boards

xxxii.     Agree that council should undertake no further work on changing the number of local boards until at least after the governance framework review has been completed and implemented, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known.

Methods of electing governing body members

xxxiii.    Agree that a change to the current system of electing governing body members from existing wards is not warranted purely to address alignment between governing body members and local boards

xxxiv.   Note that the statutory review of representation arrangements for Auckland Council must be completed by September 2018.

xxxv.    Note that the Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 2, which proposes a simplified process for local government-led reorganisation processes, is currently before Parliament.

xxxvi.   Agree that council should continue to advocate to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of governing body members in line with population changes, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers and boundaries of local boards.

b)      Provide feedback on whether decision-making for exchanges of reserve land should sit with the governing body or local boards

c)      Provide feedback on its preferred naming conventions for governing body members and local board members

d)      Provide feedback on options for the continuation of a joint local board/governing body political working party focusing on matters of governance impacting on both governance arms.

 

Comments

Background

5.       In early 2016, Auckland Council instigated a review of the Council’s governance framework as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, focussing on the complementary governance relationship between local boards and a governing body. The review did not consider Auckland Council’s CCO governance framework or the role of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

6.       The primary purpose of the review was to assess how the Auckland governance model is meeting the aim of the Auckland governance reforms by delivering strong regional decision-making, complemented by decisions that meet diverse local needs and interests. After nearly six years since Auckland Council was established, it was an appropriate point to look at this.

7.       The intention was to complete the review prior to the 2016 local government election and to provide advice to the incoming council about any recommended changes. The review was carried out by an independent consultant.

8.       The review focused on improvements to the governance framework, not fundamental reform. It was based on extensive interviews with elected members, staff, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and external stakeholders, as well as review and research of foundation documents and other material.

9.       A report summarising the findings of the review was issued in draft form to elected members in late August 2016 and discussed with elected members at workshops. The feedback received on the draft from elected members was largely supportive of the findings. The report was finalised in November 2016, and incorporated some minor changes based on the feedback of the elected members.

10.     In December 2016 the governing body established a political working party of governing body members and local board members to consider the GFR report and oversee the development of a work programme to explore the implications of its findings then make final recommendations to the Governing Body. The political working party has been considering issues and options via a series of working papers and presentations during the first half of 2017. It will report to the Governing Body in September.

Key findings of the Governance Framework Review

11.     The review concluded that there were a number of positive aspects of the governance model from both a regional and local perspective. This includes the ability for the Auckland region to ‘speak with one voice’ to important stakeholders, such as central government, regarding regional strategic planning and infrastructure development, and enabling local decision-making that provides a local community focus in a way that did not exist under the previous arrangements. However, it also identified a number of areas for improvement, which fall under four key themes:

·   Organisational structures and culture have not adapted to the complexity of the model: 

The review found that the organisation has had challenges in responding to the unique and complex governance arrangements in Auckland, and that this has impacted on the quality of advice and support for elected members.

·   Complementary decision-making, but key aspects of overlap: 

The review touched on a number of decision-making functions where there is overlap between the Governing body and Local Boards, or a lack of clarity about respective roles of the two governance arms.

·   Lack of alignment of accountabilities with responsibilities: 

The review found that the system of decision-making creates incentives for governing body members to act locally despite regional benefits and that local boards are incentivised to advocate for local service improvements, without having to make trade-offs required to achieve these. 

·   Local boards are not sufficiently empowered:

The review identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It also noted particular local frustrations in relation to transport decision-making.

Approach of the political working party and structure of this report

12.     The working party has been considering the thirty six recommendations of the GFR. They are grouped in to the following workstreams:

·        policy and decision-making roles

·        local boards funding and finance

·        governance and representation

13.     These first three workstreams are nearing completion. A fourth workstream, organisational support, is in its early stages and will consider improvements to the way the organisation supports the Auckland governance model, including any changes that arise from this review.

14.     This report briefly sets out the issues presented to the political working party in the first three workstreams, the recommendations, and the draft position the PWP has reached. Local board feedback on these directions is sought. A more in-depth discussion of the analysis, rationale and options development for each issue is available in relevant discussion documents appended to this report.

15.     A high level summary of all GFR report recommendations and how they were progressed (or not) is attached as Appendix A. Several recommendations were not progressed for various reasons and these are noted in the table.

16.     In considering the GFR report recommendations, options were developed and assessed against the following criteria endorsed by the political working party and approved by the governing body:

·        consistency with the statutory purpose of local government

·        provision for decision making at the appropriate level, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and consistency with the subsidiarity principle

·        contribution to improving role clarity between the two arms of governance, both internally and for the public

·        provision for increased empowerment of local boards, especially in their place shaping role

·        ensuring appropriate accountability and incentives for political decisions

·        contribution to improved community engagement with, and better services for Aucklanders

·        administrative feasibility, including efficiency and practicality of implementation.

Workstream 1: Policy and decision-making roles

17.     This workstream covers the following topics:

·        Regional policy and decision-making processes

·        Tension between local and regional priorities (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

·        Allocations and delegations

·        The role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping

·        A pilot for devolving greater powers to Waiheke Local Board.

Regional policy and decision-making processes

18.     The GFR found that:

·        There is no agreed strategic framework for regional policy development that adequately addresses governing body and local board statutory roles[1]

·        The timing of regional decision-making is not well-planned across the organisation. Local boards in particular do not have good visibility of the timing of regional decisions

·        Considerable time and resource commitments are required to seek local board input on regional decisions

·        Local boards do not receive quality advice to inform their input, and advice to the governing body and local boards often lacks analysis of local impacts.

19.     To address these issues, the GFR recommended that council should:

·        Bring both arms of governance together early in the policy development process to clarify respective roles

·        Increase the use of joint briefings and workshops where relevant

·        Develop a methodology that clearly identifies local boards’ role in regional decisions

·        Develop tools to enable local board input earlier into regional policy development

·        Develop a clear policy on the commissioning of contestable advice, including a conflict resolution process

·        Continue to embed the programme for improving the quality of policy advice

·        Consider limiting the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues (particularly investment), once due consideration has been given.

20.     Two options were assessed for implementing better policy development processes that would ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions:

·        Option 1 that involves implementing a framework with mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, and specifies methodologies and ways of working to address these procedural deficiencies identified by GFR

·        Option 2 that involves the same framework plus politically adopted principles, in order to provide greater political direction and set public and political expectations.

21.     Both options were considered to lead to better policy development, more empowerment of local boards, and to better fulfil statutory obligations. Option 2 was recommended on the grounds that it was more likely to result in greater political accountability. Option 1 was favoured by the PWP.

22.     The following recommendations were also made to the PWP:

·        The Quality Advice programme should continue as an organisational priority

·        Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, as neither are considered to be needed or proportional to the scale of the problem

·        Council should not implement a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues, as it would not be in line with local boards’ statutory role to advocate on behalf of their communities.

23.     The PWP’s position is that:

·        A framework that implements mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions would be useful, and local boards will need to be consulted on this prior to its implementation;

·        Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, nor a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues. It was considered that such policies or procedures are unnecessary and would be out of proportion to the scale of any problems.

24.     In line with this position, recommendations i-v have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on these.

25.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Regional decision-making and policy processes’ (Appendix B).

Next steps

26.     A framework setting out mechanisms to ensure effective local board input into regional decisions will be developed in line with the high level direction in the discussion document and the recommendations above. It will be workshopped with local boards in the implementation phase of GFR.

27.     How organisational advice is provided, and by who, is a key question that needs to be considered; resource constraint issues, specifically around the ability of the organisation to service local board requests for advice on regional issues or to develop local policy, were a common theme encountered during this workstream. This is particularly important given that implementation of this framework may require more in depth and involved work to provide advice to local boards. This will be considered through the Organisational Support workstream.

Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

28.     The GFR concluded that the current governance model ‘provides limited incentives for local boards to consider local assets in a regional context, or contemplate divestment or re-prioritisation of assets or facilities in their local board areas. This leads to situations where conflict between local decision-making and regional decision-making arises.’

29.     The report cited the hypothetical example of a local sports field which has been identified as having capacity to be developed and contribute to the regional strategy to grow regional capacity in the sports field network, but the local board does not support this development because of the possible impacts on local residents of increased noise, traffic and light. The local board has the ability to decide against the development on the basis of those concerns, with the regional impact of that decision being a resultant shortfall in sports field capacity.

30.     To address this issue, the GFR recommended that council should develop a process which would allow the governing body to ‘call-in’ decisions about local assets where there is an important regional priority.

31.     Analysis showed that these situations occur very rarely, but when they do they usually have potentially significant or serious implications.

32.     Legal analysis showed that an explicit ‘call-in’ right is not possible under LGACA or the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) but could be achieved through other mechanisms such as amendments to the allocation table.  A range of options to address the problem were developed:

·        Option 1: Enhanced status quo (with a focus on council staff ensuring that advice to local boards covers possible regional implications of a decision where they exist)

·        Option 2: Establishing a process to bring both arms of governance together to attempt to reach a solution that appropriately provides for regional and local priorities

·        Option 3: Amending the allocation of decision-making to allocate to the governing body decision-making over an asset that is currently local in a situation where there is a regional or sub-regional need or impact

·        Option 4: Amending the allocation of decision-making as per Option 3, and also delegating the decision to a joint committee of governing body and local board members.

33.     Option 3 was recommended to the PWP, noting that specific criteria would need to be developed to ensure that it would apply only in certain situations.

34.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the discussion document ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 1: Local decisions that may have regional impact (Appendix C).

35.     The PWP’s draft position is that no call-in right, nor any mechanism that would have a similar effect by removing local decision-making, should be implemented; local decision-making that has been allocated to local boards should remain un-fettered on the basis that local boards can make decisions in the context of regional implications if appropriate advice is provided. To that end, a mechanism should be implemented to ensure that local boards are clearly advised of any potential regional or sub-regional implications of a decision that they are asked to make.

36.     Recommendations vi – viii summarise these positions. Local board feedback on these is sought.

Next steps

37.     If this direction is adopted, a regional impact statement will be included in reports to local boards where the decision required has the potential to have an impact beyond the immediate local board area.

Allocations and delegations

38.     The GFR found that most elected members ‘felt that the split of decision-making allocation was reasonably well understood and sensible’, but there were several areas where the allocation (and/or delegations) was challenged. The GFR recommended that council review the delegated responsibilities to local boards for swimming pool fencing exemptions, setting time and season rules for dog access, the role of local boards in resource consent applications, and in various Reserves Act 1977 decisions.

39.     Three of the issues identified in the GFR report either have already been addressed or will shortly be addressed:

·        Delegations for granting swimming pool fencing exemptions have been superseded by legislative change that aligns the granting of these exemptions with other safety and building regulation powers in the Building Act 2004, which are delegated to staff;

·        Delegations on setting time and season rules for dog access will be reviewed through the review of the Dog Management Bylaw, initiated by the Governing Body in March 2017. An issues and options paper is expected in November 2017 and the review will be completed before 2019;

·        The role of local boards in resource consent applications was considered by a political working party in 2016. It made recommendations for refining triggers for providing information about resource consent applications to local boards and adopting a standard practice for local boards to speak to local views and preferences in hearings. These recommendations were adopted by the Hearings Committee in September 2016.

40.     Work therefore focused on issues regarding the role of local boards in decision-making under the Reserves Act 1977.

41.     Currently, local boards are allocated non-regulatory decision-making for ‘the use of and activities within local parks’, and ‘reserve management plans for local parks’. However, the council’s Reserves Act regulatory decisions are the responsibility of the governing body. The GFR report concluded that ‘where a local park has reserve status under the Reserves Act, it can impact or limit the decision-making authority of local boards in relation to that park’. The GFR recommended that there ‘is a case for local boards having consistent decision-making rights across all local parks’, regardless of which legislative regime they are managed under.

42.     Various options were developed for the following Reserves Act powers:

·        declaring land to be a reserve, which brings it into the regime set out by the Reserves Act

·        classifying or reclassifying a reserve, which has an impact on how the reserve can be used

·        requesting the revocation of reserve status from the Minister of Conservation

·        exchanging, acquiring and disposing of reserve land.

43.     These options were generally:

·        status quo (decision-making continues to lie with the governing body)

·        delegate decision-making for local reserves to local boards

·        delegate decision-making for local reserves to local boards, subject to development of a regional policy to provide some consistency across the region.

44.     The role of local boards with regard to the Minister of Conversation’s delegated supervisory powers, which are a process check that requires council to ensure that Reserves Act processes have been followed correctly, was also considered.

45.     The positions recommended to the PWP were as follows:

·        The council’s substantive decision-making powers to classify and reclassify reserves should be delegated to local boards, on the basis that it would provide for local decision-making and accountability. There would likely be negligible effects on regional networks or issues with regional consistency.

·        The decision-making power to declare a reserve and to request revocation of reserve status should be delegated to local boards, subject to regional policy or guidelines to provide some consistency about the land status of open space. This would balance local decision-making and accountability with regional consistency and network impacts.

·        The Minister of Conservation’s delegated ‘supervisory’ powers should remain delegated to staff, but where a decision is likely to be contentious or there may be multiple objections, staff should consider employing an independent commissioner to carry out this function. This was on the basis that the supervisory decision is a technical check that the correct process has been followed, and it should be exercised by a different decision-maker than the maker of the substantive decision.

46.     In deciding whether to delegate these decisions, the governing body will need to consider the requirement set out in Clause 36C(3) of Part 1A of Schedule 7 of the LGA to “weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district”. This test will need to be carried out individually for each specific power that is proposed to be delegated.

47.     The PWP also considered the roles of local boards in reserve exchanges. Two options were developed:

·        Status quo: decision-making on reserve exchanges remains with the governing body, in line with decision-making for acquisition and disposal of non-reserve property

·        Decision-making is delegated to local boards.

48.     It was recommended that the status quo remains, as this would retain a consistent approach to the acquisition and disposal of all assets and avoids introducing further complexity, time and cost to RMA plan change and consent decisions (which are currently governing body decisions).

49.     The PWP agreed that decisions on declaration, classification, reclassification and application to revoke reserve status for local reserves should be delegated to local boards. It also agreed that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers should remain delegated to staff, but that an independent commissioner should be engaged to exercise this function where the decision sought is likely to be of significant public interest. This would provide an additional layer of independent assurance that the decision-making process has been appropriate.

50.     The PWP discussed the decision-making for exchanges of reserve land and did not reach a consensus position on which option should be progressed. It agreed to consider the feedback of local boards on this issue before making a recommendation.

51.     The PWP’s positions have been summarised in recommendations ix - xi. Local board feedback is sought on these.

52.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the discussion documents ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 2: Reserves Act decision-making roles (Appendix C) and ‘Reserve Act land exchanges’ (Appendix D).

Next steps

53.     The governing body will be presented with the necessary recommendations and legal tests to enable it to make delegations at its September meeting if this position is confirmed.

The role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping

54.     The GFR report found there is frustration among some local board members with respect to transport decision-making and the local board role of place-shaping within and beside the road corridor. It noted common concerns among local board members that:

·        there is a lack of timely, high-quality information about local transport activity

·        the community holds local board members accountable for local transport decisions, but they have very little influence over them

·        Auckland Transport could be delegating some transport responsibilities to boards, particularly in relation to local transport and place-making in town centres.

55.     There are mixed views amongst board members on the quality and purpose of consultation: while some local board members feel there is genuine consultation and engagement from Auckland Transport, others feel that it can be late or lack authenticity. There also appear to be different expectations of respective roles in consulting the public, and concerns about a lack of timely, high-quality information, and the quality of advice on the local board Transport Capital Fund.

56.     To address these issues, various options were developed for decision-making roles, funding for local transport initiatives, and engagement between Auckland Transport and local boards.

Decision-making roles

57.     A range of decision-making functions were assessed for potential delegation to local boards. This included, for example, decision-making over major and minor capital investment, non-road parts of the road corridor for a variety of uses, event permitting and traffic management planning, signage and banners, regulatory controls over parking, traffic and transit lanes, traffic calming, physical infrastructure (including town centre infrastructure as well as kerb and channelling or swales for stormwater), and community education programmes.

58.     Delegation of decision-making functions to local boards generally did not perform well on evaluation criteria. Analysis showed that while local boards do and should have a role in place-making, of which the road corridor and town centres are a significant part, it is practically difficult to split up formal decision-making for parts of the transport network.

59.     In addition, Auckland Transport remains liable for the impacts of decisions even if they are delegated. Therefore, the functions that could be delegated tend to be quite low-level and operational in nature; the administrative and transactional costs of numerous operational decisions being made by local boards would be high. 

60.     For these reasons, advice to the PWP was that the place-making role of local boards would be better given effect to through other options assessed:

·        earlier and more consistent engagement by Auckland Transport which acknowledges the local governance and place-shaping roles of local boards, and is in line with the expectations set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.

·        an increase in the local board Transport Capital Fund, which would likely result in greater delivery of local transport projects and local transport outcomes.

·        a direction for Auckland Transport to undertake various other actions that will empower local boards’ place shaping in the transport corridor.

Funding

61.     The options for changes to the local board Transport Capital Fund were:

·        Option 1: Status quo – the fund remains at approximately $11 million with the current method of allocation.

·        Option 2: A recommendation to increase the size of the fund from the current inflation-adjusted value of $11 million to $20 million, as well as improvements to provide local boards with better advice and a more systematic work programme approach to managing projects. Process improvements and better advice to local boards may improve outcomes from the fund.

·        Option 3: A full review of the purpose and operation of the fund. When the fund was first established in 2012, a review was committed to during the development of the 2015-25 LTP but this never took place. No subsequent policy analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the fund is currently operating optimally.

62.     The PWP took the position that the local board transport capital fund should be increased significantly, and that an appropriate final quantum for the fund should be determined through the long-term plan process alongside other budget priorities. The method of allocating this fund across local boards should also be considered through the long-term plan process.

It also considered that Auckland Transport should provide local boards with a more systematic work programme approach to identifying options for projects and local transport outcomes through the fund.

Auckland Transport – local board consultation and engagement

63.     Various options for improvements to Auckland Transport – local board consultation and engagement were explored, including improvements to local board engagement plans and more consistent reporting and monitoring of local board engagement.

64.     Analysis showed that improving Auckland Transport-local board engagement, both at a strategic level and on a project by project basis, would be the best and most appropriate way to empower local boards that takes into account local boards’ local governance role and Auckland Transport’s statutory responsibilities.

65.     This would likely be best achieved if the existing requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs are consistently met and monitored. These requirements specify expectations for, amongst other things, local board engagement plans incorporating schedules of board-specific priorities and projects, annual workshops between Auckland Transport and local boards for direction-setting, and regular reporting against local board engagement.

66.     Various functions of Auckland Transport were assessed for potential local board empowerment. It was proposed that Auckland Transport:

·        Ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making

·        Improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes

·        Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance

·        Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events

·        Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes.

67.     It was also proposed that these directions be actively monitored and reported annually to the governing body.

68.     The PWP supported these positions on improving the relationship by requiring Auckland Transport to be more consistent on meeting its obligations, and through more consistent monitoring of how it is doing so. It also supported directing Auckland Transport to empower local boards further as described above.

69.     The PWP also considered that potential delegations to local boards should not be ruled out, and should be investigated further. It also noted that not all ward councillors are regularly engaged or informed of transport projects and issues within their ward areas, and that this should be done as a matter of course.

70.     Recommendations xii – xxv reflect these positions. Local board feedback is sought on these.

71.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working papers ‘Local boards and Auckland Transport’ (Appendix E) and ‘Confirmation of draft transport recommendations’ (Appendix F).

Waiheke Local Board pilot

72.     The GFR identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It considered whether it would be feasible for some local boards to have greater decision-making powers depending on the extent of the regional impact of specific local decisions. It suggested that this could be piloted on Waiheke Island given:

·        the more clearly defined community of interest on the island (relative to most other local board areas);

·        the separation of the island from wider Auckland services such as roading, stormwater or public transport;

·        the desires of the local board for greater decision-making autonomy, and a feeling that the regionalisation of services across Auckland has failed to reflect the unique nature of the island.

73.     The Waiheke Local Board has consistently sought greater autonomy, arguing that this would deliver better outcomes for the community and better reflect the principles of subsidiarity and the policy intent of the Auckland amalgamation.

74.     A range of functions and decisions that the GFR suggested could be devolved to local boards are currently under the purview of the governing body or Auckland Transport. These include area planning, community development and safety, developing local visitor infrastructure, management of the stormwater network, some transport decision-making and catchment management.

75.     Other matters the GFR proposed for devolution are in fact already allocated to local boards or provided for under statute, but boards have not had access to the resources to support them – such as local area planning or proposing bylaws – or they have not been assessed as a priority in an environment where large regional projects have tended to dominate (such as the Unitary Plan).

76.     In response, a proposed three year pilot project for Waiheke has been developed in conjunction with the local board. The activities proposed are broader than the technical allocation or delegation of decision-making, and include operational issues, policy and planning, funding, compliance and enforcement and relationships with CCOs. The pilot will include:

·        A programme of locally-initiated policy, planning and bylaw work that includes responses to visitor growth demands, a strategic plan for Matiatia, and development of a proposal for a community swimming pool, will be undertaken.

·        Addressing a number of operational issues that frustrate the local board. For example there are a number of longstanding compliance and encroachment issues on the island that have not been resolved and have become almost intractable, resulting in ongoing negative environmental and social impacts. This may be addressed through better locally-based operational leadership from council.

·        Developing some key local transport strategic approaches, such as a 10 year transport plan and Waiheke and Hauraki Gulf Islands design guidelines.

77.     The pilot has been developed with intervention logic and an evaluation methodology built-in from the beginning. This will enable a sound evaluation of the pilot to be undertaken, particularly to assess success and the applicability of the findings to the rest of Auckland.

78.     The Waiheke Local Board will oversee governance of the pilot project. It is proposed that the pilot be implemented from 1 October 2017.

79.     The PWP endorsed the pilot project and recommends that it be endorsed by the governing body. Recommendations xxvi – xxvii reflect this position. Local board feedback is sought on these.

80.     Further details on the analysis, rationale and key projects is available in the working papers ‘Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ (Appendix G) and the project outline (Appendix H).

Next steps

81.     An implementation plan and an evaluation plan will be developed and reported to the Waiheke Local Board for its consideration prior to the implementation date (currently proposed to be 1 October 2017).

Workstream 2: Local boards funding and finance

82.     The GFR identified the following key issues that have been considered within the context of the Funding and Finance workstream:

·    Local boards do not have to balance the trade-offs of financial decisions in the same way as the governing body needs to e.g. local boards can advocate for both additional investment in their own area and lower rates.

·    Inflexibility of the current funding policies to empower local board decision making. In particular local boards feel they have little or no control over the 90 per cent of their budget which is for “Asset Based Services” (ABS).

·    Inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of when local boards or groups of local boards can undertake procurement of major contracts.

83.     The workstream looked at a range of alternative models for financial decision making around local activities:

·        Status Quo (predominantly governing body and some local board decision making)

·        Entirely Local (unconstrained local board decision making)

·        Local within parameters (local board decision making but within parameters set by the governing body)

·        Entirely Regional (all governing body with local boards as advocates)

·        Joint governing body/local board (joint committees)

·        Multi Board (joint decision making of two or more local boards).

84.     The early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Appendix I describes these options in more detail.

85.     After initial discussion with the PWP the options were narrowed down to two, for further exploration. The attached papers (Appendix J and Appendix K) describe the approach to the two models in some detail. However, in summary:

Option 1: Enhanced status quo

This option is based on the governing body continuing to set the overall budget availability and allocating the budget between local boards (the allocation is currently based on legacy service levels). The budgets will be funded from general rates and decisions made by the governing body on the level of rates, efficiency savings and levels of service would be reflected through, as necessary, to the local board budgets. Within these parameters some additional flexibility for local decision making is proposed.

Option 2: Local decision making within parameters

In this option additional decision making is enabled for local boards through all or some of the costs of local activities and services being funded through a local rate. This enables the local board to have much increased flexibility in determining levels of service in different activities and to directly engage with their community on the costs and benefits of providing those services. The key issues identified with this option are the impact of redistributing the costs of local services on different communities and the additional costs of supporting local decision making.

86.     A number of key themes emerge from evaluating the two models of decision making and these form the main issues for consideration when determining the way forward:

i)        Legal context – The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out expectations for the two arms of governance. There is a clear expectation that local boards will reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities “in respect of the level and nature of local activities to be provided by Auckland Council…” To do this local boards need the ability to make decisions about service levels and appropriate funding.

ii)       Capital expenditure – Both models of decision making have assumed that decisions on major capital expenditure will be reserved to the governing body. Control of debt and the council’s credit rating are key regional issues. There is also recognition that the governing body is best placed to make decisions on investment in new assets that are essentially part of a community infrastructure network.

iii)      Organisational efficiency vs local decision making – Greater decision making by local boards will require a greater level of staff support and will require the organisation to gear its governance advice in a different way. This will have an impact on the resources of the organisation.

iv)      Regional standards vs local preferences – There are different views on whether it is better to have one standard of service across the whole Auckland region for local activities, or whether each local board should be able to prioritise and customise those services according to the needs and preferences of their community.

v)      Legacy funding base – The current funding of local boards for ABS is largely based on the historical funding model from the legacy councils. As each board has inherited different numbers of assets, different levels of service and different method of delivery, the existing funding base in very uneven. This creates a number of difficulties for the Enhanced Status Quo model.

vi)      Local assets as a network – Giving local boards more decision making over the level of renewal and/or services delivered from local assets will, in many cases, impact on communities outside of the local area. To address this issue the proposal includes requirement for local boards to consult outside of their own area in certain situations.

vii)     Funding

The key factors with the general rates based approach are:

·    Overall funding and therefore to a large extent, levels of service, for local activities are determined by the governing body

·    It is difficult to address the historical funding inequities

·    All ratepayers pay the same (based on property value)

The key factors with a local rate are:

·    The rate will reflect the level of service delivered in that area

·    The local board can set their own budgets to reflect local community priorities

·    The redistribution of rates may impact more in communities least able to afford it.

viii)    Data and policy gaps – Regardless of which approach is decided upon for the future, the project has highlighted the need to improve the quality of information and policy support to local boards.

87.     In summary the two proposed models of financial decision making have the following characteristics:

Enhanced status quo –

·        Limited additional financial decision making – may not give full effect to legislative intent of local boards with local decision making and accountability

·        Maintains the efficiencies of more centralised organisational support and procurement at scale

·        Governing body determines budgets and therefore levels of service - tends towards regional standards

·        Unlikely to address legacy inequities of funding in the short term

·        General rate funded therefore no redistribution effect, but also does not address perceived inequity of boards funding higher levels of service in other areas

Local decision making within parameters –

·        Gives more decision making and accountability to local boards – may be more in line with legislative intent

·        Will be less efficient as additional resources will be required to support local decision making

·        Levels of service will tend to be more varied across the region

·        Enables local boards to address funding inequities

·        Redistribution of rates will impact on some communities who can least afford it.

88.     While there are two clear choices of decision making model, there does not have to be a final decision at this point. The “Local decision making within parameters” option requires a change to the Local Board Funding Policy which in turn needs public consultation. There also needs to be more preparatory work before any implementation of a change, and in fact, some of that work would be necessary to implement the “Enhanced status quo” model. Five alternative recommendations were put forward to the PWP:

·    Status quo – no change

·    Enhanced status quo – progress further work prior to implementation on organisational impacts, framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding issues, improving financial data etc.

·    Local decision making within parameters – consult on the change with the LTP 2018-28 and progress pre-implementation work (as above plus work on detailed parameters and rating models). The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.

·    Consult on both options with the LTP 2018-28 and then decide. In the meantime progress at least the work for enhanced status quo. The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.

·    Agree in principle to local decision making but subject to further work (as outlined above). Should there then be a wish to proceed to consult with the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

89.     The PWP reached agreement on a variation of these alternative recommendations i.e.:

·    That the Enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.

·    That the additional work to support this model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.

·    That further work on the implications of the Local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making etc.

90.     These positions are summarised in recommendations xxviii – xxx. Local board feedback is sought on these.

Workstream 3: Governance and representation

91.     This workstream covers:

·        The optimum number of local boards

·        Methods of electing governing body members

·        Naming conventions for elected members

The optimum number of local boards

92.     The GFR found that having twenty-one local boards contributed to a complex governance structure and logistical inefficiencies; servicing 21 local boards is costly and creates a large administrative burden. It recommended that the council form a view on the optimum number of local boards, noting that ‘getting the right number of local boards is about striking a balance between getting genuine local engagement, while maintaining a decision-making structure that is able to be effectively serviced’. 

93.     Changing the number of local boards requires a reorganisation proposal, a statutory process that is currently a lengthy and likely costly exercise. Determining the optimum number of local boards, to inform such a proposal, is in itself a significant undertaking.

94.     There are several other processes ongoing that make a reorganisation proposal now not optimal, regardless of the merits of changing the number of boards:

·        Legislative changes to simplify the reorganisation process are being considered by Parliament, but the timeframe for their enactment is not known.

·        The Local Government Commission is considering reorganisation proposals for North Rodney and Waiheke Island, which could result in change to Auckland’s governance structure (for example through the creation of another local board). The Local Government Commission is set to announce its preferred option by the end of the 2017 calendar year.

·        Auckland Council must complete a formal representation review by September 2018.

·        The Governance Framework Review is intended to provide greater local board empowerment and to address some of the shortcomings that may be a key driver for reducing the number of local boards.

95.     Within this context, three potential high level scenarios for change were developed and presented to the PWP:

·        a reduction to fourteen local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;

·        a reduction to nine local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;

·        an increase in the number of local boards.

96.     These scenarios were designed to give the PWP an idea of what issues would need to be considered and the level of further work that would need to be undertaken if council is to consider changing the number of local boards. They were not presented as specific options for change.

97.     Two options for how to proceed were presented to the PWP:

·        Option 1 (recommended): no further work to be undertaken until after other GFR changes to empower local boards have been implemented and evaluated, and the other processes noted above (enactment of legislation simplifying reorganisation proposal processes, completion of the North Rodney and Waiheke Island reorganisation proposals, implementation of the Governance Framework Review, and representation review) have concluded.

·        Option 2: continue this work and refine high level scenarios into specific options for changing the number of local boards. This would require significantly more detailed work to identify communities of interest, proposed boundaries and numbers of elected members.

98.     Option 1 was recommended on the basis that the outcomes of those other current processes had the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any work that would be undertaken now. They may also empower local boards and remove a key driver for reducing the number of local boards identified by the GFR report.

99.     The PWP agreed with Option 1, expressing a clear view that no further work on changing the number of local boards should be undertaken until at least after the GFR has been completed and implemented, and the outcome of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known. The rationale for this is that the 2010 reforms are still ‘bedding in’, with the GFR likely contributing to better delivery of the intentions of the reforms; it was thus considered too early for council to consider initiating any change to the number of local boards.

100.   In line with this position, recommendation xxxi has been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and recommendation.

101.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Number of local boards’ (Appendix L).

Next steps

102.   If this recommendation is accepted by the governing body, staff will not do any further work on this issue until directed otherwise.

Methods of electing governing body members

103.   The GFR identified that there is an in-built tension between governing body members’ regional strategic responsibilities and their local electoral accountabilities to their ward constituents who elect them. There may be times when it is a challenge for governing body members to vote against local interests in the interests of the region.

104.   Governing body members are also inevitably approached about local issues, including constituent queries or complaints that relate to local board activities. This can lead to them being drawn into issues that are local board responsibilities. It may also make it harder for the public to understand the respective roles of their ward governing body members and local board members.

105.   The GFR report recommended that council consider amending the number and size of wards, such as moving to a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and / or reducing the number of wards from which councillors are elected, to address the misalignment of accountabilities and responsibilities.

106.   Four options were developed and presented to the PWP:

·        Option 1: status quo. Governing body members continue to be elected from the current ward structure.

·        Option 2: all governing body members would be elected at-large across the Auckland region.

·        Option 3: governing body members would be elected from a mixture of at-large (10 members) and ward-based (10 members) representation.

·        Option 4: governing body members would be elected from a ward-based system, but the number of wards would be reduced (and hence the size of wards increased).

107.   Some other governing body representational issues were also considered. These included developing protocols or role statements around governing body members’ and local board members’ roles to clarify responsibilities, the possibility of introducing a Māori ward for the governing body, and changing the voting system to Single Transferable Vote.

108.   The PWP’s draft position is that the issues raised in the GFR are not in themselves sufficient reason to change electoral arrangements for governing body members. Moving to an at large or combination of larger ward-based and at large wards would, in its view, make representing Aucklanders at a regional level significantly more difficult.  The PWP has also noted that a full statutory review of representation arrangements will be carried out in 2018. The Governing Body will also consider electoral methods, such as changing to STV, at its August meeting this year.

109.   It also noted that council has a current advocacy position for legislative change that would allow the number of governing body members to change in line with population growth, and that the process for changing the numbers and boundaries of local boards should also be made easier than the current statutory process.

110.   In line with this position, recommendations xxxii - xxxiv have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and the recommendations.

111.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Representation options’ (Appendix M).

Next steps

112.   There are no specific next steps for implementation if this recommendation is accepted. The council will continue to advocate for the changes outlined above where appropriate, and staff will begin the statutory review of representation arrangements later this year.

Naming conventions for elected members

113.   The GFR found that one of the contributing factors to role overlap and role confusion between governing body members and local board members is Auckland Council’s naming conventions, where governing body members are generally referred to as ‘councillors’ and members of local boards are referred to as ‘local board members’. It recommended that council consider these naming conventions and, either confirm and reinforce the naming conventions, or change them for consistency, preferring that all elected members be accorded the title of either ‘councillor’ or ‘member’ (either local or regional). This would reinforce and clarify the complementary and specific nature of the roles, making it easier for staff and the public to understand.

114.   The titles currently in use are conventions; they are not formal legal titles that are bestowed or required to be used under any statute, nor are they legally protected in a way that restricts their use. This is also true for other potential titles that were identified (see below). If council did change the naming conventions to call local board members ‘councillors’ then the application of some provisions in LGACA which refer to both councillors and local board members together may become confusing and problematic.  Legislative amendment may become necessary to resolve this.

115.   If a decision is to be made on naming conventions then this would be made by the governing body. No decision-making responsibility for naming conventions has been allocated to local boards under the allocation table. Such a decision would fall under the catch-all ‘All other non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council’ that is allocated to the governing body. In making such a decision the governing body would be required to consider the views of local boards.

116.   Three options were assessed and presented to the PWP:

·    Option 1: Status quo. A member of the governing body is generally referred to as ‘councillor’ and a member of a local board as ‘local board member’.

·    Option 2: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘councillor’ (e.g. ‘Governing body Councillor’, ‘Local Councillor’)

·    Option 3: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘member’ (e.g. ‘Governing body Member’, ‘Local Board Member’)

117.   Any decision to confirm the current conventions or to change to a new convention would need to be applied consistently across the Auckland region, and would affect all council publications and materials.

118.   The PWP did not adopt a position on whether the naming conventions should be retained or changed, preferring to hear the views of local boards and governing body members before adopting a recommendation. It did however agree with the need for regional consistency. A key aspect of the use of the title ‘councillor’ is its meaning to members of the community.

119.   In line with the PWP’s position to hear views prior to making a recommendation, local board feedback is sought on preferred naming conventions for elected members (summarised as recommendation (b)).

120.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Naming conventions’ (Appendix N).

Next steps

121.   If conventions are changed, staff throughout the organisation will need to be informed of the updated conventions; Auckland Council’s style guide uses the current naming conventions so would need to be updated, as would other formal council publications (such as reports and documents for consultation). Business cards, name plates and other collateral can be updated to include the new conventions when new materials are required (in line with normal business practice) to ensure that costs associated with any change are minimal.

Ongoing oversight of Governance Framework Review implementation

122.   Consideration needs to be given to future oversight of the governance framework review past September 2017, particularly implementation of any decisions.

123.   The Terms of Reference of the PWP state that one of its purposes is to ‘provide oversight and direction for the governance framework review implementation project’. They also state that the working party ‘may act as a sounding board for changes the organisation is considering to the way that elected members are supported in their governance role. However, decisions on the way the organisation configures itself are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.’

124.   The working party has discussed the desirability and usefulness of continuing the working party, or establishing a similar group, with broader terms of reference, comprising both governing body and local board members.

125.   The broad role of such a group could be to consider governance issues that impact on both local boards and the governing body, for example the upcoming representation review, the oversight of the implementation of the governance framework review and any ongoing policy work arising from the review etc.

126.   Current local board members of the PWP have signalled that they would need a fresh mandate to continue being on such a group. The size of the working party, membership, leadership, Terms of Reference, frequency of meetings and secretariat support would all need to be confirmed.

127.   At this point we are seeking feedback from the local boards on the following possible recommendations for the governing body in September:

·        Option 1: recommend that the governing body thanks the political working party for its work on the governance framework review and notes that any further decision making arising from the implementation of the review will be considered by the governing body; or

·        Option 2: recommend that the governing body thanks the political working party for its work and agrees that an ongoing political working party, comprising governing body and local board members, would provide a valuable vehicle for considering matters that impact on both governance arms and making recommendations to the governing body on these matters.

128.   This request for feedback is summarised in recommendation (c).

Next steps

129.   If this recommendation to extend the PWP is confirmed, staff will redraft the terms of reference of the PWP to reflect these directions, and report them to the governing body for adoption.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

130.   This report seeks local board views on issues and options that may have wide-ranging implications for local boards. These views will be provided to the governing body for its consideration in decision-making.

131.   Significant consultation has been undertaken with local boards throughout the Governance Framework Review and the response to the GFR report. This included a series of workshops with each local board, as well as various cluster meetings, to discuss key issues in this report.

Māori impact statement

132.   The Governance Framework Review did not specifically consider the governance or representation of Maori in Auckland. The relationship between the two governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) was also out of scope.

133.   The IMSB and Te Waka Angamua were consulted through this process. In response to the final GFR report the IMSB secretariat provided a memorandum setting out its views on a number of the report’s recommendations. These views largely focused on ensuring that Auckland Council meets its existing statutory requirements for:

·        enabling Maori to participate in decision-making in Auckland local government are met;

·        engaging and consulting Maori and considering the needs and views of Maori communities when making decisions;

·        recognising the need for greater involvement of Maori in local government employment.

134.   These statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted. No specific actions are recommended.

135.   The secretariat also identified that there is:

·        a lack of definition of the relationship between the governing body, local boards and the IMSB

·        the lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting issues for Maori

·        the lack of awareness of the governing body and local boards of their obligation to consult the IMSB on matters affecting mana whenua and mataawaka, the need to take into account the IMSB’s advice on ensuring that input of mana whenua groups and mataawaka is reflected in council strategies, policies, plans and other matters.

136.   As stated above, the council-IMSB relationship was out of scope of the GFR report, so these issues are not being addressed through this work.

137.   No specific Maori impacts have been identified.

Implementation

138.   Implementation of changes will begin after the governing body has made final decisions in September. An implementation plan will be developed.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary table of GFR report recommendations

29

b

Regional decision-making and policy processes

39

c

Allocations and delegations

53

d

Reserve Act land exchanges

73

e

Local boards and Auckland Transport

79

f

Confirmation of draft transport recommendations

107

g

Waiheke Local Board pilot project cover paper

111

h

Waiheke pilot project outline

115

i

Funding and finance workstream paper 1

135

j

Funding and finance cover paper July

153

k

Funding finance description of 2 models (including two spreadsheet attachments)

161

l

Number of local boards

177

m

Representation options

199

n

Naming conventions

219

      

Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor, Executive Officer, Auckland Council Governance

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

 


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

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


Great Barrier Local Board

15 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



[1] The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out the following respective statutory roles for regional policy and decision-making:

·   Each local board is responsible for ‘identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council’ [s.16(1)(c)]

·   The governing body must ‘consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area’ [s.15(2)(c)] when carrying out its decision-making responsibilities, including regional policy-making.