|
Resolution number GBI/2014/93
MOVED by Chairperson
IM Fordham, seconded by Member CA Spence:
That the Great Barrier Local Board
provides the following feedback on the allocation of decision making review:
1.
Considers that generally the existing
allocation of decision making responsibilities between the Auckland Council
governing body and local boards is about right and does not need any significant
change.
2.
Notes that there are many areas where
operationally, the allocation of decision making is not working well but
recognises this is outside the scope of the review.
3.
The particular areas which the Great
Barrier Local Board wishes to provide feedback on are local economic
development, procurement and consequential opex costs.
4.
In relation to local economic
development, the allocation of “local economic development plans, projects
and initiatives” and “business improvement district programmes” to local
boards has not resulted in any useful measure of support to the Great Barrier
Local Board. The one exception is the island’s broadband/3G/wireless project
where it has good support based on the board creating a budget for this
project. The reasons for this lack of support are due to the island’s lack of
growth meaning it has a low priority for support. In addition as the island
has no BID, there is no mechanism for ED assistance through that route. The
board is very focused on creating economic development opportunities and this
comes through strongly in both its 2011 and draft 2014 local board plans. The
board suggests that the wording of the allocation tables be broadened to
assist in support being provided by the provision of a third bullet point to
read (or words that meet the same intent).
· Tailored support in local board areas where growth is
minimal but a high need for economic development projects exists
5.
In relation to the suggestion that some
local economic development delivery functions transfer to ATEED, the Great
Barrier Local Board notes that it has had far more support and contact with
ATEED both in relation to tourism and economic development, than it has from
the Economic Development department. Given this, and the context noted in paragraph
4 above, the board would be prepared to consider a greater role for ATEED in
local economic development, provided a suitable governance mechanism could
be found. This might be via the ATEED statement of intent or by board
specific agreements.
6.
In relation to procurement, the Great
Barrier Local Board considers that the brief statement that local boards are
allocated decision making over “procurement for local activities” without any
further clarification or examples is inadequate. The explanatory notes state
that “procurement for most local activities will though, remain a local
decision-making activity” has not been the board’s experience. The board’s
experience is that it has no visibility over, role in or decision making over
local procurement.
7.
This is particularly an issue for Great
Barrier where local employment opportunities are limited and where in the
board’s view it is essential that local labour and contractors are able to
successfully win contracts and tenders. There are many examples where this
isn’t happening due to perceived efficiencies and cost savings, most notably
in the transport area. An extreme, but relevant example, is contractors
coming from town to paint the white poles at the wharves because these are
part of a wider contract. No local labour is employed in this activity.
8.
The board seeks the expansion of the
procurement section in the table in a manner consistent with the wording in
other parts of the table to make it clearer what “procurement for local
activities” means. It also seeks the addition of the following specific
bullet point (or words that meet the same intent).
· In cases where a community is remote and local employment
is a key element of the local economy, the use of local providers to procure
council services will be preferred over providers not located in that
community, provided they meet all required standards
9.
In relation to consequential opex, the
board notes its concern that in future boards discretionary budgets may be
required to fund ongoing operational costs for assets funded by them (eg
SLIPs) as opposed to being funded by departmental budgets. The board requests
that consideration be given to including a statement on this matter in the
section on “group of activities” on pages 35/36 of the table.
CARRIED
|
