|
Resolution number RODTP/2016/12
MOVED
by Chairperson PM Pirrie, seconded by Deputy Chairperson SR Garner:
That the Rodney
Local Board Transport, Planning and Infrastructure Committee:
a) provide
the following general feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District
(BID) Policy 2016:
(i) supports
the drafting of a new BID policy and considers that it is an improvement on
the BID Policy (2011) to have the operating details removed from the policy
document.
(ii) the
approach taken in the policy to reduce the bureaucracy around BID management
is supported, as is the new policy’s approach to minimal interference by the
council in day to day BID processes.
(iii) the
principle that BIDs should be allowed to manage their own activities as they
(and their members) see fit and that, in principle, the council should only
act as the target rate collector for the BIDs is supported.
(iv) the
policy would benefit from the creation of an executive summary (or quick
reference guide), particularly one that can be used by BID’s and local boards
for quick reference on the varying roles and responsibilities etc. A similar
executive summary should be prepared for “Part 2 – Policy Operations
Standards”.
(v) council
should consider discounted fees for BIDs that fund and deliver public events
such as permit fees for parades etc. This should be inserted into the policy,
which should recognise that when a BID undertakes those activities for the
community it ultimately saves the council money. Offering cost savings would
encourage BIDs to undertake those events and, in turn, to be involved in the
community.
b) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID) Policy
2016 relating to ongoing BID support:
(i)
Whilst the approach taken
in the policy for minimal council interference in BIDs is appreciated, BIDs
require ongoing council service and support to be available to them should
they need it, in order to help them remain viable and sustainable. This
resourcing requirement should be reflected in the policy.
(ii)
It is unclear in the
policy and operation standards who BIDs can contact if they require
assistance from council. Local boards are not resourced (nor do they have the
expertise) to fulfil this role. BIDs will liaise with and help each other,
but the council must also support BIDs or the lack of support could
potentially undermine current relationships with existing BIDs.
c) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy 2016 relating to the local boards role and strategy:
(i)
the policies greater
emphasis on collaborative relationships between local boards and the business
associations running the BID programmes is strongly supported. In particular,
that the policy notes the benefits of such relationships, considering that
BID programmes and local boards are both trying to achieve better local
economic development outcomes in the same place.
(ii)
the greater clarity
provided about the role of local board representatives on BID programme
boards is supported, however, most of the relevant content is included the
operating standards and it suggests that the principles of this role be
included in the policy itself. These include voting rights of the local board
representative and that the nature of the role played by the local board
representative is at the discretion of the business association.
d) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy 2016 relating to Section 1.3 – Key Partners:
(i)
the responsibilities of
the parties involved (local boards, business associations and the governing
body) needs to be refined, with greater clarity provided on the obligations
on accounts, reporting, audits etc.
(ii)
Clarification is needed
on the process and policy with emerging BIDs as no detail exists on the level
of support available for an emerging BID, or how those BIDs might be made to
function efficiently and become fully established. The policy should
recognise that some business associations need help gathering initial
momentum to start the process to form a BID and provide some detail on what
that help might be.
e) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy 2016 relating Section 1.7 – Auckland BID Programme Alignment:
(i)
the BID programme
alignment processes needs to reflect the overall intention of the BID policy
to be more ‘hands off’ leaving the BID members to decide how the BID should
function and whether the BID is successful.
(ii)
The wording in section
1.7 requires BIDs to align with all council plans, which is overly
restrictive and counter to the “hands off” philosophy.
(iii)
The BID should be
recognised as independent and responsible to their own members and not a
‘part of’ council, nor required, only encouraged, to align with council
plans.
f) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy 2016 relating to Section 2.0 – Roles and Responsibilities:
(i)
local boards should not
have key decision making responsibilities for the strategic direction of the
BID. The relationship should be that of a partnership to align local board
priorities and BID priorities where possible as is currently the case. Table
2 should be amended to note that both the BID and the local board have a
responsibility to “work together” to make this intended partnership clearer.
(ii)
in keeping with the
partnership approach, allowing BIDs to take the lead in their own success the
policy should be clear that responsibility for the BID programme, including
its successes and activities, ultimately sits with the BID. If BIDs want to
move in a different direction to the local board, or if it wants to expand
(or amalgamate with another BID), that should be up to the BID(s), not the
local board.
(iii)
Table 2 of the policy,
summarising the roles and responsibilities of the key partners in the BID
programmes should be amended to clarify the role of local board in BID
disestablishment and amalgamations of BID programmes.
g) provide the following
feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016
relating to Accountability:
(ii)
the retention of KPIs for
BIDs, which is also in the existing BID Policy (2011) is supported. The policy
should require KPIs to be meaningful, measurable and aligned to the outcomes
in the business association’s strategic plan, using reporting to the local
board as a mechanism to determine the effectiveness of a BID programme, which
would otherwise be difficult for a local board to determine.
(ii)
clarification is sought
regarding the purpose of a BID deputation in Table 3 and whether the local
board are being asked to approve a report presented or merely to note it as
the local board should not approve reports presented via a deputation.
(iii)
a deputation from a BID,
detailing successes and providing an update, will always be welcome, however,
the council, at a minimum, needs to provide a formal agenda report to enable
a “sanity check” of BID activity to ensure that obligations under the
partnership agreement are met, including KPIs.
(iv)
council needs to ensure
that the BID is aware of its obligations at the operational level, not at the
governance (local board) level. This will require council officer involvement
with the BIDs and forms part of the ongoing support noted above.
(v)
references to “grant
funding” throughout the policy are confusing as targeted rates are not grants
as communities generally understand them. These references should be replaced
with “targeted rate” in order to alleviate any confusion.
(vi)
The penultimate paragraph
on page 24 of the policy, starting “Auckland Council and its CCOs deliver…”
requires clarification to better state where the accountability lies; i.e. to
the BIDs or ratepayers.
h) provide
the following feedback on the proposed Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy 2016 relating to Rating Mechanisms:
(i) reference to Special General Meetings
(SGMs) in section 5 should be removed as although a change can be made
through a BID’s constitution, the policy should not explicitly highlight that
changes can be made at any time as it may promotes instability in a BID.
i) delegate to the Chairperson and Deputy
Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board Transport, Planning and
Infrastructure Committee to provide any additional feedback that
the local board deems necessary.
CARRIED
|
