Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include:

· Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body

· Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees

· Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are the responsibility of the Auckland Development Committee)

· Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

· Operational matters including:

o Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities

o Stopping of roads

o Public Works Act matters

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr CE Fletcher and Cr SL Stewart have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 7 April 2016, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 June 2016

Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) - approval to adopt

File No.: CP2016/10048

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek adoption of the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

Executive summary

2. On 7 May 2015 the Budget Committee approved a review of the BID Policy (2011) to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for the Auckland Council BID programme team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

3. On 3 December 2015 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a draft version of the updated BID policy for consultation, as per resolution number REG/2015/103.

4. The primary objective for reviewing the 2011 policy was to clarify and confirm programme roles, responsibilities and accountability. There will be changes to the roles of the different partner groups in the new service delivery model.

5. BID programmes are delivered by business associations, with core funding being provided via a targeted rate collected by Auckland Council. The business associations are independent incorporated societies, and not governed by Auckland Council.

6. Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) provides the strategic context for BID programmes (EDS Action 1.3.5), although there is no documented strategic direction for the programme. Staff will consider the strategic direction for the Auckland BID Programme as part of the BID Partnership team’s work programme.

7. The key differences between the 2011 and 2016 versions of the BID policy relate to defining partner roles; accountability; issues and concerns resolution; and increasing the minimum targeted rate amount for new BID programmes from $50,000 (2011) to $120,000 (2016). These changes are discussed further at paragraphs 23 and 24 of this report.

8. Business associations operating existing BID programmes, local boards and key internal and external stakeholders have had opportunities to input into the development of the BID Policy (2016). The policy has been amended to respond to feedback received.

9. Officers have aligned the policy with Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework and have incorporated feedback from both the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua Department.

10. Staff have also developed the Policy Operating Standards (focused on operational management of BID programmes). These Operating Standards set out how the policy will be implemented at an operational level. They will continue to be refined over time to reflect best practice. The Operating Standards have been included in the agenda under separate cover for the committee’s information.

11. The BID (Policy) 2016 and service delivery model, subject to stakeholder feedback, are to become operational on 1 July 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to approve any final amendments to the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) resulting from changes agreed at the meeting, and/or any minor editorial changes.

Comments

BID programmes – strategic context and direction

12. Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) provides the strategic context for BID programmes. EDS action 1.3.5 states:

o Deliver the Auckland Business Improvement District (BID) programme by engaging in activities (either jointly or separately) that enhance business improvement outcomes at a local level.

13. BID programmes are established to develop local business prosperity and economic development. They are defined by a BID programme agreement between each business association and Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID policy.

14. BID programmes are based on Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate to provide core funding to business associations using powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The business associations, which are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council, deliver the BID programmes.

15. During the development of BID Policy (2016) it became clear that, although the EDS provides a strategic context for the Auckland BID Programme and that there is implicit support from Auckland Council to continue with the Programme, there is no documented strategic direction.

16. Staff will consider the strategic direction for the Auckland BID Programme as part of the BID Partnership team’s work programme. This work will consider the direction for the overall programme, and will not replace or duplicate any local economic development plans or local board outcomes relating to BID programmes.

17. This work will also consider the benefits of the BID programme, and what it adds to Auckland. It will also help determine the activities and initiatives that will add most value to the programme. This will assist with business planning and allocation of Auckland Council’s resources in the future.

BID Policy (2016)

18. On 7 May 2015 the Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for Auckland Council BID Programme Team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per Budget Committee resolution below:

Resolution number BUD/2015/62

MOVED by Chairperson LCM Brown, seconded by Cr AJ Anae:

That the Budget Committee:

a) approve Option 3, Differential Services, Needs Based Model, as the service

delivery model for the Business Improvement District (BID) Partnership

Programme from 1 July 2016.

b) approve the review of the BID Policy by 1 July 2016 to be undertaken in

collaboration with Business Improvement Districts and local boards.

19. The May 2015 Budget Committee resolution followed several months’ consultation and engagement with business associations and local boards. This enabled staff to develop a number of options to present to the committee and recommend Option 3 as the best option for service delivery based on the feedback received.

20. On 3 December 2015 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a draft version of the updated BID policy for consultation with business associations operating BID programmes, and other existing stakeholders, as per resolution number REG/2015/103.

Differences between BID Policy 2011 and 2016 and feedback received

21. BID Policy (2016) establishes partner roles and accountability for the Auckland BID Programme and will replace the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (2011), from 1 July 2016.

22. BID Policy (2016):

o Establishes high-level principles

o Outlines why BID programmes are established and what they are trying to achieve

o Defines partner roles and accountability.

23. There are a number of key themes for policy change that have helped shape the development of BID Policy (2016). The themes have been discussed as part of the consultation process with local boards, business associations operating BID programmes and key stakeholders.

24. The themes relate to:

a) Definition of partner roles. The roles under the proposed policy are summarised in the table below:

Partner	Roles
Business associations: o Board o Manage-ment	Governance and decision-making requirements for the BID programme including BID programme strategic direction (in partnership with the local board(s)) and reporting and accountability requirements (policy and constitution related) Fulfill operational management of a BID programme – a key role is to progress projects and initiatives, as per the business association’s business or strategic plan.
The Governing body: o Governing Body (as a whole) o Ward councillors	Allocated governance and decision-making: · Approval of the BID Policy (2016) · Setting the targeted rates as part of council annual budget process. No allocated role, however, ward councillors may have a relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their ward, as part of key stakeholder engagement - noting that local boards have the primary decision-making role and relationships with business associations operating BID programmes in their area.
Local boards: o Local board (as a whole) o Local board representative on business association board	Allocated governance and decision-making: · BID programme strategic direction (in partnership with the business association) · Establishment of new BID programmes within the parameters set by this policy · Recommending BID programme targeted rates to the governing body. Other BID policy-related governance roles such as approval of BID programme expansions, dis-establishments, amalgamations and rating mechanism changes; dealing with BID programme problems The local board representative appointed to liaise with a business association operating a BID programme ensures there is a direct link between Auckland Council and the operation of the BID programme.
Auckland Council (organisation) and council-controlled organisations (CCOs), including: o The BID programme team o Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED)	Responds to requests for service relating to BID programmes: Overview of the Auckland BID Programme on behalf of Auckland Council, including programme development and governance and accountability of individual BID programmes, as outlined in this policy. ATEED’s predominant activity with BID programmes is mainly at an individual company level. ATEED has a role to advise local boards on economic development matters. This may include the development of projects and initiatives that directly or indirectly involve BID programmes.

Partner

Roles

Business associations:

o Board

o Manage-ment

Governance and decision-making requirements for the BID programme including BID programme strategic direction (in partnership with the local board(s)) and reporting and accountability requirements (policy and constitution related)

Fulfill operational management of a BID programme – a key role is to progress projects and initiatives, as per the business association’s business or strategic plan.

The Governing body:

o Governing Body (as a whole)

o Ward councillors

Allocated governance and decision-making:

· Approval of the BID Policy (2016)

· Setting the targeted rates as part of council annual budget process.

No allocated role, however, ward councillors may have a relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their ward, as part of key stakeholder engagement - noting that local boards have the primary decision-making role and relationships with business associations operating BID programmes in their area.

Local boards:

o Local board (as a whole)

o Local board representative on business association board

Allocated governance and decision-making:

· BID programme strategic direction (in partnership with the business association)

· Establishment of new BID programmes within the parameters set by this policy

· Recommending BID programme targeted rates to the governing body.

Other BID policy-related governance roles such as approval of BID programme expansions, dis-establishments, amalgamations and rating mechanism changes; dealing with BID programme problems

The local board representative appointed to liaise with a business association operating a BID programme ensures there is a direct link between Auckland Council and the operation of the BID programme.

Auckland Council (organisation) and council-controlled organisations (CCOs), including:

o The BID programme team

o Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED)

Responds to requests for service relating to BID programmes:

Overview of the Auckland BID Programme on behalf of Auckland Council, including programme development and governance and accountability of individual BID programmes, as outlined in this policy.

ATEED’s predominant activity with BID programmes is mainly at an individual company level. ATEED has a role to advise local boards on economic development matters. This may include the development of projects and initiatives that directly or indirectly involve BID programmes.

b) Accountability - based on the following principle:

· The responsibility, accountability and reporting for the targeted rate funding and service delivery should sit at the appropriate level. For the BID programme that means:

o Business associations are accountable to ensure that BID programme members receive services outlined in their strategic and business plans, and for the usage of targeted rate funds received.

o Local boards are accountable to their constituents that the BID programme targeted rate money has been spent as intended i.e. as set out in the business association’s strategic and business plans.

o Auckland Council and CCOs are accountable for the services provided in support of BIDs.

· The policy provides clarity on audit scope and timing, eg, audits every two years for smaller BID programmes; definition of BID programme key performance indicators, and definition of reporting requirements by business associations and council’s BID programme team to the governing body and local boards.

c) Issues resolution – providing options to assist with issue resolution and procedures for handling more serious concerns. The proposed policy gives council more scope to deal with serious concerns.

d) Ensuring that new BID programmes have sufficient scale – increasing the baseline level of funding for new BID programmes from $50,000 (2011) to $120,000 (2016), and setting out criteria for establishment of BID programmes smaller than this.

25. Attachment C provides detailed feedback received regarding the key themes for change and how this has been reflected in the draft policy.

Consultation to date

26. The consultation process for BID Policy (2016) commenced in September 2015. Partners and stakeholders have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback. Paragraph 27 outlines engagement with local boards. Attachment D provides further details of the consultation undertaken.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. Local boards have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback including:

· A memo was sent to local board members and councillors on 16 September 2015 outlining the purpose and proposed process for developing the policy

· Following the memo, officers provided a briefing to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on 28 September 2015

· During September and October 2015, officers attended 19 local board workshops to seek feedback on the proposed key themes for policy change

· A second memo was sent to local board members on 1 December 2015, providing an update on the policy development process, attaching the draft BID Policy (2016) and a summary of local board and business association feedback to date

· During March 2016 a report was presented to all 21 local board meetings to seek formal feedback on a revised draft policy. Details of all local board feedback received can be found at Attachment D

· Local board chairs and ED portfolio holders were also invited to attend workshops with Regional Strategy and Policy Committee members in November 2015 and April and May 2016.

28. Throughout the revision of the Policy, several local boards have expressed concern about the level of operational support within council for the BID programme. These comments do not relate directly to the policy, but rather, council’s ability to implement the policy. Staff will monitor the implementation of the new operational model, and assess whether there is adequate resource.

29. The Orakei local board has indicated that it does not support the policy, although it is supportive of BIDs and business associations. The Orakei Local Board’s view was that the review should have been more fundamental, and not just limited to the Policy.

Māori impact statement

30. Officers have worked with Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua Department, who have provided feedback on the draft BID Policy (2016). Reflecting this feedback, Policy Part 1 Section 1.0 and Part 2 Appendix 6 now states that the policy and Auckland BID Programme have been developed to align with Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework - particularly the “Enable Māori outcomes” driver, which articulates the council’s role in enabling opportunities for Māori to contribute to the social, cultural, economic and environmental successes of Auckland.

31. The Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat also provided feedback on the draft policy and the following amendments have been made:

· Policy Part 2 Section 7.1 - which relates to BID programme partnership opportunities, has been amended to investigate and pilot opportunities to provide assistance to Māori businesses or facilitate Māori economic development. There is likely to be a geographical focus for this work, as a significant proportion of Māori live in the south and west Auckland

· Part 2 Appendix 6 and Section 7.1 - now make reference to the transformation shift outlined in the Auckland Plan of significantly lifting social and economic outcomes for Māori and the cross-cutting theme (iwi/Māori economic powerhouse) in the Economic Development Strategy.

Implementation

32. The BID (Policy) 2016 and the new BID Programme Team service delivery model are intended to become operational on 1 July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	BID Policy (2016) Part 1 Policy Principles	15
b View	BID Policy (2016) - Part 2 Policy Operating Standards (Under Separate Cover)
c View	BID Policy (2016) - key differences and feedback received	29
d View	BID Policy (2016) - consultation undertaken	31
e View	BID Policy (2016) - local board feedback received (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 June 2016

Auckland Council Submission on Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2

File No.: CP2016/10183

Purpose

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Government Administration Select Committee on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2 (see Attachment A).

Executive summary

2. The Government Administration Select Committee called for submissions on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2 (the proposed bill) on 12 May 2016.

3. It is important that Auckland Council make a submission to support and help strengthen the proposed bill as the next step in improving the quality of existing homes in need of retrofitting.

4. The council strongly supports the intent of the bill to ensure that every rental home in New Zealand meets minimum quality standards, including heating, ventilation and insulation. Requiring landlords to comply with quality requirements should not create further hardship for low income tenants through increased rents.

5. We recommend improvements to further strengthen the legislation and regulations. We recommend that:

· The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment add random auditing to ensure compliance with the regulations.

· The standard set for all insulation, including upgrades to existing insulation, should be the current Building Code standard.

· To support human health, adequate methods of heating must be fixed, effective and efficient, and must exclude unflued gas heaters.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Government Administration Select Committee on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2 (see Attachment A).

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the committee to approve any final amendments to the submission resulting from changes agreed at the meeting.

Comments

Background

6. Auckland Council has previously submitted on a range of bills to make homes warmer and drier, including on the government’s Residential Tenancies Act Amendment Bill and regulations last summer, which addresses insulation and fire alarms only.

7. The government’s bill awaits third reading largely unchanged. In its current form, it does not take up any of the council’s recommendations. The first provisions of the government’s bill will come into effect 1 July 2016.

8. The Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2 (the proposed bill) passed the first reading and was referred to the select committee on 12 May 2016. It covers a wider range of standards than the government’s bill, most notably heating.

9. Submissions on the proposed bill are due to the Government Affairs Select Committee on 23 June 2016.

Previous submissions

10. The recommended submission echoes the council’s previous position to make homes warmer and drier. Because the proposed bill asks the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set a wider range of standards, in this submission, Auckland Council also states that efficient and effective fixed heating is required in rental homes and that unflued gas heaters are not “adequate” due to their unhealthy emissions.

Risks associated with recommended position

11. If rental quality standards are too onerous for landlords to meet, they may remove their properties from the rental market, or raise rents. Either would put more pressure on over- stretched low-income renters, particularly in Auckland. On the other hand, low-income tenants are those most vulnerable to housing-related illnesses.

12. To mitigate this risk, the submission recommends that Section 28 and Section 28A of the Act could be amended to define work to meet the new standards as “necessary” and therefore not eligible for increases in rent upon completion.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Due to time constraints, local board views were obtained through feedback on previous formal policy positions on housing quality. Eleven of 21 local boards referred to housing quality in their local board plans, and four boards have undertaken their own projects with landlords.

14. The council’s June submission on the proposed bill and the January submission on the government’s bill will be forwarded to all local boards for information.

Māori impact statement

15. Mana whenua of Auckland have indicated in submissions to Auckland Council that quality affordable homes with minimum standards for energy and water efficiency are critical for Māori wellbeing, as is security of tenure. The Productivity Commission found that Māori as a group experience disproportionately worse housing. This submission aims to improve energy efficiency and security of tenure, while safeguarding affordability.

A draft of the submission was sent to the Independent Māori Statutory Board for review and comment.

Implementation

16. There are no implementation requirements as a result of the decision in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council proposed submission on Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No 2	35

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Lonsdale - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 June 2016

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Army Bay - Negotiation Outcomes

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains information provided by the Crown to council in confidence on the understanding the information is negotiation sensitive between Hapū / Iwi and the Crown. If confidential information is made available, it will prejudice both those negotiations and the provision of similar information to council in the future.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Land acquisition for stormwater management Francis Street, Grey Lynn

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information relating to property prices. .

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information relating to property prices. .

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Mr Kris MacDonald
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr John Watson
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee

No.	Title	Page
a	Water fluoridation memo (Under Separate Cover)
b	Publications from the Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) (Under Separate Cover)
c	Seniors housing: Issue identification paper (Under Separate Cover)
d	Social responsibility provisions in Commercial Sponsorships Policy (Under Separate Cover)

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer