|
Albert-Eden
Local Board
03 May 2017
|
|
Annual
Budget 2017/2018 consultation feedback report for the Albert-Eden Local Board
File No.: CP2017/07354
Purpose
1. The
purpose of this report is to:
· present
feedback on the Albert-Eden Local Board’s (the local board) proposed
local projects and advocacy initiatives and the regional topics received
through the Annual Budget 2017/2018 public consultation
· inform
the local board’s decisions on projects and priorities and setting
budgets as part of its 2017/2018 Local Board Agreement.
Executive
summary
2. Public
consultation on the Annual Budget 2017/2018 was undertaken between 27 February
and 27 March 2017. Feedback was sought on the local board’s
proposed projects and advocacy initiatives and five key regional issues.
3. 8,058
submissions were received on the Annual Budget 2017/2018. Of this, the
local board received 482 submissions that commented on both the proposed local
projects and regional issues. This equates to eight per cent of all submissions
received across the region.
4. Feedback
was sought on the local board’s proposed projects and advocacy items and
the five key regional issues.
5. Regional
issues consulted on as part of the 2017/2018 annual budget process include
rates increases, rating stability, paying for tourism promotion, paying for
housing infrastructure, paying council staff a living wage and other changes
for 2017/2018 (regarding waste management and charges, the mass transit
network, SkyPath implementation, collaborations on reducing homelessness and
the rural fire service).
6. Local
boards may wish to provide feedback on these issues for consideration by the
Finance and Performance Committee.
7. The
following tables outline the key findings from the public consultation.
|
Local project or advocacy
item
|
Public consultation feedback
|
|
Priorities for 2017/2018
|
· 38%
yes
· 19%
no
· 43%
partial
|
|
Advocate to the Governing Body for funding to develop a
high-quality nine hole course to progress the implementation of the
Chamberlain Park Master Plan
|
· 27%
yes
· 52%
no
· 20%
not sure
· 1%
other
|
|
Advocate to the Governing Body for the expansion of the
Uptown Business Improvement District (BID)
|
· 48%
yes
· 9%
no
· 43%
not sure
|
|
Advocate to the Governing Body for light rail as a
preferred mass transit solution for central Auckland
|
· 70%
yes
· 17%
no
· 12%
not sure
· 1%
other
|
|
Regional Issue
|
Public consultation feedback
|
|
Rates increases
|
· 57% we have the
balance about right with a 2.5% increase
· 22% do more with
a higher rates increase
· 20% do less with
a lower rate increase
· 1% other
|
|
Rating stability
|
· 67% agree
· 19% disagree
· 12% not sure
· 2% other option
|
|
Paying for tourism promotion
|
· 70% agree
· 18% agree
· 10% not sure
· 2% other option
|
|
Paying for housing infrastructure
|
· 67% agree
· 11% disagree
· 20% not sure
· 3% other option
|
|
Paying council staff a living wage
|
· 65% agree
· 23% disagree
· 10% not sure
· 2% other option
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) Receive
the public feedback on its local projects and advocacy initiatives from
submitters on the draft Annual Budget 2017/2018;
b) Provide any views it may have on regional financial policy issues.
|
Comments
Overview of the Annual Budget
2017/2018 public consultation
8. Public
consultation on the Annual Budget 2017/2018 was undertaken between 27 February
and 27 March 2017. Feedback was sought on the local board’s
proposed projects and advocacy items and the five key regional issues. The
proposed local projects and advocacy items were:
· Improvements
to Te Auaunga - Oakley Creek
· Upgrades
to paths and development at Coyle Park
· Upgrading
our community centres at Pt Chevalier and Epsom
· Establishing
a future giant trees programme which will create iconic natural landmarks and
landscapes
· Empowering
our communities by supporting community groups to provide initiatives and
programmes that seek to improve safety in our neighbourhoods and town centres,
create vibrant community networks and promote inclusiveness for our migrant
communities
· Concluding
the upgrade of the Mt Albert town centre
· Planning for
village centre upgrades in Sandringham and Greenwoods Corner
· Renewal
of our existing assets such as community facilities, playgrounds, paths and
park furniture
· Advocate
to the Governing Body for funding to develop a high-quality nine hole course to
progress the implementation of the Chamberlain Park Master Plan
· Expansion
of the Uptown Business Improvement District (BID)
· Advocate
to the Governing Body for light rail as a preferred mass transit solution for
central Auckland.
9. The
five key regional issues for feedback were rates increases, rating stability,
paying for tourism promotion, paying for housing infrastructure and paying
council staff a living wage.
10. The council
provided a suite of options for the public to provide feedback on the local and
regional consultation topics. This included online through Shape Auckland
and Facebook, completing a physical feedback form or in person by attending a
Have Your Say event.
Summary of submissions
11. Overall there
were 8,058 submissions to the Annual Budget from the whole of the Auckland
Region. A summary of these submissions are contained in Attachment A.
12. There were
482 submissions made from within the local board area, which is the highest
total number of submissions out of all the local board areas, and equates to
eight per cent of all submissions.
13. 96
submissions were received from outside the local board area which commented on
Albert-Eden local priorities or advocacy items.
14. Unless
specified, the remainder of the report relates to the submissions which were
received from within the Albert-Eden Local Board area.
15. A copy of the
submissions from the Albert-Eden Local Board area are contained in Attachment E
(9 volumes). A copy of the submissions from outside Albert-Eden Local Board
area which commented on Albert-Eden local priorities or advocacy items are
contained in Attachment F.
16. Most of the
submissions were made using the online form (71 per cent), with some made using
a hard copy (26 per cent) and a few (3 per cent) made using a non form method.
17. Most of the
submissions were from individuals (98 per cent) with a few (2 per cent) from organisations.
18. There were no
submissions made from within the local board area by multi-individuals or Iwi/
Māori groups. There as one submission made by an Iwi/ Māori group
from outside the local board area which commented on Albert-Eden local priorities
or advocacy items.
Demographic profile of
submissions
19. Submissions
were made by people from a range of different age groups, genders and
ethnicities.
20. Detail of the
demographic profile of submitters is contained in Attachment B.
21. It should be noted
that the demographic information is not representative of all
submissions. This is due to the demographic questions being optional and
therefore some respondents chose to not respond.
Feedback on local projects
22. Submitters
were asked about the priorities for their local board area.
Question 6b: In your opinion, have we got our priorities
right for this local board area in 2017/2018?
The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the
local board area:
23. Submitters
were then prompted with:
Please tell us what you think we should change?
Key themes made in this section from the people who
responded yes include:
· Support
for Mt Albert town centre upgrade.
· Support
for a fair distribution of spending and work across the Board area, particularly
where there are areas of higher social deprivation or where work hasn’t
occurred in a while.
· Support
for a Future Giant trees programme, as well as ensuring existing large trees
are protected.
· Support
for any improvements made to the transport network.
24. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded no include:
· Not
enough emphasis on improving transport, including cycling, walking, parking,
traffic and safety issues.
· Not
supporting spending being used on a Future Giants Trees programme.
· Not
supporting progressing the implementation of Chamberlain Park Master Plan.
· Not
supporting the expansion of the Uptown BID due to increased costs to businesses
due to the targeted rate.
· Not
supporting spending on replacing park furniture when this is not necessary or
an upgrade has recently occurred.
25. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded partial include:
Priorities which submitters wanted kept or added
include:
· Future
Giant Trees programme.
· Improvements
in Mt Albert, Sandringham and Point Chevalier town centres.
· Improvements
in transport, including walking, cycling (particularly making connections in
networks) and light rail.
· An
increased focus on parks.
· Support
for business development.
· Environmental
programmes including stopping the use of glyphosate in parks and roadsides,
increased recycling and community gardens, and improvements to Waititiko/Meola
Creek and Te Auaunga/Oakley Creek.
· Social
development and support including for youth and migrants.
Priorities which were not supported by submitters
include:
· Changing
the golf course at Chamberlain Park.
· Provision
of golf in any Chamberlain Park redevelopment (i.e. the park should not include
golf, but instead include a public park).
· The
Future Giant Trees programme.
· Spending
being used on community centres.
· Light
rail.
26. Overall there
was a very low response rate on the local priorities specifically, with only 9
responses in total. Most information is captured above in the responses to the
overall mix of priorities.
Feedback on advocacy
initiatives
27. Overall there
was a high response to the three advocacy items.
28. If submitters
chose to make their submission online they were presented with a summary
question for the advocacy items. The wording of the questions on the advocacy
initiatives from the online and hard copy surveys are contained in Attachment
C.
Advocate to the Governing Body for funding to develop a
high-quality nine hole golf course to progress the implementation of the
Chamberlain Park Master Plan
29. The responses
to advocating to the Governing Body for funding to develop a high-quality nine
hole course to progress the implementation of the Chamberlain Park Master Plan
were:
30. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded yes include:
· The
lack of green space in the local board area and the importance of providing
access for the community to Chamberlain Park.
· Providing
access to a wider range of people for a number of different uses, including
active and passive recreation.
· The
opportunity to provide cycling and walking connections to other green spaces,
pathways and roads.
31. Of the 202
responses which did not support this advocacy area 90 were accompanied by a
comment to further clarify why. Of those 90 comments 47 were around wanting to
keep the current golf course as it is (at 18 holes), while 25 were around not
wanting to provide golf at this site at all in the future. The remaining 18
comments were more general in nature and did not relate specifically to the
topic of the golf course.
32. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded no include:
· The
Master Plan should not change the current golf course:
- The 18-hole
golf course’s location is important at a regional scale, in relation to
other golf courses in Auckland.
- The golf
course provides a variety of people with access to golf, including working
class people and beginners, due to the affordable green fees and membership
costs.
- Lower-socioeconomic
groups will be most impacted by the reduction in the golf course as other golf
courses nearby have higher green fees and membership costs, which makes this an
equity and fairness issue.
- The golf
course provides a number of social, health and fitness benefits for adults, and
provides opportunities for young people to learn golf and play sport.
· The
Master Plan should not provide for the continued use of golf at Chamberlain
Park:
- Including a
golf course at Chamberlain Park only benefits a few people and restricts access
for the general community to use the park, which makes this an equity and
fairness issue.
33. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded not sure include:
· Providing
access for all to the park.
· Providing
opportunities for children to learn golf.
· Submitters
don’t play golf and so were unsure of their opinion on the Master Plan as
it impacts them less than other people.
Advocate to the Governing Body for the expansion of the
Uptown BID
34. The responses to Expansion of the Uptown Business Improvement
District (BID) were:
35. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded support include:
· Supporting
business development is a good thing.
36. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded do not support
include:
· Council
should not be involved in business activities.
· Increased
business development can negatively impact on the character of the area.
· Businesses
should not be required to have to pay more in their rates.
37. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded not sure include:
· Submitters
did not know enough information to provide comments, including information
about the geographical extent of the expansion or the consequences on the local
area.
Advocate to the Governing Body for light rail as the
preferred mass transit solution for the city centre
38. The responses
to Advocate to the Governing Body for light rail as a preferred mass transit
solution for central Auckland were:
39. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded yes include:
· Transport
is a huge issue in Auckland so anything which will go towards addressing the
problem is important.
· Mixed
mode transportation which are supported by and connected to other modes.
· Light
rail can contribute to addressing climate change and climate issues.
· Light
rail can contribute to addressing parking issues.
40. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded no include:
· Increased
congestion on roads with rail and cars occupying the same space.
· Negative
impacts on the local areas, houses and town centres.
· Large
cost.
· Inflexible
routes, unlike buses, which can be changed and respond to future needs and
preferences.
· Invest
once in heavy rail.
41. Key themes
made in this section from the people who responded not sure include:
· Unsure
if the benefits outweigh the large costs.
Feedback on five key regional issues
42. The
consultation on the proposed annual budget focused on five key issues, Issue 1:
Rates increases, Issue 2: Rating stability, Issue 3: Paying for tourism
promotion, Issue 4: Paying for housing infrastructure and Issue 5: Paying
council staff a living wage and other changes for 2017/2018
(regarding waste management and charges, the mass transit network, SkyPath
implementation, collaborations on reducing homelessness and the rural fire
service). The written feedback received from the local board area on
these key consultation topics is summarised below.
Issue 1: Rates increases
43. Aucklanders were
asked if we have the balance right with a 2.5 per cent average rates increase
or should we have a higher rates increase (3.5 per cent) and do more or a lower
rates increase (2 per cent) and do less.
Question 1: Delivering our planned investments and services
will require an average rates increase of 2.5 per cent for 2017/2018. A higher
rates increase would enable us to do more, while a lower rates increase would
mean we can do less. What do you think?
44. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the local board area.
Issue 2: Rating stability
45. Aucklanders
were asked if businesses should receive the same rates increase as residential
ratepayers in 2017/2018.
Question 2: The council has been adjusting the share of
general rates between businesses and residential ratepayers over time. This has
resulted in businesses having a smaller increase than residential ratepayers.
We are proposing that for 2017/2018 both should receive the same rates
increase. What do you think?
46. The graph below
gives an overview of the responses from the local board area.
Issue 3: Paying for tourism promotion
47. Aucklanders
were asked if they agree or disagree with the proposed targeted rate on
accommodation providers to fund tourism promotion rather than from general
rates.
Question 3: The council spends $20‐30 million on
tourism promotion and major events each year. We are proposing to fund this
from a targeted rate on accommodation providers rather than general rates. What
do you think?
48. The graph below
gives an overview of the responses from the local board area.
Issue 4: Paying for housing
infrastructure
49. People were
asked if they supported changing our funding policy to allow infrastructure for
new housing developments to be funded by targeted rates alongside existing
growth charges, rather than ratepayers across Auckland.
Question 4: The council is proposing to change our
funding policy to allow infrastructure for new housing developments to be
funded by targeted rates, rather than ratepayers across Auckland. What do you
think?
50. The graph
below gives an overview of the responses from the local board area.
Issue 5: Paying council staff a living
wage
51. People were
asked if they support the council to implement a living wage policy over the
council term ending October 2019 to ensure all council staff can afford typical
living costs. This would be funded from savings within the existing budgets.
Question 5: The council is proposing to implement a
living wage policy over the council term ending October 2019 to ensure all
council staff can afford typical living costs. This would be funded from
savings within the existing budgets. What do you think?
52. The graph
below gives an overview of the responses from the local board area.
Feedback on other issues
53. In addition
to the five key regional issues and local priorities Auckland Council consulted
on other changes for 2017/18. The three changes which resulted in the highest
number of responses were:
· Collaborations
on reducing homelessness
· Transport
key projects
· Regional
governance and support.
Feedback via social media channels
54. 60 comments
were received via social media, and all were on the topic of implementing the
Chamberlain Park Master Plan. Six comments were in support, with the remaining
54 not in support. These comments are contained in Attachment D.
Feedback from outside the
local board area on local board projects and priorities
55. 96
submissions were received from outside the local board area which commented on
local board priorities or advocacy items (Attachment F).
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
56. The local
board will need to consider any changes to their locally driven initiatives
budget or advocacy based on feedback from the Annual Budget 2017/2018 public
consultation.
Māori
impact statement
57. The local
board’s proposed projects and advocacy initiatives for 2017/2018 have the
potential to make a positive impact on Māori and can respond to Auckland
Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing and delivering
Māori outcomes. For example the:
· accommodation
support fund can support rates payments of marae,
· parks
development programme provides active and healthy lifestyle options for
everyone, including Māori
· community
grants budget could support events and programmes relating to Matariki.
Implementation
58. There are no
implementation issues at this stage of the Annual Budget’s development.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Annual Budget 2017/2018 consultation regional results
|
19
|
|
b⇩
|
Submission detail
|
25
|
|
c⇩ 
|
Online and hard copy versions of advocacy items
question wording
|
33
|
|
d⇩ 
|
Comments received via social media
|
35
|
|
e⇨
|
Submissions received from Albert-Eden Local Board area
(Volumes 1 - 9) (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
f⇨
|
Submissions received from outside Albert-Eden Local
Board area which commented on Albert-Eden Local Board priorities or advocacy
items (Volumes 1 - 2) (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Emma Reed - Local Board Advisor Albert-Eden
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
03 May 2017
|
|
Annual Budget 2017/2018
File No.: CP2017/07364
Purpose
1. This
report seeks decisions and input from the Albert-Eden Local Board on a range of
annual budget related matters, including locally driven initiatives (LDI) and
advocacy.
Executive
summary
2. This report seeks decisions and input from the Albert-Eden
Local Board on a range of annual budget related matters,
including:
a) making
decisions on:
i. final
LDI budgets, within funding envelopes
ii. advocacy.
b) making
recommendations to the governing body on other financial matters such as:
i. release of local board specific reserve funds
ii. LDI opex projects for deferral to 2017/2018.
3. Albert-Eden
Local Board views on these matters will be considered in discussions between
the local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 May; and by the
governing body prior to adopting the Annual Budget 2017/2018.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) agree
its 2017/2018 locally driven initiatives operating expenditure budgets as
contained in Attachment A;
b) agree
its advocacy initiatives for inclusion in the 2017/2018 Local Board
Agreement;
c) agree
one key priority for the organisation to work on (and potentially a common
issue);
d) recommend
the release of $85,491 from the Parking Reserve Fund for a parking project on
Alba Road, Epsom;
e) recommend
the deferral of 2016/2017 locally driven initiatives operating expenditure
budgets to 2017/2018 as contained in Attachment B.
|
Comments
Locally Driven Initiatives
(LDI)
4. Local
boards are requested to agree the level of funding for each group of activity
(Attachment A). The expected delivery outcomes are further detailed in work
programmes which will be reported against throughout 2017/2018.
5. Local
boards can defer those projects that are funded by LDI where there was an
agreed scope and cost but have not been delivered. The Local Board may
wish to resolve 2016/2017 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to
2017/2018 (Attachment B).
Advocacy
6. This
triennium a three-year approach is proposed for considering initiatives that
local boards wish to progress that are unable to be funded by LDI. Such an
approach seeks to better utilise the annual budget, Long-term Plan (LTP) and
local board plan processes to progress and advise on a narrower range of local
board initiatives, in a more comprehensive way.
7. The
proposed new approach involves:
· as
part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, local boards begin narrowing their
priorities to predominately one key advocacy initiative, and one initiative
held in common with other local boards, for further research and consideration
· Council
departments provide local boards with information to help inform their position
on these initiatives (in essence, developing a business case for them)
· based
on this information, local boards develop the case for their advocacy further
by testing ideas with the community in the local board plan process and other
engagement
· local
boards discuss priority initiatives with the Finance and Performance Committee
through the annual budget and LTP processes, supported by organisational advice
on the key initiative.
8. Local boards resolved on their key advocacy initiatives in December
2016. Local boards are requested to further consider and refine these at
workshops post consultation, and look to identify:
· one
key initiative, and potentially one initiative held in common with other local
boards, for business case development and to progress through the annual
budget, local board plan and LTP processes (Attachment C),
· other
advocacy initiatives to be included in the Local Board Agreements, as key
matters of importance to the local board.
9. Local
boards may now wish to agree on these advocacy priorities.
10. Discussions
with the Finance and Performance Committee will take place on 9 May.
Parking Reserve Funds
11. The former
Auckland City Council collected $85,491 under the contributions policy for the
provision of off-street parking. These funds were collected via cash
contributions from developers in lieu of parking provisions to be applied
towards off-street parking subsequently provided by the Council as the
opportunity arose. Auckland Council inherited this reserve at the time of
amalgamation and the funds are now available to the Albert-Eden Local Board to
be used to fund projects that provide off-street parking.
12. The Board is
considering a proposal for further parking on Alba Road, Epsom. This will
involve adding parallel parking spaces and a kerb build-out. If confirmed, the
Board’s resolution will be sent on to the Finance and Performance
Committee in May 2017 for the release of $85,491 from the Off-street Parking
Fund Reserve for delivery in the 2017/18 year.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
13. Local board
decisions and feedback are being sought in this report.
14. Local boards
play an important role in the development of the annual budget, and provide
views and information at key stages as council continues through the annual
budget process.
Māori
impact statement
15. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on
Māori. Local board agreements and the annual budget are important tools
that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.
Local board plans, which were developed in 2014 through engagement with the
community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities.There is a need to continue to build
relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider
Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and
Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn
can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s
decision-making processes.
Implementation
16. Feedback from the local boards will be provided to the Finance and
Performance Committee and governing body for consideration and adopting the
Annual Budget 2017/2018.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
LDI schedule for 2017/2018
|
49
|
|
b⇩ 
|
List of LDI projects to be carried forward
|
51
|
|
c⇩
|
Priority advocacy issue
|
53
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Emma Reed - Local Board Advisor Albert-Eden
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
03 May 2017
|
|
Mount Albert Grammar School Community Swimming Pool
Trust – Board Appointments
File No.: CP2017/07410
Purpose
1. To
obtain nominations from the Albert-Eden Local Board for appointments to the
Mount Albert Grammar School Community Swimming Pool Trust (the Trust).
Executive
summary
2. The
current terms of the Mount Albert Grammar School Community Swimming Pool Trust
Chair and trustees expire at June 30, 2017.
3. Because
of changes being made to the Trust Deed, the number of trustees to be appointed
by the Council is now likely to be two people plus the Chair.
4. Although
it is council policy that elected members are not appointed members of Council
Controlled Organisations (CCOs), for a mixture of historical reasons, the
current council-appointed trustees are all members of the Albert-Eden Local
Board. As there has been significant downscaling of the responsibilities of the
Trust, these roles are likely to be challenging to fill from the community.
Additionally, institutional memory will be valuable to the Trust going forward
so continued appointment of local board members may be the best option.
5. The
Albert-Eden Local Board is invited to provide nominations for the two trustee
appointments and the Chair appointment.
6. The
Trust Board has also requested that the council change the Trust Deed to
include one appointment from the Albert-Eden Local Board. This request is
not supported as there is a potential for a conflict of interest between the
positions of local board member and trust board member.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) Nominates
two people for appointment as trustees of the Mount Albert Grammar School
Community Swimming Pool Trust.
b) Nominates
a member of the community for appointment as the Chair of the Mount Albert
Grammar School Community Swimming Pool Trust.
c) Provides
feedback on any of the other changes proposed to the Mount Albert Grammar
School Community Swimming Pool Trust Deed.
|
Comments
Background
7. The
Mount Albert Grammar Community Swimming Pool Trust is a Council Controlled
Organisation (CCO) which was originally established as a collaboration between
Auckland City Council and Mount Albert Grammar School to provide a swimming
pool for the area.
8. During
the 2013-2016 term, Auckland Council assumed full responsibility for the
management and operation of the facility. Changes being made to the
governance structure to reflect the changed role of the Trust are almost
complete.
9. The
key changes, which have been approved by the Trustees and forwarded to the
School Board of Trustees and Auckland Council for final approval, are:
· To
reduce the number of trustees from seven to five; with the Council to appoint
the Chairperson and two other trustees
· To
remove the maximum term of six consecutive years for serving on the Trust.
These changes are being considered by the Mount Albert
Grammar School Board of Trustees 26 April 2017 and by Auckland Council 23 May
2017. They are expected to be approved.
10. Additionally,
the Trust has sought Auckland Council’s consideration that one of the
Council appointees be a member of the Albert-Eden Local Board. The commentary
on the resolution of the Trust states:
· “It
is the opinion of the Trustees that as the Albert-Eden Local Board represents
the local constituents and contributes funding to the operation of the swimming
pool complex, that one of the trustee appointments to the Trust should be from
the Albert-Eden Local Board.
· The
Trust recognises that Auckland Council’s internal policies may prevent
the appointment of elected members to trusts and other entities, however, the
Trustees wish this option to be considered first by Auckland Council, before
reverting to the fall-back position of simply two trustees appointed by
Auckland Council.”
11. This request
will be discussed further below. A copy of the resolutions of the Trust Board
is attached for information.
Trust Board appointments
12. Currently,
the four Auckland Council appointed trustees are:
· Robin
Arthur – re-appointed September 2016 until June 2017. Robin has advised
that he wishes to step down from the Board at the completion of his term.
· Glenda
Fryer – originally appointed May 2013 for a period of three years and
re-appointed September 2016 until June 2017.
· Graeme
Easte – originally appointed October 2013 for a period of three years and
re-apppointed September 2016 until June 2017.
· Margi
Watson – originally appointed November 2010 for a period of three years
and reappointed October 2013 and again September 2016 until June 2017.
13. As changes to
the Trust Deed are expected to be approved by late May 2017, nominations are
needed for the Chair and for two trustee vacancies. Should it transpire
that either the School Board of Trustees or Auckland Council does not approve
changes to the Trust Deed, a further nomination would be sought at that point.
Auckland Council policy
14. The
council’s Board Appointment and Remuneration Policy states that elected
members should not serve on the boards of CCOs unless there is a compelling
reason to do so. The rationale for this is that council is responsible for
monitoring the performance of CCOs, and should therefore maintain separation
from the board. Although the council does not actively monitor exempted CCOs,
if it became aware of any performance issue it would be required to act, so the
principle still applies.
15. Additionally,
changes will be needed to the Mount Albert Pool operations in the future to
meet predicted demand. At the point that planning moves to options, the
Albert-Eden Local Board will become key stakeholders and potentially decision
makers on behalf of their community.
16. Given that
the Trust Board has been established with a specified purpose, and that
Trustees must act in line with the purpose of the Trust, there is the potential
to be conflicts of views and interests between the Albert-Eden Local Board and
the Trust.
17. Another
relevant aspect of council policy is that, as a matter of good practice,
appointees should not be appointed for more than two consecutive terms of three
years each. However, the policy also states:
“Although regular board member rotation is encouraged,
terms exceeding six years will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The
council recognises that trustees often have valuable institutional knowledge
that organisations need to retain, and a limited pool of suitable candidates
for some trusts.”
18. Notwithstanding
the policy, the Chair and two Auckland Council-appointed trustees are members
of the Albert Eden Local Board and Margi Watson’s term now exceeds the
six year term. Their appointments to the trust have come about for different
historical reasons. Most recently, the appointing committee recognised the
challenges of recruiting new board members to the trust, given that the trust
was about to undergo changes arising from the governance review as well as the
value in retaining institutional memory through a time of change.
19. The changes
that have been made over the last three years to the management and operations
of the pool have considerably reduced the commitment required of the
trustees. Going forward, the Trust’s business will largely consist
of maintaining financial accounts and receiving reports from the council.
Trust Board meetings are likely to be contained to the minimum two per year, a
further governance change proposed by the Trust.
20. As the
Trust’s main function will be to monitor its small financial investments,
it will provide little opportunity for community-minded people to make a
contribution by serving as trustees. It may therefore be difficult to
attract suitable candidates for these positions.
21. In these
circumstances, a local board member or members serving on the Trust may be the
best option as it would retain institutional memory until decision on the
future of the pool are nearer.
22. Irrespective
of whether the appointees are local board members or not, the request from the
Trust Board to change the trust deed, so at least one of the appointees is an
Albert-Eden Local Board member, is not supported. As has been discussed
in paragraphs 15-16 there is the potential for a conflict of interest to arise
between these two roles in the future.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
23. The
Albert-Eden Local Board is invited to provide nominations for the two trustee
vacancies and the vacancy for Chair. Once this information is received, a
report will be prepared for the Appointments and Performance Review Committee
to make the new appointments.
24. The
Albert-Eden Local Board is also invited to provide feedback on any of the other
changes proposed to the Trust Deed, including the request to consider that one
of the appointees be a member of the Albert-Eden Local Board. However, as
this report will be considered 23 May 2017, any feedback will need to be
received by 8 May to be included in this report.
Māori
impact statement
25. While the
appointment process potentially provides an opportunity to diversify council
appointees to CCOs to include more Māori appointees, as is discussed at
paragraph 20, this particular Board does not provide a good opportunity for
developing governance experience or exercising good governance practice.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Attachment A
|
59
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Joy Hames – Head of Maori Relationships and
Governance
|
|
Authorisers
|
Alastair Cameron - Manager,CCO/External Partnerships
team
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
