I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 20
June 2017
9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
|
|
Finance and Performance Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Ross Clow
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Desley Simpson, JP
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
|
Cr Mike Lee
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
|
Cr Daniel Newman, JP
|
|
|
Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
|
Cr Dick Quax
|
|
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
Cr Greg Sayers
|
|
|
Cr Chris Darby
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
Cr Alf Filipaina
|
IMSB Chair David Taipari
|
|
|
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
|
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
|
|
|
Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
Cr Richard Hills
|
Cr John Watson
|
|
|
IMSB Member Terrence Hohneck
|
|
|
|
Cr Penny Hulse
|
|
|
|
Cr Denise Lee
|
|
(Quorum 11 members)
|
|
|
Mike Giddey
Senior Governance Advisor
13 June 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8143
Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
The purpose of the Committee is to:
(a) control and review
expenditure across the Auckland Council Group to improve value for money
(b) monitor the overall
financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and
Auckland Council Group
(c) make financial decisions
required outside of the annual budgeting processes
Key responsibilities include:
·
Advising and
supporting the mayor on the development of the Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual
Plan (AP) for consideration by the Governing Body including:
o
Local Board
agreements
o
Financial policy
related to the LTP and AP
o
Setting of rates
o
Preparation of the
consultation documentation and supporting information, and the consultation
process, for the LTP and AP
·
Monitoring
the operational and capital expenditure of the council parent organisation and
Auckland Council Group, and inquiring into any material discrepancies from
planned expenditure
·
Monitoring the
financial and non-financial performance targets, key performance indicators, and other
measures of the council
parent organisation and each Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to
inform the Committee’s judgement about the performance of each
organisation
·
Advising the mayor
on the content of the annual Letters of Expectations (LoE) to CCOs
·
Exercising
relevant powers under Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002, which relate
to the Statements of Intent of CCOs
·
Exercising
Auckland Council’s powers as a shareholder or given under a trust deed,
including but not limited to modification of constitutions and/or trust deeds,
granting shareholder approval of major transactions where required, exempting
CCOs, and approving policies relating to CCO and Co - governance
·
Approving the
financial policy of the Council parent organisation
·
Overseeing and
making decisions relating to an ongoing programme of service delivery reviews,
as required under section17A of the Local Government Act 2002
·
Establishing and
managing a structured approach to the approval of non-budgeted expenditure
(including grants, loans or guarantees) that reinforces value for money and an
expectation of tight expenditure control
·
Write-offs
·
Acquisition and
disposal of property, in accordance with the long term plan
·
Recommending the
Annual Report to the Governing Body
Powers
(a) All powers necessary to
perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:
a. approval of a
submission to an external body
b. establishment of
working parties or steering groups.
(b) The committee has the powers
to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to
make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.
(c) The committee does not have:
a. the power to
establish subcommittees
b. powers that the
Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).
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.
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 9
2 Declaration of
Interest 9
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 9
4 Petitions 9
5 Public Input 9
6 Local Board
Input 9
7 Extraordinary
Business 10
8 Notices of
Motion 10
9 Review of the
Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio 11
10 Panuku Development
Auckland Limited debt to equity conversion 19
11 Budget update June 2017 21
12 Finance and Performance
Committee - Information Report - 20 June 2017 23
13 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
14 Procedural
Motion to Exclude the Public 29
C1 The Woodhill Sands Trust -
Guarantee in Favour of ASB Bank Ltd 29
C2 Insurance Renewal - Proposed
Council Group Programme for 2017/2018 period 30
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had 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 Finance and Performance Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 1 June 2017, 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
Governance 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
There were no
notices of motion.
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
Review of
the Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio
File No.: CP2017/06773
Purpose
1. Review
of the Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio (DFAP).
Executive
summary
2. On
11 April 2017 the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to (Resolution
number FIN/2017/46) :
· endorse
a further review of the long term viability of the Diversified Financial Asset
Portfolio, given current balance sheet constraints and the need for capital to
fund infrastructure development
· note
that staff will report back on the long term viability of the Diversified
Financial Asset Portfolio, no later than 30 June 2017.
3. This
further review follows reviews undertaken by EY and Cameron Partners in October
2015 and a staff review in May 2016 as part of the budget review process.
4. Following
a resolution from the Finance and Performance Committee in May 2016,
$100 million was withdrawn from the DFAP in August 2016 and a further $100
million is due to be withdrawn from the DFAP during the 2017/18 financial year.
Following this withdrawal the balance of the DFAP will be approximately $130
million.
5. The
fund is not noted as a strategic asset on council’s balance sheet and is
not considered a significant asset under council’s significance policy.
6. The
divestment of the fund provides council with the opportunity to repay debt to
enable additional investment in infrastructure. However replacement liquidity
may be required to meet Treasury operating limits. Liquidity
is normally in the form of cash, other liquid assets or committed lines with
banks (also known as standby facilities). These provide assurance that
council can meet its financial obligations as they fall due.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
full divestment of the Diversified Financial Asset Portfolio with a target
completion date no later than 30 June 2018.
b) delegate
final authorisation to complete the withdrawal to the Chair of the Finance
and Performance Committee, the Chief Executive and the Group Chief Financial
Officer.
|
Comments
Revised
Policy
7. The DFAP is a diversified investment portfolio of New Zealand
and global equities, bonds and cash initially established by Auckland Regional
Council.
8. Responsibility
for DFAP sits with Auckland Council. It is governed by a Statement of
Investment Policy and Objective (SIPO) and managed by eight external fund
managers with oversight from JANA Investment Advisers (JANA), an independent
investment advisor.
9. Its
primary objective under the SIPO is “to form part of the liquidity policy
of council that comprises cash, standby facilities and the DFAP. This provides
a reserve fund that council can utilize”.
10. If the DFAP was liquidated to fund a wider Auckland or New Zealand
event, it is likely that financial markets would also be negatively impacted.
Therefore, when the funds are needed the most, there would be likely downward
pressure on the value of the DFAP, meaning DFAP is a less preferred form of liquidity
when compared to cash or committed bank lines.
11. The
DFAP’s specific investment objective is to achieve a net return exceeding
the Consumer Price Index plus 4.0 per cent over rolling ten-year periods. JANA
estimates an average annual 7.0 per cent return over rolling ten-year periods.
12. The DFAP is
currently valued at NZ$230 million and has returned 9.1 per cent per annum
since November 2010, in line with benchmark and ‘market’ returns.
The return for the financial year to 31 March 2017 is 5.8 per cent.
13. The fund is
not noted as a strategic asset on council’s balance sheet and is not
considered a significant asset under council’s significance policy
14. The Finance
and Performance Committee at its meeting on 13 May 2016 “recommended to
the Governing body that the Chief Executive, Group Chief Financial Officer and
the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee be authorised to drawdown,
if required up to $100 million per annum of the Diversified Financial
Asset portfolio for the 2016/17 and 2017/2018 financial years in order to manage
the debt ratios within prudent limits”.
15. Following
required approval, $100 million was drawn down in August 2016.
16. It
is forecast that the $100 million approved in last year’s budget will be
required to be drawn down in the 2017/2018 financial
year. Following this drawdown, approximately $130 million will remain in the
DFAP.
17. On
11 April 2017 the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to (Resolution
number FIN/2017/46) :
· endorse
a further review of the long term viability of the Diversified Financial Asset
Portfolio, given current balance sheet constraints and the need for capital to
fund infrastructure development
· note
that staff will report back on the long term viability of the Diversified
Financial Asset Portfolio, no later than 30 June 2017.
18. This
review follows the reviews undertaken by EY and Cameron Partners in 2015 and
the analysis undertaken by staff in May 2016 for the budget review process. The
conclusions reached by these reviews still remain
relevant given council’s ongoing balance sheet constraints.
EY
and Cameron Partners review
19. Both EY and Cameron Partners identified DFAP as a commercial
rather than strategic asset, meaning continued ownership is not required to
ensure delivery of key services or outcomes. It was noted that the rationale
for holding DFAP is weak and it is unusual for an organisation with the
objectives of Auckland Council to hold such an asset. Attached as Attachment A
are the relevant extracts from both reports.
20. Staff
agree with EY and Cameron Partners’ opinion and their conclusions remain
valid. Without a strategic purpose, the portfolio size and
investment approach bear little relationship to the strategic direction of
council.
Alternative
uses for DFAP
21. Alternative
uses for DFAP include repaying debt and accelerating infrastructure investment.
Additional liquidity support may also be required if
the DFAP is divested.
Repaying
debt
22. Divesting
DFAP to repay debt will reduce the risk of a downgrade
to council’s credit rating profile[1].
23. Under the Long-term Plan (LTP), the net debt to total revenue ratio
reaches 265 per cent, meaning little available capacity to undertake
further capital investment other than what is already in the LTP without
breaching this ratio.
24. Council’s
credit rating agencies have indicated downward ratings pressure if this ratio
approaches 270 per cent. Therefore any unforeseen changes to planned operating
results, such as a reduction in revenue or increase in debt, could lead to a
lower credit rating.
25. A
one notch downgrade is estimated to cost council a minimum 0.15 per cent in
higher interest costs, while a bigger downgrade will result in
a greater increase. On council’s current debt portfolio of $8 billion,
this results in an additional $12 million expense per annum once existing debt
is refinanced, more than offsetting the positive return from DFAP over time[2].
Accelerating
infrastructure investment
26. Auckland’s forecast growth requires a substantial
investment in infrastructure across the city.
27. Funds
from divesting the DFAP could be used to bring forward
infrastructure investment without placing pressure on councils prudential
borrowing ratios.
Liquidity
support
28. The liquidity policy provides assurance that council has sufficient
cash, liquid assets and committed bank lines to fund forecast net expenditure.
The policy forms part of council’s Treasury Management Policy contained
in the LTP. The DFAP forms part of the liquidity calculation, albeit
with a “haircut” applied to the non-cash elements of the portfolio
(as they are likely to lose value and be more difficult to liquidate during an
adverse financial market event).
29. If the DFAP
was divested, council will still meet this requirement for rolling six month
periods over the next 12 months.
30. Some
additional liquidity may still be required to meet policy
limits in the future. Liquidity is normally in the form of cash, other
liquid assets or committed lines with banks (also known as standby
facilities). These provide assurance that council can meet its financial
obligations as they fall due.
Administration
of the DFAP
31. The
overhead costs (both internal and external) of administrating the DFAP become a
more significant percentage of the fund size as the fund size is reduced.
Current external overhead costs are approximately $1.5 million, largely
represented by fees paid to JANA and the fund managers. The refined Responsible
Investment Policy also requires significantly more oversight of the DFAP,
adding additional cost and diverting council staff focus away from more
material matters such as managing the council’s debt portfolio, interest
rate expense and credit rating profile.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
32. Local
Boards were not consulted on this report as this is a region-wide issue and not
specific to a particular local board.
Māori
impact statement
33. The decision
to review the DFAP is not a significant decision for Māori.
Implementation
34. A managed exit from the DFAP can be achieved by the end of the
2017/18 financial year.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
EY and Cameron Partners report extracts
|
15
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
John Bishop - Treasurer & GM Financial Services
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
Panuku Development Auckland Limited debt to equity
conversion
File No.: CP2017/10805
Purpose
1. To
request approval for Auckland Council to agree to release a debt owed to it by
Panuku Development Auckland Limited (Panuku) in exchange for the issue to it of
further shares in Panuku (debt capitalisation).
2. To request Auckland Council’s approval, as shareholder of
Panuku, to Panuku’s conversion of parent debt to equity and issue of the
resulting shares to Auckland Council.
Executive
summary
3. Auckland
Council provides capital funding to Panuku for the delivery of public benefit
outcomes such as open space, roads and street environments. This is agreed
through the Long-term Plan or Annual Plan.
4. Panuku
currently has $23 million of intercompany establishment loans owing to council,
with $8 million to be repaid by funds available in current account. Therefore
it is proposed to convert the loan balance of $15 million to equity.
5. The
proposed transaction is a book entry only and has no impact on cash, budgets or
rates.
6. Completing
the debt to equity conversion at 30 June 2017 ensures that Panuku accounting
balances are accurate at year end.
7. The
conversion of the debt to equity requires a Panuku share issue, for which
shareholder approval is required under the Companies Act 1993.
8. It
is proposed that the debt from Panuku to Auckland Council be capitalised by
council accepting shares in Panuku in exchange for releasing the debt. This
capitalisation and release of debt requires council approval (as lender).
Council must also approve the capitalisation and issue of shares as the
shareholder of Panuku.
9. Panuku’s
board resolved to issue shares to council as repayment for the intercompany
loans subject to shareholder approval on 31 May 2017.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
the conversion of $15 million owed to council by Panuku (debt) into Panuku
equity and accept the resulting issue of shares from Panuku
b) provide
the shareholder approvals required under the Companies Act 1993 to enable
Panuku to convert the debt to equity and issue the resulting shares to
Auckland Council
c) authorise the Chief Executive to sign all documentation and
take any other actions on behalf of council in the Chief
Executive’s discretion required to facilitate and effect the above debt
capitalisation transaction.
|
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
10. Local boards
were not consulted on this report as this is an administrative matter and not
specific to a particular local board.
Māori
impact statement
11. The decision
to review the responsible investment policy is not a significant decision for Māori.
Implementation
12. Auckland
Council accepting equity for the release of debt in Panuku will happen before
30 June 2017.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Andrew John - Treasury Funding Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Bishop - Treasurer & GM Financial Services
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
Budget update June 2017
File No.: CP2017/11537
Purpose
1. To
approve converting a portion of the existing 2018/2019 capital budget into
annualised operational budget for the new multi-purpose community facility in
Takanini.
Executive
summary
2. The
Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 includes a multi-purpose community facility in
Takanini to be developed in 2019 at a total capital budget of $6.0 million. A
conventional design and build approach was envisaged.
3. Subsequent
planning and assessments identified a site in Takanini south as the preferred
location that best meet the needs of the community. However, a design and build
option is not feasible at this location. Instead, a fit-out and lease option
has been considered by the Papakura Local Board.
4. On
7 June 2017, the board approved entering into a conditional Memorandum of Terms
(MOT) with the land owner/developer with the intention of entering into a lease
agreement for the new multi-purpose community facility in Takanini. This
approach requires ongoing operational budget, as opposed to upfront capital
budget.
5. The
conversion of capital to operating budget requires the approval of the Finance
and Performance Committee. Although the proposed conversion relates to
2018/2019, the local board requires approval by the end of June to give effect
to the MOT.
6. It
is proposed that $3.1 million of the $6.0 million capital budget in 2018/2019,
currently allocated to building the community facility, be converted into annualised
operational expenditure ($252,000 on average per annum) to support the proposed
lease approach. The conversion results in no rates impact and a lower debt
level.
|
Recommendations
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
the conversion of $3.1 million capital budget in the 2018/2019 financial year
into annualised operational budget for the new multi-purpose community
facility in Takanini, on the basis of no impact on the general rates for
future years.
|
Comments
7. The
Takanini multi-purpose community hub has been identified as a key priority in
the Papakura Local Board Plan, Community Facilities Network Plan and Libraries
Network Review. The LTP 2015-2025 has $6.0 million of capital budget to
construct a new building for this purpose.
8. The
Papakura Takanini Community Needs Assessment report identified a site in
Takanini south as the location best meeting the assessment criteria. However,
it is not feasible to purchase land and build at this location.
9. To
secure this location, Papakura Local Board approved entering into a conditional
MOT with the land owner/developer, with the intention of entering into a lease
agreement from early 2019. To progress the agreement further, the board will
require the approval of the Finance and Performance Committee on converting the
upfront capital budget to ongoing operational budget. The approval is required
by the end of June to give effect to the MOT.
10. It is
proposed that $3.1 million of the budgeted capital budget be converted into
annualised operational budget to support the lease arrangement. The conversion
would result in operational expenditure of $252,000 on average per annum
towards the lease. The remaining budgeted $2.9 million capital budget would be
used to fit-out the leased building.
11. This proposed
budget change would have no impact on the general rates requirement for future
years, and would reduce the level of borrowing by $3.1 million as of 2018/2019.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
12. A number of
workshops and formal reports have been presented to the Papakura Local Board.
On 7 June 2017, the board approved entering into a conditional Memorandum of
Terms with the land owner/developer with the intention of entering into a lease
agreement from early 2019.
Māori
impact statement
13. Preliminary
discussions on the concept of the community hub were held with mana whenua at a
Spatial Priority Area hui on 31 October 2016.
14. Full
consultation with mana whenua will be required on the programmes, services and
design of the fit-out of the community hub.
Implementation
15. Should the
budget changes be approved, budgets would be amended in core financial systems.
It will not amend the 2017/2018 Annual Budget, but it will be included in the
Long-term Plan 2018-2028.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Nick Bird - Financial Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Robert Irvine - Head of Group Financial Planning
Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
Finance and Performance Committee - Information Report
- 20 June 2017
File No.: CP2017/11197
Purpose
1. To
receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers for
the Committee’s information and any other information that may have been
distributed to committee members since 23 May 2017.
Executive
summary
2. This
is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility
of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where
no decisions are required.
3. The
following information only report is attached:
· Finance
and Performance Committee Forward Work Programme 2017
4. The
following presentations/memos/reports were presented/circulated as follows:
· Fifth Quarterly Report on
Non-Rateable Property Rating Treatment (attachment B)
· Civic Administration
Building – Plant Replacement for Aotea Centre and Town Hall (Confidential
– no attachment)
· Queries from Finance and
Performance Committee meeting on 26 May 2017 re Auckland Council Performance
Report (attachment C)
5. Note
that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to
answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee
members should direct any questions to the authors.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) receive
the information report – 20 June 2017.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Finance and Performance Committee Forward Work
Programme 2017
|
25
|
|
b⇨
|
Fifth Quarterly Report on Non-Rateable Property Rating
Treatment (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
c⇨ 
|
Queries from Finance and Performance Committee meeting
on 26 May 2017 re Auckland Council Performance Report (Under Separate
Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Mike Giddey - Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
|
Finance and Performance Committee
20 June 2017
|
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Finance and Performance 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 The
Woodhill Sands Trust - Guarantee in Favour of ASB Bank Ltd
|
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)(b)(ii)
- The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information
where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information.
In
particular, the report contains details concerning the negotiations between
the vendor and purchaser of the property.
s7(2)(g) - The
withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional
privilege.
In
particular, the report contains details concerning the negotiations between
the vendor and purchaser of the property.
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 details concerning the negotiations between
the vendor and purchaser of the property.
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 details concerning the negotiations between
the vendor and purchaser of the property.
|
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 Insurance
Renewal - Proposed Council Group Programme for 2017/2018 period
|
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)(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 proposed insurance policies, premiums and
terms from insurers which are the subject of consideration and negotiation.
|
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.
|
