|
The
Chairperson put the substantive motion.
MOVED by Chairperson D Grant,
seconded by Deputy Chairperson J Gillon:
Resolution number KT/2017/106
That the Kaipātiki
Local Board:
a) provides
feedback on the following draft positions and recommendations of the
Political Working Party:
Regional policy and
decision-making
i. supports the political working party position that
council should implement new mechanisms that ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework
that sets out, at a minimum:
1.
a process for involving local boards in the development of
regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual
refresh;
2.
earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the
governing body in regional decision-making processes;
3.
requirements for analysis of local impacts and local interest
of regional decisions and options, and reporting of this to local boards and
the governing body;
4.
specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact
and local board interest of regional decisions;
5.
processes and methods for tailoring local board engagement in
line with the local impact and local interest of regional decisions e.g. high
categorisation requiring more specific local engagement and analysis, low
categorisation requiring more cluster joint local board workshop sessions and
less in depth analysis; and
6.
specified methods for engagement and communication with local
boards at all stages of the decision-making process.
ii. supports the
political working party position that local boards will be consulted on the
details of these mechanisms prior to implementation.
iii. notes
that the Quality Advice programme is continuing to be implemented in order to
improve the quality of advice to elected members for decision-making, in line
with the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review.
iv. supports
the political working party position to not implement any formal policies or
procedures that control when and how local boards may procure external or
contestable advice, but note that, in principle, the Auckland Council
organisation should be the first provider of advice to local boards.
v. supports the political working party position to not
implement any policy or procedure that would limit local boards’
ability to advocate to the governing body on regional issues.
Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a
‘call-in’ right)
vi. notes that an
explicit call-in right is not possible under the Local Government (Auckland
Council) Act.
vii. supports
the political working party position to not implement any mechanism that
would have the effect of ‘calling in’ or allocating
decision-making to the governing body for otherwise local activities or
decisions that have regional implications.
viii. supports the political working party position to direct
officers that, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has
potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area e.g. a sub-regional
impact or an impact on regional networks, advice on those potential impacts
is to be provided to the local board as a matter of course (for example
through a regional impact statement).
Allocations and delegations
ix. supports the
political working party position that the governing body delegates, subject
to the necessary statutory tests being met, the following Reserves Act 1977
decision-making functions for local reserves to local boards:
1.
declaration;
2.
classification;
3.
reclassification; and
4.
application for revocation of reserve status (limited to when
there is a desire by a local board to manage open space under the Local
Government Act).
x. notes that
officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land was
that it should remain with the governing body, with the relevant local board
consulted on these decisions.
xi. notes
that the working party did not reach consensus on this issue, and will
consider the feedback of local boards before making a recommendation.
xii. supports the political working party position that the
Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers remain delegated to
staff, but where there is likely to be significant public interest, an
independent commissioner should be engaged.
The role of Auckland Transport
and local boards
xiii. notes the
critical interface between the local place-shaping role of local boards and
Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction over the road corridor and transport
networks.
xiv. notes that the Governance Manual for Substantive Council
Controlled Organisations requires Auckland Transport, amongst other things,
to:
1.
develop, with local boards, a shared understanding of local
board views and council controlled organisation priorities to inform the
following year’s business planning, including through an annual
interactive workshop ‘where local boards communicate their local board
priorities and the council controlled organisation s communicate how their
current year work programme will contribute to local board priorities’;
2.
develop by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement
plan, which includes a schedule ‘clearly indicat[ing] for each board,
the projects and/or activities that it expects to report on, and the projects
and activities that it expects to consult on, for the following year. This
should be updated annually or more frequently if required.’; and
3.
report against their local board engagement plan in their
quarterly performance reports to the Council Controlled Organisation
Governance and Monitoring Committee.
xv. supports the
political working party position to direct Auckland Transport to meet all
requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual
for Substantive Council Controlled Organisations.
xvi. supports
the political working party position to direct Auckland Council officers to
monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance with the requirements for local
board engagement, as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive Council
Controlled Organisations, and to report this monitoring to the governing body
at least annually.
xvii. notes
that the Mayor’s 2017 letter
of expectation to Auckland Transport stipulated that council expects there to
be:
1.
better and earlier engagement and communication between
Auckland Transport and local boards; and
2.
active consideration by Auckland Transport of which of its
decision-making powers it could delegate to local boards (within the
constraints created by the regulatory environment, safety considerations, the
needs of regional networks and the role played by New Zealand Transport
Agency in decision-making).
xviii. notes that
the following activity statement has been included in Auckland
Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent:
1.
‘Participation in the governance review
which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant Council
family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local boards to
give effect to their governance role, particularly around local place-shaping.’
xix. notes that
the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential delegation of
a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party recommends that
additional work be undertaken to identify delegation opportunities.
xx. supports the political working party position to direct
Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:
1.
ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in
determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes,
in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making;
2.
improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects,
such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes;
3.
provide more opportunities for local board direction on the
prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those
which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance;
4.
be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in
non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing
barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce
the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events; and
5.
take direction from local boards on how and where to implement
community-focused programmes.
xxi. supports the
political working party position to direct Auckland Transport to report to
the governing body annually on how it is meeting the directions given under
recommendation xx) above.
xxii. notes
that the Quality Advice programme has been working with Auckland Transport to
improve the quality of advice to local boards and will shortly begin regular
six monthly surveys of local board members’ satisfaction with Auckland
Transport advice, engagement and reporting to local boards.
xxiii. notes
that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is valued by local boards but
that the level of funding means that some boards are not able to progress
meaningful projects, and that improved local transport outcomes may be
achieved if the size of the fund was significantly increased.
xxiv. supports
the political working party position to direct officers to report to the
relevant governing body committee, through the Long Term Plan process, on
options for significantly increasing the Local Board Transport Capital Fund
and the method of allocation of the fund.
xxv. support
the political working party position to direct Auckland Transport to
implement a more systematic work programme approach to assist local boards to
identify potential projects and make decisions.
xxvi. supports
the political working party
position to direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body
members (ward councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward
areas.
Waiheke Local Board pilot
xxvii. supports the
political working party position that the governing body should endorse the
Waiheke Local Board pilot project as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot
project plan.
xxviii. notes
that the Waiheke Local Board will
maintain oversight of local implementation of the pilot.
Local boards funding and finance
xxix. supports the
political working party position that the enhanced status quo model be
progressed now, giving as much additional decision-making to local boards as
possible within that framework.
xxx. supports
the political working party position that the additional work to support the
Enhanced status quo model be undertaken, including the development of a
framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing
historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is
provided to local boards.
xxxi. supports
the political working party position that further work on the implications of
the local decision-making model also be undertaken for further consideration
as part of the next scheduled
review of the governance model as required by the Local Government (Auckland
Council) Act 2009, including the modelling of rates implication following the
revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision-making.
The optimum number of local
boards
xxxii. supports the
political working party position that council should undertake no further
work on changing the number of local boards until at least after the
governance framework review has been completed and implemented, and the
outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and
Waiheke Island are known.
Methods of electing governing body
members
xxxiii. supports the political working party position that a change
to the current system of electing governing body members from existing wards
is not warranted purely to address alignment between governing body members
and local boards.
xxxiv. notes
that the statutory review of representation arrangements for Auckland Council
must be completed by September 2018.
xxxv. notes
that the Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 2, which proposes a
simplified process for local government-led reorganisation processes, is
currently before Parliament.
xxxvi. supports
the political working party position that council should continue to advocate
to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of governing body members in line with
population changes, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers
and boundaries of local boards.
b) supports the delegation of decision-making regarding the exchange of
reserve land to local boards, particularly when the exchange occurs between
two parcels of land within the local board area.
c) supports use of the term ‘local councillor’ as the preferred
naming convention for local board members, as our community does not
currently understand the roles and responsibilities of the different arms of
governance, and the board believes that it is the responsibility of the
governing body to develop a naming convention for themselves that makes sense
and provides clarity of role for the community.
d) supports the continuation of the
political working party (PWP), comprised of governing body and local board
members as identified in Option 2 of the agenda report, with the following
additional comments:
i. the
local board agrees that the PWP would provide a valuable vehicle for
considering matters that impact on both arms of governance, and as a mechanism
to make recommendations to the governing body on these matters;
ii. the role and function of the PWP should be expanded
to ensure ongoing and continual oversight of the implementation of any
recommendations that emanate from this review, with particular focus given to
the development and monitoring of a project plan, including clear
deliverables and timelines aligned to those matters that have been identified
within this review to require further work by council staff; and
iii. requests
that an opportunity be provided for an improved, broadened and more inclusive
process of selecting working party members in the event that the PWP is
retained.
The substantive motion was declared
CARRIED
|
