|
The
Chairperson put the substantive motion.
That the Waiheke Local Board:
a)
accept the proposed changes to targeted
rates and fees and charges.
b)
whakarite / provide feedback on the draft
Mayoral Proposal including potential regional consultation topics and local
board advocacy for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 as follows:
i)
note the lack of opportunity to collectively
consider the Mayoral Proposal, and the 327-page staff report it accompanied,
with delivery of documents of that size and importance only 24 hours-notice
prior to the extraordinary business meeting, running counter to the
Mayor’s directive to council in his inaugural address.
ii)
request an urgent review, involving the
governing body, Council and CCO leadership with the Waiheke Local Board,
prior to finalising the Governing Body’s business on the Annual Plan
25/26, in particular to assess the impacts on critical place making decisions
and investment under the current governance structure on Waiheke Island, with
the purpose of facilitating effective governance structures and resourcing
that meet the strategic needs of an isolated community facing major
challenges, to include the planned deliberations on an appropriate funding
formula for the Hauraki Gulf Island boards.
iii)
note the board has suffered from a lack of
Governing Body and organisational responsiveness on major issues for many
years, some examples being the resources allocated locally and regionally to
plans that have never been finalised, e.g. the draft Waiheke Area Plan, Dark
Skies accreditation, Destination Management Plan and repeated requests for
changes to the Hauraki Gulf Island District Plan, which illustrates
Waiheke’s lack of political leverage in the current council structure,
and notes that the agency that has been most responsive and flexible has been
Auckland Transport with the development of an abiding MOU and a highly
detailed and publicly consulted Waiheke 10-year Transport Plan.
iv)
therefore, the board expresses grave
concerns with further proposals to incorporate CCO functions into council
structures and consequential reduction in Waiheke Local Board’s ability
to achieve responsiveness from council’s Governing Body and its
departments.
v)
note that the board enjoys a high level of
responsiveness on most matters from Auckland Transport executive and
operations staff, and in most dealings with Eke Panuku, because they are
generally nimble and appear to have delegated responsibilities and accountability
at appropriate staff levels enabling responsive and innovative
decision-making.
vi)
note concern that the proposed restructuring
of CCOs will result in the loss of invaluable leverage with current CCO
relationships in which the board has invested heavily over many years
vii) support integration of, for instance, back-office
functions, events and facilities management and some shared services, however
is concerned if, for example, Auckland Transport communication were to become
a function of Auckland Council because our experience is that Auckland
Transport’s communications are faster and more flexible and a less
hierarchical than council communications.
viii) note concerns that amalgamating CCOs with council will
risk infrastructure decisions being influenced significantly by the
short-term political focus of elected members, rather than the less political
decision-making of boards of directors.
ix)
note incorporation of CCOs into
council risks adding an extraordinary load to both the existing structure and workloads of existing governing body
elected members.
x)
note there are high risks
that specific skills and cultures within current CCOs e.g. property
development and business negotiation skills, would be subsumed over time by
generic council cultures and leadership changes, specifically at the CEO and
Mayoral level.
xi)
should the proposed CCO
amalgamation into council proceed, the board recommends
a separate economic development agency be established with a brief to work at
a local level as well as regional, noting that having a single-minded tourism
development approach runs counter to broader economic development
considerations, an approach which has demonstrably caused harm to the
sustainability of the Waiheke community, and recommends Queenstown’s
approach to economic diversification over tourism as a model for sustainable
economic development for Tāmaki Makaurau.
xii)
note the Waiheke Local
Board has historically objected to the inequities of the APTR, but does
support a bed tax, and has recommended that to the Minister of Auckland,
however due to the deficit in tourism infrastructure on Waiheke, seeks for
any Waiheke-generated bed tax revenue to be repatriated through the Waiheke
Local Board to support the infrastructure required for its high visitor
numbers, noting that events hosted in the city have no direct benefit for
Waiheke relating to visitor numbers.
xiii)
delegate to the
Chair to finalise resolution wording and advocacy areas.
c)
does not support slowing
the transition to Fairer Funding in order that the Waiheke Local Board can
plan appropriately for FY25/26 with no further delay but does support boards
having the ability to carry over FY25/26 operational funding at their sole discretion
as each board has its own drivers for decision-making. .
The substantive
motion was declared.
CARRIED
|
