|
|
|
Council member and meetings
OPEN AGENDA
I hereby give notice that a meeting of the
REGIONAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
will be held as follows:
| DATE: |
Tuesday, 13 October 2009 |
| TIME: |
2:30 pm |
| VENUE: |
Committee Room, Level 15 |
| |
Civic Administration Building |
| |
1 Greys Avenue |
| |
Auckland |
| Mike Giddey |
| DEMOCRACY ADVISOR |
Members:
| Deputy Mayor |
David |
Hay, JP Chairperson |
| Cr |
Aaron |
Bhatnagar Deputy Chairperson |
| Cr |
Douglas |
Armstrong, QSO |
| Cr |
Leila |
Boyle |
| Cr |
John |
Lister, OBE |
| Cr |
Richard |
Northey, ONZM |
| Mr |
Bruce |
Kilmister (non-voting member) |
Ex Officio:
| His Worship the Mayor, Hon John Banks, QSO |
 APOLOGIES
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regional Governance Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 8 September
2009 to be confirmed as a true and correct record.
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." |
PUBLIC FORUM
A period of time (approximately 20 minutes) is set aside for members of the public
to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 5
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests to speak had been received.
REGIONAL GOVERNANCE UPDATE
| Geoff Cooper |
|
| Strategic analyst |
13 October 2009 |
Providing a report that updates the Regional Governance Committee on work related
to the Auckland Council transition. It covers details of the Local Government (Auckland
Council) Act 2009, detailed Cabinet proposals for the regional transport authority,
preparation of council's submission on the third Auckland governance bill and an
update on the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA). A proposed position on a Waterfront
Development Agency is included as a separate agenda item.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 was enacted in parliament under
urgency on 17 September. The key elements of the Act are that local boards will
be responsible for the non-regulatory functions of the Auckland Council, unless
the nature of activity is such that decision making on an Auckland-wide basis will
better promote the wellbeing of communities across Auckland; there will be 20 Auckland
councillors elected on a ward-basis; and the mayor will take responsibility for
establishing committees of the governing body, appointing the chairperson of each
committee and establishing an appropriately staffed mayoral office. The southern
boundary will divide Franklin district between the Auckland Council and the Waikato
region, while the northern boundary will include the Rodney district. In addition,
the Act specifies that existing local authorities in the Auckland region are required
to prepare and adopt a four-month annual plan for 2010/2011, and the ATA is required
to prepare an eight-month planning document for the Auckland Council by 31 October
2010.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 contained more information on
local boards than was expected, casting doubt over the extent of any additional
legislative decisions about local boards. However, the legislation on local boards
is at a high level and significant details about their operation are yet to be worked
through. The ATA has been charged with allocating initial functions and funding
to local boards. Overall the Act is consistent with Auckland City Council's position
on local boards in that it favours delegated functions based on principles. Two
potential issues that we noted on reading the Act with regards to local boards were,
first, that there lacks a requirement for local board plans to be consistent with
Auckland Council strategies (this could be an oversight) and second, the tight timeframe
associated with the first local board plans scheduled for completion April 2011.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 has empowered the Local Government
Commission (LGC) to begin its process of identifying ward and local board boundaries.
Auckland City Council will submit preliminary information to the LGC on boundary
and representation issues by 16 October. A separate report on this agenda addresses
boundary and representation issues. A final policy position on boundaries and representation
will be required in a formal submission to the LGC on 11 December.
Recommending that the Regional Governance Committee:
- Notes that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 was enacted on
17 September 2009, setting out the broad structure and roles of the Auckland Council
- Supports Auckland City Council advocating for the inclusion of a general
legislative requirement that all local board functions and decisions, including
local board plans, are not inconsistent with the strategies, policies, plans and
bylaws of the Auckland Council (currently, there is only such a requirement in relation
to local bylaws)
- Acknowledges that there is a potential issue in relation to the timeframe
for completion of the first local board plans (30 April 2011) that needs to be considered
further
- Notes the updates on boundaries, local boards, transport, strategy and planning,
and the Auckland Transition Agency.
WATERFRONT GOVERNANCE AND DELIVERY OPTIONS
| J Simmonds / R Simpson |
|
| Strategy Office / Senior strategic analyst |
13 October 2009 |
Reporting that significant private and public sector development of Auckland's
CBD waterfront has been undertaken and much more is planned over the next 30 years.
The ARC and Auckland City Council have agreed the Waterfront Vision 2040. Key public
sector developments planned include the redevelopment of Wynyard Quarter, providing
a new events centre in the Viaduct Harbour and opening Queens Wharf to the public,
with an immediate focus on providing a live site for the Rugby World Cup and a cruise
ship terminal.
The existing waterfront governance and ownership structures are complex. The
government is concerned that there has been a fragmented approach to translating
the waterfront vision in action and to developing the waterfront in general. It
has proposed a Waterfront Development Agency ("WDA") be established and has raised
the possibility of an ongoing role for central government. No further details have
been announced at this stage.
It is important that Auckland City Council has a position on future governance
and delivery arrangements for the waterfront. This thinking may be incorporated
into council's submission on the Third Auckland bill and/or shared with the Auckland
Transition Agency and ultimately the Auckland Council.
This report considers three broad options for waterfront governance and delivery:
- Establish a WDA with wide ranging functions and significant autonomy. The
WDA would have responsibility for most, if not all, of the planning, delivery and
ongoing operation of the waterfront. It would be expected to be largely self-funding
through its commercial property portfolio, with the public realm infrastructure
funded out of those profits. It would also be expected to return a dividend to Auckland
Council to fund other public realm infrastructure (as currently required of Auckland
Regional Holdings). This option integrates planning, delivery and operation into
a single entity. It also provides a focused entity that arguably can react more
quickly and is better placed to maximise the return from the commercial portfolio.
It has the disadvantage of lack of integration with broader Auckland Council functions
(strategic planning, events management, and urban design for example), as well as
integration with the CBD. Also, there is little political control and yet the public
may well consider councillors to be accountable for the waterfront development.
This will particularly be an issue if there is a perception that the public realm
is being compromised in favour of maximising commercial return.
- The Auckland Council retains responsibility for all waterfront functions.
Under this option, all planning, delivery, and management will be undertaken in-house.
This provides a high degree of integration not only within the waterfront development,
but through to the CBD and wider planning and delivery functions of Council. However,
commercial property development is a significant part of the waterfront, and this
is not a core competency of local authorities. As well, a fully in-house model is
more affected by the council's planning cycles through the annual plan, LTCCP, and
other council processes. This could result in a stop-start approach to development,
which may discourage private sector involvement and affect the return from the commercial
aspects of the development.
- A WDA is established to undertake limited functions relating to commercial
property development. The remainder of the waterfront planning, delivery and operational
functions would remain with Auckland Council. This ensures integration across the
functions of council and with the CBD, while utilising the specialist focus of a
separate WDA to oversee the commercial property development. Auckland Council would
remain responsible for the public realm to ensure a high degree of integration with
the CBD, the wider city, and delivery of the objectives of the Waterfront Vision.
It could though, contract the WDA to oversee construction on its behalf. In essence,
the split of responsibilities would be similar to that which currently exists between
ARH, Sea+City Ltd, and Auckland City Council. There is a significant advantage in
basing the new governance structure on the existing structure that is widely perceived
as working well.
Option 3 is the recommended option. However, there are strong reasons to suggest
that the final decision on the optimal waterfront governance arrangements be left
until after the Auckland Council is established. Many of the current waterfront
projects are required in time for the Rugby World Cup. The timeframe for delivery
is very tight and establishing a WDA at this time may distract the focus. As well,
transport plays a key part in the success of the waterfront. The establishment of
the Auckland Transport Agency adds another layer of complexity. Delaying the decision
on governance will not delay the planned waterfront developments which are well
advanced, but will enable a more informed decision to be made when the structure
of the Auckland Council, the local board arrangements, and the structure of the
Auckland Transport Agency are known.
Recommending that the Regional Governance Committee:
- Endorses Auckland City Council advocating for the establishment of a waterfront
development agency to undertake the commercial property development aspects of the
waterfront, with all other functions to remain with the Auckland Council
- Endorses Auckland City Council recommending to government and the Auckland
Transition Agency that a final decision on waterfront governance be deferred until
after the Auckland Council, the relevant local board, and the regional transport
agency are established to allow a fully informed decision on the appropriate split
of functions to be made
- Notes that further work is being undertaken and will be reported back on
a range of related issues including whether the Waterfront Development Agency (WDA)
is established as a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) or under specific legislation,
the ownership structure and the lifespan of the WDA and integration with the CBD,
the local board, and the Auckland Transport Agency.
LOCAL BOARDS AND WARDS - BOUNDARIES AND REPRESENTATION ISSUES
| R Simpson |
|
| Senior strategic analyst |
13 October 2009 |
Reporting that the Local Government Commission (LGC) is currently undertaking
work to determine the number and the boundaries of the wards and local boards that
will be established as part of the new governance arrangements for Auckland. The
Commission is seeking input from a range of stakeholders and met with councillors
and community board members from Auckland City Council on 2 October. This report
outlines the issues around representation and boundaries in preparation for providing
information to the LGC by 16 October and for council's formal submission to the
LGC in December.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 states that there will be 20
councillors elected to the Auckland Council. The Act allows the LGC discretion to
determine whether the 20 councillors will be elected from single or multi members
wards.
Population will be the primary factor in determining ward boundaries. Given the
population of the area currently served by Auckland City Council, officers have
worked with the assumption that six of the 20 members of the new Auckland Council
will be elected from this area.
Arguments supporting multi member wards generally focus on the greater likelihood
that such a ward will enable councillors to bring a region wide perspective to their
role. Similarly, the greater choice constituents would have in respect of candidates
to vote for and representatives to approach once the election is over, is often
cited as a reason to favour multi member wards. Conversely, arguments in favour
of single member wards generally focus on greater local awareness of candidates;
the increased likelihood that smaller, distinct areas will be represented; reduced
campaigning costs; and, clearer lines of accountability from elected members to
voters.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 states that there will be 20
- 30 local boards across the region (although the LGC has been given some discretion
in this regard). Population will not be a key determinant of local board boundaries.
Rather, local board boundaries are to be set so as to best provide for the effective
representation of communities of interest. The LGC has indicated that it is especially
interested in hearing from elected representatives about the communities of interest
in Auckland city and how those communities might be amalgamated into effective electoral
units (both wards and local boards).
Recommending that the Regional Governance Committee:
- Notes the issues currently under consideration by the Local Government Commission
in relation to regional governance reforms, including:
- The number and boundaries of wards
- The number of elected members per ward
- The number and boundaries of local boards.
- Notes that the material to be provided to the Local Government Commission
on the 16 October will include this report and supporting material based on the
presentations of 2 October.
- Notes that as part of its submission in response to the draft proposals
due to be released by the Local Government Commission in November, Auckland City
Council will present its formal position on a range of boundary and representation
issues including:
- The number and boundaries of wards
- The number of elected members per ward
- The number and boundaries of local boards.
- Supports the inclusion of the CBD as a sub-electoral unit within a wider
local board area.
- Notes the need for non-residential stakeholders to be included in the governance
arrangements for the CBD.
- Supports the inclusion of Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands in the same
ward as the CBD.
|
