agenda - ashburton · on 14 april 2016 council received the mcgredy winder & co. section 17a...

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

AGENDA

For the Extraordinary Council meeting to be held on

Thursday 12 May 2016 Commencing at 9.30am

In the Council Chamber

2 Baring Square East, Ashburton

The District of choice for lifestyle and opportunity www.ashburtondc.govt.nz

Council Membership Angus McKay Mayor Cr Rod Beavan Ashburton Ward Cr Neil Brown Eastern Ward Cr Ken Cutforth Eastern Ward Cr Russell Ellis Ashburton Ward Cr Donna Favel Ashburton Ward Cr Don McLeod Ashburton Ward Cr Darryl Nelson Ashburton Ward Cr Martin Nordqvist Western Ward Cr Peter Reveley Ashburton Ward Cr Alan Totty Western Ward Cr Alasdair Urquhart Ashburton Ward Cr Stuart Wilson Eastern Ward Quorum – no less than seven (7) members

The purpose of local government:

(1) The purpose of local government is – (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by,

and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for

good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local

public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are – (a) efficient; and (b) effective; and (c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

(Local Government Act 2002 – Amendment Act 2012)

ASHBURTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Extraordinary Council Meeting – Thursday 12 May 2016

Timetable Time Item

9.30am Meeting commences

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1 Apologies

2 Extraordinary Business

3 Conflict of Interest Declarations

4 Section 17A Review of Economic Development and Tourism 1 5 Administration and Library Facility Feasibility Study

5

4 May 2016

REPORT

Date: 12 May 2016Report to: Extraordinary Council MeetingFrom: Community Relations Manager Subject: S17A Review of Economic Development

4 S17A Review of Economic Development

4.1 Summary On 14 April 2016 Council received the McGredy Winder & Co. Section 17A Review presentation and report for economic development and district promotion. The purpose of this report is for Council to now determine the approach it wishes to take with economic development for 2016/17 and beyond.

4.2 Recommendation

That Council adopts the McGredy Winder recommendation and resolves that:

Council stops funding Grow Mid Canterbury as at 30 June 2016, and undertakes further work to complete an economic development strategy and action and implementation plan.

4.3 Background Grow Mid Canterbury was established by the Ashburton Enterprise Agency Trust in 2011 to be the service delivery organisation for economic development in the district. Council has been funding Grow Mid Canterbury from its inception through an annual grant which has previously been based on a Letter of Agreement.

Concerns about the management and use of Council’s funds for the activities that Grow Mid Canterbury and its associated parties perform were raised over the years. In 2014, a Liaison Group was established to help give oversight to the activities and improve the financial reporting of the organisation. At the end of the 2014/15 financial year, Council’s concerns were again raised when Grow Mid Canterbury failed to produce its audited accounts by the agreed deadline of 30 November 2015; nor had it signed the new Service Level Agreement with clearer expectations and service outputs expected by Council.

In February 2016, Council received both the signed Service Level Agreement and the audited accounts with a qualified opinion stating “A material uncertainty exists that may cause significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, and therefore, it may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business.”

Council had commissioned a Section 17A review of its current service model in providing economic development and district promotion throughout the district in December 2015. Peter Winder from McGredy Winder, a well-respected consultancy specialising in local government, conducted this review and reported back to Council at its 14 April 2016 Extraordinary Council meeting.

The McGredy Winder report raises serious concerns about many aspects of Grow Mid Canterbury’s ability to deliver the economic development activities within the district on behalf of Council.

Extraordinary Council Meeting 12 May 20161

The summary of findings are outlined on pages 19-20 paragraph 92 of the report. These findings are:

• There is no clear and agreed economic development strategy that drives GMC activity,priorities and Council funding;

• Council expectations as to the sorts of activities that GMC undertakes are clear, butunquantified;

• The performance measures that ADC has in place are focussed on the outputs providedby GMC rather than the outcomes that they contribute to;

• There are no clear metrics around the measures used to assess what GMC delivers to theCouncil and its performance;

• GMC’s sense of mission and range of activities is broader than that of the Council andthis creates confusion as to what the Council funding actually provides;

• GMC has significant long standing, related party transactions and their obvious potentialfor conflicts of interest arising from them raises questions for ADC over the probity andappropriateness of the way in which GMC operates;

• The nature of the financial losses that GMC has incurred and the substantial focus on theMethven Hot Pools business case raise questions over whether the Council funds havebeen used for the purpose for which they were intended over the last two to three years;

• Accountabilities and delivery responsibilities are confused and confusing;

• There is considerable risk associated with the Methven Hot Pools project that has thepotential to undermine the activities that the ADC is funding, and/or cause theorganisation to fail altogether; and,

• GMC’s relationship with ADC is unhealthy.

The overall conclusion on page 21 paragraph 98 states “that the underlying performance accountability and financial viability issues associated with GMC are more significant than the question of cost effectiveness. Given the issues that have been identified, it is difficult to see how Council is receiving value for money for the funding that is currently providing”. At the 14 April Extraordinary Council meeting, Council decided, that given the outcome of the review for economic development activity, it wanted time to digest the findings and implications of the tabled report. Council officers were asked to report back on a way forward in May.

At this meeting, Council resolved:

That Council thanks Peter Winder and receives his report; and

That staff be requested to report back to Council in May on what further options Council can consider.

Ellis/Totty Carried

The McGredy Winder presentation and report outlined the alternative options Council has available to it for delivering its economic development activity.


Mr Winder summarised these in his powerpoint presentation as:

Alternative Delivery Options • Bring in house• Establish a new CCO• Expand EMC to do economic development• Open tender• Negotiated delivery through either CDC or ADB&T• Some initiatives delivered by others• Canterbury Employers and Chamber of Commerce• ARA• Schools

On paragraph 108 of Page 23 of his report, the two ways forward for Council to consider are:

a) Continue to fund GMC and seek to work with it to complete an economic developmentstrategy and a clear agreed programme of action; or

b) Decide to start again, to stop funding GMC, undertake separate work to complete aneconomic development strategy and action plan and then determine the best way toimplement it.

The report recommends Option (b), to stop funding GMC and start again (paragraph 120, page 25).

Council now needs to determine whether it will adopt the McGredy Winder recommendation or whether it wishes to continue with the current provider (GMC) in the expectation that it can resolve the issues raised in the report. It should be noted that Council, through the Liaison Group, have raised many of these issues with GMC in the past. It is unlikely that given the reported unhealthy relationship between GMC and Council, that continuing with the existing arrangement will achieve the outcome Council is seeking.

The proposed recommendation is in line with the McGredy Winder recommendation. This recommendation will require Council to advise GMC that the Service Level Agreement with Council will not be renewed as at 1 July 2016. Further work will be needed to develop an economic development strategy and action/implementation plan. The funding of this work could be met from part of the budgetary provision for economic development provided for in the 2016/17 year. If elected members agree with this course of action, the first step will be for Council to hold a workshop for itself as soon as possible to scope out the plan to developing a strategy and action/ implementation plan.

In agreeing to fund Grow Mid Canterbury until 30 June 2016, the Council has to ensure there should be no interim disruption to the district’s economic development activities that GMC is currently undertaking. Any transitional economic development activity arrangements post 1 July 2016 will need to be agreed at the workshop and then flow through to a Council meeting for formal adoption. This excludes the activities that GMC does on behalf of other organisations, including the projects around youth transition, Gateway, and GP recruitment.

4.4 Options and Risks Considered The options are outlined above and in the McGredy Winder report which is publicly available on the Council’s website.

4.5 Statutory Implications There are no statutory implications.


4.6 Significance and Engagement The 2016/17 draft Annual Plan contains a provision of $245,630 for the delivery of economic development services. The recommendation will still allow these funds to be used for this purpose albeit through a different service delivery mechanism.

Moving forward the opportunity to engage and work with key stakeholders in the business community on economic development matters will meet Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy requirements.

4.7 Financial Implications There are no financial implications. Council is likely to retain the current 2016/17 budget provision for economic development until it formally adopts by Council resolution a strategy and action plan, and determines the best structure and method for implementing it.

PREPARED BY

VINCIE BILLANTE Community Relations Manager

APPROVED BY

PAUL BRAKE Group Manager Business Support


4

REPORT Date: 12 May 2016 Report to: Extraordinary Council Meeting From: Group Manager Business Support Subject: Administration & Library Facility Feasibility Study

5 Administration and Library Facility Feasibility Study

5.1 Summary Opus Architecture have been requested to undertake the Administration and Library Facility Feasibility Study and stage one of this work was presented to Council on 28 April 2016. This report follows up on the findings of that study.

5.2 Recommendation

That Council approves the following Administration and Library Facility Feasibility Study short-listed options to be further analysed in phase two of the feasibility study: • a new extension to the existing Administration building to accommodate the administration

and library functions, with refurbishment of the existing Administration building;

• a new administration and library building constructed on Council’s existing administration building site;

• a new administration and library building constructed on part of the Eastfields Development site;

• a new library building constructed on the Ashburton College site and a new administration building on a separate site;

• a new administration and library building constructed on the Ashburton Methodist Church site;

• a new administration and library building constructed on the old Polytechnic site bounded by Cass and Cameron Street.

5.3 Background

Opus Architecture are undertaking the Administration and Library Facility Feasibility Study on behalf of Council. The work is largely split into two phases, the first undertaking general consultation to narrow a long-list of possible sites and options to a short-list of four to five options. Phase two will consist of a detailed analysis of the short-listed options in order to arrive at a preferred site and building configuration.

Phase One involved information gathering on the long-list options, and assessment of these options against scoring criteria agreed to by the Project Control Group. These scorings were input into an Evaluation Matrix and Weightings Assessment to arrive at a short-list of options.

The results of this work and the short-listed options are contained in the Opus Architecture Needs Analysis & Project Feasibility Summary Report: Site Options dated 27 April 2016.


5

The Opus Architecture Report has identified the following short-listed options for further investigations. These being:

• A new extension to the existing Administration building to accommodate the administration and library functions, with refurbishment of the existing Administration building.

• A new administration and library building constructed on Council’s existing administration building site.

• A new administration and library building constructed on part of the Eastfields Development site.

• A new library building constructed on the Ashburton College site and a new administration building on a separate site (per the short listed options).

• A new administration and library building constructed on the Ashburton Methodist Church site.

• A new administration and library building constructed on the old Polytechnic site bounded by Cass and Cameron Street.

Further details of these sites and the reason for their short-listing is contained in the Opus Report.

It is recommended that these sites are agreed as the sites and options to be investigated in phase two of the feasibility study.

5.4 Options and Risks Considered

Extensive work has been undertaken to arrive at the short-list of sites and options. It is highly unlikely that any other suitable/practical site option has not been identified and considered.

5.5 Statutory Implications

There are no statutory implications as a result of this report or recommendation.

5.6 Significance and Engagement The work was identified in the 2015/25 Long Term Plan. Phase one of this work involved seeking feedback from the public and consultation was undertaken via news releases, public meetings and drop-ins, and online surveys. Phase two will involve more detailed public consultation as the short-listed options are analysed.

5.7 Financial Implications

The cost of this work has been confirmed and budgeted for by Council in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

PREPARED BY

PAUL BRAKE Group Manager Business Support

APPROVED BY

ANDREW DALZIEL Chief Executive


6

agenda - ashburton · on 14 april 2016 council received the mcgredy winder & co. section 17a...

Documents