LGOIMA Request Details: LG1844
Date received: 24/05/2019
Requested information: Four questions about CEDA
Status: Complete
Date responded: 27/05/2019
Response:
Is there data available that quantifies the return to Manawatu District Ratepayers on the investment in CEDA and is that proportionate?
The return on investment to Manawatu District Council [MDC] from CEDA cannot be exactly quantified as Economic Development returns are not easily attributable. What matters is activity that leads to outcomes. CEDA as part of their contract with MDC is required to report on a wide range of measures some of which relate to activity and some which specify outcomes. Both of these are available to the public, as you know at: https://ceda.nz/data-insights/accountability-reports/ . Funding for CEDA is based on relative population. Towards the end of our three year contract with CEDA, MDC will conduct a formal review [following section 17A of the Local Government Act] and on the basis of that will make a further investment decision.
Why is the governance team not fully represented by local candidates?
PNCC and MDC agreed that it was important that CEDA have the best possible directors with an international outlook, rather than simply recruiting from within the local region.
Is there any impediment that Council is aware of to further accommodation development in Feilding?
MDC has recently notified the district plan change for ‘Precinct 4’ which should facilitate the construction of up to 1600 residential properties. In terms of commercial accommodation [Hotels, Motels, Air B&B etc.] there are no impediments to further development. However such developments are always dependent on commercial considerations.
Has CEDA produced any report on the future economic impact on Feilding from the Earthquake Building legislation, and if not why not?
MDC did not ask CEDA to do an economic analysis, nor did it do one itself (as MDC has the capability in-house). When considering Priority Thoroughfares, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, requires Council to consider: earthquake risk [high], the presence of unreinforced masonry buildings [yes] and pedestrian and traffic volumes [data]. Economic analysis of any type is not a consideration under the act, so was not undertaken.
The return on investment to Manawatu District Council [MDC] from CEDA cannot be exactly quantified as Economic Development returns are not easily attributable. What matters is activity that leads to outcomes. CEDA as part of their contract with MDC is required to report on a wide range of measures some of which relate to activity and some which specify outcomes. Both of these are available to the public, as you know at: https://ceda.nz/data-insights/accountability-reports/ . Funding for CEDA is based on relative population. Towards the end of our three year contract with CEDA, MDC will conduct a formal review [following section 17A of the Local Government Act] and on the basis of that will make a further investment decision.
Why is the governance team not fully represented by local candidates?
PNCC and MDC agreed that it was important that CEDA have the best possible directors with an international outlook, rather than simply recruiting from within the local region.
Is there any impediment that Council is aware of to further accommodation development in Feilding?
MDC has recently notified the district plan change for ‘Precinct 4’ which should facilitate the construction of up to 1600 residential properties. In terms of commercial accommodation [Hotels, Motels, Air B&B etc.] there are no impediments to further development. However such developments are always dependent on commercial considerations.
Has CEDA produced any report on the future economic impact on Feilding from the Earthquake Building legislation, and if not why not?
MDC did not ask CEDA to do an economic analysis, nor did it do one itself (as MDC has the capability in-house). When considering Priority Thoroughfares, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, requires Council to consider: earthquake risk [high], the presence of unreinforced masonry buildings [yes] and pedestrian and traffic volumes [data]. Economic analysis of any type is not a consideration under the act, so was not undertaken.