AGENDA

Audit and Risk Committee

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vaughan Dennison (Chairperson)

Bruno Petrenas (Deputy Chairperson)

Grant Smith (The Mayor)

Brent Barrett

Jim Jefferies

Susan Baty

Lorna Johnson

Rachel Bowen

Duncan McCann

Adrian Broad

Karen Naylor

Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke

Aleisha Rutherford

Lew Findlay QSM

Tangi Utikere

Leonie Hapeta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

Audit and Risk Committee MEETING

 

20 November 2017

 

 

 

Order of Business

 

NOTE:     The Audit and Risk Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting.  The format for the meeting will be as follows:

-             Audit and Risk Committee will open and adjourn immediately to following Finance and Performance Committee.

-              Finance and Performance Committee will open, conduct its business and then close.

1.         Apologies

2.         Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.  No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3.         Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE:     If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

4.         Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                    Page 7

“That the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting of 21 August 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”  

5.         Alter A Resolution Previously Passed                                                             Page 13

Memorandum, dated 27 October 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

6.         LED Street Lighting Compliance Review                                                         Page 17

Report, dated 2 November 2017 from the Road Planning Team Leader, David Lane.

7.         Health and Safety July - September 2017                                                       Page 33

Memorandum, dated 6 November 2017 from the Human Resources Manager, Wayne Wilson.

8.         Management Agreed Audit Corrective Actions Progress Status - September 2017       Page 43

Memorandum, dated 24 October 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

9.         Two New Internal Audits - Earthquake Strengthening, and Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors                                                                                                              Page 63

Memorandum, dated 24 October 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

10.       Delegations Manual - Amendment to Powers of Chief Executive              Page 107

Memorandum, dated 3 November 2017 from the Legal Counsel, John Annabell.

11.       Auditor Engagement and FY 2017 Final Management Report                    Page 109

Memorandum, dated 1 November 2017 from the Financial Accountant, Keith Allan.

12.       Committee Work Schedule                                                                            Page 131

   

 13.      Exclusion of Public

 

 

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

 

 

 

 

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), General Manager, City Enterprises (Ray McIndoe), General Manager, City Future (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager, City Networks (Ray Swadel), General Manager, Customer Services (Peter Eathorne), General Manager, Libraries and Community Services (Debbie Duncan), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson) and Communications and Marketing Manager (or their representative (name)) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Governance and Support Team Leader (Kyle Whitfield) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Carly Chang and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

[Add Council Officers], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

 

 

   


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Palmerston North City Council

 

Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 21 August 2017, commencing at 9.00am.

Members

Present:

Councillor Vaughan Dennison (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas

Apologies:

Councillors Leonie Hapeta (late arrival on Council Business), Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 11.47am during consideration of clause 20. He was not present for clauses 20 to 26 inclusive.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 1.02pm during consideration of clause 23. She was not present for clauses 23.2 to 26 inclusive.

17-17

Apologies

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Committee receive the apologies.

 

Clause 17.1 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am.

The meeting resumed at 11.18am.

 

When the meeting resumed Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present.

 

18-17

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.     That the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting of 15 May         2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Clause 18.1 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

19-17

Health and Safety April - June 2017

Memorandum, dated 3 August 2017 from the Human Resources Manager, Wayne Wilson.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the information contained within the report titled “Health and Safety April – June 2017” and dated 3 August 2017 from the Human Resources Manager, Wayne Wilson, be noted.

 

Moved Lorna Johnson, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

2.  That ongoing training in Health and Safety be introduced for staff and      reported on  at future Audit and Risk Committee meetings.

 

Clause 19-17 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

20-17

Business Continuity Planning PNCC update

Memorandum, dated 27 July 2017 from the Head of Emergency Management, Stewart Davies.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 11.47am.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the report titled “Business Continuity Planning PNCC update” and dated 27 July 2017 from the Head of Emergency Management, Stewart Davies, be noted.

2.   That Business Continuity Planning update be reported to the Committee six monthly.

 

Clause 20-17 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

21-17

Internal Audit 2016/17 Annual Report

Memorandum, dated 10 July 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

 

Moved Jim Jefferies, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1.     That the satisfactory completion of the 2016/17 Internal Audit Plan, on time and within budget be noted.

 

2.     That the Chief Executive review the risks around having to implement Business Continuity Planning and the measure in place to protect Council from these risks.

 

3.     That this be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee by the end of this year.

 

Clauses 21.1 to 21.3 above were carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

4.     That the Chief Executive be instructed to develop a draft policy on         appropriate use of closed circuit television and other remote means of         monitoring, and report back to Council.

 

Clause 21.4 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

22-17

Risk Management Progress YTD June 2017

Memorandum, dated 20 July 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That Management’s risk management progress made to the Strategic and Operational Risk Profiles be noted.

2.   That the Year-to-Date Residual Risk status for the key Strategic and Operational risks be noted.

 

Clause 22-17 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

23-17

Operational Risk Profile Review 2017

Memorandum, dated 11 July 2017 from the Senior Internal Auditor, Vivian Watene.

 

Moved Susan Baty, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.         That R.15 remain as almost certain and that “budget excluding those             programmes which are subject to third party funding” to be deleted             from risk.

 

Clause 23.1 above was carried 10 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann and Bruno Petrenas.

Against:

Councillors Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor.

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke left the meeting at 1.02pm.

 

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

2.   That the outcome of Management’s review of its Operational Risk Profile be noted.

 

Clause 23.2 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

24-17

FY 2017 Audit Interim Management Report

Memorandum, dated 27 July 2017 from the Financial Accountant, Keith Allan.

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Susan Baty.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the report titled “FY 2017 Audit Interim Management Report” and dated 27 July 2017 from the Financial Accountant, Keith Allan, be received.

 

Clause 24.1 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas

 

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

 

Note:

On a motion: That the Chief Executive be directed to bring issues that management disagree with Audit New Zealand recommendations to Council for approval. The motion was lost 4 votes to 7, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Lew Findlay QSM and Duncan McCann.

Against:

Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson and Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

 

25-17

Auditor Engagement

Memorandum, dated 27 July 2017 from the Financial Accountant, Keith Allan.

 

Moved Jim Jefferies, seconded Karen Naylor.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1.   That Council receive the Audit Proposal and Engagement letters  for the years ending 30 June 2017, 2018 and 2019 and that Council note the appointment of Audit New Zealand as Auditors and approve acceptance of the letters by the Mayor, except for the audit fee which is be to subject to further negotiation by the Chief Executive and report back to Council.

 

Clause 25.1 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas

 

26-17

Committee Work Schedule

 

Moved Vaughan Dennison, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Audit and Risk Committee receive its Work Schedule dated August 2017.

 

Clause 26.1 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Bruno Petrenas.

     

The meeting finished at 1.41pm

 

Confirmed 20 November 2017

 

 

Chairperson

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Alter A Resolution Previously Passed

DATE:                            27 October 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Vivian Watene, Senior Internal Auditor, City Corporate

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Audit and Risk Committee

1.   That the Committee approve the correction to the Resolution clause 23-17 of the August 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting to read ‘That Risk 15 residual risk remain as critical (i.e. Likelihood: Almost Certain; Impact: Moderate), and

2.   That “excluding those programmes which are subject to third party funding” to be deleted from the risk description.’

 

 

 

ISSUE

3.   In accordance with the Palmerston North City Council Standing Orders Section 3.9.18 entitled Local Authority May Revoke or Alter Any Previous Resolution.  This Memorandum seeks to alter a resolution (23-17) passed in August 2017 by this Committee.  

 

BACKGROUND

4.   At the August 2017 Audit and Risk Committee, the Committee considered the Agenda item 9 entitled: Operational Risk Profile Review 2017.  Councillor Baty moved a motion which was seconded by Councillor Barrett.

5.   The trigger of the said motion was a result of the Committee deliberating on the Management Team (MT) suggested changes (in bold writing) made to the Risk Description 15, contained in the said Agenda item 9, which read ‘Council does not deliver the capital (new and renewal) programmes within approved scope of works, planned timeframes and budget excluding those programmes which are subject to third party funding.’  

6.   The MT had proposed the Gross Risk for Risk 15 as Critical (on the Red Square with Almost Certain as the Likelihood and Moderate as the Impact).

7.   With the appropriate risk treatments, the MT forecasted that the Residual Risk for Risk 15 at the end of June 2018 will reduce to High (on the Orange Square with Likely as the Likelihood and Minor as the Impact) as illustrated  on the Matrix below:

 

8.   However, Councillor Baty moved a motion which reads as follows:

That R.15 remain as almost certain and that “budget excluding those programmes which are subject to third party funding” to be deleted from risk.’

9.   Though the said motion mentioned the ‘almost certain’ as the Likelihood, it was silent on the Impact which could potentially range from Insignificant to Moderate as shown on the above Matrix.  

10. Councillor Baty subsequently, after the August 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting, confirmed that to capture the intent of the motion accurately, the wording of the said motion should be altered to read as follows:

‘That Risk 15 residual risk remain as critical (i.e. Likelihood: Almost Certain; Impact: Moderate) and that ‘excluding those programmes which are subject to third party funding’ to be deleted from the risk description.’

11. The intent of the motion is graphically  illustrated on the Matrix below where both the Gross and Residual Risks featured as Critical (on the Red Square with Almost Certain as the Likelihood and Moderate as the Impact):

 

NEXT STEPS

12. The Committee approve the amended motion to the Resolution clause 23-17 of the August 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting as stated in paragraph 10 of this Memorandum.

 

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

 

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

Nil

 

Vivian Watene

Senior Internal Auditor

 

 

  


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Report

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            LED Street Lighting Compliance Review

DATE:                            2 November 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   David Lane, Road Planning Team Leader, City Networks

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1.   That Council confirm continued delivery of programme 1086 allowing upgrading of LED luminaires in both compliant and non-compliant parts of the network; thereby rescinding Resolution 6.3(b) adopted on 25 May 2017.

2.   That Council notes that a proposed programme 1367 will be included for consideration in the Draft 2018-28 Ten Year Plan to allow for upgrading of street lights to meet the relevant standard.

 

 


 

Summary of options analysis for

 

Problem or Opportunity

Council has in progress a capital programme for upgrading street light luminaires throughout the city to new LED technology. These new lights have potential to deliver energy savings and reduced maintenance costs over the asset lifetime and receive funding support from the New Zealand Transport Agency at an 85% subsidy. Council requested further investigation of options for upgrading non-compliant street light infrastructure. Investigation has revealed estimated costs of $5.34 million. A programme for upgrading priority 1 streets could be delivered over a 1-5 year time frame. Full compliance could be delivered within 6-7 years.

OPTION 1:

Council could continue the current programme of upgrading LED lights during 2017/18 as currently programmed, with a programme for upgrading non-compliant infrastructure to commence in 2018/19.

Community Views

A number of residents from various streets have raised concerns regarding quality issues for LED lights. There is community support for upgrading street lights to meet new standards.

Benefits

Ensures that street light luminaires are purchased under the current 85% subsidy rate currently on offer from NZTA. Any street lights purchased from the 2018/19 financial year and beyond will only receive 51% subsidy.

Risks

Even if streets are upgraded to LED this financial year, the full benefits will not be readily apparent until the upgrading works to meet current design standards are completed.

Financial

There are 513 P category lights (already installed) and 379 V category lights that are non-compliant. Installation of V category lights, if installed in 2017/18, will be at 85% subsidy. If upgraded in 2018/19 or beyond the NZTA subsidy rate of 51% would apply.

OPTION 2:

Council could defer upgrading of individual LED luminaires or groups of luminaires on roads that are non-compliant until compliance issues are addressed.

Community Views

Does not address community issues as existing fixtures are already non-compliant and will remain non-compliant until upgraded.

Benefits

Ensures streets that are non-compliant are brought up to the standard required.

Risks

There are 216 streets that have some form of non-compliance in the P category lighting zones. There are a further 64 streets in the V category lighting zones that are non-compliant.

Financial

Costs will be higher as both luminaire purchase and installation cost will be subject to a lower NZTA subsidy, 51% rather than 85%.

Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction

Street lights contribute to the city goal to be a socially and environmentally sustainable city. Street lights provide a safer environment for people to go about their business and the LED upgrade programme has environmental benefits in terms of reduced energy use over many years.


 

Rationale for the recommendations

1.         Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1       Council has approved a programme for delivery in the current financial year for upgrading of street lights on existing poles to LED luminaires. When completed the upgrades are expected to deliver reduced energy costs and reduced maintenance and operating costs. Recent changes to policy by the New Zealand Transport Agency assure that the programme is delivered at an 85% subsidy rate if delivered in the 2017/18 financial year. Two categories of street lights are being upgraded. P category is confined largely to residential areas of the city and the rollout is completed. V category is primarily the major roads and the first phase of the upgrade has started as new luminaires are supplied for installation.

1.2       Implementation has, however, highlighted deficiencies in some areas of the city, particularly in areas where lighting pole layout is non-compliant with current standards. This led to concerns being expressed by members of the community. These concerns about the LED lighting are confined to P category streets as few areas with V category lights have been upgraded. Council requested investigation of issues relating to non-compliant streets and that work has now been completed.

2.         Background and previous council decisions

2.1       Council own a significant network of street lights. Typical design life for a street light column is 40 years while the luminaire has an expected life of 20 years. Recent installations meet the latest design standards, but it is known that a portion of lights were installed under previous standards. The current standard AS/NZS 1158 is recommended and used for all new installations. Use of the standard is not mandatory or retrospective and upgrading of existing infrastructure to meet the current standard is a discretionary matter for Council. 

2.2       A compliance review of Council’s network of street lights undertaken by Essential Lighting Consultancy Ltd. (ELC Ltd). Their report is provided as an attachment. ELC Ltd has identified that 14.6% of P category lights are non-compliant and that 20.4% of V category lights are non-compliant in terms of pole layout or dimensions. Details relating to these are included in tables below. Costs for achieving full compliance are estimated at $2,867,300 for P category and $2,471,500 for V category, total expected cost is $5.34 million. The report recommends establishing a financial programme to achieve upgrading of priority 1 situations within a 1-5 year timeframe, with lower priority work to be completed thereafter.

2.3       Council has a programme 74 for renewal of street lights, with a budget of $135k for the 2017/18 financial year. Upgrading of street lights reflects an increased service level and requires approval of a new capital budget. A proposed programme 1367 has been included for consideration in the draft Ten Year Plan with a proposed budget that allows for full compliance to be achieved within 7 years. The initial year’s budget is $848k. It is assumed that the programme would qualify for NZTA funding subsidy at 51%, the current funding assistance rates for PNCC programmes.

2.4       NZTA has recently amended its policies for delivery of what it now calls low cost, low risk programmes, those with a total cost of less than $1 million. This proposed programme meets the funding criteria for that low risk programme if done as a phased project. Phasing in this way allows Council to avoid more significant business case requirements if the programme was delivered on an accelerated timetable. If it was desirable to deliver the upgrading programme on a faster timetable then it would be necessary to complete a full business case based on the total $5.34 million programme. The outcome of the business case process is less certain and it is recommended that this step be avoided if possible.

2.5       ELC Ltd. has completed a prioritised review of street lights in both P and V category zones. Priority 1 areas are those with the most significant deficiencies and can require replacement, relocation or addition of street light poles. In some priority 1 streets a full redesign is necessary. For the Table 1 below concerning P category streets priority 1 also has been quantified as streets where Council has received complaints. With priority 1b being other streets assessed as having significant deficiencies but not raised through community concerns.  Priority 2 zones are considered nice to have while priority 3 are relatively minor and may ultimately be able to be managed under existing programmes over time.

Table 1: P Cat lighting priority programme

Priority 1 and 1b

Priority 2

Priority 3

Totals

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number

Cost estimate

49

$1,653,300

121

$1,177,000

46

$37,000

216

$2,867,300

 

Table 2: V Cat lighting priority programme

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Totals

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number situations

Cost estimate

Number

Cost estimate

18

$1,730,500

23

$559,500

23

$181,500

64

$2,471,500

 

2.6       ELC Ltd. does not recommend delaying implementation of the current LED replacement programme under Council Programme 1086. There are a number of reasons why delaying implementation is not prudent. Firstly, there is no currently approved programme available or time or consultant/contract resources available for upgrading of non-compliant infrastructure and it is not possible for such a programme to be delivered this financial year. Secondly, renewed luminaires will be able to be reused when poles are replaced or relocated. The third consideration is financial and relates to the approved subsidy for programme 1086. Luminaires installed under this programme are eligible for an 85% funding subsidy this year. If delayed, those same lights will still need to be replaced at some future time at a subsidy rate of 51%.

2.7       In terms of community impacts, delayed implementation has no community benefit. The ELC Ltd. report identifies 513 P category light locations (216 streets) and 379 V category light locations (64 streets) that are non-compliant. Streets that are non-compliant now will remain non-compliant even if upgraded to LED luminaires this financial year. The issues in those streets can only be addressed through an upgrading programme, through the addition of extra columns. It is not the LED luminaires that are making the locations non-compliant. 

2.8       For these reasons it is suggested that the Council resolution (reference clause 2.9.1 of this report) of 25th May 2017 be reconsidered. That resolution currently requires that all standards are met before lantern conversion. As outlined above, meeting all standards is a commendable goal but also expensive at $5.34 million. An accelerated programme to address those deficiencies would require a full business case before NZTA funding could be assured and would take time to develop. ELC Ltd. has instead recommended a phased programme which conforms to NZTA funding policy under its Low Cost Low Risk programme if implemented at a rate of less than $1 million per annum. A proposed programme (1367) has been included for consideration in the 2018-28 Ten Year Plan. Final delivery of the programme could be considered following completion of the public submissions process early in 2018.

2.9       The Committee of Council meeting of 25th May 2017, in considering submissions to the Annual Budget 2017/18, passed the following resolution 6.3(b):

2.9.1    “That Programmes 1086 - Street Light Upgrade LEDs and 74 - Street Light Replacements allow staff to consider appropriate LED installation to mitigate issues raised during the submission process and to a report back to Council to ensure that all standards are met before lantern conversion.”

2.10     Subsequently the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 19th June 2017 considered a further report on this matter leading to the following resolution.

2.10.1  “That Council authorise continuation of compliant LED street light upgrades envisaged under programme 1086 and approve conversion of street lights in the phase 2 part of the programme in compliant streets”.  Adopted by Council on 26 June 2017 as Resolution 104.

2.11     The conversion of V category lighting replacements has commenced. In line with the resolution only compliant locations are being replaced at present. The remaining non-compliant V category lights have still to be contracted and this is the subject of approvals under this report. Further delay is not possible if the programme is to be fully delivered this financial year.

3.         Description of options

3.1       Council has the following options:

3.2       Council can continue to deliver its planned programme for upgrading LED luminaires. A separate financial programme would then need to be approved in the 2018-28 Ten Year Plan for upgrading of non-compliant locations, being option 1.  This requires Resolution 6.3(b) to be rescinded, reference Clause 2.9.1 above.

3.3       Council can defer delivery of a part of the LED upgrade programme that occurs in non- compliant locations. Non-compliant locations could then be upgraded to comply with the relevant standard with replacement of the luminaire with LED technology at the time of upgrading, being option 2.

4.         Analysis of options

4.1       The option 1 addresses the original objectives of the LED conversion programme, that is, it upgrades existing infrastructure to LED technology to realise potential savings in energy, maintenance and operating costs. The separate question of upgrading non-compliant areas to meet the recommended standard can then be treated on its merits. Consultants have recommended a programme for completing upgrades to meet standards on a prioritised basis. This programme could cost $5.34 million and higher priority areas could be met within 6 years at an annual budget of approximately $850k per year. It is not possible to deliver such a programme in 2017/18 as no budget exists and it is not sufficiently advanced for delivery.

4.2       The alternate option 2 is to delay delivery in non-compliant areas. This can only be applied in areas with V category lights as the P category lighting upgrades are complete.  Non-compliance is higher in V category locations as standards are higher, but the higher light output in these areas also mean the effects of non-compliance are less obvious. Complaints from residents have not arisen from areas with V category lighting.

4.3       As noted above, deferral of LED luminaire upgrades on arterial roads does not have any community benefits. Roads that are non-compliant now will remain non-compliant until pole upgrading occurs. Further there is a cost issue in that a lower subsidy rate is likely to be available if installation is deferred beyond the 2017/18 financial year.

4.4       From a financial perspective deferral of treatment of non-compliant locations would result in a reduction in the cost of the LED luminaire replacement programme. The actual cost would depend on whether the decision was limited to individual lanterns or sections of road where non-compliance is an issue. There are 18 locations with non-compliance on priority 1 V category roads, but not all lighting fixtures in those locations are non-compliant. What is clear is that the cost to Council of each lantern deferred would be 34% higher in real terms because of the reduced funding subsidy available if the work is not completed in the 2017/18 financial year.

4.5       If deferral of non-compliant fixtures is the desired outcome, then budget allowance would need to be made in the proposed programme 1367 for deferred upgrades to be completed. This would result in a budget commitment greater than the $5.34 million discussed in this report.  

5.         Conclusion

5.1       Council has approved a programme 1086 for upgrading of street lights to LED luminaires. The programme is well advanced and can be delivered this financial year as planned. An attractive subsidy of 85% has been made available by the New Zealand Transport Agency as a strong incentive to deliver the programme.

5.2       The NZTA LED luminaire replacement funding approval does not extend to upgrading to address street light pole compliance. Historically such programmes have been delivered as minor safety improvements programmes. To achieve delivery of such a programme for Palmerston North would involve a cost of $5.34 million which could be delivered in 6-7 years.

5.3       Council has resolved that lantern upgrades should be delayed until compliance with standards has been achieved. It is not possible to achieve that compliance in the current financial year and a decision is needed to either continue with the lantern upgrades or defer it and complete the upgrading to meet standards first.

6.         Next actions

6.1       If Council approves the tender process for phase 2 of the V category lighting upgrades will be contracted out.

6.2       If Council chooses to defer lantern upgrades in non-compliant locations then a reduced contract will be let that is limited to compliant areas only. Planning for upgrading of non-compliant locations will be carried out between now and the adoption of the 2018-28 Ten Year Plan.

7.         Outline of community engagement process

7.1       Community engagement occurred as part of the Annual Budget process and Council has heard submissions on these issues.  

Compliance and administration

No issues

 

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual

No

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

ELC Ltd PNCC Non Compliance Report

 

 

 

David Lane

Road Planning Team Leader

 

 

 

 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Health and Safety July - September 2017

DATE:                            6 November 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Wayne Wilson, Human Resources Manager, Headquarters

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Audit and Risk Committee

1.   That the Audit and Risk Committee note the information contained within this report.

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

This report covers the period 1 July to 30 September 2017.  The information included in this report is discussed at the appropriate H&S Committee, the Main H&S Committee and Management Team. 

2.         BACKGROUND

Risks and Control Plans

Work is continuing with implementing the People Safe Health and Safety software application in City Enterprises.  Staff have identified the risks and are progressing the inputting of safe operating procedures for each of these risks. Once fully implemented in City Enterprises and an analysis of results taken place it is likely that the rest of Council will progress to using People Safe.

Work has continued with assessing the significance of the risks present at Council worksites and updating our Health and Safety Manual.  The following risks have been identified as the most significant for Council requiring further work. 

§ Moving vehicles

§ Working alone

§ Violence/Robbery in the workplace

§ Working in and around traffic

§ Asbestos

§ Cutting underground services

§ Working in trenches

§ Working in confined spaces

§ Hazardous chemicals

§ Working at heights

§ Tree felling

§ Plant and machinery

 

We already have Standard Operating Procedures and mitigation strategies in place for these as hazards but are aligning these with the risk paradigm of the new Act by completing assessments of threats and consequences and what controls can be put in place. A number of staff from our H&S committees are assisting with this process.

Hazards, Incidents and Near Misses Reported

 

Quarter

Dec 15

Mar 16

Jun 16

Sep 16

Dec 16

Mar 17

Jun 17

Sep 17

Hazards

 

3

12*

15

21

15

10

7

4

Incidents

 

14

12*

40

45

31

56

20

58

Near Misses

5

5*

21

67

24

24

28

27

Lost Time (days)

 

52.5

 

32.6

 

67.3

 

154.6

 

215.0

 

215.6

 

140

 

129.15

L.T. Injuries

 

2

 

5

 

10

 

11

 

14

 

13

 

9

 

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Introduction of new system.

Two injuries accounted for 75% of the lost time.  16 of the injuries occurred in City Enterprises.

Attachment One provides an example of the reports that we can access from People Safe.  We are further refining this report to include benchmarks and will be transitioning to this type of report to this committee.

Investigations

No investigations required this quarter.

Previous Investigations

Number of Recommendations                                   24

Number of Recommendations Completed                 22

The 2 outstanding recommendations relate to a formal external review of our H&S processes and procedures which is planned for early in the new year.

Training

Attached is a report on H&S specific training undertaken this calendar year.  This captures most of the training provided but not all, as H&S can be a component of other courses and it does not capture the on-the-job instruction type learning.  This is probably more detail than this committee requires

3.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

No

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

City Enterprises Health and Safety Report

 

2.

Health and Safety Training

 

 

 

Wayne Wilson

Human Resources Manager

 

 

  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Management Agreed Audit Corrective Actions Progress Status - September 2017

DATE:                            24 October 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Vivian Watene, Senior Internal Auditor, City Corporate

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Audit and Risk Committee

1.   That the Committee receive this Memorandum for information.

 

 

ISSUE

1.         In accordance with the Internal Audit Charter, this Committee receives a quarterly update on the management agreed audit corrective actions from the internal audit reviews that have not been satisfactorily resolved past the agreed timeline.

 

2.         This Memorandum also includes the follow up on the external auditors’ recommendations from their audit of the Council’s annual accounts.

BACKGROUND

Internal Audit

3.         The timeline missed schedule on the management agreed corrective actions based on the recent follow-up is attached in Appendix A.  Items listed on this schedules are items that management has missed the agreed to action deadline by more than 6 months.

 

4.         A few items from this schedule have been implemented and removed since last reported.  Several items have been added onto the schedule from the recent follow-up.

 

 

External Audit

5.         The corrective actions recommended by the Audit New Zealand in Appendix B includes those items requiring management action from:

 

·        The Interim Management Report 2016/17 received in July 2017 for the interim audit of the Palmerston North City Council 2016/17 year end annual audit.

·        The Final Management Report 2015/16 received in November 2016.  This also includes items from the prior year audit that requiring further implementation.

NEXT STEPS

6.         Internal Audit will continue to follow up the Management Agreed Audit Corrective Actions and report to this Committee quarterly on this subject.

7.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

 

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

Appendix A Internal Audit Management Agreed Corrective Actions - Timeline Missed

 

2.

Appendix B Progress Status on Audit New Zealand's Recommendations

 

 

 

Vivian Watene

Senior Internal Auditor

 

 

  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Two New Internal Audits - Earthquake Strengthening, and Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors

DATE:                            24 October 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Vivian Watene, Senior Internal Auditor, City Corporate

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Audit and Risk Committee

1.   That the Committee receive these two audit reports: Earthquake Strengthening, and Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors audits, for information.

2.   That the Committee note the audit issues identified and the related Management responses to the audit recommendations.

 

 

ISSUE

1.         In keeping with the Internal Audit Charter, this memorandum keeps you informed of the two recent internal audits.

 

BACKGROUND

2.         These two audits are part of the Internal Audit 2017/18 Plan approved by this Committee.

 

3.         The audit on the Earthquake Strengthening was carried out by the Internal Auditor David Osborne.  The Accounts Receivable and the Aged Debtors was audited by the Internal Auditor Swati Joshi.

 

Earthquake Strengthening – Appendix A

4.         This was an audit on the Council’s preparedness to implement the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (the New Act) on the earthquake-prone buildings effective 1 July 2017.

 

5.         The audit concluded that there is evidence of effective organisational preparedness to implement the New Act for third party owned and Council owned earthquake-prone buildings.

 

6.         The audit has, however, highlighted some important issues such as:

·    There is uncertainty if the building strength assessment of the Civic Administration Building (CAB) meets the requirements of the New Act.

·    There is no formal decision made about the level of strengthening for the Council buildings after the New Act.

·    Level of strengthening decision for the CAB external stairs not documented.

7.         Management has agreed to implement all the audit recommendations.

Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors – Appendix B

8.         This audit was to ascertain if the Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors processes are functioning in line with the relevant Management Policies and that the internal controls are in place and working as intended.

 

9.         The audit concluded that generally there is a sound system of internal controls designed to achieve system objectives. 

 

10.       However the Auditor also made a suite of recommendations for improvement such as the organisation should communicate its policy intents to the relevant staff and should comply with its own policies and procedures. 

 

11.       Management has agreed to implement a majority of the Auditor’s recommendations where practically possible. There are other recommendations which Management is unable to implement because the system software vendors are not currently entertaining the organisation’s requests for changes as they focus on new product development.  There are others where Management either perceived the recommendations as not beneficial to implement or is satisfied with the current practices.

NEXT STEPS

12.       The Auditors will follow up the Management agreed corrective actions in due course

13.       Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

 

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

Appendix A - Earthquake Strengthening Audit

 

2.

Appendix B - Accounts Receivable and Aged Debtors

 

 

 

Vivian Watene

Senior Internal Auditor

 

 

 

 

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Delegations Manual - Amendment to Powers of Chief Executive

DATE:                            3 November 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   John Annabell, Legal Counsel, City Corporate

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1.   That the Council’s Delegations Manual be amended by adding the following sub-clause (c) to clause 201 relating to delegations to the Chief Executive:

“(c)      Does not involve the revocation or alteration of any decision previously made by the Council unless expressly permitted; and”

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

There is a need to clarify the role of the Chief Executive’s decision-making powers with regard to matters on which the Council has previously made a decision.

2.         BACKGROUND

The Council’s Delegations Manual was recently amended to provide the Chief Executive with a broad delegation to be able to carry out all functions, powers and duties of the Council subject to specified exceptions.  However, there is no express statement in the Delegations Manual relating to the Chief Executive’s power to revoke or alter decisions that have been previously made by the Council, rather than by the Chief Executive.

Accordingly, this memorandum recommends that the Chief Executive’s powers be limited in the manner set out in the above recommendation.


For completeness, clause 201, as amended above, will state as follows, the new sub-clause (c) being printed in italics:

“201.  Subject to any limitations in the Financial Delegations to the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive is delegated all functions, powers and duties of the Council:

(a)          except those retained by the Council, or delegated to a committee or other subordinate decision making body of the Council; and

(b)          subject to any legal limits on the Council to do so, and any conditions or limits imposed by the Council from time to time (including financial limits); and

(c)          does not involve the revocation or alteration of any decision previously made by the Council unless expressly permitted; and

provided the Chief Executive exercises such delegated authorities consistently with Council’s strategies and policies (including the 10 Year Plan, Annual Budgets and District Plan) and any Council approved guidelines regarding those strategies and policies.”

3.         NEXT STEPS

If the recommendation is adopted, the Council’s Delegations Manual will be amended accordingly.

4.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

No

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

N/A

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

Nil

 

John Annabell

Legal Counsel

 

 

  


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Auditor Engagement and FY 2017 Final Management Report

DATE:                            1 November 2017

AUTHOR/S:                   Keith Allan, Financial Accountant, City Corporate

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COMMITTEE

1.   That the Committee receive the 2017 Final Audit Management Report.

 

 

 

1.         ISSUE

Auditor Engagement

 

At the August 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting the following resolution was adopted.

 

“1. That Council receive the Audit Proposal and Engagement letters for the years ending 30 June 2017, 2018 and 2019 and that Council note the appointment of Audit New Zealand as Auditors and approve acceptance of the letters by the Mayor, except for the audit fee which is be to subject to further negotiation by the Chief Executive and report back to Council.”

 

Subsequent to that meeting the Chief Executive discussed the audit fees with Audit New Zealand. The outcome of this was that the Chief Executive accepted a goodwill discount of $8,703 off the proposed fee for 2017 and of $10,358 for 2019. The 2019 discount will apply if the Council addresses the new capital and renewals underspend issue, and improves its procurement and project management practices.

 

Amended letters have been accepted and signed by the Mayor.

 

 

2.         ISSUE

 

Final Audit Management Report

 

The final report on the audit of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2017 has been received from the Council Auditors, Audit New Zealand.  In the report the auditors outline significant matters considered, and areas of interest they have reviewed during the course of their audit. Where applicable management have commented on audit’s recommendations and these are incorporated in the report. This report includes an update on the matters outstanding from previous reports.

 

Where appropriate management will be reviewing and considering the recommendations for implementation.

 

3.         NEXT STEPS

It is recommended that the Committee receive the final 2017 audit management report.

 

 

4.         Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual clause 167

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

Audit New Zealand final 2017 management report

 

 

 

Keith Allan

Financial Accountant

 

 

  


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Committee Work Schedule

TO:                                Audit and Risk Committee

MEETING DATE:           20 November 2017

TITLE:                            Committee Work Schedule

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Audit and Risk Committee

1.   That the Audit and Risk Committee receive its Work Schedule dated November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Committee Work Schedule - November 2017

 

    


PDF Creator