A Marlborough councillor has wondered if three months of brand development for the region’s new water services organisation Marlborough Waters is “a bit excessive”.
By Kira Carrington, Local Democracy Reporter
Councillors voted to incorporate the organisation and approve the new company’s constitution and directors’ policy at Thursday’s full council meeting.
Council’s strategic delivery manager Phillip Eyles told councillors the name Marlborough Waters had been used as the organisation’s “working title” as it was in line with the names of other council-owned companies such as Marlborough Roads, Port Marlborough, and Marlborough Holdings.
“It’s also [a] useful name in terms of it's very explainable, it makes a lot of sense,” Eyles said.
“The name might change in the future, but that might depend a little bit on whether we join with another water organisation.”
Once the name was agreed upon and the board appointed, the new organisation would undergo three months of brand development followed by three to five months of website development, Eyles said.
Councillor Ben Stace said he loved the name as it was “nice and simple” but said a three-month brand development for a company that aimed to deliver cost-effective water seemed “a bit excessive”.
“The same with the website development, it’s pretty easy to come up with a website these days, so that’s just a question I have, if our focus on is on delivering affordability,” Stace said.
Councillor Cyril Dawson said the brand development and website design “should not go to consultants”.
“We have the expertise here in this council to do both,” Dawson said.
Eyles said the water organisation team had not yet decided on a process for brand development but said at least part of the design would be led internally.
“We may have to see some design support externally, but we’ll try and minimise that.”
The council had engaged a recruitment agency to appoint up to five board directors, and the board was to be announced by mid-July, Eyles said.
Councillor Deborah Dalliessi said she did not think directors of any of the council’s other companies should be able to apply as she wanted Marlborough Waters directors’ “full attention” on water.
Councillor David Croad said he did not want to restrict the pool of talent eligible for the position.
“We just want the very best, and we should not be constrained in any way, if the very best people just so happen to maybe be on another board,” Croad said.
Eyles said another key aspect of the constitution was whether the council would be able to receive a dividend from Marlborough Waters.
Councillor John Hyndman said that while he thought that all profit from Marlborough Waters should be reinvested back into water infrastructure, he didn’t want to “close the door” on that option for future councils by embedding it in the constitution.
“I’m all for any surplus this company runs should [go] back into the company ... and I don't think the council as a shareholder should be taking dividends,” Hyndman said.
“However, I think you should leave the door open for that to happen ... because we don't know what the future holds. We don't intend to take them, but we should leave that possibility on the table.”
Dalliessi said she believed the council should not take dividends, and should instead use any surplus to reduce water charges. Dawson said he thought any surplus should be returned to the ratepayer as “that’s where the water service got the money from to start this company”.
Eyles said councillors had the option of not issuing dividends unless approved by the council as sole shareholder.
Councillor Sally Arbuckle questioned a clause in the constitution that implied the council could move shares of Marlborough Waters outside of council control.
While privatisation of water services organisations was illegal under current government legislation, the community needed assurance that Marlborough Waters would never be privatised, even if the legislation was changed, Arbuckle said.
Eyles said that clause was only to allow other councils to own shares in the organisation should they decided to amalgamate with Marlborough Waters.
Croad said he was glad Arbuckle had clarified that clause, as control of the organisation was a major concern of submitters during public consultation.
“Under no circumstances should [it] be misconstrued that [the clause] could lead us in a direction that people aren't comfortable with,” Croad said.
– LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
SHARE ME