Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary
Meeting of Southland District Council will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 19
May 2015
9am
Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill
|
|
Council Agenda
OPEN
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Mayor
|
Mayor Gary Tong
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Lyall Bailey
|
|
|
|
Stuart Baird
|
|
|
|
Brian Dillon
|
|
|
|
Rodney Dobson
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Bruce Ford
|
|
|
|
George Harpur
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Ebel Kremer
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
|
|
Neil Paterson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Committee Advisor
|
Maree Fyffe
|
|
|
Chief Executive
|
Steve Ruru
|
|
Delegations of Council/Committee/Community Board/CDA insert
text here.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
Procedural
1 Apologies 5
2 Leave of
absence 5
3 Conflict of Interest 5
4 Public Forum 5
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items 5
6 Confirmation
of Council Minutes 5
Reports - Policy and Strategy
7.1 Disqualification
from owning a dog - Objection from Frederick John McCullough 7
7.2 Draft
Submission to Rules Reduction Taskforce 19
7.3 Long
Term Plan 2015-2025 - Public Consultation and Feedback 35
7.4 Council
Officers' Amendments to the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and Supporting Information
Documents 53
7.5 Long
Term Plan 2015-2025 - Key Issues and Funding Requests 65
7.6 Appendix
1: Strategies, Financial Issues and Rating 73
7.7 Appendix
2: NZTA Investment Programme 93
7.8 Appendix
3: Maintaining Roads and Levels of Service 99
7.9 Appendix
4: Roading Rate Model 111
7.10 Appendix
5: Sealing the Catlins Road 125
7.11 Appendix
6: Funding Infrastructure and Depreciation 141
7.12 Appendix
7: Rating Differential 149
7.13 Appendix
8: Fees and Charges 161
7.14 Appendix
9: Funding and Grant Requests 169
7.15 Appendix
10: Around the Mountains Cycle Trail 177
7.16 Appendix
11: Curio Bay Wastewater Project 183
7.17 Appendix
12: Manapouri Wastewater Disposal 191
7.18 Appendix
13: District and Local Issues and Comments 197
7.19 Appendix
14: Operational Matters 211
7.20 Appendix
15: Performance Measures 217
7.21 Development
and Financial Contributions Policy 221
7.22 Remission
and Postponement of Rates Policy 261
7.23 Remission
and Postponement of Rates on
Māori Freehold Land Policy 279
7.24 Early
Payment of Rates Policy 289
Reports - Operational Matters
Nil
Reports - Governance
Nil
Public Excluded
Procedural motion
to exclude the public 299
C10.1 Public
Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting dated 22 April 2015 299
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
1 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Leave
of absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
3 Conflict
of Interest
Councillors are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a
conflict arises between their role as a councillor and any private or other
external interest they might have. It is also considered best practice for
those members in the Executive Team attending the meeting to also signal any
conflicts that they may have with an item before Council.
4 Public Forum
Notification to
speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further
information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz
or phoning 0800 732 732.
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items
To consider, and if
thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further
items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to
be held with the public excluded.
Such resolution is
required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:
(i) The
reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and
(ii) The reason why the
discussion of this 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.”
6 Confirmation
of Council Minutes
6.1 Meeting
minutes of Council, 22 April 2015
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Disqualification
from owning a dog - Objection from Frederick John McCullough
Record No: R/15/4/6825
Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager
Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 To
determine Mr Frederick John McCullough’s objection to disqualification
from owning a dog.
Executive
Summary
2 On
23 March 2015, the Group Manager Environment and Community disqualified
Mr McCullough, of 5 Bolton Street, Orepuki, from owning a dog until 23 March
2018, in accordance with Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996.
3 Mr
McCullough has objected to the disqualification, and is entitled to appear
before the Council and speak in support of the objection.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Disqualification from owning a dog - Objection from
Frederick John McCullough” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as
not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Upholds
the decision to disqualify Mr Frederick John
McCullough and gives notice of this decision to Mr McCullough
in accordance with Section 26(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
|
Content
Background
4 Animal Control has received a large number of complaints since 2009 regarding
Mr McCullough's dogs wandering in Orepuki. He has received verbal
warnings, written warnings, had his dogs impounded and received multiple infringements.
5 Mr
McCullough’s infringement history within the
last two years is as follows:
|
Infringement Number
|
Date of Offence
|
Offence
|
|
3072
|
10/7/2014
|
Failed to keep dog under control
|
|
3073
|
10/7/2014
|
Failed to keep dog under control
|
|
3090
|
5/9/2014
|
Failed to keep dog under control
|
|
3098
|
22/9/2014
|
Failed to keep dog under control
|
|
3149
|
16/11/2014
|
Kept an unregistered dog
|
|
3150
|
16/11/2014
|
Kept an unregistered dog
|
6 At
the time of writing, all of Mr McCullough’s dogs are registered, largely
due to the number of impoundings.
7 One
of Mr McCullough’s dogs is declared a working dog (‘Sam’).
8 Being
satisfied that the legal criteria had been met, on 23 March 2015 the
Group Manager Environment and Community disqualified Mr McCullough from owning
a dog until 23 March 2018.
Issues
9 Section
26(3) of the Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that Council is required to
have regard to in considering this objection. These are outlined below.
10 The
circumstances and nature of the offence or offences in respect of which the
person was disqualified.
11 The
infringement history above shows a history of significant repeat offending
under the
Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act).
12 The
competency of the person objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership:
13 Mr McCullough is not
practicing responsible ownership by his repeated offending and failure to work
with dog control staff.
14 Any
steps taken by the owner to prevent further offences:
15 Officers
are not aware of any steps taken.
16 The
matters advanced in support of the objection:
17 Mr
McCullough advises:
· Joint
ownership with his wife,
· Effect on his
ability to herd stock without working dogs,
· The character
of the town populace.
Any other relevant matters
18 Attack
post disqualification - on 18 April 2015 Council was notified of a sheep that
had been mauled, but still alive, at the corner of Salford Street and Dover
Street at Orepuki.
The Ranger attended and euthanised the sheep. Later, Mr
McCullough’s wife
Marg McCullough advised the Ranger that the sheep was theirs and the dog
belonged to their son Michael who was in Australia. Mr McCullough had the
dog destroyed (a Smithfield cross). Mr McCullough was issued an
infringement for failure to keep a dog under control, being a legal owner of
the dog by possession.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory
Requirements
19 The
Dog Control Act provides:
“25 Disqualification
of owners
(1) A
territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if —
(a) the
person commits 3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single
incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months; or
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply
if the territorial authority is satisfied that the circumstances of the offence
or offences are such that—
(a)
disqualification is not warranted; or
(b) the
territorial authority will instead classify the person as a probationary owner
under Section 21.”
Community Views
20 The
public is particularly concerned about wandering dogs and irresponsible owners,
and expects Council to take appropriate action to protect communities.
Costs and Funding
21 Mr
McCullough is entitled to appeal the Council’s decision to the District
Court, and so there would be legal costs associated with any appeal process.
Policy Implications
22 Council’s
Dog Control Policy 2010 enables Council to accept the recommendation of this
report.
Analysis
Options Considered
23 The
following are the options for the Council to consider:
Analysis of Options
Option 1 - Uphold the disqualification.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Prevents
Mr McCullough from owning a dog for a period, and during this period the
local community will have relief.
· Fulfils
the public expectation of firm action with irresponsible owners and wandering
dogs.
|
· None identified.
|
Option 2 - Bring forward the date of termination of the
disqualification.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· An option if the Council believes that the period of
disqualification is too long.
|
· The period of disqualification is reasonable in my view, given
Mr McCullough’s disregard for complying with dog control laws despite
efforts from dog control staff to resolve his non-complying.
|
Option 3 - Immediately terminate the disqualification.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· None identified.
|
· The criteria for disqualification has been met, and there is not
sufficient reason to terminate the disqualification.
|
Assessment of Significance
This decision is not considered
significant in terms of the decision-making requirements of the Local Government
Act 2002.
Recommended Option
24 Option 1 is
recommended. Mr McCullough has
shown considerable irresponsibility in dog ownership in repeatedly offending
under the Act. Despite a number of visits from
Animal Control staff encouraging Mr McCullough to be
more responsible he has failed to do so. In upholding the disqualification, the
Orepuki community will be protected during this period.
Next Steps
25 To give notice of this
decision to Mr McCullough in accordance with Section 26(4) of the
Dog Control Act 1996, and Dog Control staff will ensure that the
disqualification will be complied with.
Attachments
a Letter
of objection View
b Signed
Notice of Disqualification View
c Signed
Memo to Bruce Halligan View
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Draft Submission to Rules Reduction Taskforce
Record No: R/15/4/6996
Author: Bruce
Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 A
draft submission has been prepared to the Government’s Rules Reduction
Taskforce.
The Council’s consideration of this draft submission is requested and if
the Council is comfortable with this submission, or subject to any amendments
which the Council may require, approval is sought to send this to the
Taskforce.
Executive
Summary
2 The
Government has initiated the Rules Reduction Taskforce, with a key aim being to
seek to focus on regulatory requirements which may impose additional costs and
delays to development activities for little or no added value. This
workstream has arisen from the Government’s initiatives to seek to manage
housing affordability and assist with increasing the supply of housing.
3 An
opportunity exists until 1 June 2015 for the Southland District Council to
lodge a submission to the Taskforce. A draft submission is attached as Attachment
A for the Council’s consideration.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Draft Submission to Rules Reduction Taskforce”
dated 8 May 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Authorises
the Group Manager - Environment and Community to forward the submission to
the Taskforce before the closing date of 1 June 2015.
|
Content
Background
4 As
referred to above, the Government currently has a strong focus on improving
housing affordability and increasing the supply of housing, particularly in the
major metropolitan areas such as Auckland and Christchurch.
5 The
Rules Reduction Taskforce has been created to focus on identifying key
regulatory barriers to these goals, particularly any such barriers which may be
adding increased costs and delays for little demonstrable benefit.
6 The
Taskforce itself is made up of a diverse range of representatives (see Attachment
B), with local representation for Southland included in the form of Mr Ian
Tulloch, QSM JP,
ex-Mayor of the Gore District Council. The Taskforce recently visited
Southland and Mayor Tong and other Council representatives were in attendance.
7 An
opportunity currently exists for any party to lodge a submission on this matter
until
1 June 2015. It is suggested that it is worthwhile for the Southland
District Council to present its perspectives on this issue, and hence a draft
submission has been prepared for the Council’s consideration and is
attached as Attachment A.
8 In
formulating this draft submission, I discussed this matter with the Chief
Executive, and also sought feedback from the Council’s second and third
tier Managers as to whether there were any rules and requirements which they
were regularly striking which were adding delays and costs for little
demonstrable benefit. The feedback received is reflected in the attached
submission.
9 As
stated in the draft submission, it is always worthwhile to put concerns about
local and central government rules in context, as there are usually “two
sides to the story”.
Just because one or more parties may have a concern about a rule, this does not
automatically mean it is flawed. Likewise, while some sectors are of the
view that there are too many rules governing some areas (eg management of the
environment), other sectors consider that there are not enough rules, and/or
that the rules that do exist are too weak. Often, rules that do exist are
there for important reasons, such as maintaining water quality or protection of
local biodiversity.
10 In
so saying, as stated in the draft submission, any rules which do exist should
be appropriate and necessary, and framed in such a way that they are
unambiguous and administratively efficient. The Southland District
Council has had a strong focus in the current District Plan review on removing
or minimising SDC planning rules which have generated consent requirements for
little value, and every effort has been made to minimise such rules in the
second generation District Plan.
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)
has prepared a submission to this process on behalf of this sector. I
have received a copy of the LGNZ submission. It seeks quite a wide range
of changes to many of the key Acts which councils administer. In
contrast, the Southland District Council submission is narrower and refers more
specifically to issues that this Council has experienced, although the two
submissions generally have no inconsistent content.
Issues
11 As
above.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
12 The
Rules Reduction Taskforce is a non-statutory initiative which the Council has
an opportunity to lodge a submission on, as does any other party, until 1 June
2015.
Community Views
13 Any
party may submit to the Rules Reduction Taskforce currently. When
considering its submission content, it is also important for SDC to recognise
that most, if not all, local and central government rules go through a submission
process before they are adopted.
Costs and Funding
14 There
are no costs in SDC lodging a submission. There are costs to business and
developers of regulatory compliance and this is a key focus of this Government
Taskforce initiative.
Policy Implications
15 There
are no specific policy implications for the Council in relation to this draft
submission.
Analysis
Options Considered
16 The
Council can either opt to submit on this matter or opt not to submit.
Analysis of Options
Option 1
17 Lodge
a submission to the Rules Reduction Taskforce.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Enables
Council’s views to be factored into the broader discussion.
|
· If
the Council identifies specific provisions as a “problem” in its
draft submission, then the relevant agency may feel aggrieved by this.
|
Option 2
18 Do
not lodge a submission to the Rules Reduction Taskforce.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· No
risk of causing offence to any other regulatory agency.
|
· Does
not allow SDC’s views to be factored into the broader discussion.
As a regulatory agency itself, SDC has considerable experience with balancing
competing aspirations.
|
Assessment of Significance
19 This
matter is not considered significant in terms of the Local Government Act
2002.
It involves a public submission process, with any party having a right to
submit.
Recommended Option
20 Option
1 of lodging a submission is recommended. Accordingly, a draft submission
is attached as Attachment A for the Council’s consideration.
Due to the timing of the close of submissions of 1 June 2015, delegation is
also sought for the author to make any amendments requested to the draft
submission and send it away.
Next Steps
21 If
the Council is agreeable to the lodgement of a submission, approval from it is
sought to delegate to the Group Manager - Environment and Community to lodge a
submission on behalf of the Council before the closing date. Councillors
may also have their own views which could be discussed at the meeting on 19 May
on any matters they wish to raise not already covered in the draft submission.
Attachments
a Draft
Letter to Department of Internal Affairs - Submission from Southland District
Council - Rules Reduction Taskforce View
b Rules
Reduction Taskforce View
When replying please
quote: 140/20/3/1
14 May 2015
Rules Reduction
Department of Internal Affairs
PO Box 805
Wellington 6140
rulesreduction@dia.govt.nz
Dear Sir/Madam
Rules Reduction Taskforce - Submission from the Southland
District Council
Thank you for the opportunity to submit in relation to the
Government’s
Rules Reduction Taskforce initiative.
At the outset, the Council would note that it supports the
Government’s initiative to seek to identify and remove any rules which
may be creating unnecessary impediments and/or adding unnecessary costs.
The Council is also committed to streamlining its processes
and removing unnecessary costs where it can. By way of example, the
Council is nearing the conclusion of a review of its District Plan prepared
under the Resource Management Act 1991, in order to create a second generation
District Plan. An important part of that review process was identifying
and addressing rules in the Operative (first generation) Southland District
Plan which had generated the requirement for resource consents to be obtained,
but where this process had added little value. The new second generation
Southland District Plan has been significantly streamlined, and fewer
activities now trigger the requirement for resource consent.
While the Rules Reduction process is seeking identification
of unnecessary and/or frustrating rules, the Council considers that it is
important that this process be placed in the appropriate context.
Just because a party or parties may find a rule frustrating,
this does not necessarily mean that the rule itself is flawed, inappropriate
and/or unnecessary. Good examples would be many of the environmental
rules which councils administer. While some land owners may hold the view
that they should be able to do whatever they like on their own property, doing
so can often generate significant adverse effects on the environment and/or
adjoining owners and occupiers. Hence, many of these
“frustrating” local Council rules have been formulated to reflect
local conditions and topography and to protect a level of amenity for adjoining
owners.
In all of its activities, the Council carefully considers
available options (as required by the Local Government Act, and other
legislation) before deciding to implement any new rules. A rule is
only one way to approach a particular issue, with other options including
non-regulatory incentives and/or education, both of which can often achieve the
same or more than a rules-based approach and in a less adversarial way.
The Council see it as important that the Taskforce develop a
full understanding of the background and context within which rules were
originally established prior to recommending that they be abolished or
changed. In many instances it may well be appropriate that there be
changes made but in others there will be a bigger context which may not be well
understood by all.
The Council sought feedback from staff as to any rules which
those staff were regularly striking which were adding significant costs and/or
timeframes for little benefit.
Detailed below are areas in which the Council considers that
changes may be needed to existing rules and/or legislation.
Local Government Act 1974
Section 342 (1) (a) - Road stopping in rural areas needs
Ministerial approval - the Council’s query is why only in rural areas as
defined in District Plan, and why at all, given there is already a public
objection process? This is considered by Council to be just another step
to be undertaken which slows the overall process and adds additional processing
and approval cost for no benefit.
Section 345 (a) (1) - Stopped road must be sold at valuation
which creates problems with many enquiries failing to proceed on that
basis. The Council considers that this should be changed to provide for
disposal by agreement. Valuation is just one tool in the disposal negotiation
process. Sale value to a private party should be for Council to decide
after considering all the relevant issues.
Tenth Schedule, Section 1 - In road stoppings full survey
must be completed prior to the public objection process. This creates
significant expense up-front with no guarantee that the stopping itself will
proceed. This process should be in line with Resource Management Act 1991
subdivision consent processes, in that objections and processing could be done
on an initial scheme diagram, with full survey completed/required only if the
road stopping actually proceeds.
Public Works Act 1981
Section 62 (1) (b) - Compensation value - all negotiations
should be on willing buyer/willing seller basis with the funding organisation
determining how much it is prepared to pay. Current rules place
restrictions on this, which limits the ability to undertake negotiations which
could be beneficial to obtaining agreements above valuation and thereby
minimising delays to projects.
Section 20 (1) and Section 114(1) - Currently this requires
ministerial approval to issue
Gazette Notices to acquire property. This should be delegated to
territorial local authorities as the current process creates delays and
additional costs for no benefit. Councils can acquire all of a title
without reference or approval from the Minister, yet to acquire part of a
title, which in most cases is a fraction of the whole title creates additional
costs as councils need Ministerial approval and have to pay for that approval.
Cadastral Survey Act 2002
Recent amendment to rules regarding completion of cadastral
surveys for road legalisation (proclamation surveys) now require the surveyor
to define the balance of the property to full survey standards. This adds
considerable cost to survey and thus the ratepayers to fix any historical
errors which the survey may uncover. The cost of fixing these errors
should not fall on ratepayers but rather on the Crown whose record it is.
Heritage New Zealand - identification of archaeological
sites in District Plans
Like most councils, in its District Plan the Southland
District Council has been requested to identify sites of archaeological
significance by Heritage New Zealand. There are several hundred such
identifiers on the Southland District Plan planning maps, with an associated
rules regime which can sometimes trigger the requirement for resource
consents. This can create delay and additional costs for consent
applicants.
It is noted that such sites are already protected by the
Heritage New Zealand
Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, whereby an archaeological authority is required from
Heritage New Zealand to modify, destroy or damage the site.
The Council would query whether this dual level of
protection is necessary as it no doubt contributes to many resource consents
being required across the country. It is suggested that the approval
process under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 would
suffice.
Also, some of these archaeological sites are records of an
historic find and there may or may not be any material still present of
archaeological significance. The records held are often also not precise
in terms of the actual location of the site. Further refinement of the
location of such sites and the significance of the site would be useful to remove
or mitigate uncertainty.
Earthquake-prone Buildings Regime
While Council has submitted separately on the proposed
legislative changes to address earthquake prone building risks it wishes
to emphasise that the final shape of this legislation will be of
considerable importance to communities in terms of the ease to which it
provides for adaptive reuse and future development of buildings.
While recognising the importance of public safety, as
illustrated in the Christchurch earthquake, the Council is supportive of a form
of regime which recognises relative risks in differing contexts, eg an isolated
rural church used once a month versus a multi-storey commercial building in a
major urban centre where 200 plus people work every day.
The final shape of this legislation is crucial to the future
of Southland District and other rural communities, where the current economic
climate would make the costs, processes and delays of a very onerous
strengthening regime very difficult to bear for building owners.
This could lead to ‘demolition by neglect’ where building
owners could simply ‘walk away’ from their buildings or undertake
no upgrading or preventative maintenance.
In summary, the Council supports, in principle, the focus on
removing unnecessary impediments to economic activity and property development,
but also hopes that the Taskforce recognises that some rules are designed to
maintain environmental and amenity values.
This submission was considered and endorsed by the Council
prior to it being forwarded to the Department.
If you require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned on 0800 732 732 or bruce.halligan@southlanddc.govt.nz
Yours faithfully
B G Halligan
GROUP MANAGER - ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Long Term Plan 2015-2025 - Public Consultation and
Feedback
Record No: R/15/4/7409
Author: Susan
Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☐
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to set out the public submissions and informal
feedback received during Council’s Long Term Plan public consultation
period 21 March - 21 April 2015.
Executive
Summary
2 Council
adopted the consultation document for Southland District Council’s 10
Year Plan “Working together for Southland’s future” on 18
March 2015 and public consultation on the consultation document and supporting
information occurred from 21 March to 21 April 2015. 120 submissions were
received which have been compiled into a separate submissions booklet and made
publicly available. As part of the public consultation process, Council
also ran six drop in sessions whereby elected members received informal
feedback, as well as receiving feedback via social media. The informal
feedback received is attached.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Long Term Plan 2015-2025 - Public Consultation and
Feedback” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Receives
the public submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 including the
four late submissions.
c) Receives
the informal feedback received at the six drop-in sessions held throughout
the District and received via social media during the Long Term Plan
2015-2025 consultation period.
|
Content
Background
3 Council
is required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting a Long Term
Plan (LTP). This requirement includes preparing a consultation document
that captures the big issues affecting the District and ensuring the document
is publicly available for not less than one month.
4 Council
adopted the consultation document for Southland District Council’s 10
Year Plan “Working together for Southland’s future” on 18
March 2015 and public consultation on the consultation document and supporting
information occurred from 21 March to 21 April 2015. The public consultation
period was advertised by newspaper and radio, and the consultation document was
distributed to all households in the District and posted to non-residential
ratepayers. Individual letters were sent to key stakeholders and
ratepayers who were substantially affected by the proposals.
5 120
submissions were received, including four late submissions.
|
LTP
Year
|
2009
|
2012
|
2015
|
|
No.
submissions
|
201
|
230
|
120
|
6 The
submissions have been compiled into a separate booklet and are available on
Council’s website and at Southland District Council offices. One
submission received did not include a name or address and so has not been
included in the submission booklet.
7 The
table below sets out how the public submissions were received.
Surprisingly, a large number of submissions were received via the online
submission form.
|
All Submissions by
Method Received
|
|
Submission Method
|
Number Received
|
Percentage
|
|
Email
|
12
|
10%
|
|
Letter
|
8
|
7%
|
|
Online
Form
|
61
|
52%
|
|
Submission
Form Insert
|
36
|
31%
|
|
Total
|
117
|
100%
|
8 In
addition to receiving formal submissions, Council decided to take two new
approaches to receiving informal feedback on the Long Term Plan issues.
The first was to run drop in sessions in Wyndham, Lumsden, Otautau, Stewart
Island, Te Anau and Winton to hear from people who might want to discuss issues
with elected members and Council officers in a more relaxed forum. These
meetings occurred between 8 - 15 April 2015 and each of the meetings took
around two hours.
9 While
the turnout was low (maximum number of attendees was 13 members of the public
at Wyndham) some useful conversations took place. The majority of issues
raised were of a local nature and a number of request for services
resulted. The feedback received at the meetings is attached. The
operational requests received have been forwarded on to Council officers to
action.
10 Secondly,
Council made it publicly known that it was open to receiving comments via its
Facebook page. Only one comment was received and is attached.
11 When
considering the Long Term Plan issues during deliberations, Council is asked to
take into account the informal feedback received.
12 Hearings
Council will be hearing formal
submissions from interested persons at a Council meeting on 19 and 20 May 2015.
13 A
total of 26 have indicated that they wish to speak to their submissions.
The hearings have been arranged to occur in Invercargill although
teleconference facilities have been made available at Te Anau.
14 The
process for hearing the submissions is as follows:
|
Tuesday, 19 from 9.00 am
|
Hear submitters wishing to speak to their submissions.
|
|
Wednesday, 20 May from 9.00 am
|
Hear submitters wishing to speak to their submissions
After morning tea, begin to deliberate on Long Term
Plan issues.
|
|
Thursday, 21 May
|
Deliberate on Long Term Plan issues.
|
Responding to submitters
15 Following
the submission hearings and Council deliberations on the Long Term Plan issues,
a set of meeting minutes will be produced that set out Council’s
decisions. These minutes will be made available on the Southland District
Council’s website and will also be sent to submitters to inform them of
Council’s decisions. Note, this process has changed from previous
years.
Issues
16 The
topics which have been submitted on are listed below. Note these do not
add to 120 as submitters can submit on more than 1 topic.
|
Submissions topic
|
Number
|
|
Maintaining Roads and levels of service
|
50
|
|
Roading Rate model
|
43
|
|
Funding infrastructure and depreciation
|
36
|
|
Sealing the Catlins' road
|
66
|
|
Financial issues and rating
|
23
|
|
Rating differential
|
1
|
|
Fees and charges
|
9
|
|
Funding and grant requests
|
9
|
|
Performance measures
|
1
|
|
Around the mountains cycle trail
|
3
|
|
Curio Bay wastewater project
|
10
|
|
Manapouri Wastewater upgrade
|
1
|
|
District and local issues
|
30
|
|
Operational matters
|
6
|
|
Early Payment of Rates
|
4
|
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates
|
4
|
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates on Maori Freehold land
|
6
|
|
Development and Financial Contributions Policy
|
5
|
17 A
suite of issues and options papers have been compiled under cover of a separate
report to assist Council to finalise its draft Long Term Plan.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
18 Council
is required in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a
matter to give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to
be affected by, or to have an interest in the matter (Section 78 Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA)].
19 The
views presented to the local authority should be received by the local
authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in
making a decision, due consideration (Section 82(e) LGA).
Community Views
20 The
submissions and informal feedback received represent the views of the Southland
District residents, ratepayers and customers.
Costs and Funding
21 Not
applicable.
Policy Implications
22 Council
must adopt a Long Term Plan by 1 July 2015. In finalising the proposals
in its draft Long Term Plan and supporting information documents, Council is
required to take into account the views of the community.
Recommended Option
23 Council
is asked to receive the submissions and informal feedback it has received as
part of the Long Term Plan public consultation process.
Next Steps
24 Council
will be asked to hear oral submissions and consider the issues arising out of
the public submissions at its meeting on 19 - 21 May 2015.
Attachments
a LTP
2015-2025 Feedback received via social media View
b Notes
from LTP 2015-2025 drop in sessions View
Feedback from
our Facebook page relating to the 10 Year Plan:
20/04/2015
John Carter
There doesn't seem to be much in the plan about future proofing our
region : is there another plan or place where we can expect a vision for a roll
out of the electric car charging infrastructure and facilities we'll need for
the future rather than a council plan built on roads, roads, roads and carrying
on living the way we are? Which we can't plan to do 'for a better southland'
surely?
WYNDHAM SESSION
Johanna Stewart
General Discussions
· What
the issues are.
· How
this impacts rates.
Other Comments
· Rates
increase 2 x properties.
· Edendale/Wyndham
pool boundary.
Alistair Wilson
Other Comments
· Roading
- look at innovative ways.
· Can
you close some roads to heavy traffic and put on alternative roads.
Emma Keen, Abbey Barron,
Sarah-Lee Gutsell
Other Comments
· Wyndham
pool rating process.
· Walkway
from Wyndham-Edendale.
Sarah-Lee Gutsell
Other Comments
· Drain
outside - floods footpath - still ongoing issue.
Alan Leitch
Other Comments
· Cycle
Trail - main issue is the option of the Mararoa. How is maintenance
funded. Are all ratepayers paying? The Mararoa option could have
been built easily. What about the section on Mount Nicholas Road,
that will be a dusty road. Does not believe the vehicle counts presented
at the hearing.
Simon McRae
1623 Wyndham-Mokoreta Road
Other Comments
· Concerns
about local pool - not anti-Edendale.
· Disquiet
rates not helping fund the Wyndham pool.
· Congestion
at Edendale pool.
· Bobbi
Brown commented - letter going to people from Board asking for feedback on
splitting rate.
· Swipe
card.
· Merged
Edendale-Wyndham - conflicted.
· Local
people like making own decisions.
· Wyndham
projects?
- Cellphone
coverage and internet.
- Widespread
endorsement for the pool.
- Pavements
needing concrete - older population.
- Great
to have rates under inflation rate.
· Mokoreta
Hall:
- Overdue
for repairs and maintenance work.
- Lifted
rates for hall from $23 to $90.
- Interviewed
everyone.
- Whole
community using it.
- Great
advertisement for communities working together.
- Road
busy.
Ross Melvin
Inkermann Street
Other Comments
· Footpaths
in Wyndham and the condition particularly Inkermann Street and the fact the
footpath on one side.
· Water
also runs into my section - stormwater issues (Inkermann Street). For me
to get onto footpath I have to go across the road. Wheelchair access -
difficult on footpaths and crossing.
· Cardigan
Road difficult - height of the steps into shops.
Brian Mason
Other Comments
Halls
· Edendale/Wyndham
- re Edendale proposal. Rugby Club lack of consultation with the
people. Thought that 98 out of 100 people asked thought the centre should
be west of the tracks. Why is it not in LTP?
· Main
concern is it is not in LTP.
Mac Todd
Other Comments
· Community
hall at Edendale. Parking space not available there. Growth in Edendale
has been to the east of railway.
· Positioning
of the community centre.
· Not
sufficient parking space for parking at community centre.
· Would
be good if Community Boards reported back through local newspaper - abbreviated
minutes.
Iris Everett
17 Malta Street, Wyndham
Sealing the final sections of
the Catlins Road
· Not
sure whether this a good thing or not.
Other Comments
· Rates
- keep them as low as possible.
· Library
- not always open.
· Need
to get younger people on board.
· Name
down for a flat.
Calyn Stewart
Other Comments
· Recycling
outside of the dump would be great.
· Disagree
with the boundary for the Wyndham pool. From the pool rate there should
be support for the Wyndham pool.
· I
still think the boundary is wrong for the Community Board - Fortification should
be in Tokanui and Mokoreta should be in Wyndham.
Ben Dooley
145 Mimihau School Road, RD 2,
Wyndham - (03) 206 4681 cobb808@hotmail.com
Other Comments
· Re
dogs and fines. Current reg pricing appealing the fines - sent back 10
days. Information - dogs reg two years ago - waiver signed.
· Thanks
for the work - there is a cost of the roads.
· Improvement
in river near us.
· About
time things tightened.
· Urea.
· Full
supporter.
LUMSDEN SESSION
Ian Canning / George Menlove
Other Comments
· Consultation
document only has one Lumsden issue - 43 and 45 Meadow Street. Flooding
off road into garage. The pipes aren’t big enough to take the
water. Accessway pipes too small. No work in Meadow Street for
years. No footpath at all, there is room for a path.
· Grass
mowing only seems to happen when it rains.
OTAUTAU SESSION
Ken Davidson
Other Comments
· Yellow
wheelie bin collected once a month.
· Rates
going up too much.
· No
services on his batch, rates are still nearly $1,000.
Andre
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Why
not use rail for transporting goods instead of larger trucks 58T.
· Why
have large vehicles that impact on road quality.
· Need
to put ideas forward to central government.
Roading Rate Model
· Should
we be targeting specific users as they will forward the cost to consumers.
Sealing the Final Section of
the Catlins Road
· Agree
in concept.
Funding Depreciation
· Agree
that best method, so long as cost effective - affordability issues.
Other Comments
· Need
to utilise rail.
· Cost
of consulting - LTP, consultation document.
· Community
Engagement - need to increase to ensure ownership of issues.
Otautau Community Board
Member Ken Davidson
Other Comments
· Concerned
that the Community Board did not choose the projects to be included in the
consultation document.
· Need
to get clarification back on the following being included:
- Prune
trees
- Carpark
extension north end
- Sewerage
- Clitheroe Street
- Water
main replaced - district project still in?
- Asphalt
railway line (going on for two years).
Bruce and Jean Riddle
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Noted
the changing use of roads over many years, and the importance of those who do
the damage pay for it.
· Respectful
of what we are trying to do with the 80/20 rule.
Funding Depreciation
· Concerned
that we had already paid for the road and we were collecting again.
They did not pick up that the next replacement would be funded from the
depreciation.
Other Comments
· They
are on fixed incomes. Any changes is significant for them.
· Very
concerned that the cycle trail will be funded from general ratepayers and they
see no benefit in this area.
· They
live beside a gravel road and cannot afford the “liability”
insurance we require for application of oil, even if they could get the oil for
free and also the $60 fee we would charge.
Mary Napper
Sealing the Final Section of
the Catlins Road
· How
to get hold of a grader? Snow on willows that break on to road reserve.
Other Comments
· Dog
Control review.
· Greater
cost should be apportioned to general rate.
· Cats
- owners having too many. Problem with neighbour with lots of cats in
Riverton.
· Footpaths
- why not just decide to have footpath on one side - cost savings.
· SouthRoads
much better but maintenance not lasting. Vehicles going too fast and
breaking causing corrugations. Wants more signage with speed limits.
· Wether
Hill Road, Beaumont Station Road, Wilanda Downs Road only getting service on
gravel roads when lodge service request. Roads - standards are dropping.
Dangerous on foggy days.
Maureen Johnson
Other Comments
Dog Control Review
· Concerned
that irresponsible dog owner won’t get registered; that responsible
owners will get kicked with extra cost.
STEWART
ISLAND SESSION
Helen Cave
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Additional
chains onto road at Halfmoon Bay.
· Footpath
at the back of hotel - tiles have dropped and road to have sand placed
underneath.
· Public
toilet in community centre - cleaning standards.
· Drain
by community centre - need to check levels of drain.
Other Comments
· Hotel
licensing - not being processing. Licence expired in hotel.
· Bike
track to Masons Bay.
· Internet
and phone line to Horseshoe Bay.
· Bus
parks should be developed at popular stopping spots around the Island.
Ann Pullen
Other Comments
· Horseshoe
Bay Road - concrete bridge - should continue footpath from Kamahi Road to
bridge.
Helen Bissland
5 Golden Bay Road
Roading Rate Model
· Access
to Ringaringa beaches - build walking access to get down.
Other Comments
· Page
25 - Golden Bay to Fuschia Walkway - Footpath start at beginning of
Golden Bay Road.
John Foley
Other Comments
· Golden
Bay Road - Old concrete wall - antique wall. Embankment getting wider ie
scouring out from behind the wall.
· Also
run-off through road culvert into his property. Has an outlet (elephant
trunk) attached.
Beverly Osborn
Main Road
Other Comments
· Road
up to Presbyterian church.
· Church
Hill restaurant wants to build chalets.
· Concerned
about the strength of the road, it always seems damp.
· Shirley
Whipp’s house/property fronts on Horseshoe Bay Road and backs onto the
church property. So it could serve as an alternative access to the church
and other properties.
Furhana Ahmad
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Public
signage for track work and public health.
Roading Rate Model
· DOC
good connection with Community Board.
Other Comments
· RMA/District
Plan
- Can’t run office and
backpackers in the same building.
- Guidelines are too strict.
- Street
signs for properties, Public Places Bylaw for sandwich signs except for Council
activity in residential zone.
· Governance
- Stewart Island Promotions Association to communicate with the Promotions
Officer and Ulva Island Trust.
· Horseshoe
Bay - beach seat - Resource Management Plan - resource consent decision.
Go back to Furhana.
· Enter
into the Resource Management Plan next due to be received.
· Response
to questions asked in public forum.
· Jetties
Committee
- membership
- Council
subcommittee appointment term.
· What
about road carpark markings
TE ANAU
SESSION - 14 APRIL 2015 - 4.00 PM - 6.00 PM
Irene Barnes
Other Comments
· Frasers
Beach Road bad - grader dragging gravel from one side to the other.
· Type
of gravel and how being done.
· Possible
sealing will help with dust.
· Still
confusion about what roads are managed by who.
· Swimming
pools so important - good to see SDC supporting Blackmount.
Shirley Mouat
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Consider
Otta sealing of Murrell Avenue down towards Possum Lodge when doing
View Street.
Roading Rate Model
· Support
user-pays on roading. Cars have minimal damage, make those sectors which
generate the damage pay for it.
Sealing the Final Section of
the Catlins Road
· Support.
Getting money from central government. Helps with economic benefit from
tourist traffic.
Other Comments
· Concerned
about the cost of water supply upgrading - cost per resident represents a lot
of money for a small community. Requests more specifics on details of
this cost.
· Cost
of Manapouri sewage - $2.7 million is a big spend for the community. Need
to consider all alternatives, not just proposed connection to Te Anau wastewater.
Keep an open mind to all options.
· Not
enough time to submit - consider extending to 30 April if possible.
Samantha McBride
Other Comments
· Provision
of funding for airport and the use of it.
- Marketing
for users and businesses.
- Should
be in 10 Year Plan - just needs to be done.
- Not
our responsibility to increase the use of airport.
- We
provide the hangars.
· Council
needs to:
- Work
out how best to do this and how to resource it.
- Some
co-ordination for packaging demand.
- We
might think outside the box of what flights could be - is it passenger and
freight.
- Cray8
is looking at it.
- Is
Christchurch - Wanaka - Te Anau a viable option.
· Change
names of Te Anau and Manapouri to Lake Te Anau and Lake Manapouri to be seen as
the destination to go to - marketing perspective.
· Local
economic development - to generate more opportunity for the town. Venture
Southland role marketing - to create business cohesion. Chamber concept?
Ray Willett
Managing our Roads and Customer
Expectations
· Commented
on road signage. Referred to Dunedin sign with “Thank you for
staying with us and have a safe journey”.
· Stated
we should have them at all accommodation in multi-languages saying “Thank you
for staying with us. Please keep left.” Use example of
Milford Road. Where the road is “good” (i.e. well maintained
and straight) is where most fatalities occur - this is because of driver
behavour.
Other Comments
· Submitter
warns against investment in under researched projects citing the public toilets
and the airport. Submitter says these do not generate income as they had
proposed in business cases.
· Supports
local cycle trail development.
· Queries
carparking availability for cycle trail.
· Does
not agree that ATMCT will significantly disturb livestock.
Bev Thorne / Mary Cowan
Other Comments
· Ageing
population.
- Availability of facilities.
- Aged
care - not necessarily palliative care just self-contained units at a
reasonable price.
· Queried
sale of land around sewerage scheme. Sought further comment on
alternative systems. Queried the location in Manapouri as to whether Te
Anau site could be redeveloped.
· Peer
review of sewerage system proposal mentioned by Ian Marshall.
· Queried
ATMC coming to Te Anau. Was informed that there is currently a local
cycle trail being developed.
· Objects
to the fact that DOC Conservation Management Strategy does not allow cycling in
Fiordland National Park. This prevents cycle trail development and limits
the viability of a fantastic tourist product. Agrees it is a DOC issue
and a political issue but Council should lobby for change.
Ted Loose
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Thinks
amalgamation would save dollars that could be spent on roading.
Sealing the Final Section of
the Catlins Road
· Supports.
Other Comments
· Amalgamation
- is pro-amalgamation for Southland District Council, Gore District Council,
Environment Southland and Invercargill City Council.
- Strength
in numbers in terms of advocacy - if we are speaking with one voice.
- SDC
staff interests may not necessarily be the same as those of District residents
as the majority live in Invercargill.
- This
would reduce overhead costs for things such as planning.
· Does
not wish for rates to keep increasing as affordability in Te Anau is
challenging even now.
· If
amalgamation was to occur, would support fewer Community Boards and no
Community Development Area Subcommittees.
Max Slee
Other Comments
· Rates
at Mountain View Road going up.
· Typical
of values in Te Anau - $500,000 land GV $1.2M - rates should be on land value
opposed to GV this year.
· Like
cycle trail from Te Anau to Manapouri.
· Mavora
Lakes Road from Burwood:
- 7
km of gravel road - maintenance poor.
- The
road is the worst piece driven on (just spent time driving 2,000 km on my
tractor on New Zealand).
- Grader
came but made no difference because of hard base.
- Lot
of tonnage done on the road.
· Nothing
worst than seeing wastage.
· 60%
loading on one-way bridges.
· Over
that there are 40,000-50,000 SU farmed.
· Guy
from Dunedin talking regarding rating. He said you guys will have to put
your hands in your pockets.
- Come
back and talk to us regarding the loadings.
- In
practical terms we should not be using it, but we have to.
- It
is on the roading programme for 2017/2018.
· Costs
of appeal of the cycle trail:
- We
should be going to Fish & Game for costs as people aren’t happy.
- We
maintain 20 km river for fishing people - acting like spoilt people.
Merv Cave
Other Comments
· Cycle
trail - trying to give SDC a road at no cost through Haast but cycle trail
spending.
- Gary
said no ratepayer dollars on second stage but there is, but Haast still no
go.
- Someone
needs to convince me that the cycle trail is of value.
- If
not putting our rates up, then not a problem.
· Blackmount
Road - dangerous approaches to one-lane bridge.
· Mossburn-Wreys
Bush the same.
· All
for Te Anau-Manapouri Road cycle trail - lots of people on it.
· Ongoing
commitment to trail is my concern.
· I
can’t see how it can be user-pays because I know cyclists and they
don’t want to pay for accommodations.
· Not
a lot of people on it now.
· Roading
- went to the meeting road users charges:
- Explained
about Venture project.
P C Taylor
Other Comments
· Cycle
trail - some sympathy for Fish & Game:
- Are
alternatives there for peace and quiet
· Haast
Hollyford
- Not
in favour.
- Transport
would change - logging trucks etc / changes the landscapes.
- Opportunity
lost if we did it.
- Replace
roads - greater lifespan - need to ensure greater maintenance - roading a
big cost.
· Te
Anau - Manapouri cycle trail is a link we must have.
WINTON SESSION
Frank O’Boyle, South
Port
Other Comments
· General
discussion on:
- Renewable Energy - Stewart
Island
- Stewart Island
infrastructure
- Cruise
ships
Ray Wilson
Managing our Roads and
Customer Expectations
· Support
the regime whereby those who generate the damage pay.
Roading Rate Model
· Support
the regime whereby those who generate the damage pay.
Sealing the Final Section of
the Catlins Road
· Support
the sealing of the road (spelling - should be “accessible”
not “assessable”).
Other Comments
· Wishes
to ensure that Southland is strongly involved in the lobbying for further
development of Broadband.
· This
is very important for the future development of Southland District and in
particular the tourist sector.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Council Officers' Amendments to the Long Term Plan
2015-2025 and Supporting Information Documents
Record No: R/15/4/7408
Author: Susan
Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☐
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information
Purpose
1 This
report proposes changes to the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) and/or
supporting information as requested by Council officers for the purposes of
accuracy or clarification. It also provides an update around New Zealand
Transport Authority (NZTA) funding.
Executive
Summary
2 The
proposed amendments to the draft LTP, as requested by Council officers, are set
out in this report. The recommended amendments have been incorporated
into the key issues papers under cover of a separate Council report.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Council Officers' Amendments to the Long Term Plan
2015-2025 and Supporting Information Documents” dated 12 May 2015.
|
Content
Background
3 This
report proposes changes to the Long Term Plan and/or supporting information as
requested by Council officers. These changes are considered necessary for
accuracy or clarification.
4 Council
is asked to receive this set of proposed amendments for the purposes of
deliberating on the Long Term Plan. The recommended amendments have been
incorporated into the key issues papers under cover of a separate Council
report.
Proposed Amendments
5 The
proposed amendments are set out in the below table:
|
Issue:
|
Using the depreciation reserve generated by funding
depreciation for District Sewerage to fund capital projects included in the
Long Term Plan
|
|
Amendment required:
|
The draft Long Term Plan had funds raised from the
policy to fund depreciation accumulating into rate specific reserves.
The specific reserve for District Wastewater is $8,069,981 at the end of 10
years.
In the draft Long Term Plan some capital work in this
activity is funded by internal loans.
This amendment is to utilise the available depreciation
reserve for District Wastewater to fund capital works being completed, rather
than using loans while accumulating a reserve. It is proposed where
there is there is current year funding for deprecation or accumulated amounts
in the reserve they be applied to capital work being completed in the first
instance.
The amendment does not use any additional funds in the
proposed depreciation reserve to repay existing debt quicker.
|
|
Other comments:
|
Should the proposed amendment be accepted the balance
of the Depreciation Reserve for District Wastewater would be $2.893.834.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Long Term Plan and Wastewater Asset Management Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Susan McNamara
|
|
Issue:
|
Using the depreciation reserve generated by funding
depreciation for District Water to fund capital projects included in the Long
Term Plan
|
|
Amendment required:
|
The draft Long Term Plan had funds raised from the
policy to fund depreciation accumulating into rate specific reserves.
The specific reserve for District Water is $5,030,022 at the end of 10
years.
In the draft Long Term Plan some capital work in this
activity is funded by internal loans.
This amendment is to utilise the available depreciation
reserve for District Water to fund capital works being completed, rather than
using loans while accumulating a reserve. It is proposed where there is
current year funding for deprecation or accumulated amounts in the reserve
they be applied to capital work being completed in the first instance.
The amendment does not use any additional funds in the
proposed depreciation reserve to repay existing debt quicker.
|
|
Other comments:
|
Should the proposed amendment be accepted the balance
of the Depreciation Reserve for District Sewerage would be $855,147.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Long Term Plan and Water Supply Asset Management Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Susan McNamara
|
|
Issue:
|
Using the depreciation reserve generated by funding
depreciation for Te Anau Rural Water Supply to fund capital projects included
in the Long Term Plan
|
|
Amendment required:
|
The draft Long Term Plan had funds raised from the
policy to fund depreciation accumulating into rate specific reserves.
This results into a rate specific depreciation reserves. The specific
reserve for Te Anau Rural Water is $702,260 at the end of 10 years.
In the draft Long Term Plan some capital work in this
activity is funded by internal loans.
This amendment is to utilise the available
depreciation reserve for Te Anau Rural Water to fund capital works being
completed, rather than using loans while accumulating a reserve. It is
proposed where there is current year funding for deprecation or accumulated
amounts in the reserve they be applied to capital work being completed in the
first instance.
The amendment does not use any additional funds in the
proposed depreciation reserve to repay existing debt quicker.
|
|
Other comments:
|
Should the proposed amendment be accepted the balance
of the Depreciation Reserve for Te Anau Rural Water would be $248,485.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Long Term Plan and Water Supply Asset Management Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Susan McNamara
|
|
Issue:
|
LTP - Addition of Two Wastewater Projects in
Riverton
|
|
Amendment required:
|
The addition of two additional wastewater related
projects within Riverton - due to health and safety requirements.
As outlined below:
1. Riverton
WWPS RPZ Project- $50K year to complete 2015/2016.
2. Riverton
WWMH Dropper Renewals Project $80K year to complete 2015/2016.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Long Term Plan and Wastewater Asset Management Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Matt Keil
|
|
Issue:
|
Stormwater Renewals / Repairs in Tokanui
|
|
Amendment required:
|
Renewal of section of stormwater main culverts (900 mm
dia, approximately 40 metres in length) required in next three -
five years. Line currently piped under the Fire Station, will
need a new line laid with new alignment and access chamber, not going under a
building. Estimated cost circa $48K.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
LTP. Stormwater AMP
|
|
Council officer:
|
Kushla Tapper
|
|
Issue:
|
Edendale Community Centre
|
|
Amendment required:
|
Inclusion in Long Term Plan
for year 2016/2017 a $500,000.00 capital project (renewal) to provide a
community centre in Edendale.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Community Centres Asset
Management Plan and budgets will need to be amended. This will also
affect the wording in the Long Term Plan document.
|
|
Council officer:
|
Kevin McNaught and Juanita Thornton
|
|
Issue:
|
Verandah Lighting in Winton
|
|
Amendment required:
|
The under verandah lighting description is displayed
in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for the coming financial year as a charge
to be levied against the shop owners whose premises are adjacent to the
lighting provided. This charge is proposed at $45 per light in the Long
Term Plan. The Winton Community Board resolved that due to a wider
public benefit ie, pedestrians at night for safety reasons, and visitors
through the town for amenity value to remove the fee from the schedule and fund
all expense from the local Winton rate.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Schedule of Fees and Charges, Long Term Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Joshua Webb
|
|
Issue:
|
Heavy Traffic Bypass Feasibility Study for Winton
|
|
Amendment required:
|
Remove the project from Winton township as agreed by
the Board as of 2 February 2015
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Roading Asset Management Plan, Long Term Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Chris Dolan on behalf of Winton Community Board
|
|
Issue:
|
Woodland CDA Gravel and Walking Track Projects
|
|
Amendment required:
|
Remove $20K project in 2015/2016 and reserve funding.
Add new project $75K and fund grants and reserves.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Roading Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan.
|
|
Council officer:
|
Irwin Harvey on behalf of Woodland CDA Subcommittee.
|
|
Issue:
|
Haast Hollyford Road
|
|
Amendment required:
|
At its meeting on Wednesday, 22 April
2015 the Council passed a number of resolutions which recognised that the Haast
Hollyford Road project potentially has merit but further
information is needed to enable an informed consideration of the
project. Council also agreed that it should undertake a community
consultation process before it makes a decision on whether to approve the
project.
The recommendation is to amend the Long Term Plan to
include some wording around the project. No budget change is required
at this stage. If Council chooses to pursue the project in future an
amendment to the Long Term Plan will be requested.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Long Term Plan
|
|
Council officer:
|
Susan Cuthbert
|
|
Issue:
|
Miscellaneous Financial Corrections
|
|
Amendment required:
|
· Consolidate
Venture Southland into our accounts.
· Remove
Makarewa Rates as contacted finance requesting it be stopped.
· Balance
internal work scheme codes.
· Balance
Matuku Depreciation Non Funding Impact Statement reserve
movement.
· Shift
new Policy and Community Manager associated costs to new business unit.
· Readjust
all hall rates as per balance of units as per assessments in Pathway.
|
|
Documents that will require amendment:
|
Profit and Loss, Balance Sheet, Funding Impact
Statement, Rates Funding Impact Statement, Reserves.
|
|
Council officer:
|
Shelley Dela Llana
|
NZTA Funding
6 The
following provides an update around the indicative investment levels that NZTA
has allocated to the Southland District Region.
7 No
amendment is required to the Long Term Plan as a result of this change and this
update is merely provided as information.
8 NZTA
letter
The
following letter is attached: 2015-2018 National Land Transport Programme -
Indicative Investment Levels - Letter from Bruce Richards Regional Planning and
Investment Manager Southern notification to Council on funding reduction.
9 The
officer makes the recommendation that no changes are required to be made to the
Long Term Plan.
10 This
is a notification of the difference between the levels of funding that Council
has asked NZTA for and the indicative amount of investment that was notified by
NZTA in the attached letter. This letter could trigger a response to
realign budgets to match funding if Council desires to.
11 NZTA
has indicated funding of $68,943,000 for Council’s 2015-2018 maintenance
and renewal programme. Council had asked for funding of
$73,416,602. The $73.4M was over and above the Long Term Plan budgets for
the following reasons:
· NZTA
has indicated a change in how it funds Council’s administration to run
the roading network. By default NZTA gave Council an additional 2.25% on
top of the funding assistance rate Council receives from NZTA. Council
had asked for an additional 4.6% of the roading programme which was based on
administration budgets that Council occurs in running the network. In
preparing the Long Term Plan budget Council had allowed 2.25% as the
‘worst case’ scenario approach. The gap between what Council
asked NZTA for and what was budgeted in the Long Term Plan was $1.636M.
· Council
had applied for the LED streetlight project as a renewal. NZTA has
responded by saying it will fund the project as an improvement and that it has
been removed from the $73.4M that Council had applied to NZTA for. This
has an impact of $1.026M.
· After
taken into consideration these differences which have no impact in delivering
Council’s Long Term Plan, the difference is $1.8M over the three
years. As shown in the table below:
|
What Council asked for:
|
$73,416,602
|
|
Remove Administration content that was not budgeted
for in the LTP but what Council asked from NZTA.
|
$1.636,053
|
|
Remove LED Project from Maintenance and renewal budget
and put this into improvement budget.
|
$1,026,000
|
|
NZTA indicative budgets as per attached letter.
|
$68,943,000
|
|
Adjusted Difference
|
$1,811,549
|
12 NZTA
has also indicated it has ignored Council’s inflation rates and applied a
1% inflation figure in response to the falling oil prices.
13 Council’s
Recommended Response:
· Council
responds to the attached letter and at this point of time does not accept this.
· The
gap in funding will be addressed by making changes in the 2016/2017 Annual
Plan.
14 Some
alternative Options are that:
• Council
adjusts its reseal budgets in line with this season rates and this will address
the gap in funding in response to the indicative levels as stated in the
letter.
• Council
revaluates its roading budgets.
15 Overall
at this point of time there no foreseeable reasons that Southland District
Council cannot deliver its Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan with this
indicative level of funding and therefore no amendment to the LTP budgets are
required.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
16 Council
has a legal obligation to consult with the community on the Long Term
Plan. The period of consultation around the issues contained in the
consultation document occurred from 21 March to 21 April. The recommended
amendments included within this report are not considered to be significant and
there is no requirement for Council to undertake further consultation on these
issues.
Community Views
17 Council
is asked to consider these officers’ submissions within the context of
the submissions received as part of the Long Term Plan public consultation
process, the general feedback received via the drop-in sessions and on
facebook, as well as the oral submissions to be presented at the hearings on 19
and 20 May 2015.
Costs and Funding
18 Some
of the recommended amendments impact on the Long Term Plan budgets. These
are as set out in this issues reports that have been provided to Council to
assist its decision-making. None of the recommended amendments result in
a significant change to the budgets.
Policy Implications
19 If
Council agrees to the amendments, the Long Term Plan will be prepared on this basis
and presented to Council at its meeting on 24 June 2015. The supporting
information documents will be updated as per the agreed amendment.
Recommended Option
20 Council
is asked to receive this report.
Next Steps
21 Council
officers will prepare the final Long Term Plan in accordance with
Council’s decisions. Council will be asked to adopt the Long
Term Plan at its meeting on 24 June 2015.
Attachments
a 2015-18
National Land Transport Programme - Indicative Investment Levels View
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Long Term Plan 2015-2025 - Key Issues and Funding
Requests
Record No: R/15/4/7096
Author: Susan
Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information
Purpose
1 This
report provides for decisions on key issues and funding requests.
Executive
Summary
2 Council
officers prepared a draft Long Term Plan along with other information to
support the development of a consultation document “Working together for
Southland’s Future” that was adopted by Council on 18 March
2015. Public consultation on the consultation document and supporting
information occurred from 21 March to 21 April 2015 and 120 submissions were
received. In addition, comments were received via informal feedback at
the drop in sessions and through social media.
3 At
its meeting on 20 and 21 May 2015, following the oral submissions, Council will
meet to resolve final issues that impact on the preparation of the final LTP
and supporting documentation. A series of issues and options reports have
been prepared to assist Councillors in their decision-making. Officer
recommendations are included in each report.
1
2
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Long Term Plan 2015-2025 - Key Issues and Funding
Requests” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as significant in terms of Section
76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Agrees
the recommendations in the following appendices:
i) Appendix
1: Strategies, Financial Issues and Rating
ii) Appendix
2: NZTA Investment Programme
iii) Appendix
3: Maintaining Roads and Levels of Service
iv) Appendix
4: Roading Rate Model
v) Appendix
5: Sealing the Catlins Road
vi) Appendix
6: Funding Infrastructure and Depreciation
vii) Appendix
7: Rating Differential
viii) Appendix
8: Fees and Charges
ix) Appendix
9: Funding and Grant Requests
x) Appendix
10: Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
xi) Appendix
11: Curio Bay Wastewater Project
xii) Appendix
12: Manapouri Wastewater Disposal
xiii) Appendix 13:
District and Local issues and comments
xiv) Appendix
14: Operational Matters
xv) Appendix
15: Performance Measures
e) Notes
that submissions that relate to operational matters such as maintenance or
renewal works, requests for more information, for reviews and changes to
programmes or projects, have been provided to relevant officers and will be
considered alongside existing work programmes and actioned as
appropriate.
f) Indicates
any other amendments it wishes to make to the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
|
Content
Background
4 Council
is required to adopt a Long Term Plan (LTP) by 1 July 2015. Council
officers prepared a draft Long Term Plan along with other information to
support the development of a consultation document “Working together for
Southland’s future” that was adopted by Council on 18 March
2015.
5 The
consultation document highlighted four key issues for the District:
· managing
the roading network and customer expectations;
· paying
for the roads;
· sealing
the last section of the Catlins Road; and
· funding
depreciation.
6 The
consultation document highlighted a number of key proposals and options around
these issues.
7 Public
consultation on the consultation document and supporting information occurred
from 21 March to 21 April 2015 and 120 submissions were received. In addition
comments were received via informal feedback at the drop in sessions and
through social media.
8 At
its meeting on 20 and 21 May 2015, following the oral submissions, Council will
meet to resolve final issues that impact on the preparation of the final
LTP.
|
3
Tuesday, 19 May from 9.00 am
|
4
Hear submitters wishing to speak to their submissions (see attached
timetable).
|
|
5
Wednesday, 20 May from 9.00 am
6
|
7
Hear submitters wishing to speak to their submissions
8
After morning tea, begin to deliberate on Long Term Plan issues
|
|
9
Thursday, 21 May
|
10
Deliberate on Long Term Plan issues.
|
11
Issues and Options Reports
9 A
set of issues and options reports have been prepared that form appendices to
this report. This is a change in process from prior years.
10 Previously
Councillors have been asked to consider officers’ responses in relation
to each individual submission, however, for the current process a set of issues
and options papers have been prepared to assist Councillors in its
decision-making. Note that these reports have been developed prior to the
Councillors hearing oral submissions. Officers will be attending the
deliberations session and be available to provide further comment as required.
11 Councillors will
have received a complete booklet of all the submissions. The submissions
have been analysed and inform the preparation of the issues, options and
recommendations as set out in the following reports.
12 Councillors may
identify any other issues from the submissions that they wish to discuss or
consider warrants a decision or action from Council.
13 The issues that
were raised in submissions fall into five broad categories:
i. Changes
to proposals outlined in the consultation document, on which officers have made
a recommendation.
12 These are
discussed in the appendices.
ii. Funding
requests and other prominent issues raised through submission, on which
officers have made a recommended response.
13 These are also
outlined in the appendices.
iii. Operational
matters within existing levels of service.
14 Some submitters
made requests relating to specific operational matters, which will not impact
on proposed levels of service. These have been provided to the relevant
business units, who will review the information and consider steps that can be
taken in response by considering :
· Their
relative contribution towards Council’s overall outcomes, and
· Whether
there is sufficient flexibility within the work programmes to accommodate the
requests.
15 In all cases a
response will be provided to submitters.
iv. Matters
for further consideration
16 Other
submissions raised issues that require further investigation.
17 Where
appropriate, these will be considered as part of preparing for the
2016/2017 Annual Plan. Some other requests may be considered as part of
the policy forward work programme.
v. Minor
wording changes to the Long Term Plan documents
14 Due to the
financial constraints the Council is operating under, including the need to
stay within the parameters of its Financial Strategy, officers are only
recommending budget and other changes where a proposal is sufficiently robust,
clearly aligns with Council’s priorities, and has significant and broad
community backing.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
15 Under
the Local Government Act 2002 a local authority must use the special
consultative procedure (SCP) in adopting a Long Term Plan.
16 As
part of the SCP Council must provide an opportunity for persons to present
their views to the local authority in a manner that enables spoken (or New
Zealand sign language) interaction between the person and the local authority,
or any representatives to whom an appropriate delegation has been made.
17 Before
making a decision Council may request or consider comment or advice from an
officer of the local authority or any other person in respect of the proposal
or any views on the proposal.
Community Views
18 Community
views on the issues affecting the Long Term Plan were gathered via submissions
during the formal one month public consultation period. Six drop-in
sessions were also held throughout the District and feedback was also called
for via Facebook. In considering the officers’ recommendations set
out in the appendices to this report, Council should take into account the
feedback received via these alternative processes.
Costs and Funding
19 The
financial implications of each of the options for the proposals and impact on
rates were set out in the consultation document. Additional details have
been included in the issues and options paper where relevant.
Policy Implications
20 Council
has recently consulted on a number of policies and the Fees and Charges
Schedule. Some of these policies will be included in the Long Term Plan
and therefore have been included in this report. This includes the
Revenue and Financing Policy and the Fees and Charges Schedule.
Assessment of Significance
21 Council’s
deliberations and decision-making on the issues that will inform the
development of the Long Term Plan, and the setting of rates, is considered to
have a high level of significance. Individual issues have differing
levels of significance.
Recommended Option
22 It
is recommended that Council makes decisions on each of the issues set out in
the appendices to this report.
Next Steps
23 Following
Council’s deliberations and decision-making, Council officers will
develop the final Long Term Plan and present it for adoption at
Council on 24 June 2015.
Attachments
a Hearing
Timetable View
Hearing
Timetable
Tuesday 19 May
|
Time
|
Submitter
|
Submitter
Number
|
Topic
|
Notes
|
|
9.00 am
|
Axemen’s Association, Riverton Club - Peter Templeton
|
12
|
Riverton Grandstand
|
|
|
9.10 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.20 am
|
NZ Farm Forestry Association - Alastair D Wilson
|
81
|
Roading Rate Model
|
|
|
9.30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.40 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.50 am
|
Dugald Mackenzie
|
71
|
Roading, Catlins Rd, Funding Depreciation etc
|
|
|
10.00 am
|
Sport Southland - Brendon McDermott
|
112
|
Sport/recreation related
|
|
|
10.10 am
|
|
10.20 -10.40am
|
Morning Tea
|
|
10.40am
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.50 am
|
Roslyn Road Residents - Patsy Gordon
|
125
|
Roslyn Road
|
|
|
11.00 am
|
Te Ao Marama
|
101
|
|
|
|
11.10 am
|
Southland District Health Board - Jo Grimwood
|
108
|
Treatment plants, public health, infrastructure
|
|
|
11.20 am
|
|
11.30 am
|
CCS Disability Action - Mary O'Brien & Co
|
121
|
Working together for Southlands Future
|
|
|
11.40 am
|
|
11.50am
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 midday
|
Chris Henderson
|
98
|
Roading, Asset Renew/Funding
|
|
|
12.10-1.10pm
|
LUNCH
|
|
1.20pm
|
Federated Farmers - Russell
MacPherson
|
107
|
Roading
|
|
|
1.30 pm
|
|
1.40 pm
|
Wendy Baker
|
73
|
Various
|
|
|
1.50 pm
|
Fonterra – Michael Hide
|
100
|
Roading/various
|
|
|
2.00 pm
|
|
2.10 pm
|
NZ Police/Safe Communities Steering Group - Kelvin
Lloyd
(N Mather ACC & Mr Stubb NZFS)
|
88
|
|
|
|
2.20 pm
|
|
2.30 pm
|
Meridian - Andrew Feierabend
|
117
|
Roading Rate Model
|
|
|
2.40 pm
|
|
2.50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.00-3.20pm
|
Afternoon Tea
|
|
3.30 pm
|
Sid Stronach
|
57
|
Curio Camp Grd & Development Funds
|
|
|
3.40 pm
|
Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee
– Alan Youldon
|
83
|
Manapouri Wastewater projects
|
Video-Link
|
|
3.50 pm
|
|
4.00 pm
|
SDC Youth Council
|
109
|
|
|
|
4.10 pm
|
Chris Shaw
|
86
|
Rates
|
Teleconference
|
|
4.20 pm
|
Vivienne Shaw
|
89
|
Rates
|
Teleconference
|
Wednesday 20 May
|
Time
|
Submitter
|
No
|
Topic
|
Notes
|
|
9.00 am
|
South Catlins Charitable Trust - Greta Buckingham
|
64
|
Curio Bay Road Sealing
|
|
|
9.10 am
|
Waikawa Rural Fire/Southern Districts Ambulance Society - Michael Bashford
|
24
|
Catlins road
|
|
|
9.20 am
|
Mary Napper
|
58
|
Spend on Roads & Fund Depreciation
|
|
|
9.30 am
|
Riversdale Hotel -
Gary Kirk
|
41
|
Liquor Licensing
|
|
|
9.40 am
|
Central Southland Lodge - John McHugh &
|
110
|
Liquor Licensing
|
|
|
9.50 am
|
Hospitality NZ – Fiona Morton/Gus
Dermody
|
115
|
Liquor Licensing
|
|
|
10.00 –10.30
|
Morning Tea
|
|
10.30 am
|
Deliberations
|
|
10.40am
|
|
10.50 am
|
|
11.00am
|
|
11.10 am
|
|
11.20 am
|
|
11.30 am
|
|
11.40 am
|
|
11.50am
|
|
12 midday
|
|
12.20-1.20pm
|
LUNCH
|
|
1.20pm
|
Venture Southland - Trevor Johnston
|
118
|
Funding
|
|
|
1.30 pm
|
|
1.40 pm
|
Deliberations
|
|
1.50 pm
|
|
2.00 pm
|
|
2.10 pm
|
|
2.20 pm
|
|
2.30 pm
|
|
2.40 pm
|
|
2.50 pm
|
|
3.00-3.20pm
|
Afternoon Tea
|
|
3.20 pm
|
Deliberations
|
|
3.30pm
|
|
3.40pm
|
|
4.00pm
|
|
4.20pm
|
|
4.40pm
|
Thursday 21 May
|
Time
|
Topic
|
|
9.00 am
|
Deliberations
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.00 am
|
Morning Tea
|
|
|
Deliberations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 noon
|
LUNCH
|
|
1.00 pm
|
Deliberations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.00 pm
|
Afternoon Tea
|
|
3.30 pm
|
Deliberations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5:00 p.m.
|
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 1: Strategies, Financial Issues and
Rating
Record No: R/15/4/6296
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 A
number of submissions were received in relation to Council’s Financial
Strategies and Policies and on Council’s Infrastructure Strategy.
2 Both
Council’s Infrastructure Strategy and Council’s Financial Strategy
were adopted by Council on 18 March 2015. These documents provide a broad
overview of how Council will manage its finances and infrastructure. They
provide the overarching framework for Council’s Asset Management Plans,
Activity Profiles and financial policies including the Revenue and Financing
Policy.
3 The
Revenue and Financing Policy states Council’s policies on funding
operating and capital expenditure. Council consulted on its Revenue and
Financing Policy as part of a separate consultation process which ran in
parallel with the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 consultation.
4 The
draft Revenue and Financing Policy summarises Council’s intended funding
sources and explains operating expenses and capital expenditure for each
activity. The draft policy covers all intended sources of funding
including rates, lump sum contributions, fees and charges, financial
contributions and grants and subsidies.
5 Other
submissions received in relation to strategies and rating include concerns
around rates affordability and the allocation of funding to specific projects
and activities.
Feedback and
Submissions
Community Views
6 A
total of 23 submitters commented on the Revenue and Financing Policy, strategies
and rating. The full submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
7 Submissions
that set out requests are summarised below. All other comments made by
submitters are noted:
· While
some submissions (11, 114) commended Council for maintaining rates as low as
possible, others indicated that rates were too high and should be kept in line
with inflation and the Local Government Cost Index (25,86). Overall,
there was support for being innovative and achieving cost savings to reduce rates.
· Several
submissions were received regarding the rating and financial information
released during consultation. One submitter (18) suggested that the rates
calculator tool should provide indicative outcomes over a longer period since
funding depreciation has long term impacts. One submitter stated that
funding and rating information released for consultation was misleading (89),
while several other submissions requested that Council consider the impact that
rate increases have on all individual properties when setting rates.
· Two
submissions opposed the level of funding given to Venture Southland
(86, 89) while another submission opposed the level of funding directed towards
community development and corporate support activities (107).
· Alternatives
to the current funding structures were proposed including:
o an increase in
rating through UTR (107);
o a focus on shared
services and economies of scale (114); and
o not acquiring
future debt (71).
· One submission made on the Infrastructure Strategy states
that local knowledge needs to be incorporated in road design, signage and other
improvements. This submission also queries whether Council is
involved in investigating options for passenger rail services and low carbon
safe roads.
· Eight
submissions (30, 36, 47, 60, 61, 65, 96, 97) have
been received in support of the proposed Blackmount
Community Hall rate. Submitters saw rating as an affordable and effective
way of supporting a valuable community facility.
· Three
submissions were received regarding the Edendale Pool rating boundary
(37, 48, 49). Two submissions were in support and one submission
(Edendale-Wyndham Community Board) opposed the change to rating
boundaries. Submitters in support stated that it was equitable for the
rate to be spread across a wider boundary, while the opposing submission
(Edendale Wyndham Community Board) noted that although there was a need to
adjust the boundary, the boundary should not include rating units in the
Fortification district which contribute to the Tokanui Pool.
Submitter 49 (Wyndham District Community Pool Inc) suggested the rate be
split between the two pools.
8 Council
officers have requested the following amendments to financial details of the
draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 for the purposes of accuracy or clarification:
(a) The
draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 specifies that revenue generated as a result of
the proposal to fund depreciation will accumulate into rate specific
reserves.
It is proposed to amend the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 to utilise some
depreciation reserves to fund capital works, rather than using loans while
accumulating a reserve. For the following reserves, it is proposed that
where there is current year funding for depreciation or the reserve has accumulated
funds, that they be applied, in the first instance, to capital work being
completed.
Balances are listed at
the end of the 10 year period of the Long Term Plan
2015-2025.
|
Depreciation reserve
|
Balance as listed in
LTP
|
Balance if amended
|
|
District Sewerage
|
$8,069,981
|
$2,893,834
|
|
District Water
|
$5,030,022
|
$855,147
|
|
Te Anau Rural Water
|
$702,260
|
$248,485
|
This amendment would not use any additional funds in the
proposed depreciation reserve to repay existing debt quicker. This
amendment would also require changes to the Asset Management Plan for
these activities.
The overall impact on rates is minimal (a maximum of
$20,000 reduction in any one year of the ten year plan), as the rates savings
associated with the reduction in loan principal repayments, is predominantly
utilised to fund depreciation.
(b) The
draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 does not include the consolidation of
Venture Southland’s budget into Southland District Council’s
financial statements. This needs to be included to meet financial
reporting standards. This does not impact on Council’s rates, operating
income or expenditure.
(c) The
Makarewa Hall Committee requested that the rates collected in respect of the
Makarewa Hall are removed from the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025. There
is no longer a requirement for the revenue as the hall has been demolished.
This will result in a reduction in rates income of $2,242.
(d) Total
internal income and internal expenditure within Council activities is required
to offset to nil. The Work Scheme activity internal codes were slightly
out of balance in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (varying from $50 to $532)
and therefore required balancing. This will not impact rates.
(e) Depreciation
reserve balances are required to offset to nil within each Council business
unit. An adjustment is required to the Matuku Water Supply depreciation
reserves to balance this business unit. The impact on rates is an
increase of between $150 and $871 in years 2019/2020 to 2023/2024.
(f) A
new business unit needs to be established and should include the costs
associated with the engagement of the new Group Manager Policy and
Community. Overall operating expenditure, and consequently rates
will not increase, as these costs have only been reallocated.
(g) An
update is required to various hall rates to ensure that the amount collected
per ratepayer is accurate. This update involves confirming the number of
applicable rating units as per the rating information database. The
impact of rates is expected to be minimal on the basis that there have been
minimal additions to the database.
(h) Council
officers also request the following changes to the wording of Section 2.4 of
the draft Revenue and Financing Policy.
· Inclusion
of wording to note depreciation reserves as retained earnings;
· Inclusion
of reserves and depreciation as a mechanism for funding capital in some
activities;
· An
amendment to the Corporate Support Activity to indicate the funding sources for
capital work including IT projects.
Options
Rates increases
9 Option
1: Maintain rates increase cap at a maximum of Local Government Cost
Index + 2% as proposed in the 2015-2025 consultation document.
10 Option
2: Reduce rates increase cap to be kept in line with inflation and/or
Local Government Cost index.
Financial information available
during consultation
11 Option
1: Acknowledge the submitters’ comments and consider providing
additional financial information for the entire associated period in future
consultation processes.
12 Option
2: Acknowledge the submitters’ comments, but recognise the
significant implications associated with further disclosures as a result of
Council’s complex rating system.
Community development funding
13 Option
1: Confirm the level of funding provided to Venture Southland as proposed in the
draft Long Term Plan.
14 Option
2: Amend the level of funding provided to Venture Southland for community
development activities.
Funding approach
15 Option
1: Confirm the funding approaches as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan.
16 Option
2: Amend the funding approaches in the Long Term Plan.
Blackmount Community Hall
17 Option
1: Confirm the Blackmount Community Hall rate as proposed in the
2015-2025 draft Long Term Plan.
18 Option
2: Remove the Blackmount Community Hall rate.
Edendale Pool Boundary
19 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan and other relevant documents for the
boundary as per the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board submission.
20 Option
2: Confirm the Edendale Pool boundary as proposed in the 2015-2025
Consultation Document.
21 Option
3: Do not amend the Edendale Pool boundary.
Edendale Pool Rate Allocation
22 Option
1: Instruct Council and Venture Southland staff to progress discussions
with the Edendale/Wyndham Community Board on the policy and process required to
be established to allow the rate funds to be shared amongst the two community
pools and possibly the amount of the rate collected increased.
23 Option
2: Continue with the status quo, all funds continuing to be provided to
the Edendale Pool only.
Depreciation Reserves
24 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and other
relevant documents to incorporate funding of capital projects from depreciation
reserves rather than loans where funds are forecast to be available.
25 Option
2: Do not amend the documents for the suggested changes.
Venture Southland Forecasts
26 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan, and other relevant documents to
consolidate Venture Southland’s budgets for the 10 years of the plan.
27 Option
2: Do not consolidate Venture Southland budgets into the Long Term Plan.
Makarewa Hall Rate
28 Option
1: Remove the proposed Makarewa Hall rate from the draft Long Term Plan.
29 Option
2: Retain the proposed Makarewa Hall rate in accordance with the draft
Plan.
Budget Reallocation
30 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan and other relevant documents for
suggested budget reallocations (being internal income and expenditure for Work
Schemes, depreciation reserve balances for Matuku Water Supply and GM costs).
31 Option
2: Do not amend the documents for the suggested budget reallocations.
Hall Rates
32 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan and other relevant documents to collect
the correct amount of rates for each hall in accordance with the most recent rating
information database.
33 Option
2: Do not amend the documents for the suggested hall budget amendments.
34 Establishment
of the District General Rate
35 Option
1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan and other relevant documents to collect
the rates required for the following activities via a district general rate,
and disestablish the associate district wide targeted rates: Representation
rate, Strategy, policy and planning rate, Development and promotions rate,
District heritage rate, Library service rate, Regional initiative rate, Council
office and district support rate, Building regulation rate, Public health
service rate, and Civil defence and rural fire rate.
36 Option
2: Maintain the existing district rates for each activity as outlined
above in option 1.
Discussion and
Analysis
Legal and Statutory Considerations
37 Council’s
draft Revenue and Financing Policy meets the requirements of Section 102(2)(a)
of the Local Government Act (2002). Sources of funding listed in the
draft Revenue and Financing Policy are listed in Section 103(2) of the
Act.
38 Council
has consulted on its draft policy using the special consultative
procedure. This meets the requirements of Section 83 of the Local
Government Act (2002).
39 Note
that the submissions received under the Long Term Plan consultation process,
and the parallel consultation process for other policies, have been combined in
this report for simplicity’s sake. Following deliberation on these
separate issues, a final Revenue and Financing Policy will be developed and
presented to Council for adoption in late June along with the final Long Term
Plan.
40 While
the Local Government Act 2002 (Clause 10, Schedule 10) requires the Revenue and
Financing policy to be included in the Long Term Plan, decisions on the Revenue
and Financing Policy and Long Term Plan are separate decisions.
Equity and Affordability
41 Council
is aware that rates affordability is a significant issue and that rates can
place a particular burden on members of the Southland District community.
Council maintains the consideration of rates affordability at the forefront of
its operational and policy making processes. For this reason, Council has
proposed to set its maximum rates increase in any year at the Local Government
Cost Index plus 2%. Given the works, activities and services which are
identified in the Consultation Document and supporting information,
Council believes that it has ‘struck a balance’ between
ensuring that it can maintain the services and replace assets required while
ensuring that rates are kept as low as possible.
42 Under
legislation, Council is only able to fund 30% of its rates by way of a fixed
amount across ratepayers. Collecting fixed rates means that a greater
share is paid by residential ratepayers. Currently, Council is collecting
25.5% of its rates in this manner. An additional 4.5% equates to
$1,888,713 (on average $122 per rating unit). Council uses multiple rate
types, including the roading targeted rate, to share the burden of rates across
all sectors of the community. As such, it is not considered that there is
a need to increase the percentage of uniform charges to the maximum allowable
30% at this stage.
43 Given
Council’s current rating structure of over 150 rate types, it is not
possible to provide a comprehensive set of properties and their rates in the
Consultation Document as it does depend on the value of the property and the
services the particular property receives within the area it is located.
However, Council did provide an online tool that received positive feedback and
allowed ratepayers to enter their property address and obtain details of their
rates for the 2014/2015 year and the indicative details of their 2015/2016
rates based on the proposals in Council’s draft Long Term Plan
2015-2025. Council will continue to review and improve on this online
tool in the future.
44 It
is important today’s ratepayers pay for the services and assets that they
use. Similarly it is important that services and assets used by past
ratepayers are not a financial burden on future ratepayers. This method
of spreading the costs across different generations is called intergenerational
equity. To achieve intergenerational equity, Council uses a number of
tools. These include collecting rates for present expenditure and the use
of debt, which is repaid over the life of the asset.
45 Another
tool to achieve intergenerational equity is depreciation, which collects rates
to cover the cost of using, renewing and replacing current assets. The
rates collected through depreciation are held in reserves. When the group
of assets for which they were collected are due for replacement those funds and
their accumulated interest are used, ensuring that today’s ratepayers are
not creating a financial burden for future ratepayers. Council is
proposing to implement a phased approach to funding depreciation in the 2015-25
Long Term Plan. Further information and discussion on this matter can be
found in Appendix 4 of this report.
Funding and Financial
Considerations
46 By
consolidating District activities to be funded by way of a General Rate
(Uniform Annual General Charge), Council is simplifying the way rates are
charged and increasing its efficiency. This will make rates easier to
understand while maintaining equity regarding who pays for services.
Edendale Pool Boundary Rate
47 In
the development of the draft Long Term Plan some confusion arose around the
preferred rating boundary for the Edendale Pool. The Edendale-Wyndham Community
Board submitted that it did not support the proposal to align the Edendale pool
rating boundary with the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board boundary.
A new Edendale Pool Rate Boundary map (attached) has been created to
reflect the Edendale Wyndham Community Board’s preference. It now shows
the following boundaries:
· Edendale-Wyndham
Community Board,
· Gorge
Road Community Development Area,
· Revised
Edendale Pool Boundary.
The recommendation is for Council
to amend the draft Long Term Plan on this basis.
48 The
Wyndham District Community Pool has submitted that the funds from the Edendale
Pool rate should be allocated to both the Wyndham Community Pool and the
Edendale Community Pool. Council officers have commented that Venture
Southland is working with the Community Board and the Wyndham
District Pool Committee, to ensure that all requirements for funding are met
before decisions will be made regarding any potential allocation between the
pools or an increase in the rate. The Wyndham Pool Committee has
been advised of the requirements and the recommended timeframes to obtain a
share of the rate collected in future years.
Other Comments
49 Ratepayers need to recognise
that water and sewerage ‘loans’ are a rate, and not a loan in the
true sense of the word. Council is not a financial institution, and
therefore does not have the sophisticated systems and resources available to
manage partial lump-sum repayments of loan rates.
50 Recently,
a comprehensive review of the funding and governance of Venture Southland was
undertaken. As a result of this review, Council decided to maintain the
current structure and funding arrangement for Venture Southland because it
allowed sufficient autonomy and flexibility for Venture Southland to deliver
its services and also provide value to Council and ratepayers.
Consideration of providing a funding adjustment to Venture Southland for
movement in the consumer price index is discussed in Appendix 9:
Funding and Grants requests.
51 One submitter
suggested a poll tax to help spread the burden of funding. Council endeavours
to spread the cost of rates having due regard to the contributor to the costs
and who benefits from the activities, infrastructure and services.
Council is limited by the Local Government (Rating) Act (2002) to a maximum of
30% of its total rates being collected by way of a fixed amount.
52 One submitter (114)
provided suggestions on savings to be achieved through greater shared services
and explore alternative funding through partnership with the private sector as
well as user pays.
53 Council
actively seeks alternative funding methods and ways of achieving cost
efficiencies and is open to reviewing any specific opportunities that it is
made aware of. Currently, as examples, Council has through the "All
of Government" scheme electricity at very competitive pricing.
Council also subscribes to N3, which is a preferred supplier discount
offer. Fees and Charges are also reviewed regularly and are
collected where appropriate.
54 Council is
always open to opportunities for private sector participation, such as
Stewart Island Electricity, but given the mainly operational nature of
Council’s infrastructure there is little obvious opportunity. The
Haast Hollyford Road proposal is one example where a public private partnership
could potentially be explored.
55 The
Council’s major roading service contracts are not inflation linked.
The alliance style contracts are driven by fixed annual budgets, which have
been reducing in real terms. However, the reseals contracts which are
inflation linked through the industry standard NZTA reseals index have been
going down in price due to the effect of diesel and bitumen price
movements. The Council always carries out analysis on the advantages and
disadvantages of inflation linking period service contracts.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 1: Strategies, Financial Issues and
Rating ” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Confirms,
as proposed in the draft Long Term Plan and associated documents, the
following:
i) Rates
increase cap at Local Government Cost Index + 2%.
ii) Funding
for Venture Southland.
iii) Funding
approaches applied to Council’s activities.
iv) The
Blackmount Community Hall rate.
d) Agrees
to amend the draft Long Term Plan and associated documents to include the
following:
i) Updated
Edendale Pool Boundary as set out in the attached map.
ii) Consolidation
of Venture Southland’s budgets into Council’s financial
statements.
iii) Removal
of the proposed Makarewa Hall rate.
iv) Reallocation
of budgets associated with internal income and expenditure, depreciation
reserves and GM costs as required.
v) Updated
hall rates in accordance with the current rating information database.
e) Agrees
to Council and Venture Southland staff progressing discussions with the
Edendale-Wyndham Community Board in relation to the allocation of the funds
from the Edendale Pool rate.
f) Agrees
to amend the draft Long Term Plan, the Revenue and Financing Policy and
relevant Asset Management Plans/ Activity to use district sewerage,
district water and Te Anau rural water supply depreciation reserves to fund
capital works being completed.
g) Confirms
the establishment of the proposed District General Rate to fund various
district activities, and the disestablishment of the following rate types:
i) Representation
rate
ii) Strategy,
policy and planning rate
iii) Development
and promotions rate
iv) District
heritage rate
v) Library
service rate
vi) Regional
initiative rate
vii) Council
office and district support rate
viii) Building
regulation rate
ix) Public
health service rate
x) Civil
defence and rural fire rate
|
Excerpts from
Public Submissions on Strategies and Rating
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
11
|
Keeping rates as low as possible
is a good idea.
|
|
18
|
I used your rating tool to
illustrate the proposed changes will have to my business. Great …
but hold on here that is just for the coming year ... with phased in depreciation
and increases over time to water and water I have no idea what my rates will
be like in 2, 3, 4, 5 years and beyond. That concerns me.
|
|
25
|
Keep rates increases in line
with inflation or less. Rates are too high.
|
|
44
|
We believe that ratepayers
should have the ability if they wish to be able to repay these loans if there
situation changes over time. Some of these rate payers have large
amounts of money to be repaid quarterly, and if they are fortunate enough to
be able to make some early repayments they should be able to do so.
|
|
62
|
Yes a POLL tax should be
introduced so that all residents appreciate the services that are on offer
and the burden is spread a bit wider. Have you the will to push this.
|
|
71
|
I see that the Council is
intending to go into debt in the future. I hate the thought of my
children or grandchildren having to pay interest on loans through their
rates. Southland County from the 20s into the 90s always had a cash
reserve (possibly the only local authority in New Zealand). When
the Wyndham Town Board was offered the money to put stopbanks around the town
even with 75% subsidy it was beyond the Town Board. Southland County
loaned Wyndham Town Board enough money to buy the subsidy. It was a 20
year loan to be paid back through their rates. Wyndham got their
stopbanks and I am living in the Wyndham Rest Home now sheltering behind
it.
|
|
86
|
Projected
Overall Rates Increases
Council
is projecting that rates increase each year over the next 10 years will
be in the band 3.00% to 3.50%. Inflation is in the band 1.50% to 2.50%
for the same period.
As
I have already discussed, for many ratepayers, it is not possible to pass on
rates increases to customers as we are residents not businesses. Effectively,
many residents are end-users, whereas businesses are not.
Given
this, surely the target rates increase for residential ratepayers should at
most be the rate of inflation. This would mean that Southland District
Council would have to achieve substantial cost savings, see below.
Another
worrying factor here, for me, is that the rates increases our property is
experiencing are very different to the Council average. Over the last 4
rates cycles (including the projected 2015-2016 cycle), the annual increase
in the Council's rate take has been in the range 2.95% to 3.73%. In the
same period our rates have increased in the range 5.33% to 8.15%. Such
rises are not sustainable in the long term.
Council
needs to monitor the increase for each property in the district and mitigate
rises where they are outside a small range from the average rise. There
is little point trying to promote economic development when Southland
District Council actually stifles development through its rates rises.
Reducing
Costs to Ratepayers
Southland
District Council needs to set realistic targets for rates increases. To
do this a reduction in projected spending is necessary. In the
Southland District Council 10 Year Plan, as always, funding of Venture
Southland (VS) is a major item ($1.76 million) with virtually no explanation
of how this is to be spent.
Every
$100K spent by Southland District Council is 0.24% of the rates bill and so
small savings in the spend at VS would have a large impact on the
rates. Given the lack of accountability of VS to
Southland District Council ratepayers, this might be a place to look for
savings.
|
|
89
|
YES! Council needs to look
very carefully at how it levies its rates. Constantly increasing our
rates at the levels the council has been using in recent years is not
sustainable for property owners. Our rates have increased by approx. 77%
in the 11 years we've been in Te Anau compared with an average inflation
rate in the region of 2-3% per annum. Council needs to aim towards a
zero rates increase in the longer term with a short term aim of nobody's
rates increasing more than the current rate of inflation.
A lot of people in Southland
have to make difficult choices when they receive their rates bills - with
little control over the rise in rates they have to cut back on other
expenses,. People on low incomes or pensions are constantly being put
under financial pressure by the Council for little perceived benefit.
Can the Council make cost
savings - of course it can. Ratepayers have to, so should the
council. Better consultation on projects like cycle trails and
wastewater options could have result in lower legal costs as the Council's
plans are being challenged. The Council really should stick to its core
activities and not get involved in activities such as airports and cycle
trails - the latter two activities only benefit a very small number of Southland
rate payers which the majority have to subside.
Funding of Venture Southland
needs to be looked out - why should residents of Southland have to pay so
much more for Venture Southland than residents of Gore? Council
needs to look at its costs - I do not buy into the argument that
councils anywhere in the country have to pay close to commercial rates for
senior managers.
I'm disappointed that some of
the information published in the 10 Year Plan Consultation Document
appears to be misleading. According to the table on 30, the average
level of rates for a property like mine is in the region of $1480, yet I am
paying $2234. The margin of error here is extremely large and hence
misleading.
I wish to speak to my submission
and expand on the issues I have raised.
|
|
98
|
We have a quality infrastructure
with potential for growth. Growth cannot be unlimited in a finite
world. Already the strains of growth are showing in air and water
quality, deprivation in many sectors of society, outsourcing of local goods
and services (often a government decision with little regard for local or
regional impacts), and poor roading surfaces and designs (3.2 - We have safe
roads). Juggernaut legislation should have been accompanied by extra
funding to negate the increased impacts on roads and bridges.
Local knowledge needs to be
incorporated in road design, signage and other improvements, as a matter of
urgency.
Is the Southland District
Council involved in consultation regarding new legislation presently going through
Parliament - if not why not (see letter from Opus). Passenger rail
services - low carbon safe road.
|
|
107
|
The
submitter provided a large number of comments on this topic.
For the full commentary see Submission No. 107 in the submissions
booklet.
7.
RATES
7.1
- In the 2015/2016 year, Council is proposing to increase the total rates by
3.44%. The Council proposes to increase rates for the remainder of the
Plan by between 3.19% and 3.54%. We note that this is better than
the 4.0% - 5.7% increases forecast in the last Long Term Plan, however, we
remain opposed to this increase, especially considering the rates rises over
the past few years.
7.2
- Comparatively, the Local Government Cost Index is 2.0% in 2015/2016, and we
would expect Council would seek to cut non-essential spending next year to
provide a lower increase.
Compared
with other Territorial Local Authorities, it appears the Southland District
spends a large proportion of operating expenditure on Community Development
and Corporate Support. We consider there should be an effort on the
part of Council to economise and reduce spending in these areas.
7.3
- Many farmers are going to be significantly worse off than other ratepayers
in 2015/2016 with total rates rises for small non-dairy farms, and many dairy
farms being in the vicinity of 6-8%. This combined with higher property
values means that these rates increases will run well into the hundreds of
dollars for some farmers. Rates increases like this year after year is unsustainable,
especially in the current economic climate where farmers are struggling to
break even.
7.4
- We note that Council is proposing a maximum rate increase of the Local
Government Cost Index plus 2%, which could lead to total rates increases of
5.5% by 2024/2025. Over the next 10 years, if Council achieves its
forecast rates will increase by well over 30% in just 10 years.
This is unacceptable and suggests Council needs to reconsider its priorities,
funding options, and funding constraints.
Over
this same time period the CPI is expected to increase from approximately 1.75
to 2.5%. Council should aim to keep rates increases within the Local
Government Cost Index.
Recommendations
7.5
- We oppose the forecast rates increases for farmers and consider these are
inappropriate and unsustainable.
7.6
- Overall, Federated Farmers considers that the Council needs to do more to
curb rates increases. We recommend that Council reviews its non-core
expenditure and works to finds efficiencies in operations.
Uniform
Targeted Rate (UTR)
7.7
- Council's revenue from the Uniform Annual General charge and certain
targeted rates set on a uniform basis is 25.50% in 2015/2016, down from 27.8%
in 2014/2015. Federated Farmers opposes the proposed drop in the use of
the UTR, and considers that Council should set the level of uniform rates at
30% of total rates revenue.
7.8
- Apart from 2014/2015, Council has reduced the amount of rates recovered
through the UTR, to the effect that a larger proportion of rates are
allocated on a property value basis. Because farmers are reliant on
land for production, this in turn shifts the cost of council activities onto
farmers and other ratepayers with relatively high capital values.
7.9
- This is not a sound application of funding policy, and does take into
account the actual income or financial situation of the ratepayer.
Council has only one narrow measure of wealth, that of property value, and
this narrow measure provides no accurate indication of a ratepayer’s
relative ability to pay.
7.10
- Federated Farmers contends that a farming property should not contribute a
disproportionate amount to the activities funded by it, where that property
has no greater impact than that of a residential property, or where the
direct benefits are not captured by the farming property.
Recommendation
7.11
- Federated Farmers believes that where Council activities benefit all
residents equally, ratepayers should pay the same amount, for example,
District Leadership and Support, and Representation and Advocacy.
Federated Farmers believes that the UTR is the most appropriate method of
funding these activities. Federated Farmers submits that Council can
and should fund all of these activities’ costs currently attributed to
the general rate using a UTR.
|
|
108
|
For the full commentary see
Submission No. 108 in the submissions booklet.
· Submitter supports the sealing of the Catlins Road.
· That Southland District
Council consult the Public Health Service
them when reviewing changes to existing infrastructure which may have an
effect on the public health of the community.
· Recommends that Southland
District Council continues to prioritise the
provision of appropriate infrastructure to fulfil acceptable standards aimed
at protecting the public health of communities.
· Commends council on the smokefree policy and
signage.
· Supports enabling active communities through
AMCT (but notes maintenance cots not stated) and upgrading playgrounds.
· Want support for a Health in all Policies
(HiAP) approach being adopted by Council and welcome future opportunities to
discuss this further with you.
|
|
114
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 114 in the submissions booklet.
The Long Term Plan is
business-like and provides a sound platform on which to build and explore
scope for improved efficiency, working smarter and being more innovative.
- Council
is setting a good example and giving certainty to the business community in
limiting annual rate increases to 2% - the Consumer Index.
- There is
scope to extend the shared services statement with other councils to achieve
economies of scale in areas such as roading repairs, materials, office
supplies, administration, computer services etc.
- There is
also scope to explore alternatives to dependence on rates. Council
states that it will limit rates to less than two-thirds of revenue.
This gives certainty, but with looming concerns about ‘ageing
infrastructure’, now might be the time to explore specific options that
build on the commitment to introduce a culture to work smarter and be
innovative.
- Review the
potential opportunity to look at a strengthened inflation-indexed cost for
core services, and reduce the 2% even lower which could provide the
opportunity to retain rate increases for clearly beneficial capital works
within specified time frames for them.
- The
document stresses the importance of funding of roads, the concerns on aging
infrastructure and whether to provide new water supply and wastewater
schemes. There could be options to invite private sector
participation/ investment to provide ‘user pay’ services?
|
Blackmount
Community Centre Rate Comments
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
30
|
My submission is in support of
the proposed Blackmount Community Centre Rate. The recent closure of
the Blackmount School has meant the community has lost a focus point, that
was at the heart of the community. Many believe the on going use of
this modern school building as a community centre will go a long way to
filling the gap left by the school closure. The Blackmount community
have over the years proved their ability to fund and maintain these types of
assets. The pool being a good example.
A rate is a logical way to evenly
fund some of the running costs, and I believe supported by the majority
of families in Blackmount. A rate has the added advantage to the
community of offering a small but dependable flow of funds towards the
on-going maintenance of the building. Historically in Blackmount these
funds have had to be raised through large fundraising events or public
funding. These events will continue but the addition of rate income
will offer more certainty and reduce the need for fundraising.
The existing hall is in its
twilight years and will need some significant expenditure before long.
It is an opportune time to replace it with the modern low maintenance school
building.
|
|
36
|
In my view the proposed
Blackmount Centre (school) is a wonderful idea and I support the rate for the
on-going operation of same. The centre (school) is a warm,
comfortable, relatively new, low maintenance building with a modern kitchen
in close proximity to the tennis courts, playground and swimming pool and
will certainly be used and appreciated by the local community.
|
|
47
|
I would like to support the
proposed new hall rate of $57.50 in Blackmount. I see it as a fair and
reasonable way for the Blackmount community to manage an important community
asset.
|
|
60
|
I wish to support the proposed
Blackmount Community Centre Rate for assisting with the ongoing operation of
the Blackmount Community Centre. The school/community centre has been
and will continue
to be the heart of the community. The community is a very supportive
community and is prepared to raise funds to maintain and operate their
community centre. I believe the proposed rate is a similar rate to that
of support to other community centres. Losing the school was a big blow
to the community but turning the school building into a community centre will
make the best of the situation and keep this facility within the
community. The old hall is no longer suitable for group activities and
having the school building as a community centre will encourage a greater use
of this facility. My family has been part of this community
for 35 years and my children went to the school. We would like to see
the school/community centre continue being the heart of the community.
|
|
61
|
We
support a rating district being established in Blackmount to support the
community centre.
|
|
65
|
As a family, and members of the
Blackmount Community, who are also highly involved in community activities
and committees, we are really keen to see the old Blackmount School (which
will become our Blackmount Community Centre) become rated amongst all of the
houses in our district. We are very supportive of the rate that will
help maintain this building for the future. This will help provide a
small steady income that will help the Community Centre Committee to keep
hire charges affordable, and to plan maintenance work. We think a
proposed rate is comparable to other communities and a fair way to fund
it. The school/community centre can remain the heart of Blackmount and
the community's identity.
|
|
96
|
I strongly support the proposed
Blackmount community centre rate. The community has already invested a
significant amount in securing the school building as a much needed community
centre. A rate is a very appropriate way of assisting with the
maintenance of the building which is available to all of the residents of the
community.
|
|
97
|
The Blackmount Amenities
Committee wishes to support the proposed Blackmount Community Centre
rate. The school/community centre has been and will continue to be at
the heart of the Blackmount Community. Losing the school in 2014
was a big blow to the community but we believe that turning it into a
community centre will make the best of a bad situation and keep this facility
for the community.
Over the last 20 years the
school has been used for meetings and community events as the old
hall/community centre is difficult to heat, draughty, mouse ridden.
Going forward it would need a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to a
suitable standard. This is an opportune time to purchase the building
as our new community centre and with the help of the Council, community
fundraising and public funders the Blackmount community has been fortunate to
be able to obtain a modern, well maintained, multi-functional building for a
low cost and without incurring debt. The rate was proposed by the
Blackmount community as a way to fairly raise funds to maintain and operate
this local community centre. The survey undertaken as part of the
feasibility study showed a significant support for the establishment of the
rate.
The
Community Centre will be available to all current groups as well as new
users. Users of the centre will contribute through a hire charge.
Having a small steady income from the community centre rate will help the
committee to keep hire charges affordable, while maintaining a regular
maintenance programme.
|
|
97
|
It
is quite common in Southland for districts to gather rates for maintenance of
community halls and Blackmount has a strong record of facility development
and maintenance. The school has always been the heart of Blackmount and
without the use of the school building as a community centre we believe the
community could struggle to keep its identity.
|
Edendale Pool
Rating Boundary Comments
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
37
|
The Edendale Wyndham Community
Board does not support the proposal to align the Edendale Swimming Pool
rating area boundary with the Edendale Wyndham Community Board
boundary. There is a need to adjust the Pool Rating boundary where it
overlaps some properties that are inside the Gorge Road CDA but extending it,
particularly in the south eastern area of the Community Board, will include
properties in the Fortification district that are in the Tokanui community of
interest and support the community pool in Tokanui.
|
|
48
|
Edendale Pool Rate
Now there are two community
pools in the Wyndham/Edendale Board area it is only fair that the funds from
Wyndham ratepayers go towards their local pool.
|
|
49
|
Edendale Pool Rate
The Wyndham District Community
Pool committee submit on the basis of community support, that the Edendale
Pool Rate be split between the Wyndham Community Pool and the Edendale
Community Pool. It is only fair that the funds of Wyndham ratepayers go
toward the pool that they support.
|
Attachments
a Edendale
Pool Rating Boundary map View
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 2: NZTA Investment Programme
Record No: R/15/5/8390
Author: Susan
Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 This
report provides an update around the indicative investment levels that the New
Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) have allocated to the Southland
District. As a result of changes to NZTA indicative levels of investment,
it is recommended that changes are made to the roading programme.
Background
2 Southland
District Council applied for around $73.4 million in funding from NZTA in
respect of roading maintenance and renewals. In response to this
application, the NZTA have provided indicative investment levels of
approximately $68.9 million in funding for the Southland District.
3 As
a result of a recent review of funding assistance, the NZTA have also changed
its approach to funding administration and overhead costs and this has had an
impact on Council’s roading budget.
4 Indicative
investment levels discussed in this report are in respect of maintenance and
renewals only. The Council has not received confirmation of its improvement
funding levels.
Issues
5 Due
to indicative investment from NZTA which is lower than Council’s request,
it is proposed that changes are made to some roading projects. These
changes are outlined below.
LED project
6 It
is proposed that the LED project is moved from the maintenance and renewal
budget to the improvement budget. The LED project was included in the
maintenance and renewal budget because at the time there was no guidance from
NZTA on how this type of project should be funded. Since the development
of the budget, NZTA has indicated that this project would be more appropriately
funded from the improvement budget.
Administration and overhead costs
7 Changes
to the way that NZTA funds administration and overhead costs have had an impact
on Council’s budgeting. Previously, NZTA funded overhead and
administration costs by adding a 2.25% to the funding assistance rate
(FAR). For example, at the previous FAR of 53% for every $1.00 spent by
Council, 53 cents plus 2.25% was received. However, since the recent changes
in NZTA policy regarding funding assistance, administration and overhead costs
are allocated directly to projects or activities. This means that when
costing a project or activity, it is now necessary to consider the
administration and overhead costs required.
8 Council
has also reduced administration costs incorporated into the roading programme
budget. These costs were included in the request for funding to NZTA but
have not been listed in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-25. The amount of
funds requested in respect of administration and overheads reflected factors
which could increase these costs. However, Council has prepared a
conservative budget which strives to produce efficiencies and allows for status
quo administration and overhead costs. In effect, this means that Council
can continue to fund administration and overhead costs at the current rate.
9 The
table illustrates the impacts below:
|
|
What we asked NZTA for
|
Long Term Plan Budgets
|
|
|
(2015 – 2018)
|
(2015 – 2018)
|
|
Programme Budget
|
70,214,116
|
70,202,115
|
|
Administration/Overhead Funding
|
3,202,487
|
1,566,164
|
|
Sub-total
|
73,416,603
|
71,768,279
|
|
What NZTA have indicated
|
68,943,000
|
68,943,000
|
|
LED Streetlight now to be funded from Improvements
|
|
1,003,798
|
|
GAP we need to reduce programme by:
|
|
1,821,481
|
Local share
10 Council
collects a local share of road funding to match the funding received from NZTA.
Since the amount of indicative investment is now reduced, it is recommended
that the Council also reduce the rates it collects to meet NZTA indicative
programme. This will ensure that rates are realigned to our roading
programme. It is also consistent with Council’s current position
that it will not fund any roading activity which does not receive NZTA funding.
11 Collecting
a lower local share means that approximately $876K less in roading rates need
to be collected over the next three years.
Review of reseal programme
12 To
align our budgets to NZTA funding and address any remaining shortfall, the
Transport Department will be reviewing the reseal programme for the next three
years. In preparing the budgets for the draft Long Term Plan 2015-25, actual
2014/2015 reseal contract rates were used.
Over the last six months there has
been a significant drop in the bitumen index. Reseal cost rates are set
based on this index. Therefore, to address the shortfall in funding the
Transport Department have used the actual rates for the season including the
outcomes of the bitumen index. Applying this principle has reduced our
roading programme by $1.8 million which aligns to NZTA’s indicative
investment. However, there is considerable volatility in pricing in this
activity. Council must also meet its reseal programme as indicated in the
Transport Asset Management Plan since this is now a mandatory performance measure
imposed by the Department of Internal Affairs.
13 Reviewing
the reseal programme for the next three years is a short term solution but is
not necessarily the best option long term. However, based on the past reseal
season, there is minimal risk associated with reviewing the reseal programme
for the next three years. Additional work is required to review the long term
budgets in detail and this will occur over time. Any subsequent changes
will occur as part of the Annual Plan process in 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.
Options
14 Council
could choose to:
· Option
1: Amend the roading budget to reflect the changes outlined in this
report;
· Option
2: Not amend the roading budget; or
· Option 3: Use the surplus local share and
complete ‘unsubsidised work’.
|
Option 1: Amend the roading budget to reflect the changes outlined
in this report
|
|
Impact on rates:
· This
option would result in approximately $876K less in local share being
collected over the next three years. This would mean a decrease in the
overall roading rate required to meet Council’s schedule of work.
|
|
Advantages:
· The
proposed amendments reflect indicative investment from NZTA.
· Proposed
changes ensure that Council is not collecting a local share from ratepayers
which will not be matched by NZTA funding.
· Proposed
changes ensure that Council is budgeting prudently and efficiently and
developing a work project which makes the most of its resources in
consideration of long term asset sustainability.
· This
option will not impact on the budgeted quantities of reseals.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· No
notable disadvantages have been identified.
|
|
Option 2: Not amend the roading budget
|
|
Impact on rates:
· If
no changes are made to the roading budget, the roading rate requirement will
remain as projected in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-25. Any variance between
the budget and actual income and expenditure levels would then need to be
explained in the Annual Report.
|
|
Advantages:
· By
not changing the budget the additional local share can used to repay internal
debt or start to put funding into a reserve. The collection of budgeted local
share could allow for an earlier transition to the proposed funding of depreciation.
· The
NZTA investment programme is indicative only at this stage. If the budget
remains unchanged, Council has additional time to respond to NZTA to
negotiate for further investment.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· This
does not reflect NZTA’s indicative investment and part of the local
share which would be collected would not be matched by funding from
NZTA.
|
|
Option 3: Use the surplus local share to complete
‘unsubsidised’ work.
|
|
Impact on rates:
· If
no changes are made to the roading budget, the roading rate requirement will
remain as projected in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-25.
|
|
Advantages:
· This
option would allow Council to invest additional resources into the roading
network.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Funding
unsubsidised work could signal that council is willing to fund some of its
programme without an NZTA subsidy. This could influence future funding
decisions by NZTA.
· Defining
the type of work which could be unsubsidised in the future would be difficult.
|
Discussion
15 It
is important that Council’s roading budgets provide an accurate
projection by reflecting the most recent information from NZTA.
16 At
this stage, investment outlined by NZTA is indicative only. As a result,
Council has to provide for a level of flexibility in its budgets. It is also
important that the Council is collecting a local share which reflects the level
of NZTA subsidies available. On this basis, it is recommended that the budget
is amended to reflect NZTA’s indicative investment programme.
17 The
proposed changes ensure that Council is acting prudently and is making the most
of the subsidies provided by NZTA. They also consider rates affordability
by ensuring that Council is not collecting roading rates which will not be
matched by funding from NZTA.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 2: NZTA Investment Programme”
dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Agrees
to review the reseal programme in light of NZTA’s indicative investment
programme.
d) Agrees
with amending the draft roading budgets and draft Long Term Plan to align
with the indicative investment from NZTA.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 3: Maintaining Roads and Levels of
Service
Record No: R/15/4/6290
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 Council spends around $27
million per annum on its roading network. As a result of a recent review
of the Funding Assistance Rates (FAR) by the New Zealand Transport Authority
(NZTA), Southland District Council receives less road funding from central government
than in the past. A reduction from 55% to 51% FAR over the next four
years means that Council will face a shortfall of $230,000 in 2015/2016.
This shortfall will increase, even if Council only continues to provide the
current level of service.
2 An increasing number of heavy
vehicles are also using Southland District roads, exacerbating damage and the
demand for repairs and renewals. Customer expectations for roading levels
of service have not adjusted to correspond with the environment of lower levels
of central government funding and higher heavy vehicle use. This means
that Council will need to do more with less to meet customer
expectations.
3 Modelling has shown that 20%
of Southland District roads carry most of the vehicles (67% of all vehicle
kilometres travelled). The remaining 80% have a much lower usage
rate. Council is proposing to focus our resources on the roads which
experience the highest amount of use. This is referred to as the 80-20
principle.
4 This proposal is part of a
broader review being undertaken to prioritise Council expenditure and asset
development in all activity areas. Council intends to prioritise expenditure
and the development and maintenance of assets to ensure that investment is
proportionate to asset/service use and the benefits they offer to the
community.
Consultation
5 Council has consulted on an
approach which would see investment prioritised on the 20% of our roads which
have the highest vehicle movements. The 20% of roads, which include a
small number of gravel roads, will be maintained to a high condition and will
be renewed at the end of the life of the asset.
6 Under Council’s
proposal, sealed roads in the 80% with lower traffic volumes may see some
reduction in road quality and would be managed to a lower level of service
through increased patch repairs and reseals.
Feedback
and Submissions
7 A total of 50 submitters
commented on this issue. The full submissions can be found in the
submissions Booklet.
8 Of the 50 submissions that
expressed a preferred option, 34 supported option one which is to move to an
80-20 principle and 16 supported option two which is to maintain the status
quo.
9 Several submitters made
comments supporting moving to an 80/20 principle for maintaining our roads (submission
numbers 81,109,116). The majority of comments were from submitters who
had concerns about the impact of this principle on the maintenance of the
roads.
Options
10 Council released the following options
for consultation:
· Option 1: Move to an 80:20 principle;
· Option 2: Status quo.
11 Under both proposed options, Council
would continue to fund roads using a mixture of funding from the NZTA and
rates.
|
Option
1: Move to an 80-20
|
|
Impact on
rates:
· The proposed option to move to the 80-20 principle would result in
an overall rates increase of around $496,807 in 2015/2016. This equates
to an increase of around $32.10 per rating unit for the 2015/2016 year.
|
|
Advantages:
· The 80-20 principle allows Council to make the most of its
financial resources by concentrating expenditure in areas which provide the
most benefit to ratepayers.
· The proposal will allow Council to operate more effectively in a
constrained economic environment and encourage economic activity throughout
the Southland District.
· By spending more on roads which are most frequently used,
Southland District Council will be able to maintain these roads and the
overall road user experience to a high standard.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Lesser used sealed roads may see some reduction in road
quality. The impact of lower levels of service to these roads is likely
to be low.
|
|
Option
2: Status quo
|
|
Impact on
rates:
· If all current roads are maintained at the current level of
service and no rehabilitations are deferred, there would be an overall rates
increase of about $641,757 in 2015/2016. This equates to an increase of
$41.47 per rating unit.
|
|
Advantages:
· There would be no significant changes to current levels of
service.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Maintaining the status quo is a more expensive option for
ratepayers.
· The status quo does not attempt to proactively respond to the
current environment of constrained road funding which may continue into the
future.
|
Discussion
and Analysis
12 The proposal to move to an 80-20
principle for road funding has considered the on-going likelihood of a
constrained funding environment. It has also considered rating
affordability and making the most of available resources without placing
additional financial demands on ratepayers. It represents a logical
approach to prioritising high volume roads in the Southland District.
Option 1 contributes to the Community Outcomes of Making the most of our
Resources and Being an Effective Council.
13 The One Network Road Classification
(ONRC) involves categorising roads based on the functions they perform as part
of an integrated national network. The classification will help local
government and the Transport Agency to plan, invest in, maintain and operate
the road network in a more strategic, consistent and affordable way throughout
the country.
14 Effectively, NZTA is aiming for the road
user to have the same experience whether they are driving on roads in Taranaki
or Southland. Southland District's network is generally at a higher
standard than the current national standards.
15 It is likely that NZTA will fund roads to
meet these new national standards but not to exceed them. If Council
wishes to have a level of service over and above the standards prescribed by
the ONRC national standards work to meet this level of service is unlikely to
be subsidised by NZTA in the future.
16 Within a rates constrained funding system
and with the aim to move towards a more ‘fit for purpose’ network,
it is believed the proposed 80/20 strategy is an effective and efficient use of
resources. Over the next three years we will be working closely with NZTA
and Local Government New Zealand to gain a better understanding of these
new standards.
17 NZTA has assessed that the standard of
Southland District roads is high compared to national standards. That is,
even if the 80-20 principle were adopted, Southland District would still be
assessed as providing a high level of service by national standards.
18 Adopting the 80-20 principle would mean
that the prioritised ‘high use’ roads would be renewed to modern
standards. The overall impact on levels of service will be minimal.
The average driver is unlikely to notice a change to the standard of roads.
19 It is of note that Fonterra Ltd have
expressed support for this proposal in its submission.
As a high volume user of district roads, this is significant, particularly
considering that the roading network is critical to its business success.
20 The 80-20 principle (Option 1) meets the
legislative requirement for a local authority to “ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and
effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region,
including by planning effectively for the future management of its
assets” - section 14(1)(g) Local Government Act (2002).
21 Option 1 ensures that ratepayers receive
a high level of service for a relatively low increase in roading rates.
By applying a higher amount of rates to roads which have been measured to have
the largest traffic volumes, it maximises the benefit which most ratepayers are
able to receive from the roading network.
22 Moving to an 80-20 principle to fund the
roading network would mean a total rates increase of $496,807 in the 2015/2016
financial year. This is 22.59% lower than the approximate increase of
$641,757 in 2015/2016 if the status quo funding approach is maintained.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 3: Maintaining Roads and Levels of
Service” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Adopts
the proposed 80-20 principle approach to funding the roading network (Option
1) as set out in the draft Long Term Plan and agrees to the final
Long Term Plan 2015-2025 being prepared on this basis.
|
Excerpts
from Public Submissions on Maintaining Our Roads
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
7
|
I think the heavy users should
pay the costs.
|
|
18
|
I have grave concerns that the
'80%' roads could become substandard. What then? Have you allowed any
contingency in case your modelling sees some of your 80% roads hazardous?
|
|
19
|
Very hacked off to hear
Government is cutting funds for roading, obviously geo-engineering man-made
weather control and flag changes are much more important.
|
|
20
|
As long as roading companies make
sure they do a decent patch up job. We have seen patch up jobs only
lasting a week or two because they weren't done properly. This could
end up costing the council more. Make sure graders do a good job
too. We have seen tuffs of dirt in the middle of the road or large
amounts of gravel which makes it unsafe + costly to your vehicle.
|
|
22
|
Dairy/Forestry trucks are
clearly the main cause of degradation of Southland roads.
|
|
24
|
I believe that the greater user
should pay the most. The government invited tourism to the Catlins
so that sector should have to pay more.
|
|
25
|
More supervision by Council when
roads are being reconstructed.
|
|
31
|
Make sure smaller roads don't
get in an unsafe condition.
|
|
34
|
Make contractors increase their
workmanship!
|
|
46
|
You must continue to look after
your roads by insisting that vegetation and trees/hedges are not overhanging
roads. This must be policed more prudently. This vegetation
is damaging the roads by forcing traffic out into the middle of roads, especially
gravel roads. The shading of these areas in winter, needs to be
corrected. Efficient grading of roads back to the water table is
extremely important, where this has been done it has made a huge difference
on the gravel roads.
|
|
48
|
Don't know the right
answer. Safety is the main issue. Roads travelled on by
school buses for example need to be maintained to a certain safe standard
regardless of where they fall.
|
|
58
|
Spend on Roads: You
suggest a smaller spend on roads that are used less. When and how did
you gauge what roads are used less? I am aware that our small no-exit
gravel road did have a count device on it several years ago.
Since that time three
"family" farms have been sold to Landlord and Mount Linton and the
traffic on the road has increased dramatically. The traffic is now
younger people in four wheel drive vehicles who seem to have no fear of blind
corners or any respect for the rapid deterioration of the road. The
maintenance of the road has reduced severely over the 26 years we have
lived on it and now seems to only be looked at when I notify it as
needing attention. This is not good enough and certainly cannot be
further reduced.
|
|
60
|
I
believe it is important that tourists are able to safely travel on our main
routes in the Southland District and also well maintained roads will I
believe encourage tourist traffic.
|
|
62
|
Some road repairs appear to be
done several times before a fix is completed. Surely it is possible to
cut wastage in this area and pay contractors on a completion of a quality job
rather than repeating the process.
|
|
63
|
Work still needs to be done on
the 80 % to stop them from deteriorating to a state where a lot of money has
to be spent to bring them up to standard.
|
|
71
|
Our roading network is our
lifeblood.
Council needs to keep them to
the best standard possible with the money available.
Without the State Highways in
our area the position would be well nigh impossible. Are there any
other roads in our area that could be made a State Highway?
|
|
79
|
The road needs to be tar sealed
to prevent people getting caught in the loose gravel and having accidents.
|
|
81
|
The 80/20 would have some merit
|
|
84
|
The island roads don't have a
lot of traffic, but safety of locals and visitors is still a priority
|
|
86
|
For the full commentary see Submission
No. 86 in the submissions booklet
Moving to an 80/20 principle
should just be the start of a change in process. Southland District
Council needs to generate detailed real data on the current life of its road
network. This data alone should drive the funding of road maintenance
and stop unnecessary costly road repair as we see at present.
|
|
89
|
I do not support either
option. Council needs to adopt an approach to roading that reflects
what is actually happening on the ground. I have previously submitted
that Council needs to implement an inspection process and then implement
repairs only if necessary rather than having a rolling repair type of
model. A model needs to be adopted to reflect the real use of roads in
Southland. Tourism is a major user, but very little of the cost of
roading appears to be picked up by this industry - this is not fair on the
general population in Southland. Lifestyle property owners keep being
picked on to cover more of the cost of roading. Our usage of the roads
does not warrant us being penalised to the extent that council would
like to see. A fairer means of covering the roading costs needs to be
adopted.
|
|
90
|
Catlins Coast Inc.
Recommends that roading funds are distributed according to use, anticipating
the projected growth in the tourism industry, logging and community use for
example safe roading for rural schools.
|
|
95
|
Without
seeing which roads are going to be in the 20/80% I cant comment either way.
What
I want to see it heavy vehicle access removed completely from small gravel
roads where there is another larger, sealed option in the vicinity.
This is the case with our own Cowie Rd (outside of Balfour).
This used to be nothing more than a narrow farm track back in the day, now
with GPS in most trucks it is used as a short cut through from
Orr Rd (which is sealed) to Glenure Rd. Cowie Rd is not built for heavy
traffic and has seriously hazardous soft patches (likened to wet sand) which
make it unsafe for drivers when hit at speed (we get speeding cars and heavy
vehicles down the road often because it is a nice straight road).I also want
the council to apply more pressure on central govt regarding Southland' s
share of road user tax.
If
we are not getting our fair share then we need to make a song and dance about
it. If we are then we need to stump up as a community and pay.
The roads are the lifeline for rural Southlanders.
|
|
98
|
For the full commentary see
Submission No. 98 in the submissions booklet.
Roading Options - I support the
status quo (Option 2) which is just adequate, and refer to my
cross-submission where I note Government decisions allowing heavier vehicles
to use the present roading system have to be accompanied by extra funding for
road and bridge strengthening and maintenance.
|
|
100
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 100 in the submissions booklet.
The rural roading network is
critical to the success of Fonterra. Our farmers rely on rural roads
for the delivery of goods and services and strong local community. For
the milk our farmers produce, rural roads provide the critical first leg in a
journey that will often end on the other side of the world. It is also
important that these roads are as safe as they can be for our farmers,
employees and the wider community. The options proposed by the Council
will see a shift in spending from roads that have lower volumes of traffic to
those with higher traffic volumes, while also attributing a higher proportion
of the costs of road maintenance to the dairy sector. In some
situations this will result in our farmers paying additional costs for a
reduced level of service. However, we appreciate the position that the
Council is in due to the reduction in NZTA funding and the increasing
pressures being placed on the districts roads.
We acknowledge the Council for taking a pro-active approach to management of the
districts roads and the positive relationship that exists between the Council
and Fonterra on these issues. We are therefore confident that the
changes proposed will not have a significant impact on our farmers or
transport operations. We request that: The Council proceed
with the proposed options set out on pages 11 and 13 of the consultation
document.
The Council continue to work
collaboratively with Fonterra to assist in the safe and efficient management
of the road network, while also ensuring that future investments are well
targeted.
|
|
107
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 107 in the submissions booklet.
Federated Farmers supports a
‘whole of network’ approach to the maintenance of
Southland’s roads which enables a realistic and minimum standard of
roading.
We note that farmers contribute
high amounts of money to roading through road user charges, fuel taxes,
registration, licensing, and rates (currently approximately 70% of the
roading rate burden). To a large extent, these factors guide rural road
users’ expectations on roading levels of service in their areas.
We believe Council needs to
engage with impacted members directly to discuss the implications of the new
roading maintenance regime and we support our members’ individual
submissions on the level of service delivery needed for their local roads.
1. ROADING SERVICE LEVELS
1.1 - Roading is vital to the
Southland economy, given our reliance on primary production and associated
processing and distributing.
1.2 - We acknowledge the
increasing cost pressures Council is facing to maintain the roads in
Southland, as a result of a reducing funding assistance rate from the NZTA,
and the significant expenditure required for Southland roading.
1.3 - Federated Farmers
(Southland) is concerned about the impact that changes to the NZTA financial
assistance rate will have for Southland’s councils, ratepayers, road
users, economic productivity, and communities. Federated Farmers of
New Zealand has submitted to both phases of the NZTA’s review of
the funding assistance rate outlining our concerns with the impacts that the
FAR allocation regime will have on rural councils and communities.
1.4 - Southland District is
driven by primary land use which relies heavily on the roading network.
We consider that Southland’s transport infrastructure and services
(across the entire roading network) play a pivotal role in the regions’
quality of life and prosperity, and that this needs to be recognised and provided
for within the draft 10 Year Plan.
1.5 - Federated Farmers
(Southland) is concerned about the Council’s proposal to prioritise 20%
of the roading network and spend less on the other 80%. We consider
that since the council’s roading roadshows last year, consultation has
been lacking. This is a serious concern, particularly as ratepayers
were promised focus groups to continue community discussions on roading
issues.
We support our members’
submissions on proposed local and district projects.
1.6 - We anticipate that most
farmers will live on the 80% of roads that will receive less funding for
maintenance. Yet farmers carry most of the roading rate burden in the
district.
This year it is proposed that
they pay for 71% of the total roading rates, despite only making up 25% of
the District’s total rateable units.
1.7 - Farmers also pay their
share to central government’s roading revenue through road user
charges, fuel taxes, registration and licensing. To a large extent,
these factors guide rural road users’ expectations on roading levels of
service in their areas.
1.8 - We are not advocating that
rural roads should offer the same level of service as key arterial
routes. However, we do seek to ensure that the 10 Year Plan recognises
the tremendous economic value of rural roads, that there is an awareness of
the contributions farmers make to roading costs and that farming makes to the
economic wellbeing of the community.
1.9 - Southland District
Council’s roading service levels should recognise that roading,
particularly the local roading network, is important not only for
Southland’s urban and rural-based businesses, but also from a social
perspective. It connects neighbours and communities, and links isolated
rural communities to education, social and emergency services and other basic
needs. This underlines road user’s expectations for a minimum
acceptable level of roading service. Given these factors our members
expect that all Southland roads should be maintained to a minimum guaranteed
level and this should guide Southland District Council’s roading
maintenance regime.
1.10 - Council is signalling
there will be significant reductions in levels of service for many rural road
users. The impacts of these changes will differ significantly between
communities and between ratepayers, and there is a requirement for Council to
front up directly to rural ratepayers and explain what is happening, why it
is happening, and what these changes mean.
1.11 - This is not a role
rural representatives like Federated Farmers can fulfil for the
Council. Council should have been undertaking these discussions with
affected communities over the past two years, when it was already clear there
would have to be material changes to the rural roading maintenance regime.
We support our members’ submissions on the level of road servicing they
consider appropriate in their areas, and we underline the way the
farmer’s contributions (both through rates and through central
government’s road use derived revenue) underpin an expectation for a
reasonable level of service for roading.
Recommendations
1.12 - Federated Farmers
supports a ‘whole of network’ approach to the maintenance of
Southland’s roads which enables a realistic and minimum standard of
roading.
1.13 - We note that farmers
contribute high amounts of money to roading through road user charges, fuel
taxes, registration, licensing, and rates (currently approximately 70% of the
roading rate burden). To a large extent, these factors guide rural road
users’ expectations on roading levels of service in their areas.
1.14 - We believe Council needs
to engage with impacted members directly to discuss the implications of the
new roading maintenance regime and we support our members’ individual
submissions on the level of service delivery needed for their local roads.
|
|
109
|
We, the Southland District Youth
Council would like to indicate our support of the proposed plans for
maintaining and funding Southland District’s roading network in
Council’s 10 Year Plan 2015 - 2025.
We believe maintaining and
funding the District’s roads is the biggest issue Council will face in
the next 10 years.
As teenagers living in rural
areas, we frequently travel long distances to get to school, to participate
in sports and other extracurricular activities, and for social
purposes. It is important that Council continues to maintain its roads
to the best possible standards that we can afford, to ensure our ability to
participate fully in our communities does not decrease.
It is crucial that Council
continues to maintain its roading network to the best possible standards, to
ensure the continued safety of residents.
We support Council’s proposal to shift to an 80-20 funding model,
which would see funding prioritised based on usage levels. We believe
it is crucial that the maintenance of gravel roads also remains at current
levels.
|
|
116
|
Maintaining our roads
The NZAA Council support the
proposed option of moving to an 80-20 principle but have the following
comments to make regarding the principle:
- Given the emphasis on 20% of
the roading network where the majority of resources will be applied, there
still needs to be some flexibility to address and identify other roading
infrastructure that requires immediate attention due to safety concerns.
- With the emphasis on 20% of
the roading network, should there be driver education to redirect drivers
along their journey to use those roads as opposed to the secondary roads.
- Consultation and information
gathering should be an ongoing requirement to ensure that the roads that are
having the greater expenditure on them are actually being used and if not,
this may identify a need to reclassify roads and re-direct funding to where
it was needed.
|
|
119
|
Continue to lobby government for a more equitable share of
funding.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 4: Roading Rate Model
Record No: R/15/4/6158
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 In 2014,
Council reviewed its Roading Rate Model. The review was intended to simplify
the methodology, increase transparency and address some concerns expressed in
previous submissions.
2 A consultant,
Anthony Byett, was contracted to review the existing Roading Rate Model, other
models which had previously been proposed and viable alternatives.
Consultation
3 As a result of
this review, Council proposed a model based on a fixed charge of $1.20 per
tonne. Tonnage included in the model is primary output tonnage
only.
4 The proposal
applies a 1.1 multiplier to the dairy and forestry sectors to reflect road use
behaviours and un-quantified tonnage.
5 A minimum
tonnage threshold of 200,000 tonnes was applied where data was not readily
available and figures across a three year rolling average were used.
6 As with
previous years, tonnage data has been sought from Infometrics Ltd.
Feedback and
Submissions
7 A total of 43
submissions expressed a preference regarding Southland District Council’s
Roading Rate Model. The full submissions can be found in the submissions
booklet.
8 A total of 25
submitters who commented on this issue expressed a preference for the proposed
model - 16 submitters expressed a preference for the current model and
two submitters preferred no differential rate for heavy vehicles.
9 Submitters
opposing a heavy vehicle differential stated that heavy vehicles are the
lifeblood of the Southland District and as such the cost of roads should be
distributed among all ratepayers as a uniform charge. Of particular note
were the economic effects of success in the dairy industry. One submitter
noted the flow-on effects to all other industries and livelihoods within the
district.
10 Some submitters commented
on the overall allocation of tonnage. Comments included:
• Consideration
should be given to whether tonnage should be allocated by those producing the
output or moving the output (eg, whether the costs should fall to dairy farmers
or to the industrial sector which purchases it for processing);
· Dairy
and forestry must be adequately charged to reflect trip frequency and heavy
loading;
· Tonnage
in the dairy sector should include a consideration of baleage and silage and dairy grazing should be included. The submitter noted
that this has significant impacts on roads during winter months.
· Tonnage in the industrial and commercial sectors needs to
be increased to reflect movements including tourist movements and palm kernel
extract (PKE).
· There should no difference calculated between the demand
placed by residential and lifestyle sectors as many lifestyle blocks have the
same number of residents as properties categorised as being in the residential
sector.
· A separate sector for tourism should be created.
11 One
submitter also suggested that rental
properties should be assessed differently to the residential sector because of
their income generating capacity.
12 Federated Farmers has
submitted in support of an alternative model. This model is the
PriceWaterhouseCoopers model revised by GHD (hereinafter referred to the GHD
model). This model is not currently used in practice by a
territorial authority in New Zealand.
13 Although Federated
Farmers has expressed the GHD model as its first preference for road rating, it
also provided some comments on how the current or proposed models could be
amended.
14 Federated Farmers contend
that the commercial sector is not contributing enough towards the costs of
maintaining the roading network based on actual use. It also requested
the inclusion of an independent tourism sector.
15 The Federated Farmers
submission opposes the decrease in overall Uniform Targeted Rate (UTR) in the
proposed model. Recommending that it is increased to 20% to reflect the
overall benefit of access to the roading network.
16 Federated Farmers oppose
the fixed charge per tonne being set at $1.20, noting a previous iteration of
the Byett model working with a fixed charge of $1.00.
17 Federated Farmers also
opposes the use of a minimum tonnage threshold, rather than the use of actual
tonnage data for the commercial and industrial sectors. The submission
suggests that tonnage for the commercial and industrial sectors is
significantly underestimated.
18 The Federated Farmers
submission opposes the application of the 1.1 multiplier for dairy to account
for un-quantified tonnage. There are two key reasons for this
objection. The first is because the model counts only primary output for
all other sectors and Federated Farmers do not see this as justified. The
second is because Federated Farmers see the ‘inputs’ such as feed
and grain as the outputs of another sector (eg Farming Non-Dairy).
Options
19 Council released the
following options for consultation:
• Option
1: The proposed model based on a fixed charge per tonne;
• Option
2: Council’s current model (status quo);
• Option
3: No heavy vehicle differential applied.
|
Option 1: Proposed model
|
|
Impact
on rates:
· Similar
to the outcomes of the current model.
· Slight
drop in forestry, farming non-dairy, mining and industrial.
· Increase
in the dairy, residential and lifestyle sectors.
|
|
Advantages:
· Easier
to understand, simplified methodologies.
· Data
is more objective with fewer assumptions.
· ‘Other
use’ components allows Council to weight assessments.
· Tonnage
assessed independently rather than proportionally.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Does
not address all concerns raised historically by submitters (eg, separation of
tourism sector). However the model does address most concerns.
|
|
Option 2: Current
Model
|
|
Impact on rates:
· Once
the current model is adjusted by Council, the majority of rates are paid by
the dairy and farming (non-dairy) sectors. The forestry sector pays
around 6% of the total roading rate.
|
|
Advantages:
· Provides
flexibility for Council.
· Major
stakeholders are familiar with the model.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Contains
assumptions to reflect tonnage input.
· Complexity.
|
|
Option 3: No heavy
vehicle differential
|
|
Impact on rates:
· Rates
are only based on capital value.
· A
larger proportion would be paid by residential, lifestyle and farming
(non-dairy).
· Forestry,
mining, dairy, commercial and industrial sectors would pay a much lower rate.
|
|
Advantages:
· Simplifies
the rating system.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Does
not reflect the impact of heavy vehicles on the road.
· Other
users pay for damage done by heavy vehicles.
|
20 The
table below provides a summary of the methodology used in the current and
proposed models.
|
Component
|
Current model
|
Proposed model
|
|
Fixed charge reflecting
the benefit that everyone receives from access to the roading network
|
10% of the total roading
revenue required by Council.
|
Approx. 6.8% of the
total roading revenue required by Council. This reflects 10% of the
amount required after the Council has calculated the heavy vehicle
differential. The adjustment to the fixed charge component
considers affordability and Section 101(3)(b) of the Local Government Act
(2002) by giving regard to the
overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the
community.
|
|
Differential
for heavy vehicle usage reflecting the demand that different users place on
our roads
|
1. Determines
a share of roading costs created by heavy vehicles.
2. Estimates
tonnage for each land use sector.
3. Shares
the cost among land use sectors as a percentage.
|
1. Determines
a fixed charge per tonne.
2. Estimates
tonnage for each land use sector.
3. Multiplies
tonnage by the fixed charge.
|
|
Rate charged according
to property value for general roading costs (eg signage)
|
Allocates remaining
amount among all ratepayers based on the capital value of the sector.
|
Allocates remaining
amount among all ratepayers based on a consistent rate in the dollar for all
sectors. The rate in the dollar is obtained using the total capital value of
all applicable rating units.
|
21 Option 3 (where no
differential applied for heavy vehicles is applied) was modelled by:
• Step
1: Fixed charge - 10% of total revenue was allocated to a fixed
charge. This was then divided by the number of rating units to give a
charge of $87.61 per rating unit. This charge was multiplied by the
number of units in each sector.
• Step
2: Component based on Capital Value - The remaining 90% of the total
revenue required was multiplied by the percentage share of capital value
represented by each sector.
22 The
outcomes of the three proposed options are summarised in the table below:
Discussion
Cost per tonne
23 The Cost Allocation Model
(CAM) is a mechanism designed to share the costs incurred under the National
Land Transport Programme in a given year between vehicles of different types,
according to the differences in the costs they generate for the road
network. Council’s Transport Department uses a similar system
to determine how Council’s share of road funding will be split between
activity type (Rehabilitation etc) of the roading programme.
24 Because the CAM reflects
Council’s roading programme for the year, funding requirements are likely
to fluctuate annually. However, if Council moves to funding depreciation,
requirements will remain relatively static. Further stability is achieved
by basing the heavy vehicle component off a three year rolling average of
tonnage rather than the tonnage of the latest year.
Tonnage
Data
25 The revised model has
been based off primary output tonnage. This means that
‘inputs’ for each sector such as silage, baleage and fertiliser is
included in the initial tonnage assessment. However, an ‘other
use’ multiplier has been applied to the dairy sector in the proposed
model to reflect un-quantified tonnage.
26 Primary output tonnage is
an objective and reliable measure with few assumptions required. Data for
primary output is also readily available for public scrutiny and more
frequently updated.
27 Tonnage data has been
sourced from Infometrics Ltd, consistent with the data used in the Annual Plan
2014/2015. This ensures that the model uses the most current data
available at the time of update and that methodology used for any modelling
required is developed by a recognised industry service provider. This
increases transparency in the model by limiting the need for Council officers to
apply assumptions to data.
28 Several submissions raise
the issue of creating a separate sector for tourism. Rating units
involved in tourism are difficult to quantify because of the diverse nature of
the sector and the limitations of QV rating categories. For example, some
properties may operate as bed and breakfasts although their predominant land
use is classified differently (eg farming
non-dairy or residential).
29 Inclusion of commercial
food providers in the tourism sector would also need to be considered because
these rating units service both locals and visitors. Similarly, a number
of other commercial premises would provide services to both groups.
30 A significant amount of
tourist traffic comes from outside of the Southland region, for example
tourists traveling to Southland from Otago. It would be difficult to
ensure that the rating units creating this demand were in the Southland
District (eg, vehicle hire premises which are likely to be predominantly in
Queenstown).
31 Tourism data is difficult
to assess because of the diversity of the sector, buses, campervans, supplies
for commercial accommodation and food premises. Since this tonnage is
captured elsewhere (predominantly in the commercial sector) it is not assessed
that there would be significant value in adding a tourism category.
Adding a separate sector for tourism would significantly increase the number of
assumptions required within the proposed model.
Manual
Adjustments or ‘Other Use’ Factor
32 Under the current model,
Council achieves an equitable outcome by making manual adjustments to model
outputs. This is because the total cost must be apportioned among the
sectors with each sector paying a share of cost. As such, a decrease in
the cost share of one sector must correspond with an increase in another.
33 Within the proposed
model, there is an adjustment mechanism to increase the amount paid by sectors
perceived to be placing higher demands on the roading network. This has
been applied as a 1.1 multiplier to the dairy and forestry sectors.
34 Under the current model,
manual adjustments are made to the forestry sector’s final share of
costs. The rationale for this adjustment has been to better reflect the
demand the sector places on roads because of its concentrated usage and the
location of most plantation forests in the roading network.
35 This adjustment has been
disputed by submissions from the dairy and forestry sector however; research
conducted by other territorial authorities supports the rationale behind this
adjustment. These authorities include Ruapehu District Council, Waikato
District Council, Gisborne District Council and Waipa District Council[1].
36 In the proposal, an
‘other use’ factor has also been applied to the dairy
industry. Infometrics estimates that around 3.8% additional tonnage
is moved by the dairy sector in the form of weight moved on gypsy day, weight
moved for winter feeding and horticulture and grain freight tonnes (a primary
output of 1,953,351 tonnes and total weight of 2,027,870 tonnes including
input tonnage). Input tonnage calculated by Infometrics does not include
an assessment of silage and baleage, which has been an issue highlighted in
historical submissions.
Other Models
37 The initial PWC/MWH model
was based off the CAM model, including use of vehicle statistics and cost
allocation from the national model. The model followed an established
practice but requires a large amount of local data that is unavailable (without
large cost and the application of a significant amount of assumptions).
38 Anthony Byett undertook a
comparison of models as the first phase of his review of the roading rate
model. In comparing the models, Mr Byett commented that:
• The
PWC/MWH and the later GHD amendment included a distance travelled component
within the sector allocation. However, this was fixed at two assumed
levels (25 km for dairy, forestry, other pastoral and 5 km for the
rest). The latter assumption appeared to have little empirical support.
• In
the PWC/MWH and the later GHD amendment, many trips were omitted
(since assumptions were based on a 1982 national report).
• The
GHD amendment improved the initial PWC/MWH model by refining the estimates of
trip characteristics per sector. However, this made the model more
complicated and data-demanding. It also substantially reduced the local
road multiplier effect.
Analysis
Legal
and Statutory Considerations
39 Under the Local
Government (Rating) Act (2002), Council has considerable discretion in
determining how it might rate for the roading activity.
40 In its submission, Federated
Farmers (Southland) stated that it considers “that roading costs should
be based on a ‘user pays’ system, ie, those who use the road should
meet the costs in line with that use”. The submission expresses
concern that the “Morrison Low model is not an accurate capture of road
use”.
41 Section 2.8 of the
submission from Federated Farmers refers to a report prepared by Kinnaird
Consulting in 2009 (the Kinnaird Report). The current relevance of the
Kinnaird Report is questionable given its age, the fact it does not review
the current model and the lack of direct engagement between Kinnaird Consulting
and Council.
42 Kinnaird
repeatedly states that Council has not stated its intention in developing a
roading rate model. To our knowledge, no request was made for Council to
provide this information prior to the drafting of this report. As such,
the report states that the review is not based on an understanding of the
purpose of the model.
43 Kinnaird suggests three
possible purposes for establishing a differential roading rate:
i. To
relate road use related expenditure to the land uses that generate the road
use;
ii. To
reflect relative benefit received from the road network by the various land use
categories; or
iii. To be just a method to
divide the district share of roading costs between land uses (Kinnaird, 2009,
p. 16).
44 In this respect,
Kinnaird’s report oversimplifies the principles of local government
funding. Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act (2002) states:
The
funding needs of the local authority must be met from those sources that the
local authority determines to be appropriate, following consideration
of,—
(a) in
relation to each activity to be funded,—
(i) the
community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes; and
(ii) the
distribution of benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable
part of the community, and individuals; and
(iii) the
period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur; and
(iv) the
extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group
contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and
(v) the
costs and benefits, including consequences for transparency and accountability,
of funding the activity distinctly from other activities; and
(b) the overall impact
of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.
45 The
Act requires local authorities to balance the five different factors in Section
101(3), a concept which has been tested in the North Shore City Council v Neil
Construction case. In this case, the High Court determined that
local authorities are required to give equal consideration to each of the five
factors. In respect of Section 101(3), the High Court referred to it as a
“critical filter” stating that “factors are clearly stated to
be cumulative, not alternatives or options for consideration and determination by
a council”.
46 Further, while
“Section 101(3) does not direct councils to any particular outcome, all
the critical factors in Section 101(3) must be weighed and factored in, in
respect of “each activity”.
47 Option 1 (the proposed
model) integrates the five considerations in Section 101(3).
The proposed model responds to the
principle inherent in Section 101(3)(a)(iv) by using tonnage as a proxy for
demand on the roading network. In respect of Section 101(3)(a)(ii),
the proposed model does not directly determine the quantum to be funded to
recognise benefits. However, it does this by allocating the remaining
costs between the fixed charge and capital value component.
Equity and Affordability
48 The proposed Roading Rate
Model (Option 1) has significant advantages in terms of increasing the
simplicity and transparency of the Roading Rate Model.
49 By using primary output
data, the model also reduces the need for staff and Infometrics to apply
assumptions.
50 The revised model is also
more equitable as there is no longer a direct, proportional link to a decrease
in one sector resulting in an increase in another or others.
51 Including a 20% flat UTR
(as suggested in point 2.12 of the Federated Farmers’ submission), would
impact most heavily on lower value property owners including residential
ratepayers. This would be particularly significant for those on fixed
incomes. If rates became unaffordable for these ratepayers, it is
possible that Council would need to consider additional remissions which would
mean that this money would not be available to the roading budget. For
this reason, Council has sought to maintain the UTR at a level which is
affordable for all ratepayers.
Funding
and Financial Considerations
52 All models will collect
the same total roading rate. The difference will be the way that these
are shared among ratepayers. The Roading Rate Model deals with how
Council collects revenue to fund roading. It does not influence how
revenue will be spent in this activity and will not influence levels of
service.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 4: Roading Rate Model” dated 13
May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs
and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on
this matter.
c) Agrees
to rate for roading using the fixed charge per tonne model (Option 1).
|
Excerpts
from Public Submissions on Funding our Roads
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
18
|
Seems fairest.
|
|
19
|
Seems fair.
|
|
20
|
As long as the Council feel they
can maintain roads to a safe standard.
|
|
22
|
Dairy/Forestry cause the most
damage due to frequency of trips.
|
|
24
|
NZTA should have to pay more.
|
|
25
|
Current model. Any model
that keeps the rates at the current level.
|
|
48
|
Or Option 2.
It is important to also take
into account number of trips. Dairy and Forestry potentially have more
trips on the road per tonne produced than other industries therefore creating
more wear.
|
|
58
|
When you list dairy farming
being rated slightly more for roads, does this include doing those dairy
grazing as the truck movements and tractor movements associated with this
change in farming practice is having a major impact on our road over the
winter months. Some are also storing baleage on roadsides and digging
up the road as they pick up baleage each day.
|
|
62
|
Heavy vehicles are the lifeblood
of the province and therefore all ratepayers should shoulder this burden
equally on their properties with a uniform charge.
All ratepayers benefit from
activity and opportunity created by business whether heavy or light industry
and it is therefore unequitable nor reasonable to try to split out where the
benefits or costs lie in regard to different industry types.
|
|
68
|
Last year I put in a submission
on the unfair roading rates. The proposed model is very fair and
is putting the cost on those who use it the most.
|
|
69
|
Roading rates should be spread
over all ratepayers as a larger number of Southland people are now living off
the back of dairying.
In our area it ranges from other
farmers who are grazing dairy stock, growing grain, growing grass, winter
feed, leasing land, all living off the dairy industry.
A number of farming families involved
in dairy support get most of their income from dairying support yet pay
nothing extra for roading, their reliance on the dairy trucks is in effect
the same as the dairy farmer, so we should all be treated the same when
proportioning roading costs.
As an example I know one
District Councillor and his family get most of their income from dairy but
don't share the cost.
Our local shops, stores and
service industries have all increased their staff numbers because of the
dairy industry.
In Riversdale the Vet Club, the
local electrician, the local contracting business and many others have
increased their staff numbers to cater for dairying, all relying on the dairy
trucks but again they don't share the costs.
If you look at a bigger place
like Gore very few people there don't benefit in some way from
dairying. From lawyers, accountants, vehicle sales, machinery sales,
builders and many companies who are directly involved with servicing the
dairy industry with stock food, stock health and dairy shed maintenance, the
list goes on even the people that drive the dairy tankers, they all benefit
but are not part of the costs.
Dairy farmers are already paying
more in rates due to their farms being valued high (which has no bearing on
the landowner's ability to pay). So by being rated higher on their land
then singled out to pay higher roading rates, it means the Council is in fact
double dipping.
It is a bit like the chicken
lickin' story - no-one wants to help but all are happy to share in the spoils
at the end.
Nobody wants to pay more but
with so many people across our province now dependent and benefitting from
dairying we should all share the roading costs.
|
|
71
|
Choices - "our proposed
option" is my choice.
Over 70% of the rates are
collected from the farming sector. Not many farmers have the time and
resources to check what is a fair proportion of the rates allocated to the
farming sector. However Federated Farmers has the resources and skills
to do this. I hope the Council works with Federated Farmers when
altering the table of rates struck.
|
|
81
|
Our
knowledge of the proposed new model is somewhat limited.
We appreciate the time Council officers have taken to help us get an
understanding of it and also how new District Plan rules will affect our
sector. We were expecting some workshops or other consultation
regarding the new model and with a limited understanding of it, we find it
somewhat difficult to recommend it over other methods.
If
the new model is adopted it is important that a genuine effort is made to
include all freight tonnages. It is explained that any tonnages left
out are accounted for in the capital rating distribution. It is
important that all freight is charged to the appropriate sector.
It
is appreciated Council are trying to remove variation and the effects of
unaccounted freight movements but things such as PKE are easily accounted for
through the National Freight demands study and should be accounted for.
Because PKE is well over 100,000 tonnes it is significant and the $1.20 per
tonne should land in the correct sector. Other costs that may fall in
the Dairy sector should not be overlooked on the basis of a low forecast
dairy payout. Dairy farmers are in the same economy as foresters.
Today’s forest products prices are the same or less than they were 20
years ago. Council has had no qualms about charging forestry extra
amounts that are not entirely justified. The models don’t dictate
the use of them but they are always charged to forestry. Only now is
some extra targeted towards dairy. The National Exotic Forest
description (MPI) is used to calculate forestry tonnes. It is extremely
accurate and adjusted regularly. Because of this Forestry tonnes are
fully accounted for and there is no need for the 1.1 ‘other use
factor’ adjustment. Having said that Council needs to be aware
that the use of this, and previous adjustments in the ML model have provided
well for a certain amount of other use factors.
From
the Consultation document - * Using $1.20 as the fixed rate per tonne.
Including an 'other use factor' of 1.1 for the Forestry and Dairy
sectors. The other use factor for Forestry reflects the nature and
extent of network usage. This includes the intensive use across peak
periods which accelerates damage to roads and the location of most forestry
plantations at the end of the roading network. The 'other use' factor
applied to the Dairy sector reflects unquantified inputs such as weight moved
on gypsy day, fertiliser and grains and feed.
We
are not in favour of increased use of charges to fund roads.
Previous and proposed roading models include the charges to fund
roads. Council works hard to maintain roads with ever diminishing funds
and escalating costs. We really would like to see Council do something
to stop damage to roads. Council have tried some things but must do
something different in order to reduce costs due to damage. We believe
the current Southland District Council Roading Bylaw has some useful tools within
it and we will be following up with NZTA regarding an earlier enquiry with
them. We have provided an email from an NZTA officer and I include part
of it here
Dear
Alistair
I
refer to your email to our “Info” address dated 23 May 2014
regarding the way the Southland District Council recovers costs from
ratepayers for roads, and possible alternative mechanisms to manage the
roading network.
On
your first question, none of the mechanisms you cite are explicitly
unavailable to the Southland District Council in managing its roading network
given the right circumstances. However, we suspect that the Council has
made a choice about how those mechanisms might be used, or in the
circumstances, has chosen not to use them. The merits or otherwise of
that decision are a matter that you should continue to take up directly with
the Council.
On
the Officer’s recommendation we will also be following up with
Council.
|
|
82
|
Heavy vehicles cause greater
damage to roading than cars. Heavy vehicle owners derive income from road
usage, whereas car drivers do not. Residential and small lifestyle
property owners should not have to pay for damage caused by heavy vehicles.
|
|
86
|
My answer here is
"Other" not "No preferred option". See the paper
submission form.
For the full commentary see
Submission No. 86 in the submissions booklet.
This is a very difficult
issue. There are flaws in all models, and both the current and proposed
models are very flawed.
For example:
· Council admits that the "Tourism" industry is
not captured in the model. This is a very major player in the Southland
economy and any model has to capture this industry. Failure to do so
leads to other groups subsidising tourism operators.
· Residential and Lifestyle properties seem to generate
different road loads. I am struggling to see why this is.
In our case two people live on a lifestyle block and I cannot see how
this generates more road use than if we lived on a smaller section.
· Family homes and properties used to generate income are
not treated differently.
All of this highlights that
using a property based model for local taxation does not work very
well. Your own commentary assumes that properties are grouped in
industries. Industries can pass rates on to customers, but residents
cannot as their incomes are mainly driven by their employment, not by their
business.
The whole roading model needs a
complete rethink, so that all true industries including tourism and property
rental businesses make a fairer contribution.
|
|
89
|
I
do not support any of these options - see my comments above.
The tourism industry needs to pick up the fair share of the costs of
roading, including rental properties.
|
|
90
|
Catlins Coast Inc.
supports a user pay model.
|
|
95
|
By far and away the damage done
to our road is heavy vehicles. I suspect that this is also the case
across the entire Southland roading network.
|
|
98
|
For the full commentary see
Submission No. 98 in the submissions booklet.
What is the impact of heavy
vehicles on roads?
Tonnage can still be assessed independently.
Do not support third component
and would rather increase the uniform charge to cover a fair proportion of
any remaining costs. Would support Council initiatives nation-wide to
seek further funding for improved roading from Government coffers via the
income from Tourism
(a tourist levy - see Stewart Island).
|
|
99
|
See attached submission.
|
|
100
|
See attached submission.
|
|
107
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 107 in the submissions booklet. Federated Farmers
(Southland) opposes Council’s use of the Morrison Low model to allocate
costs. We ask that Council use the more accurate GHD amended PWC/MWH
model.
|
|
120
|
These figures certainly
illustrate the proportion of rates paid by dairy and non-dairy farming.
Most of the population benefit from this expenditure including business,
tourism and visitors to area, while also benefitting from produce carried on
these roads. Government 'population' based funding for major roading does
not make sense!!!! Just a comment.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 5: Sealing the Catlins Road
Record No: R/15/4/6293
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 The
tourist route along the Catlins Road from Nugget Point through Curio Bay and
along the alternative Coastal Route is gravel and has a high number of crashes,
particularly amongst tourists. Over the past five years there have been
47 crashes recorded (4 serious injury, 10 minor injury, 33 non-injury
crashes) and it is likely that there have been additional crashes which have
not been reported.
2 The
Council has not undertaken any seal extensions for several years and has been
very clear in saying it will not do any unless it receives a subsidy from the
NZTA.
3 The
Regional Land Transport Committee has now agreed to place this project in the
Priority Band 1 (highest priority) for funding the seal extension and
safety improvements to provide visitors with a safe, consistent experience for
this tourist route. Hence, it is very likely to attract NZTA funding.
4 At
the moment, the subsidy is for 54% of the cost of the work, but the Council is
working hard to get the subsidy increased. The Council’s share of the
cost is currently $1.87 million.
Consultation
5 The
Council consulted on a proposal to seal the unsealed portion of the Alternative
Coastal Route.
6 The
Council’s proposal was based on a budget which funds the project at 54%
of the cost of the work in year one and 53% in year two by NZTA. Under
the Council’s proposal, the local share would be funded via a loan over
20 years.
Feedback and
submissions
7 A
total of 66 submissions expressed a preference on sealing the Catlins
Road. The full submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
8 A
total of 54 submitters supported the proposal to seal the Catlins Road; 12
submitters did not support sealing the road (Option 2).
9 Submissions
noted the following:
· Sealing the Catlins Road would support economic
productivity and growth by enabling visitor journeys. The road would be a
significant asset for the Southland District
· The
local benefits of Option 1, including use of this route by local school buses
· Tourist
driving behaviour, suggesting that driver education is required regarding local
driving rules and conditions
· The social cost of crashes and their flow on economic
effects.
10 One
submission provided support on the basis that only 10-15% would be funded by
ratepayers and another stressed the importance of sealing other areas of road
in the Clutha District.
Options
11 The
Council released the following options for consultation:
Option 1: Seal the Catlins
Road;
Option 2: Do not seal the
Catlins Road.
|
Option 1: Seal the
Catlins Road
|
|
Impact on Rates:
· As
Council starts repayment the year following the project completion, the
impact is an increase in total rates of $81,000 in 2016/2017 and about
$165,000 a year for each year thereafter. This would mean an average
increase of $5.23 per rating unit in 2016/2017 and $10.66 per rating unit
after that.
|
|
Advantages:
· The
seal extension will provide a safer road and encourage economic growth by
making key tourist attractions more accessible.
· This
project may contribute to economic growth and vibrant communities in the
Catlins area.
· The
Council is likely to be able to take advantage of a higher subsidy from the
NZTA.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Some
cost to ratepayers.
· This
area of sealed roads will require ongoing maintenance in the future.
|
|
Option 2: Do not seal the
Catlins Road
|
|
Impact on Rates:
· If
there is no loan for the sealing of this road, there will be no impact on
rates as a result of this project.
|
|
Advantages:
· Lower
cost to ratepayers for capital works and ongoing maintenance and renewals.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Does
not attempt to mitigate the road safety risk in this area.
· Does
not take advantage of the likelihood of an additional subsidy from NZTA.
· Does
not encourage tourism and economic growth in the Catlins area.
|
Discussion and Analysis
12 Generally,
the Council has decided not to undertaken additional road sealing activities
because of the ongoing future maintenance costs and constrained budget.
However, this is an extraordinary situation where NZTA is recognising safety
issues and the high tourist volumes placing demand on this
infrastructure. Sealing the Catlins Road would not signify that Council
is changing its overall position on road sealing.
13 The
Council has proposed to seal the Catlins Road (Option 1) to increase road
safety and encourage economic growth and tourism in the Catlins. By
taking the opportunity to receive additional NZTA funding, this proposal is
timely and offers significant benefits to ratepayers at relatively minimal
cost. Public submissions indicate strong support for the proposal.
14 The
Council has considered the cost of the proposed project and its benefits and
assessed that it would be a prudent use of resources.
15 The
proposed option to seal the Catlins Road has been made because of the high
likelihood of additional NZTA funding for this project. This increases
the equity and affordability as the cost is shared more fairly between local
and central government and there is a lower burden on Southland District
ratepayers to fund capital works.
16 Option
1 offers increased road safety for residents of the Southland District and
visitors at a cost which is affordable to ratepayers. If this project is
undertaken, the average increase of $5.23 per rating unity in 2016/17 and
$10.66 beyond this point has been assessed as an affordable funding
option.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 5: Sealing the Catlins Road”
dated
12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Agrees
to seal the Catlins Road (Option 1) and fund this activity as proposed in the
Long Term Plan 2015-2025 consultation document.
|
Excerpts from
Public Submissions on Sealing the Catlins Road
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
2
|
I strongly urge you to approve
and prioritise sealing the extension of the alternative scenic route between
Haldane and Curio Bay as part of the Southern Penguin Scenic Journey through
the Catlins.
We have lived on the Haldane
Curio Bay Road for the past six years and each year the number of road
users increases rapidly. Immediate intervention is required to
keep both locals and visitors safe.
Sealing the road will:
1. Reduce the social cost of
crashes
2. Support economic productivity
and growth by enabling visitor journeys
3. Provide a transport system
that supports a choice of safe modes.
Each year we have visitors call
at our house requiring assistance following crashes - fortunately to date
there have been no significant injuries but we are very worried about the
safety of our family and friends on the road. Our children's
school bus uses this road.
Almost every time we use the
road during the tourist season we see an example of dangerous driving by
tourists. Most common is driving in the middle of the road (tourists
seem to follow the tracks made by vehicle wheels). In many cases their
speed is too fast but in all cases having a vehicle in the middle of the road
on blind corners and hills is terrifying.
I
grew up in the UK and know from experience that overseas visitors do not know
how to drive on New Zealand's unsealed roads. It takes years of
experience to do so safely. Sealing the road would be safer as overseas
visitors have experience driving on sealed surfaces. Most important
would be the marking of a centre line - tourists will know where the centre
of the road is and that will address the majority of problems we see.
Tourists don't want to endanger themselves and will use their experience
and common sense to stay safe.
A
minority in our community object to sealing the road as they fear it will
encourage drivers to go faster. I believe that sealing the road will
still be safer for my family but I would like to see the speed limit on the
road lowered to 70 along the whole stretch.
In terms of providing tourists
with a quality, safe travel experience, I believe sealing the road is very
important. The number of visitor cars on our road has been
steadily increasing year on year. The approval of the Curio Bay
Heritage Centre will no doubt increase this. The quality of the road
surface is extremely poor year round.
|
|
2
|
Corrugations
in it make the journey unpleasant and hard on vehicles. Grading the
road causes as many issues as it solves - the surface reverts to corrugations
within a day or two. We always experience an increase in accidents
or vehicles sliding across the road surface after grading. It is like
driving on marbles and tourists don't know how to deal with it. A
particular hazard is the large piles of gravel that accumulate at the sides
of the roads after grading. Hope very much that you will consider my
views and approve the sealing of this important tourist route.
|
|
4
|
We definitely support the
sealing of the road to the ‘penguins’ at the Nugget Point.
|
|
7
|
Most tourists do not have a clue
how to drive on gravel roads.
|
|
8
|
Not sealing this road is not an
option as this is a major tourist route. The gravel road causes
plenty of problems for the tourist unused to unsealed roads and plenty of
callouts for both the local volunteer ambulance and fire brigade crews.
For us locals this road is frequently extremely dusty, very corrugated and
featuring large potholes that are very hard to avoid. The school buses
also have to travel on this road carrying our children and grandchildren not
without some anguish. The standard of this road is totally unacceptable
in this day and age to both the locals and the tourists.
|
|
9
|
To Whom It May Concern:
I write on behalf of South
Catlins Promotions Inc to unreservedly offer our support for the upgrade and
tarsealing of the Haldane - Curio Bay Road.
The upgrade of these roads will
vastly improve the quality of life for the local residents and the community
who live in these remote regions. These people work hard
supporting their families and running businesses. These very high usage
gravel roads just make it harder and more dangerous for them and their
families.
With the ever increasing tourist
numbers visiting our amazing area to enjoy the views and wild life the
accident rates have increased accordingly. Many of our visitors
have no experience of gravel roads. The conditions of these road can
deteriorate quickly due to the high usage, weather conditions or just the
grader loosening up the surface turning it into a huge hazard.
In our remote areas these
accidents cause stress, trauma and at times serious injury to the victims and
place a huge burden on the decreasing number of emergency volunteers.
Our volunteers must take time away from their employment/ businesses to deal
with incidents that can easily be avoided by the tarsealing of these roads.
The upgrading of these roads
will increase the economic potential and accessibility to these areas and by
allowing a wider range of traveller to visit as restrictions are in place on
some rental vehicles regarding gravel road usage.
Again I would offer South
Catlins Promotions full support for the tarsealing of the Curio Bay - Haldane
Road.
|
|
18
|
The Catlins Road represents a
huge tourist asset for Southland.
|
|
19
|
Got to keep the tourists happy
on the Southern Scenic Route.
|
|
22
|
Only if ratepayers have to fund
no more than 10-15% of costs.
|
|
24
|
The sooner the better.
This section of the road really needs to be sealed. This section of the
Catlins Road puts a lot of pressure on our volunteer fire and ambulance
services. There have been some major and lots of minor accidents along
the full length of this section of road. It is putting a lot more work
load on our volunteers. I have been to accidents were there have been
three fire appliances, one ambulance, one police unit and at times rescue
helicopter. This is a huge cost, all the major accidents involve
tourists.
|
|
25
|
Final link of tarsealed
roads.
|
|
31
|
I think this is a good
idea.
|
|
32
|
The Otara Haldane and Haldane
Curio Bay Roads in particular are frequently travelled road by Kapuka
Heenan’s Transport and Waikawa Freight trucks servicing the local
community with rural transport and freight requirements.
Because these roads are a busy
tourist route, our drivers are and require to be extra vigilant when it comes
to other motorists on this stretch of road, in particular international
tourists. From our drivers’ encounters, it appears many of the
motorists have little to no driving experience on gravel roads and we have
experienced numerous near misses.
|
|
|
My
major concern with these roads is the potential safety risk to staff members
and fellow motorists. I strongly recommend for the councils to proceed
with the proposal to fund the sealing of this tourist sensitive road.
I feel this would be beneficial to all; it will make it more user
friendly to all drivers, in turn giving a better driving experience to
international tourists and makes it a safer environment for all.
|
|
35
|
This needs to be DONE!!
There is too much traffic on loose roads with big campervans –
it’s terrifying to drive on the road.
|
|
41
|
Put a toll gate on it
|
|
45
|
Getting this portion of road
sealed is vital. Over the winter season and early spring there are still
numerous accidents that go unreported. With tourists frequently turning
up on our doorstep having had issues on this road. Especially with our
shorter days over the winter, tourists get caught out all the time.
There would be very few roads in the world where people travel that are still
gravel, I can completely understand the difficulties tourists face driving on
this surface, which must be completely unfamiliar to them.
|
|
50
|
We are in favour of this
especially as it may cut down the accidents on this road.
|
|
52
|
For safety reasons and the
increase in tourists.
|
|
60
|
I believe it is important that
tourists are able to safely travel on our main routes in the Southland
District and also well maintained roads will I believe encourage tourist
traffic. The Southern Scenic Route is what brings tourists and
NZers to our smaller towns and thus can increases money spent in these areas.
|
|
62
|
As ratepayers we pick up some of
the burden of crashes and Southland needs to promote a good experience for
tourists. I would expect Otago to shoulder some of the cost as
well. Farmers in that area will be generating enough income to justify
Southland ratepayers helping to develop the area.
|
|
63
|
The Catlins Road from Nugget
Point to Curio Bay is not all gravel, only parts. Our fire Brigade
whole heartedly supports the sealing of the parts not sealed. There is
a lot of wasted man hours chasing needless callouts and the potential for a
deadly fatality is extremely high.
The proposal to seal the Curio
Bay - Haldane 13 km and Slope Point Road is well needed. (Proposal
could have been backed up numbers). The Waipapa Point Road will
have to be looked at for sealing within the 10 Year Plan.
|
|
64
|
South Catlins Charitable Trust
(SCCT) support the plan to seal the Curio Bay Haldane Road including the
road to Slope Point. The sealed road will provide a safer road for
tourists and locals, including the school buses.
|
|
67
|
The sealed extension would
provide a safer road for the local school bus as well as tourists.
|
|
70
|
The road being tarsealed, would
make it easier to drive on and a lot safer for our family and tourists as
there appears to be a lot of tourists now using the road and having
accidents.
|
|
71
|
Catlins Road - the Catlins Road
is part of State Highway 92. When Southland County sealed the road
to Waikawa we started sealing parts of 92 from the Waikawa end while Clutha
County started sealing their end. Each Council sealed more of the road
each year as funds became available. Clutha County with a much shorter
stretch to do has sealed right up Southland's boundary. Southland has
continued to extend the seal as funds became available. The Catlins
Road is the final stretch to do. I think this job should be finished -
gravel roads are a death trap to foreign tourists.
|
|
72
|
This road desperately needs
sealing for the safety of all vehicles that travel on it, particularly the
tourists who then threaten the safety of others driving on the road.
|
|
74
|
We wish to write in support of
the upgrading and tar-sealing of the Curio Bay - Haldane Road including
the Slope Point section.
While living and working in the
Catlins is an honour and pleasure we are often limited by remote location and
low population base and this means we often miss out on, have to fight
extremely hard or pay great amounts of money for the great technology that
others may take for granted ie, reliable landline telephones, cellphone
coverage, fast internet and unfortunately safe roads.
We run three businesses from our
farm including farm accommodation so we deal with international and national
visitors and gain important feedback on their experiences and the gravel
roads are not enjoyed and often avoided.
In the Catlins tourism remains
an increasing industry. This industry is boosting the economy and
quality of life in many areas that desperately require it. The heart of
this industry is our amazing scenery, rich history, geological features and
the outstanding wild life. To gain access to some of our iconic
'Must sees' is via these gravel roads.
The increasing accidents caused
by the high usage of these gravel roads places our declining community
emergency volunteers under extreme pressure as they deal with crashes,
injuries or death not to mention the time away from their jobs, businesses or
families.
We feel the tar-sealing of these
gravel roads is urgent and should be given top priority that is why I have
taken time to write my submission. The benefits to everyone will
be unbelievable.
|
|
75
|
Please refer to enclosed letter.
I have been a resident on Slope
Point Road for 12 years. We have a farm on Slope Point Road with a
small backpackers on it.
Over this time I have seen the
numbers of visitors to our region increase every year. As a resident of
the road, I would like to point out a few things why we need the road sealed.
View from our window - from our
kitchen window we can see the travellers on the road, every day we see
vehicles on the wrong side, losing control even if it does not result in a
crash, and cyclists are falling off their bikes. This occurs on a daily
basis, not just every now and then. Also cars stopping at places that
make it dangerous to pass or parking where they can't be seen until the last
minute. Lookout is a great idea if it will be sealed.
Three tracks - Personally we
have lost many aerials and have tyres off rims as the tourists stick to two
of the three tracks of gravel. They won't move and we are the ones
having to slide in the gravel and sometimes pushed off the road.
Different gravel has been tried
with different mixes but at the end of the day, gravel roads won't withstand
the level of traffic on the road.
Accidents - We have seen two
locals have a serious accident due to tourists and many visitors to our area
that have accidents, arrive at home. From distressed mothers with young
children to bewildered Asian families about how it happened when they were
travelling so slow. Each time we deal with an accident it is 2-3 hours
of talking to rental companies and calming the travellers waiting to get a
truck out of town. Also we get to pull vehicles onto the road at all
hours.
Guests' opinions - as our guests
arrive, we get a first hand view of what guests think and it is never
good. One was calling ahead to a friend to stop them coming this way
... it was too dangerous.
Fear of losing Tokanui as a
service centre - Tokanui will always be the inland scenic route. It is
the centre of the community and by sealing the coastal road will not detract
from what Tokanui has to offer. Tokanui has a strong community base -
not totally tourist based. We as a community still support Tokanui
100%. The visitors we are trying to keep safe are already choosing to
go the coastal route - not the inland route. We regularly see visitors
go through the bush road to get to Tokanui anyway.
Traffic speed - Fear that
sealing the road will speed up traffic and cause worse accidents - widening
of the roads and adequate marking over hills and speed signs will make a
difference. I can't recall any accidents on the sealed road near
Casey’s and Smith’s which is windy and hilly.
If anyone is opposing the rate
increase to seal the road, I might make one point. We pay for Council
services that we do not use as well. It is time to think of the safety
of people travelling in this area.
|
|
|
The
day after speaking at the last submission hearing, I was first on the scene
to a serious accident 100 metres from our driveway. This accident could
have been prevented as they lost control in the gravel.
Thank
you for your time and hope that there is a positive outcome in regards to
sealing of the roads.
|
|
76
|
Please seal the road.
|
|
77
|
I fully support sealing the
road.
|
|
78
|
I recently pulled a tourist out
of a car on this road following a crash - extremely dangerous. She
almost died. This needs to be a priority.
|
|
85
|
We support the sealing of the
Haldane/Curio Bay Road and Slope Point Road
|
|
86
|
This is easy. The subsidy
is far too low, so do not do it.
|
|
87
|
Safety of tourists and locals,
less stress on volunteer first responders attending accidents caused on these
roads.
|
|
89
|
Council needs to keep it’s
cost under control.
|
|
90
|
Please see attached letter in
regards to the Sealing of the Nugget Point and Curio Bay/Haldane Road.
Catlins Coast Inc. strongly urge
the sealing of these two key tourist attractions in the Catlins.
Catlins Coast Inc. represents a
number of community groups and individuals with strong personal, economic and
environmental concerns in the broader Catlins area.
Catlins Coast Inc. works to
maintain a strong level of communication between the North Catlins and the
South Catlins, we are very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to
the consultation process in regards to the Southland District Council 10 Year
Plan.
Catlins Coast Inc. is
writing specifically in regards to the proposed sealing of the Curio Bay -
Haldane Road in Curio Bay and the proposed Curio Bay Sewage System.
Issue 2 - Road Sealing Curio Bay
Haldane Road
It is broadly agreed that the
projection of tourist growth in the Catlins will continue to increase
dramatically and with the increase in tourism we are seeing a marked increase
of motor accidents on our unsealed roads due to driver in experience and
challenging conditions.
In 2003 the University of Otago
Department of Tourism produced a Catlins Tourism Strategy, this strategy
was composed from research both in the field through the collection of
primary data by Otago University researchers and through the collation of
existing secondary data from a variety of sources.
This strategy is currently in
the process of being updated as many of the recommendations outlined for
development of tourism in the area have been achieved, with exception to
roading.
For residents roading was
perceived as the most important tourism development issue in the Catlins.
The unsealed Haldane-Curio Bay
Road (Southland) results in tourists being faced with difficult and dangerous
driving conditions that are constantly changing due to high usage and weather
conditions. International visitors are unaccustomed to New Zealand
rural driving conditions and this is reflected by the statistics presented in
the proposal - 27% of all crashes on our roads are caused or partly caused by
international visiting drivers who are inexperienced with driving gravel
roads. Local people feel accidents reported have dramatically
increased, and one can only guess at the numbers of “near misses”
that never get reported.
Catlins Coast Inc.
urges that the increase of rates cannot be weighed up with the cost of
saving lives. Sealing would allow for more signage (keep left!)
and more visible suggested speed limits clearly marked on the roads.
Sealing would also mean that the road could be included in the Southern
Scenic Route marketing, stimulating economic growth in the area.
Sealing would also advantages to
keeping our famous Catlins environment pristine, gravel dust is harmful to
the environment and enters water ways and may cause respiratory problems in
our native birds.
The comfort of driving on sealed
roads will increase the attractiveness of our key attractions, and send a
message of care and sustainability to our visitors.
The economic benefits will
become apparent as our attractions become more accessible to visitors, some
rental vehicles have restrictions placed on them in regards to use on gravel
roads, we may see an increase in tour coaches and buses which could
potentially boost the local economy significantly.
The effects of the sealing of
these roads on local volunteers who are the first on call at accidents in the
region will be greatly received. Our rural volunteer numbers are
decreasing and the poor state of these highly used roads is becoming an
issue. Many of our volunteers must take time away from their employment
or business to be first response to accidents that could have been greatly
avoided by the tarsealing of these roads.
Curio Bay will in the near
future have a major tourist attraction in the Curio Bay Heritage Centre,
this centre will become a tourism hub in the Catlins and will no doubt
increase visitor numbers even still to Curio Bay including increases in
coaches our hope is that with the improvements to the roading, signage
improvements will also follow.
Catlins Coast Inc. recommends
that signage be made much clearer to visitors entering the Catlins from the
south and clearer directions to the Southern Scenic Route from Southland
heading north.
Catlins Coast Inc. urges that
the Catlins projects are given high priority, we in the Catlins feel that the
situation is dire and cannot come soon enough especially in reflection of the
high number of visitor fatalities on New Zealand rural roads this summer
2014/2015.
|
|
92
|
Road needs to be sealed for
safety reasons.
|
|
95
|
It is not the initial cost of
$1.87 M that I am interested in, it is the ongoing cost to maintain the road
into the future. I suspect sealing it won't decrease the number of
crashes so this should not be a mitigating factor. Where there are
tourists, there are crashes regardless of roading and in fact sealing it may
increase the likelihood of speeding so may very well increase the incidences
of crashes.
|
|
98
|
Support sealing for safety
reasons, and consider the NZTA subsidy should be increased to 75% as the main
benefit is to tourism.
|
|
101
|
The
submitter provided a large number of comments on this topic. For the
full commentary see Submission No. 101 in the submissions booklet.
The
continued analysis of freedom camping and the need to provide support in
areas which are receiving increased demands due to popularity, Waikawa for
instance is required. This may also increase with the proposed sealing
option for the Haldane-Curio Bay Road. There is a need to seal this
section of the road to provide safe travelling for residents and
tourists. It is likely that the sealing of the Curio Bay-Haldane Road
and upgrades in facilities at Curio Bay will increase visitor numbers to the
areas placing a strain on the infrastructure. The Council has foreseen
this and are installing a new wastewater plant which is highly commended by
Iwi and will benefit not only the users but the outstanding environment,
water quality and recreational use. The wastewater plant should be
funded appropriately and any shortfall in costs funded by a loan (page 213).
|
|
107
|
3. SEALING THE CATLINS
ROAD
3.1 - Federated Farmers has
no view on whether the remainder of the Catlins Road should be sealed.
3.2 - If the decision is made to
proceed with the project, Federated Farmers supports Council seeking an
increased subsidy from government for sealing the route along the
Catlins Road from Nugget Point through Curio Bay and along the
alternative Coastal Route. As noted in the 10 Year Plan, this is a
popular tourist route with a high number of crashes, particularly amongst
tourists.
We consider these road safety
concerns justify increased funding from central government.
3.3 - Considering the
significance of the road as a tourist route, and that the main issue is road
safety in relation to tourist use, we consider that central government should
fund the majority of the new seal.
|
|
|
3.4 - If Council is required to
pay 46.5%, as discussed in the Plan, this would result in an increase of
$5.23 per rating unit in 2016/17 and $10.66 per rating unit after that.
This is unacceptable. While we acknowledge that there would be some
wider benefit to the region in terms of “encouraging economic growth by
making key tourist attractions more assessable [sic]”, it will not make
a tangible difference to general ratepayers in the district.
Recommendations
3.6 - Federated Farmers has no
view on whether the remainder of the Catlins Road should be sealed.
3.7 - If the decision is made to
proceed with the project, we support Council seeking additional funding from
the Government to seal the remainder of the Catlins Road.
3.8 - We recommend that
Council’s contribution to the sealing of the road comes from a targeted
rate from all commercial businesses located along the whole Southern Scenic
Route.
|
|
108
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 108 in the submissions booklet.
We acknowledge that roading is
an important asset for the community and commend the council for taking steps
to seal the last section of the Catlins Road as this will have positive
safety outcomes for road users and the local community.
Given this increased
expenditure, Council has identified it will looking at ways of making
existing funding go further. We are of the view that deferring renewals
of sanitary works beyond their recognised life-span (through ongoing
maintenance) is not seen as a viable long-term solution. All councils
have legislative obligations to meet certain statutory requirements.
For example, the implementation of approved Water Safety Plans (WSPs) for
drinking water supplies cannot be deferred by any council. It is the
Ministry of Health’s view that the “affordability clause”
is not a valid reason to defer/delay improvements for the drinking water
supplies.
The Council has indicated they
will be reviewing assets in communities that have reducing populations.
We support current levels of infrastructure provision and maintenance,
however, we appreciate that as populations change, alternative infrastructure
may need to be considered.
As the consequence of reducing
maintenance or service provision is highly likely to have detrimental
consequences to the public health of affected communities, we will need to be
consulted on any proposed changes to public health infrastructure.
|
|
|
In
the forthcoming Environment Southland 2014/15 Environmental Compliance
Monitoring Report, we note that the Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas of
Tuatapere and Edendale/Wyndham do not have funding associated with them for
ongoing maintenance despite both communities being identified as being in
partial or full breach of their conditions of consent in recent reports.
Recommendations
- That Southland District Council consult the Public Health Service them when
reviewing changes to existing infrastructure which may have an effect on the
public health of the community. That Southland District Council
continues to prioritise the provision of appropriate infrastructure to fulfil
acceptable standards aimed at protecting the public health of communities.
|
|
116
|
Sealing the Catlins Road
The NZAA Council support the
proposed option of sealing this road. It believes that Southland
District Council has been given this mandate following the overwhelming
community support given in responses to the recent draft Otago Southland
RLTP.
|
|
119
|
Tourist expectation is for
sealed roads - it is a safety issue.
|
|
124
|
My submission will
hopefully help the Southland District Council convince
Transit NZ to provide a good amount, or fully fund, the tarseal of your
Haldane Road and the Nuggets Road where I reside, called together
The Southern Penguin Scenic Journey. At the Nuggets Lighthouse,
penguins, sea lions, seals and birdlife has been stated in the Trip Advisor
poll for New Zealand as the number seven top landmark destination to visit
this year no wonder we are inundated with traffic on the road. I have
just delivered my ninth accident report for this year to the Clutha District
Council. Most accidents have been caused by loose gravel. We
travel extensively in our motorhome bus all over NZ and we are ashamed to say
our own road is the worst tourist destination road we have travelled
on. For ourselves and neighbours on this road our concern is the
constant dust on our roofs making our drinking water very dirty. We
tried oiling the road for two years but found that both the oil and the dust
ended up in our water tanks.
The other major concern is
the never ending corrugation made by the huge amount of traffic. The
grader employee has come back to finish his grading the next day after
completing most of it to find the road corrugation is worse than when he
started the day before. My husband has been collecting the hubcaps
falling off the cars on our road for the last nine years. He has over
250 on our fence, probably 50 hubcaps have been given away or
taken. So the display on the fence is another plea for tarseal
showing just how rough the road is. A white line down the middle of
tarseal should keep the tourists on the right side of the road. I admit
myself that I travel from side to side on the road trying to miss all the pot
holes. I would imagine that all these scenarios also happen on the
Haldane Road.
|
|
|
So my submission plea is
for as much pressure as permissible to be urgently placed with Transit NZ for
a good amount of funding or to fully fund the tarsealing of these tourist
road routes. It is tourists, not ratepayers who are the major users of
these roads and I’m sure accidents on these sections could be mainly
avoided.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 6: Funding Infrastructure and
Depreciation
Record No: R/15/4/6294
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 The Southland District has a
large amount of ageing infrastructure which will require renewal or replacement
in the future. To plan for this, the Council has included a proposal in
the Consultation Document to fund depreciation. Funding depreciation is consistent
with good practice for the local government sector. In the past, the
Council has funded asset renewals through either reserves, rates, subsidies or
internal loans.
Consultation
2 The Council is proposing to
fund depreciation by setting up reserves to be used to pay for asset renewals
when necessary. This ensures intergenerational equity as those who are
using the asset today contribute to future renewals. This means that
every year an additional 10 percent of the depreciation calculation will
be funded so by Year 10 depreciation will be fully funded for the activities
indicated.
3 The Council has consulted on a
proposal to phase in the funding of depreciation over the 10 year period
of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
4 The Council is proposing to
fund depreciation for roading, water, wastewater, council buildings,
information technology, wheelie bins, public toilets and solid waste
activities. Council in not proposing to fund depreciation on local halls,
community housing, which we do not plan on replacing when they reach the end of
their useful lives. Nor is the Council proposing to funding local
infrastructure assets such as footpaths, stormwater and playground equipment at
this stage.
Feedback
and Submissions
5 A total of 36 submissions
expressed a preference on funding depreciation. Of these submissions 29
(80%) preferred Option 1 (phased funding of depreciation) and 7 (20%) preferred
Option 2 (not funding depreciation).
6 The majority of submissions
supported the Council in taking a planned approach to asset management.
However, some submitters stated that it was difficult to form an opinion
without detailed information on how it would affect their rates and how the
Council intends to depreciate existing assets. One submission (107)
requested further consultation on this issue.
7 Submissions also noted the
need for a balanced approach between building reserves and debt funding to
achieve intergenerational equity.
8 Submitters who did not support
phased funding of depreciation suggested that projects be funded by rates as
they occur.
9 Submissions regarding this
issue are summarised in the table below. The full submissions can be
found in the submissions booklet.
Options
10 Council released the following options
for consultation:
· Option 1: Fund depreciation;
· Option 2: Do not fund depreciation.
|
Option 1: Fund
Depreciation
|
|
Impact on Rates:
· Rates
are used to fund depreciation in a phased manner.
· An
additional graduated amount will be collected, from $243,164 in 2015/2016 to
$3,118,974 in 2024/2025.
|
|
Advantages:
· Asset
renewals are funded to the extent that they are required by all of those
placing demand on assets.
· The
Council aligns its approach with good practice and manages its funds
prudently, building up reserves to pay for additional capital works and
replace assets as required.
· Rates
increases are moderated to ensure that they remain affordable.
· Levels
of service will be more likely to remain the same as funding is not as highly
dependent on the ability to rate for a replacement or renewal in total at a
particular point in time.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Rate
increases will not be in proportion to renewal costs, where typically a low
spend would mean a lower rate increase.
|
|
Option 2: Do Not
Fund Depreciation
|
|
Impact on rates:
· Capital
projects are funded by rates as they occur.
· Rates
will be affected depending on the capital work undertaken.
|
|
Advantages:
· Rate
increases will be in proportion to renewal costs, where typically a low spend
would mean a lower rate increase.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Availability
of funds may impact on the amount of work which is able to be undertaken.
· There
is a greater likelihood that rates will fluctuate according to the schedule
of asset renewals and capital work. This provides a lower degree of certainty
for ratepayers.
· Continuing
to not fund depreciation may mean that not all those who place demand on an
asset contribute to funding its renewal or replacement.
|
11 In deciding to propose the funding of
depreciation in the Consultation Document, the Council considered rates
affordability, intergenerational equity, sector best practice and legislative
requirements relating to prudent financial management.
Discussion
and Analysis
12 Funding depreciation meets the
legislative requirement for a local authority to “ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient
and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region,
including by planning effectively for the future management of its
assets” (Section 14(1)(g) Local Government Act 2002).
13 The Council would need to collect an
additional $2.4 million (or 8.8%) in rates in the first year if it were to
fully fund depreciation. In consideration of rates affordability, the Council
has proposed an approach which phases in depreciation over the 10 year period
of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
14 Funding depreciation provides more
certainty for ratepayers because the funding of future replacements, renewals
and capital works is collected in a planned manner over an extended period of
time.
15 The proposed approach also ensures
intergenerational equity because those placing demand on the Council’s
assets contribute to their future renewal and replacement.
16 If the Council does not fund
depreciation, the availability of funds may impact on the amount of work which
can be undertaken in future.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 6: Funding Infrastructure and
Depreciation” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Agrees
to use a phased approach to funding depreciation as set out in the
consultation document (Option 1) for the preparation of the Long Term
Plan 2015-2025.
|
Excerpts received
from Public Submissions on Funding our Infrastructure
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
18
|
I have no real idea where this
option will take my rates over the next 10 years though.
|
|
25
|
Projects are funded by rates as
they occur.
|
|
58
|
Funding depreciation: Agree
with suggestions.
|
|
62
|
It's a no brainer to prepare for
asset replacement.
|
|
63
|
The principle is a sound
one. The only concern I have got is what happens to the money.
The reserve or sinking fund would have to be set up independent of other
investments.
|
|
66
|
The remaining life of
infrastructure should be reassessed at least every five years to enable
this figure inform the annual depreciation figure.
|
|
67
|
Council has to plan for the
future.
|
|
68
|
Very encouraging to see a lot of
thought has gone into a better rating system.
|
|
71
|
Funding depreciation - I do not
understand why depreciation has to be funded. In my business
depreciation is a credit.
|
|
85
|
We support this.
|
|
86
|
My
answer here is "Other" not "No preferred option".
See the paper submission form.
For
the full commentary see Submission No. 86 in the submissions booklet.
My
challenge here is to ask how many at the Council table actually understand
the commentary (and the associated data table) on Depreciation given on pages
18-19 of the consultation document? I feel that I should be
able to understand this, but you have not made that job easy.
What
I think you are saying is that depreciation is made up of (1) items that need
replacing and (2) items that do not need replacing. The first row is
the book value of depreciation (which may be completely unrelated to the
actual value of replacement), but for which part (the whole, (1) or
(2)). The third row tells us how much additional rates you want to
fund depreciation.
From
this it is simply impossible to make a call as to how to fund asset
replacement. My feeling is that estimates of actual replacement value
are needed and timescales for replacement, as well as possible funding
sources. This can then be used to build up a true picture of the
reality of replacing assets.
|
|
95
|
I am ok with this as long as it
does not deteriorate community consultation.
|
|
98
|
It
would seem prudent to work more closely with Environment Southland regarding
water supply and waste-water proposals, ensuring that renewal and maintenance
are of a high standard to avoid costly replacement through neglect or
penny-pinching as they are key strategic assets essential to life and health.
Support
proposed option for funding depreciation.
|
|
100
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 100 in the submissions booklet.
We support the Council’s
move to extend the life of its assets where there is sufficient information
to do this without adverse impacts on the levels of service delivered.
We also support the move to fully fund depreciation to provide for the
replacement of infrastructure when it reaches the end of its serviceable
life.
This approach is more equitable
and provides for the future replacement of assets when the time comes.
The phasing in of this approach over the life of the plan is appropriate to
reduce the impact of the transition in the coming years. We request
that the Council proceed with the proposed option set out on page 19 of
the consultation document.
|
|
107
|
The
submitter provided a large number of comments on this topic. For the
full commentary see Submission No. 107 in the submissions booklet.
5. FUNDING DEPRECIATION
5.1
- Federated Farmers supports in part the proposal to fund depreciation,
rather than funding capital projects by rates as they occur.
We
support the proposed phased approach.
Federated
Farmers Submission to the Southland District Council Draft 10 Year
Plan 2015-2025 Page 10 approach to this change in policy. Funding
depreciation can help to ensure that the rates impact of major capital
projects on future ratepayers is not overwhelming.
5.2
- We note that the uses of debt for capital projects can also be useful as it
spreads the cost out over the useful life of the asset, so today’s
ratepayer isn’t paying for the benefit of tomorrow’s
ratepayer. So a balance is required, but variable capital expenditure
is good practice to start funding depreciation for key assets, along with
some debt funding when the time comes.
|
|
107
|
5.3
- We recommend Council undertakes further consultation on how it intends to
fund depreciation, if Council decides to proceed with the proposal.
There are many considerations that will affect the policy, eg which
assets should be funded through depreciation and how much of the
asset’s worth should be funded through this mechanism.
5.4
- In addition, depreciating newly acquired or constructed assets is
relatively straightforward. However, trying to create a regime for
assets constructed historically will be difficult. As it is rates that
will stockpiled to fund depreciation, we consider that ratepayers should have
a say on the details of the policy.
Recommendation
5.5
- Federated Farmers supports a mixed model of funding capital projects
through depreciation and debt to ensure that current and future ratepayers
are paying appropriate amounts for key assets.
5.6
- We recommend Council undertakes further consultation with ratepayers on the
details of the depreciation policy. Federated Farmers would like to
specifically be involved in this conversation.
|
|
116
|
Funding our Infrastructure
While the NZAA Council believes
that this is a question best answered by the ratepayers, they are very much
in favour of the SDC undertaking more investigation into the condition and
assessment of the performance of all their infrastructure assets.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 7: Rating Differential
Record No: R/15/4/6299
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1. Rating of
ECNZ/Meridian has a long history. After ceasing to pay rates on its three
hydro-electric properties from 1989 to 1990, citing a dispute over the basis of
the rate (capital value), a settlement was agreed in 1992. Although not
stated, it is believed that the settlement reached, reflected the outcome from
the court case between ECNZ and the Waimate District Council. The case
was brought by ECNZ due to the Waimate District Council changing its rate from
Land Value to Capital Value. At the time ECNZ assets constituted 75% of
the total Capital Value of the Waimate District. The High Court found in
favour of ECNZ.
2. In 1995 to 1998,
Council staff confirmed the rates with ECNZ at a base rate of $150,000 plus an
increase based on the district rate increase each year. In May 1998,
Council changed this to a differential rate for the three properties which
applied up until 2012. From the records it is not clear how the
differential was proposed to be calculated but the differential rate achieved a
similar outcome to the $150,000, and the implication from previous
correspondence with ECNZ is that future increases would be based on the
district rate increase each year.
3. In October 1998,
the Court of Appeal found in favour of ECNZ, in a case against the Valuer
General in which they challenged the methodology used to assess the rating
value of ECNZ assets. The result was that 36 ECNZ owned power stations were
re-valued down by approximately 27%.
4. In 2012, Council
indicated to Meridian that it was reviewing the differential as part of
preparing the draft Long Term Plan and undertook discussions with Meridian
staff.
As a result of these discussions Meridian asked Russell McVeagh lawyers to
provide an opinion for them on the appropriateness of Council continuing to
apply a differential. Meridian provided Council with a copy of that
opinion, which outlines the factors that Council is required to consider under
the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) and Local Government (Rating) Act 2002
(LGRA 2002) as distinct from the legislation which previously applied. In
summary the opinion noted that local authorities are now required to:
· Give consideration
to the relationship between the rates paid and the demands and benefits that a
ratepayer places on Council services. It also notes that while rates do not
need to align “directly or precisely” with benefits or demands
there does need to be some consideration of the relationship.
· Give consideration
to the application of a differential rate as against a uniform rate.
5. After due
consideration of all the facts, Council advised Meridian that the differential
would be removed. The removal of the differential was based on the
following summarised comments in the report to Council:
· The Russell McVeagh opinion relied on ECNZ versus McKenzie DC and
that case is distinguishable from Southland District Council’s position.
· Council is satisfied that it’s targeted rating structure and
uniform targeted rates mitigate the exposure to over-rating of Meridian.
· In 1995 Meridian’s rating liability was 0.99% of total rates,
in 2012 it was 0.66%, removing the differential would see it revert to 0.99%.
· The LGRA 2002 does not provide for individual agreements with
ratepayers.
· The LGRA 2002 allows differentials to be based on land use,
permitted or controlled activities, land area, provision of service, where the
land is situated and values specified by the Valuer General. If the
differential was to be based on the ratepayer of Meridian and it being a power
station, they believed this could be challenged by those not receiving the
heavily discounted differential general rates.
· Council believed the removal of the differential would generate a
level of reasonableness between service, benefit and cost and balancing the
inequity faced by ratepayers other than Meridian.
6. These
comments were further supported in the response to Meridian by Council on its
submission. In summary the points included in the response supporting the
removal of the differential were:
· There is no direct cost-benefit relationship in rates to Council
services available due to the element of public benefit.
· Meridian receives the benefit of a differential within the land use
classification of “Other” in regards to the Roading rate, which
without it would see its contribution increase significantly.
· Examples received of other lower South island hydro-electric
generation sites indicate Council’s level of rating in comparison to
Capital Value without a differential was not unreasonable.
7. As
a general note, since its development the wind farm at Whitehill has always
been rated on its full capital value.
8. As
part of the 2012 background paper and the response to Meridian’s
submission it was noted that other councils with power stations undertake the
following:
|
Clutha District Council
|
No differential rate for power
stations
|
|
MacKenzie District Council
|
Apply a differential due to a high
Capital Value (CV) in relation to the total CV of the District. CV of
$442,310,000 11/12 rates liability of $822,741.
|
|
Taupo District Council
|
Apply a differential that increases
at an agreed level to smooth the transition from LV based rates to CV based
rates.
|
|
Waitaki District Council
|
Capital value of $640,025,000 and
12/13 rate of $363,998 without differential.
|
|
Central Otago
|
Apply a differential to power station
CV rates based around 27% reduction.
|
|
Rotorua District Council
|
No differential rates for power
stations.
|
Summary of Meridians submission to the 2015 draft LTP
|
Meridian Submission
|
SDC Officer Comment
|
|
Point 1. The submission from
Meridian acknowledged the constructive relationship it has with the Southland
District Council.
|
Council also recognises the
constructive relationship that SDC has with Meridian
|
|
Point 2. Meridian believes it pays
rates significantly disproportionate to the services it uses.
|
Council applies fair and reasonable
user charges where it can be established that Council’s service
supplied has a one to one relationship. However, rates are a hybrid in
that they can have an element of user pays and a tax particularly for that
portion of services that Council provides which are of a “public
good” nature.
The application of rates is by way of
the blunt rating tools such as capital value which has an element of a tax on
those able to pay.
In deciding how rates should be set
Council considers the section 101(3) of the LGA 2002 and the provisions in
the LGRA 2002. Council uses a mixture of targeted rates and general
rates. It also sets rates on both a uniform basis (which often be used to
recognise ‘private benefit’) and as a rate in the dollar (which
can often be used to recognise ‘public benefits’).
|
|
Point 3. Over the last three
years Meridian’s rate has increased $186,000 due to removing the
differential and a revaluation of the districts properties.
Meridian’s revaluation resulted
in their assets increasing 13%.
|
The removal of the differential three
years ago resulted in meridian rates increasing from $222K to $364k (increase
of $142k).
Rating values for the district are set
by QV in accordance with the Rating Valuation Rules set by the Valuer
General. At the last revaluation the following occurred to properties in each
sector
|
|
Inc/(Decr)
valuation
|
Share
of
District
CV
|
|
Farming
|
(3%)
|
50.1%
|
|
Dairy
|
16%
|
29.1%
|
|
Residential
|
1%
|
9.4%
|
|
Lifestyle
|
9%
|
6.1%
|
|
Other
|
12%
|
4.9%
|
|
Commercial
|
(4%)
|
1.7%
|
|
Industrial
|
5%
|
1.7%
|
|
Forestry
|
0%
|
0.7%
|
|
|
Point 4. Meridian’s
assets have a minimal operational footprint on the District but because its
Manapouri operations has a high CV it contributes a greater proportion to the
rates where these are CV based.
|
Overall Meridian assets contribute to
4% of the capital value of the district and hence 4% of any rate based on
capital value. Council collects 20.1% of its rates from capital value
alone. This excludes roading as although roading is also based on CV
the model used spreads the rates cost firstly into causal sectors of which CV
is then used to attribute perceived benefits to individual ratepayers along
with a portion of a uniform charge.
|
|
Point 5. Rates in 2014-2015
were $436,297, they are proposed to go up to $463,478 in 2015-2016.
|
$27k increase overall, due to the
increase in the roading rates required to fund the roading program $4k,
change in the roading model, $8.2k, the general rate $9.1k and the waste
management rate $5k.
|
|
Point 6. Meridians rate %
increase over the last 4 of 5 years has been 127% compared to the
District-wide increase of 29%.
|
In 1995-1996, Meridian paid $150k in
rates when the district rates were $10.6 m (1.41% share). In 2011-2012,
Meridian paid $222k on the same three properties when the district rates were
$24.6k (0.9% share). So although in the period 1995-2102 the district rates
went up 131% Meridian increased by 48%. The removal of the differential
resulted in the Meridian’s share increasing to 1.48% ($363k). In
2015-2016 those three properties will pay $451k or 1.43% of the district
rates (before district water and sewerage rates).
|
|
Point 7. Council’s past
use of a differential is consistent with legislative intent having regard to
the level of services provided.
|
Council gives consideration to all
aspects of legislation, it not only has to consider those who cause, those
who benefit but also the impact of rates on individuals and
communities. It does this by using an extensive range of rating tools
including a number of targeted rates as well as a general rate and UAGC.
|
|
Point 9. Meridian contend that
the activities that will be rated in 2015-16 based on capital values bare no
relationship to the costs related to their activity and cannot be considered
fair and reasonable by comparison with other ratepayers.
These
rates being:
Strategy
& Planning $103,312,
Council
Offices and District Support $152,700,
Building
and Regulatory $52,323,
Waste
Management $20,050,
Roading
$94,615
|
As noted previously, Council applies
a fee or charge where appropriate. Given that a number of activities
can be about the ability to access a service, rather than whether an
individual directly uses that service there is not always a direct
correlation to the rates paid. It is also important to recognise that there
is a good level of wider ‘public benefit’ associated with a
number of activities funded via the general rate. Hence, it is the ‘community
as a whole’ which benefits rather than one individual ratepayer as
such. Meridian is a ratepayer within the wider district community and given
the significance of its activities it is of benefit to Meridian that the
district has thriving healthy communities. While noting the intangible nature
of a number of these benefits Council should consider, however, whether there
is a relationship between the demands created and benefits received by
Meridian relative to the rates they pay and satisfy itself that the
relationship between demands/benefits and rates assessed is not significantly
disproportionate or “overwhelmingly unreasonable”.
Meridian appears to be unaware that
the draft Revenue and Financing policy now incorporates a number of the
previous individually rated district rate types into an overall General Rate,
which is collected by way of a fixed amount per rating unit of $362.24 and a
rate in the dollar on capital value. The 2014-15 rates that have been
combined are Building Regulation, Civil Defence and Rural Fire, Council
offices and District Support, District Heritage, Library Services, Public
Health Services, Regional Initiative, Representation, Strategy, Policy &
Planning.
The reasoning behind this is that a
General Rate is appropriate for funding activities or services where there is
a significant element of public good or where a private good generates
benefits for the wider community.
Included in the general rate are the
costs of Strategy and Planning and Council offices and District Support such
as the operations of the Chief Executive, the functions of the front line and
back office support. Meridian are an active participant in these activities
as evidenced by their participation in LTP processes and the ongoing liaison
that they have with Council in relation to issues affecting the district and
its communities. Meridian also maintains an ongoing relationship directly
with a number of the districts communities, including through entities such
as the Tuatapere Amenities Trust, because of the importance of it managing
its relationship with these communities.
Meridian also exercise the
opportunity to interact with Council in its community leadership and
representation activities. Included in here is the advocacy work Council
undertakes on behalf of ratepayers on government legislation and
environmental issues. Given the widespread impact that Meridian’s
activities have on the district and its communities it is important that
Council maintain an effective working relationship with Meridian and that we
recognise issues that are of concern to them and their operations.
The public good elements of the
Building Control Department includes elements, such as, ensuring that people
who use buildings can do so safely and assessing earthquake prone premises. Meridian
derives a level of benefit from these activities. By owning a number of
buildings and other structures that require building consents they receive a
benefit. It is also in their interests that other buildings in the district
are developed and maintained to a reasonable standard and in a way that
ensures public safety.
The preparation and consultation in
regards to the District Plan and the management of resource management
activities across the district is also funded via the general rate. Meridian
has actively taken part in this process and it is also important that the
impact of other land use activities on their infrastructure is considered and
managed via Council’s resource management activity.
The Waste Management rate contributes
towards maintaining the environment and health of our community. It
contributes towards the costs of the transfer and refuse stations, waste
minimisation initiatives, Council’s contribution to the public good
element of new water and sewerage schemes, along with the on-going
environmental maintenance of old landfill sites. These activities are
essential to the maintenance of healthy sustainable communities. It is in
Meridian’s interests that such communities exist given, for example,
that many of their workforce will reside in the local community.
Funding for Roading is from a mixture
of NZTA funding and local rate funding. It covers costs for
roading on all public roads except state highways. Meridian has the ability
to use any part of the district roading network, which is seen as an
integrated district wide network.
|
|
Point 11. In applying Section
101(3) of the Local Government Rating Act the Council needs to demonstrate
there is
1. A different level of service; or
2. A different share of benefits; or
3. The cost of service to one group is different than
the cost of providing service to others.
|
As previously stated Council
considers all of the section 101(3) factors in developing its Revenue and
Financing Policy. It also considers the impact that rates have on individual
ratepayers and on the community as a whole. In doing so it actively
uses a variety of rating tools. It has outlined in is Revenue and Financing
Policy and the supporting Activity Analysis how it has considered these
factors in relation to each activity.
|
|
Point 12. In removing the 2012
differential, Council noted the move to funding of roading costs based on
high users and the use of a UTR. The planned reduction in the UTR
results in a greater cost portion being recovered based on capital value.
|
Council has developed a new model to
inform the allocation of roading costs between different land uses. In doing
so, council has applied a 0.3 differential to properties in the
“Other” category which includes Meridian’s assets. As noted
in the Meridian submission there has also been a rebalancing of the uniform
portion of the targeted rate and uniform capital value portion of the
targeted rate to reflect the new model. Council will be considering whether
further adjustments might be made to the UTR portion as part of its
consideration of other submissions on the Roading targeted rate in Appendix
4.
The question that Council needs to
determine is whether the roading rates that Meridian is being required to pay
are now ‘unreasonable’ and whether there is a need to apply a
further differential to the uniform capital value portion of the targeted
rate.
|
|
Point 13. The relief sought by
Meridian is
(a) That
Council re-introduce a rating differential or use other rating tools to more
fairly allocate the proportion of cost of services for Strategy &
Planning, Council Offices and District Support, Building and Regulatory,
Waste Management and Roading.
|
This is discussed below.
|
|
(b) Council amend the supporting finance and revenue
policies in support of (a)
|
This is discussed below.
|
Meridians Argument for the re-introduction
of a Differential
9. Meridian has
requested that Council re-introduce a rating differential in favour of
them.
It states through its submission that Council needs to consider this as it
receives significantly disproportionate services to the rates it pays (point 1)
based on the fact that its capital value is high but its operational footprint
has minimal impact on the District (point 4).
10. In asking for the
differential to be re-introduced they have cited section 101(3) of the
Local Government Act which states:
The funding needs of the local
authority must be met from those sources that the local authority determine to
be appropriate, following consideration of –
(a) In
relation to each activity to be funded
(i) The
community outcomes to which the activity contributes; and
(ii) The
distribution of the benefits between the community as a whole, and any
identifiable part of the community, and individuals and
(iii) The
period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur, and
(iv) The
extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group
contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and
(v) The
cost and benefits, including consequences for transparency and accountability,
of funding the activity distinctly from other activities, and
(b) The
overall impact of an allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current
and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the
community.
11. The rating tool they believe
that should be used for them is within Section 13(2)(b) of the Local Government
(Rating) Act 2002 and states
“A general rate may be set at
different rates in the dollar of rateable value for different categories of
rateable land under Section 14.”
Options
|
Option
1: Status Quo: Council continue to rate Meridian as proposed in
draft LTP
|
|
Impact on rates:
· No change to rates as proposed in the draft LTP and Revenue and
Financing Policy.
|
|
Advantages:
· No specific advantage, as it is based on facts considered.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· No specific disadvantage as it is based on facts considered.
|
Option 2:
Council re-introduce a differential rate in favour of Meridian
|
|
Impact on rates:
· No change to the overall rates collected, just a re-distribution
amongst ratepayers.
|
|
Advantages:
· Meridian may perceive that they are being treated more
fairly.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Council did not indicate that it was proposing changes to the
differential for Meridian as part of its consultation so no submissions have
been received on how other ratepayers would view this different treatment for
Meridian.
· Work would need to be done on establishing the methodology behind
a new differential, how it would be calculated and the impact on other
ratepayers.
|
|
Option
3: Council determines that the issue warrants further investigation and
indicates to Meridian the timeframe for doing so.
|
|
Impact on rates:
· No immediate change to the rates proposed in draft LTP. Changes
would occur via an amendment to the LTP or as part of the 2018 LTP.
|
|
Advantages:
· Consultation could occur with other ratepayers, potentially as
part of the next three year work programme.
· Further work could be undertaken in establishing the factors that
could contribute to the methodology and calculation of the differential to
identify and distinguish Meridian from other ratepayers.
|
|
Disadvantages:
· None foreseen for Council.
|
Considerations when deciding on the
proposed option
12. Council needs to establish
that Meridian is different in some way that means the application of a
differential is appropriate. As noted above, Meridian contends that its
operational footprint is such that they receive services disproportionately to
other ratepayers. They do not state how they establish this compared to
other ratepayers. This is an issue which could be explored further with
Meridian if Council was of a mind to investigate the potential introduction of
a differential further.
13. If Council did re-introduce
a differential rate, the methodology behind how this rates applies and how it
would be calculated needs to be given further consideration.
Discussion
and Analysis
14. Council must comply with the
LGA 2002 and the LGRA 2002 in regards to its financial management.
Section 101 (1) of the LGA requires a local authority to manage its revenues,
expenses, assets, liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently
and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the
community.
15. Under section 102 Council is
required to adopt a range of funding and financial policies, including a
Revenue and Financing Policy and Liability Management Policy. Under section 103
a Revenue and Financing Policy must detail how a local authority plans to fund
its operating and capital expenditure from the range of sources listed section
103(2). The policy must also show how Council has had regard to the factors in
section 101(3) in making these decisions.
16. Case law has made it clear
that each of the five factors identified in section 101(3) must be given equal
consideration. In this regard Potter J[2] referred to section 101(3) as a “critical filter”
when noting that:
“…the consideration required in respect of
each activity to be funded must extend to and include each of the five factors
in s 101(3)(a) in each case. The factors are clearly stated to be cumulative,
not alternatives or options for consideration and determination by a council.
… the statutory processes required by the Act do
not permit the Council to single out and adopt a causation or exacerbator-pays
approach at a policy level…. While I accept that s 101(3) does not direct
councils to any particular outcome, all the critical factors in s 101(3) must
be weighed and factored in, in respect of “each activity”. …
All the factors must be considered, weighed and evaluated, in reaching funding
determinations in respect of each activity.”
17. Council can demonstrate the
application of Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act through its Revenue
and Financing Policy (and supporting Activity Analysis) and through the wide
use of rate types it has and the tools it uses to collect these rates.
Section 101(3), states, the funding needs of the local authority must be met
from those sources that the local authority deems appropriate after
consideration of the identified factors. Council’s Revenue and
Financing Policy outlines these funding sources in Section 2.4 and the policy
overall explains that in deciding who should pay for an activity, asset or
service it is more complex than simply allocating costs to primary users.
Some activities result in benefits for the wider community as well as
individuals who use them. For example, recreational facilities contribute
to vibrant thriving communities and have impacts on community health,
well-being and sustainability. It further adds that Council also
considers people should not be excluded from using a service or engaging in an
activity because of affordability. For these reasons, Council has decided
to fund several activities using a general rate or a combination of targeted
and general rates. Meridian gains a not insignificant level of benefit from
these activities particularly given the scale and importance of their
activities within the district.
18. Currently Council has over
150 rate types. The rate types it uses and the percentage collected from
these rating tools is outlined as follows:
|
Roading Rate (model based on
exacerbator, then based on Capital Value)
|
30.1%
|
|
Fixed Charges (max 30%)
|
25.5%
|
|
Service Rates - Fixed Charge
(Rubbish, Recycling, Water, Sewerage, Loans etc)
|
21.6%
|
|
Capital Value - General Rate and 35%
of Waste Mgmt Rate
|
20.1%
|
|
Land Value - Local Rates
|
2.8%
|
19. As
noted, the impact of rates on the community is also a major consideration of
Council.
The Rates Inquiry Panel noted that rates are a hybrid tax, a mixture of user
pays and a tax on property as the “public good” element of services
provided to the general public that are available for use but may or may not be
used by a specific ratepayer. As such there will be no direct
relationship between services and rates paid. In considering who should
pay Council considers the over-arching concept of affordability, it does this
in looking at its costs and also in the way it allocates these costs, such as
via the rates that it sets. The report of the Local Government Rates
Inquiry noted that councils are failing to adequately consider the affordability
of rates increases for some residents, and noted that councils need to
undertake more analysis of affordability issues when deciding on total
expenditures to be financed from rates and on the rating mechanisms to be used
to spread the burden. In fact the Rates Inquiry Panel went as far as to
recommend that the differential rates and UAGC’s be removed as they
tended to be set arbitrarily without explicit justification in terms of the
services to be funded (RI para 51 & 52). They equalled favoured the
capital value system because of the closer relationship between capital values
and household incomes (RI para 57). They noted that Council should, in
fixing overall rating policies, have regard both to services consumed and to
ability to pay and noted that in considering who benefits has two parts which
need to be considered (ie the benefits received and the ability to pay).
20. To
apply a differential, Meridian notes in point 11 of its submission that Council
needs to demonstrate that there is a different level of service or the cost of
providing the service to one group is different than the cost of providing the
service to others. Meridian justifies the application of a differential
for them on the basis that the service it gets compared to the rate it pays is
disproportionate compared to other ratepayers given its high capital
value. Meridian does not attempt, however, to provide a financial and/or
economic analysis to support its position.
21. For
context, Meridian’s rate represents 1.43% of the total rates collected
(excl district water and sewerage for comparative purposes with previous
years). The capital value of their assets represent 4% of the total
capital value of the district. Below is a table of the rates (GST
exclusive) that Meridian pays compared to the next top 10 ratepayers sorted by
capital value. 
22. The total rates shown are
those that Meridian is paying is on all properties under the name of Meridian
Energy Limited and excludes White Hill as that is owned by MEL White Hill
Limited. “Other Rates” represents local rates and the
regional heritage rate.
23. From the table you can see
that Meridian is paying a reduced roading rate, based on the modelling system
Council uses for distribution of that rate. They are also not liable for
any service rates that are targeted to various ratepayers and the element of
Other Rates is minimal generally due to these being local rates that are
generally a fixed amount.
The majority of the rate is the general rate which is collected based on
capital value.
If Council were only to use one rate and one basis such as capital value, the
level of Meridian’s rates would have been $1,712,224. While there are
variations between the different rates applying to different properties the
above table does not suggest that the overall rates being paid by Meridian are
significantly disproportionate to those being paid by others with high capital
values.
24. It is proposed that Option
1, status quo, should be adopted. In the end analysis the question of whether a
level of rating is appropriate is a decision for the Council to make having
regard to the relevant statutory process and factors that it is required to
consider. Provided it follows an appropriate process it is for the Council to
make the subjective judgements inherent in this process.
25. Meridian
like all ratepayers has an obligation to contribute towards the costs of the
Council. The Council can demonstrate through its Revenue and Financing
Policy and the rate types and tools it uses that it has carefully considered
its obligations under the LGA 2002 and LGRA 2002.
Feedback and Submissions
26. Meridian
was the only submitter that commented on this issue.
The full submission can be found in the
submissions booklet.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 7: Rating Differential” dated 13
May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Make no change to the way it currently rates Meridian.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 8: Fees and Charges
Record No: R/15/4/6156
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 The
Schedule of Fees and Charges accounts for all the fees and charges that the
Council applies to customers for the specific services they provide outside of
rates and/or the
Funding Impact Statement.
2 The Council is currently consulting, through a separate consultation
process, on a proposed Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2015, which propose a new
fees regime aimed to promote responsible ownership by providing discounts for
actions such as neutering and microchipping. If this is adopted, it will
have effect from the 2016/2017 financial year.
The Council has already set under Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 its
fees for the 2015/2016 financial year, including setting the registration fee
at $30.00 GST inclusive.
Consultation
3 There
were no significant changes proposed in the draft 2015/16 Schedule of Fees and
Charges from the previous year however; minor changes included:
· Updating
fees in line with the inflation increase
· Inclusion
of alfresco dining licence fees
· Inclusion
of under verandah lighting fees
· Removal
of development contribution charges due to the proposal for development
contributions to be put into remission.
Options
· Option
1: Approve or amend any of the proposed fees and charges.
· Option
2: Not approve the proposed fees and charges.
Feedback and
Submissions
4 A
total of nine submitters commented on the proposed Schedule of Fees and
Charges. The full submissions can be found in the submissions
booklet.
5 Several
submissions (10, 33, 41, 110, 115, 91) opposed the significant rise in fees
relating to sale and supply of alcohol. Submission 10 also opposed the
risk grading system which they stated was inflexible. Submission 115
notes that the increase in fees does not correspond with an increase in
business revenue.
Hospitality
New Zealand (submitter number 115) would like to see the fees set regionally
through local bylaw. It has also requested that the Council drop
licensing fees by one level as is allowed under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol
Act (Fees) Regulations 2013. It further suggests that a discount is made
available to businesses for 'good behaviour'. The organisation has strong
concerns over the fees which apply to new and renewed manager’s certificates.
6 Real Journeys (submitter number 91) requested that the
Council provide additional funding to Environmental Health to address the
delays in processing liquor licence applications in consideration of the
compliance framework under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
7 One
submission (submitter number 89) requested a
full user pays approach for all activities, while another suggested that
Council should operate more efficiently to minimise costs.
8 Council
officers have recommended that charges for under verandah lighting are removed
as the Winton Community Board would prefer to fund this activity through rates.
Discussion and
Analysis
Legal and Statutory Considerations
9 Section
150 of the Local Government Act (2002) states that the Council can set fees and
charges either through a bylaw or by consulting with the public.
Amendments to the Schedule of Fees and Charges which have been recommended by
staff meet Council’s requirement under the Local Government Act
2002.
10 Some fees and charges
included in this document are prescribed under
various legislation including:
· Building Act 2004,
· Resource Management Act 1991,
· Dog Control Act 1996,
· Local Government Act 2002,
· Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987,
· Food Hygiene Regulations 1974,
· Camping Grounds Regulations 1985,
· Amusement Devices Regulations 1978,
· Health (Hairdresser) Regulations 1980,
· Food Act 1981,
· Local Government Auckland Transitional Provisions) Fees and
Charges Regulations 2010 (if applicable),
· Various Council bylaws.
Equity and Affordability
11 In
proposing the combination of fees and charges and rates, the Council has
considered the demand for and benefits of the services, infrastructure and
activities it provides. Fees and charges in the proposed Schedule have
been assessed to strike an appropriate balance between user pays and community
benefit overall.
12 The
proposed amendments to the Schedule of Fees and Charges do not cause
significant changes to rates. However, by placing development
contributions into remission, projects which would have been funded using
development contributions will be funded through rates. This affects
only areas where demand projects are scheduled (ie Te Anau).
Funding and Financial
Considerations
13 The
Council’s proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges has been developed to
contribute to a transparent funding regime. Submission 89 requested that
a full user pays system should apply. While regulatory services are
funded in large part through a user pays system, Council recognises that there
is public benefit to compliance activities.
14 It
has proposed the funding structure outlined in the Schedule of Fees and Charges
and draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 in recognition of the public and individual
benefits of these services.
15 Submission
91 requested additional funding be allocated to Environmental Health to address
delays in processing liquor licensing applications.
Alcohol Licensing Fees
16 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act)
introduced a new fee system that came into effect from 18 December 2013.
The fee system is designed to ensure licensing costs are met by the alcohol
industry.
17 The Council’s alcohol licensing fees have been set at
the rate prescribed by the Government and are consistent with the fees adopted
by most councils in that they have been set in
accordance with the default fees specified under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol
(Fees) Regulations 2013. These fees are based on risk ratings of individual
premises, with the risk calculated as specified in the Regulations. However,
these Regulations also state that “a territorial authority may, in its
discretion, and in response to particular circumstances, assign a fee category
to premises that is 1 level lower than subclause (1) (which
is specified in the Regulations), but no premises may be assigned a category
lower than very low.
18 The fees have enabled the Council to the reduce ratepayer
funding of this service which occurred under the previous statutory fees.
19 The Council has formally resolved:
(a) That all money
received and retained by Council under the Act shall be expended only for
purposes authorised by or under the Act
(b) That the costs of
the Alcohol Licensing Service, including the District Licensing Committee, are
funded 100% from fees collected under the Act
(c) A separate alcohol
licensing business unit has been created to make the cost of the Alcohol
Licensing Service transparent.
20 If it is found after a full year of operating the alcohol
licensing business unit (which will be at the end of the 2015/2016 financial
year) that Council is over collecting from license owners, then the fees will
be lowered.
21 Alcohol licensing staff are nearing the end of the implementation of
the new Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This has meant that there
has been a delay in processing some renewal applications. Licensing
renewal work has not been prioritised because licences remain in effect until
the renewal has been determined. This allows licensees to continue
operating while processing occurs. It is expected that this build-up of
renewal applications will be processed within a few months and accordingly it
is considered that an increase in staff resourcing will not be necessary.
Under Verandah Lighting
22 Since
the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges was released for consultation, staff
have noted that it would be appropriate to remove the under verandah lighting
charge. This issue has been raised with the Winton Community Board during
its meeting on 29 April 2015. The Community Board expressed a
preference for funding this activity through local rates in future.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 8: Fees and Charges” dated 12
May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Recommends
that the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges is amended to remove the fee for
under verandah lighting in Winton.
|
Excerpts from public
submissions on the Schedule of Fees and Charges Comments
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
10
|
We are writing our submission
about our concern’s regarding what we believe is a huge overcharge
recently received here at the Waikaia Hotel. Our concerns have been
shared with the wider Southland Hospitality Association Group. We are
adding our individual submission to support the HANZ submission.
We hold two liquor licences - On
and Off. Both of these charges have risen hugely (300%).
The issue being we have been hit
with annual fees that were previously not there. We have had no
justification for these rises. The process to have licence renewal has
not changed (contrary to recent newspaper articles stating police and health
department sign off being a new thing?? This has always been the case).
We note that we are graded by
risk and this determines the amount of charge.
Who determines that the Waikaia
Hotel is medium risk? If we were low risk these annual fee’s
nearly halve or very low risk they halve again!!
We have had no visit from liquor
licensing persons regarding volume of sales through Off Licence? Surely
this is the biggest indicator of risk!! The uncontrolled drinking
environment.
We would like some feedback as
to how we can avert the risk that we are deemed to be. Can someone come
and point out what we need to do to become a very low risk?
We have had recent communication
with MP Todd Barclay's office.
Barclay said the Government
introduced the law change to correct an inconsistency in the legislation
where ratepayers who had never stepped inside a pub were subsidising its
licence to sell alcohol, which was unfair to ratepayers. We have
struggled to find where this was itemised on our previous rate accounts.
Furthermore if we are to be fair and equitable about not paying for service's
that are not directly used by the ratepayer, then why do we see Library
charges on our annual rate bill. This seems unfair as we never step
foot in any libraries!!.
Our main points at Waikaia:
1. Huge Fee Rise - No transparency
behind huge hikes in fee’s. What are we now paying for that
we didn’t before? Can we see what we are paying for? Would
anyone in Council pay a statement without seeing an itemised invoice??
In effect this is what we are being asked to do.
2. Risk Grading - Lack of flexibility
and differentiation between business size and turnover.
Eg, our Off Licence is graded
the same risk (same weighted score) as Winton New World!!!
The weighted score system
adopted by Government is saying that every Tavern/Hotel across New Zealand is
the same, therefore the same risk?
What does risk even mean?
We have still had no visit from Liquor Licence personnel to evaluate our
level of risk.
We strongly object to
these new inflated charges. These types of compliance costs are
crippling small business. Surely Council wants to encourage business
growth in the south not discourage it, as is the case in this instance.
We recommend that our elected
Council pass a bylaw granting themselves more flexibility to reduce fees
where it is deemed logical to do so.
Thank You
Brent Mowat and Wendy-Jane
Williamson
Waikaia Hotel/Motel &
Restaurant
waikaiahotel@gmail.com.
|
|
33
|
I think there needs to be a
lowering of licence fees for
On Licence, Off Licence and Manager’s Qualifications.
Fees have recently increased for no good reason. It is well known that
the majority of alcohol harm in the community is caused by drinking at home,
yet responsible establishments are paying more and more compliance
fees. This is potentially forcing licenced establishments to increase
the cost of alcohol; sales and making it even cheaper for people to drink at
home where they are not supervised. Te Anau is a tourism town and
licensed establishments should be encouraged to stay open and serve food and
drink at reasonable prices. Lowering licence fees would go a long way.
|
|
41
|
The
fees the Council are charging for our hotel, On and Off Licence is out of
control, it is an insult to us and can't be justified for SDC to make a
job/business out of this.
|
|
62
|
Look to your efficiency in
business operations to minimise these costs as other small to medium
businesses have had to do.
|
|
89
|
Full user pay approach should
apply.
|
|
91
|
Environmental Health - Real
Journeys believes SDC needs to fund environmental health to a higher level to
address the delays in processing liquor licence applications especially
considering the compliance framework under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol
2012.
|
|
110
|
At
the Central Southland Lodge we hold On and Off Licences.
The charges for these licences have risen by over 300%.
We understand that the liquor licencing fees are set under the Sale and
Supply of Alcohol Act. We also know that our Council has the discretion
to assign fees to a premises that is one level lower.
On
premise sales in Southland are experiencing a huge decline and therefore the
risk must be a lot lower. As for Off Licence we are on the same risk
level as the local supermarket. This supermarket has the biggest
beer and wine sales in Southland. We are aware that some racing and
sports clubs have already had their original fees changed by the
Southland District Council. We are also seeing some organisations
reverting back to BYO events because of the cost and process of getting a
special licence.
Another
concern is the increase in the fee for a duty manager to apply or renew a
manager’s certificate. In Southland we are losing good managers
every week particularly part time managers - most say it is no longer viable
to renew their licence.
We
all know that the country hotel is a focal point of most communities.
Where most meetings, fundraisers and the likes are held (most times free of
charge) and we would like to see that continue.
Thank
you for the opportunity to submit on the 10 Year Plan.
John
and Nancy McHugh
Central
Southland Lodge
|
|
115
|
Alcohol Licensing Fee. The
submitter provided a large number of comments on this topic. For the
full commentary see Submission No. 115 in the submissions booklet.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 9: Funding and Grant Requests
Record No: R/15/4/6302
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Background
1 Southland
District Council provides financial assistance to community organisations and
individuals through a variety of mechanisms, including, but not limited to,
one-off grants, scholarships, bursaries, ongoing grants, discretionary grants
and donations.
2 The
majority of this is managed by Venture Southland on behalf of Council, with the
allocation process being decided on by the Allocations Committee.
3 Council
also maintains a fund to provide for various community organisations, such as
St John, Citizens Advice Bureau, Gore Counselling Service, Life Education
Trust, Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Trust, EnviroSchools, and SPCA.
4 Some
grants to community organisations are also requested and consulted on through
the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process.
Synopsis
5 A
total of nine submissions to the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 were received
relating to funding requests.
6 Submission
numbers which include funding are: 23, 53, 88, 91, 101, 107, 111, 112, 113 and
118. The full submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
Requests
7 Submissions
included requests from:
The Lakes District Air Rescue
Trust
8 The
Trust is requesting $50,000 from Council for at least three years. The
Trust is requesting $50,000 from the three councils it covers - Queenstown
Lakes District Council, Invercargill City Council and Southland District
Council. Trust Chairman Jules Tapper spoke to Council in April about the
shortfall between funding from ACC/Ministry of Health and the service
provided. The funding contract is up for renewal in three years, but the
Trust is using reserves to cover costs after the present funding runs
out. The Trust covers the area from Haast to Alexandra and then to
Invercargill and the area to the south and west of that line. It receives
some corporate funding and community donations but does not seek more from
businesses because of the businesses’ belief it is double dipping as they
pay ACC levies.
9 This
request was received after the draft budget was completed and as such was not
in the consultation document and is not in the budget. A grant of $50,000
a year would see a 0.12% increase in rates.
Southland Safe Community Group
10 Two
submissions - one from the Invercargill/Southland Family Violence Focus Group
and the other from the NZ Police - were received, requesting funding of $10,000
towards the cost of a co-ordinator for the Southland Safe Community
Group. The Safe Communities steering group is
made up of representatives from ACC, Police and Fire Service and is committed
to working in partnership with the three southern councils to reduce the
incidence, severity and cost of injuries in the south. As such, it is
seeking $10,000 from each Council.
11 This
request was received after the draft budget was completed and as such was not
in the consultation document and is not in the budget. A grant of $10,000
a year would see a 0.03% increase in rates.
Real Journeys - Grant to
Destination Fiordland
12 Real
Journeys requested that the grant to Destination Fiordland should be raised to
the previous level of $26,000.
13 The
Te Anau Community Board provides a grant of $14,000 a year to Destination
Fiordland to help fund an events staff member. Council provides funding of
$12,863 to Destination Fiordland through its grant to Venture Southland and has
not decreased funding. This is a total of $26,863 a year for Destination
Fiordland.
Venture Southland - Inflation
Adjusted Funding
14 Venture
Southland requested that funding from Southland District Council be able to be
adjusted by the CPI annually.
15 Venture
Southland suggests that it is not an automatic increase but will need to be
justified based on Council work requests. Council CPI adjusts its internal
charges to Venture Southland.
Other Requests
16 Creative NZ wants Council to
develop strategies and policies to help towards the establishment of a regional
arts development body.
17 It also advises that an additional
$400,000 will be invested by Creative NZ in the Southland Region and this will
include grants available as part of the Creative Communities Scheme.
18 Venture Southland manages funding
from Creative NZ on behalf of Council and that funding is allocated through the
Allocations Committee.
19 There is already a regional arts
body in Southland - the Southland Arts Trust.
20 Te Ao Mārama Incorporated
supports grants given to EnviroSchools, high value
areas, Biodiversity Southland, and Southland Coastal Heritage Inventory Project.
Council is appreciative of that support.
21 Sport Southland
supports the funding for Stadium Southland and supports the Learn to Swim
Programme.
22 Federated Farmers does not believe
that destination marketing, community promotions or business development are
core council services and if Council is concerned about funding vital
infrastructure, such as roading, these activities should be considered for
reduced funding.
23 Federated Farmers believes any
additional funding for Stadium Southland should be through a UTR.
Proposed grants included in the
Consultation Document
24 Southland Indoor Leisure Centre
Trust has asked for a further $250,000 to help reduce the debt from the rebuild
of Stadium Southland. This grant has been included in the proposed Long
Term Plan budget, along with the increase in the annual grant made to the trust
for maintenance of the stadium - from $50,000 to $75,000.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 9: Funding and Grant Requests”
dated
12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Determines
which grants it will approve or decline:
- $50,000
a year for the Lakes Air Rescue Trust
- $10,000
a year for a co-ordinator role for Southland Safe Community Group
- $250,000
one-off grant to Stadium Southland rebuild
- $75,000
a year (increased from $50,000) for Stadium Southland maintenance
- An
adjustment to funding for Destination Fiordland
- Inflation
adjusting funding for Venture Southland
|
Excerpts from
Public Submissions on Funding and Grant Requests
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
23
|
The financial support sought
is a commitment from the three southern councils over three years to the
level of $50,000 per council per annum.
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 23 in the submissions booklet.
|
|
53
|
Active participation in Safe
Communities process. Request for funding of a
Co-ordinator for the Southland Safe Community Group. Refer to
Submission 53 for details.
|
|
88
|
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 88 in the submissions booklet.
The Safe Communities
steering group which is made up of representatives from ACC, Police and Fire
Service are committed to working in partnership with the three councils to
reduce the incidence, severity and cost of injuries and looks forward to
providing direct support to the proposed Annual Plan.
Comment on the Draft
Southland District Council 10 Year Plan:
Safe Communities: The
steering committee encourages the Council to work towards accreditation under
the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Safe Communities (ISC)
model and consider committing appropriate resources to this process.
Previously the committee presented this concept at the Mayoral Forum and Council
meetings. This model provides an approach to injury prevention and
safety promotion by creating an infrastructure in local communities for
addressing injury prevention initiatives through building of local
partnerships. Within the ISC model, the leading role is played by the
community itself. The term "safe communities" implies that
the community aspires to safety in a structured approach, not that the
community is already perfectly safe.
There are currently a large
number of key agencies and partners who are already supporting the concept
and criteria required to create a safe and healthy community and reduce
injuries. The steering committee believes the Southland District
Council should be a key stakeholder and leader in this process and would
support the Council partnering with others to improve co-ordination and
response to the community's safety issues.
To work towards this
accreditation the group needs the support of a local
co-ordinator. This would mean partial funding of $10,000 from each
Council to support this position and support the community to achieve
accreditation.
|
|
91
|
Grants and Donations
Real Journeys believes that
the grant to Destination Fiordland should be raised to previous levels of
around $26 K and not halved; to allow the region to be promoted
appropriately.
|
|
101
|
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 101 in the submissions booklet.
Environmental health is
regarded as a priority area for Murihiku Ngāi Tahu.
Grants funding to programmes like Enviroschools, high value areas,
Biodiversity Southland, Southland Coastal Heritage Inventory Project are
supported, these provide for strengthening of environmental health.
|
|
107
|
Community Services
7.12 - Federated Farmers
notes that Council has included an additional $250,000 in the plan to assist
with the rebuild of Stadium Southland. There is also an increase in the
annual grant to assist with ongoing maintenance and renewal costs of Stadium
Southland, from $50,000 to $75,000.
7.13 - Council notes that
“as a regional facility, it benefits the whole of
Southland”. As such, we consider that this additional funding
should be sourced through a UTR, so that all ratepayers pay the same amount
regardless of the value of their property.
Recommendation
7.14 - Additional funding of
Stadium Southland and other Community Services, where the entire community
benefits equally, should be sourced through a UTR, so that all ratepayers
contribute equally.
Funding of Community
Development
7.15 - Federated Farmers
does not consider that destination marketing, community promotions, or
business development are core council services, and the provision of these
services diverts funding from the provision of vital infrastructure, like
roading. If Council is concerned about the impact of increasing
cost pressures, these activities should be considered for reduced funding.
7.16 - In regards to
funding, Federated Farmers considers that the correct funding tool for most
Community Development activities is the UTR. However, destination
promotion and related activities should be funded as a targeted rate paid
only by those commercial ratepayers deemed to receive direct benefit from the
promotion of the District as a tourism destination.
7.17 - Targeted rates are
ideal for the funding of Council activities where there are identifiable
direct beneficiaries, and a significant ‘private good’ (as
opposed to public good) component to the activity. Tourism promotion is
a good example of this type of activity.
|
|
107
|
7.18
- Council does this with the Te Anau local rate, where a differential is
charged on each of the Residential, Commercial and Accommodation rateable
properties in the area. This approach could be easily extended to
the entire District for the funding of destination promotion.
Federated
Farmers submission to the Southland District Council Draft 10 Year Plan
2015-2025 Page 13.
7.19
- Not only is this more transparent and equitable, but it allows tourism
bodies the ability to influence levels of expenditure as appropriate without
creating issues of affordability for other ratepayers. A targeted rate
also reduces the cost impact of tourism promotion on ratepayers who receive
no direct benefit.
7.20
- Council justifies using a district-wide rate to fund these activities on
the basis of ‘strong spill over benefits from economic development and
stronger communities for the District as a whole. Federated Farmers
submits that this is no justification for a lack of targeted rating,
especially as neither Council nor Venture Southland have undertaken any
analysis to ensure that the value added to the District as a result of this
promotion spend exceeds the opportunity cost of rating the money from other
commercial enterprises, or from households.
Recommendation
7.21
- We recommend that destination promotion and related activities should be
funded as a targeted rate paid only by those commercial ratepayers deemed to
receive direct benefit from the promotion of the District as a tourism
destination.
|
|
111
|
EnviroSchool programme -
Name change to Toimata Foundation as at 1 May.
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 111 in the submissions booklet.
|
|
112
|
For the full commentary see
Submission No. 112 in the submissions booklet.
4.0 - Support funds being
set aside to contribute towards Stadium Southland as a regional asset.
Refers to: Community
Assistance Activity Profile, P4; Section 2.2 - Activity Profile Highlights
and key assumptions Sport Southland congratulates Council for seeing the
wider benefits of Stadium Southland as a key regional facility, which
benefits the entire Southland community.
6.0 - Support for the
ongoing grant towards the Learn to Swim programme in Southland. Whilst
this is not referenced specifically in the 10 Year Plan, we would like to
acknowledge and thank Council for it’s recent continuation in support
of the rural Learn to Swim Programme in Southland.
Sport Southland continues to
play a key role in this programme, which is reaching thousands of
primary-school aged children in Southland and teaching them potentially
life-saving skills.
Southland continues to be
the only region that provides quality swim instruction to each of its primary
aged children regardless of where children live and learn.
|
|
113
|
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 113 in the submissions booklet.
Creative NZ - Over the
years, Creative New Zealand has taken an active interest in local
authorities’ strategic plans, and the ways in which they support arts
and culture in their respective districts. We also support the
development of specific arts and cultural strategies, to further clarify
local authorities’ commitments in these areas.
|
|
118
|
That the Southland District
Council provide within the Long Term Plan the lever/trigger to allow for CPI
increases if required to Venture Southland.
It would be prudent to allow
for CPI but this does not mean that
Venture Southland would automatically receive this figure, as this would need
to be justified based on future requests from Council in order to undertake
additional work in the region, or to meet financial demands of the
organisation during the business planning process.
The addition of this
statement would provide consistency, with other councils. Currently
Southland District Council internal services provided to
Venture Southland (eg) IT services are CPI adjusted annually from
baseline costs which are increasing costs to Venture Southland, and Community
Trust of Southland has reduced their operational funding of $200,000 to the
organisation during the past two years.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 10: Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
Record No: R/15/4/6292
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 The
Around the Mountains Cycle Trail (AMCT) is being built by the Southland
District Council, in partnership with the government's New Zealand Cycle
Project.
2 Most
of the trail will be in the Southland District and the government has approved
$4 million to Council for the first stage of the trail - from Kingston to
Mossburn. The opening of this stage was held in November 2014.
3 Consent
applications have also been approved for a section beside the Oreti River
which forms part of State two of the trail. These consents have been
appealed by Fish & Game New Zealand and will be decided on by the
Environment Court.
Feedback and Submissions
4 A total of three submitters
commented on this issue.
5 Submission numbers which refer
to the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail are: 91, 108 and 112. Full
copies of these submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
6 All submissions supported the
construction of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail on the basis that it
supports active healthy communities and would provide recreational
opportunities for residents and visitors.
7 Submissions note the
likelihood that the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail will attract new visitors
and present opportunities for vibrant and successful Southland District
communities. However, one submission notes that the draft Long Term Plan
2015-2025 does not contain information about funding and on-going
maintenance. The submitter queries how future resources would be sourced
and allocated to continue to support active communities, protect the local
environment and maintain the trail.
8 Sport Southland note that the
project offers these health benefits and recreational opportunities with
minimal impact on other interest groups who use the area in which the trail is located.
9 The Sport Southland submission
also requests support for a collaborative approach on the promotion of the
trail. The submission draws Council’s attention to the availability
of the Sport Southland events team which could partner with Venture Southland to develop an event to
promote usage of the trail in future.
10 Sport Southland also request that a Regional Cycle Way Strategy is
progressed and sits within a broader Regional Sport and Recreation
Strategy.
Options
Council has previously made the
decision to construct the second stage of the cycle trail and consents have
been granted, which are currently subject to appeal. The option before
Council is whether to partnership with Sport Southland, or any other agency in
the development of the cycle trail.
Discussion and Analysis
11 Engagement with Sport Southland forms
part of Council’s Letter of Expectation for
Venture Southland. Southland District Council will provide input through
Venture Southland to contribute to the scope of work currently being
collaborated on with Sport Southland - especially relating to built
infrastructure requirements, geographical coverage and categorisation of
trails.
12 Deferring a formal commitment to
participation in a Regional Sport and Recreation Strategy and Regional Cycleway
Strategy would allow Council to establish the scope of these projects.
13 It is recommended that Council engage
with Sport Southland and Venture Southland to undertake further scoping of the
project to develop these two strategies in consideration of community outcomes,
Council’s role and resources required.
14 When considering whether to participate
in the development of either strategy, Council will need to be mindful of the
purpose of local government 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 (Local Government Act
(2002), Section 10).
15 Submitter comments relating to
maintenance and on-going costs are noted. Future costs are being funded
by a combination of rates and commission. A budget of $40,000 for
2015/2016 has been allowed for within the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail business
unit. This budget then increases by an inflation adjustment across the 10
year plan.
16 Funding for trail maintenance will also
come from commission charged on bookings made through the Around the Mountains
Cycle Trail website.
17 Venture Southland
is currently providing assistance to develop the Around the Mountains Cycle
Trail Marketing and Business Plan. The purpose of this document is to
provide a framework to guide the promotion and marketing of the cycle
trail. This will ensure that the trail’s potential benefit can be
realised and maximised for the benefit of all.
18 While the
Official Trail Operator (Around the Mountains Ltd) will undertake the operation
and promotion of the trail, the Marketing and Business Plan will also provide
context so others can understand the approach and where assistance can be
provided (eg, by the regional tourism organisations). The plan has a
strong focus on online, direct marketing and social media and acknowledges that
the success of the product is dependent upon the overall experience that
cyclists have - it is more than just a cycle trail. Critical success
factors affecting this include the customer service provided by Around the
Mountains Ltd and other product development initiatives to complement an already
very high quality cycle trail
(eg, interpretation panels on the trail and sufficient provision of
accommodation).
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 10: Around the Mountains Cycle
Trail” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Agrees to engage with Sport Southland regarding the scope of a
project to develop a Regional Sport and Recreation Strategy and a Regional
Cycleway Strategy.
d) Agrees to engage with Sport Southland regarding partnership
opportunities for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail.
|
Excerpts from
Public Submissions on the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
91
|
Around
the Mountains Trail
Further
we support the construction and development of stage two of the Around the
Mountains Cycle Trail due to the long term benefits this asset will provide
the community. This project will encourage visitors to stay in the
northern southland area and spend money in the area; rather than just passing
through the area and not contributing to the economy of the area.
|
|
108
|
The
submitter provided a large number of comments on this topic. For the
full commentary see Submission No. 108 in the submissions booklet.
Enabling
active communities through the support of the Around the Mountains Cycle
Trail and the upgrading of playgrounds is also to be commended. It is,
however, noted that beyond the funding shown in the 2015/2016 budget, there
appears to be no provision for ongoing maintenance. We assume that in
future resources will be obtained/allocated to ensure the track, associated
facilities and our environment do not bear the consequences of a lack of
ongoing maintenance and continue to support active communities.
|
|
112
|
For
the full commentary see Submission No. 112 in the submissions booklet.
2.0 -
Support for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail.
Refers
to: Main Document, P17: Around the Mountains Cycle Trail.
Sport Southland supports the completion of the Around the
Mountains Cycle Trail. We believe this will be a valuable asset for the
community, providing excellent recreational opportunities.
We support the completion of this trail, that it showcase
the best that Southland has to offer but with minimal disruption to existing
recreational groups and activities in the affected area.
Collaborative
approach: Sport Southland has an in-house events team that is
experienced in co-ordinating and supporting recreational events.
Sport Southland could potentially partner with Venture Southland to develop
an event to promote usage of the trail.
5.1 -
Support for the development of a Regional Cycle Way Strategy
Refers
to: Community Development Activity Profile, P3: Joint projects to be
delivered over the short-term future.
Sport
Southland sees benefit in a Regional Cycle Way Strategy and support the
development of such a strategy across all three Territorial
Authorities.
We believe such a strategy would sit well within a wider Regional Sport and
Recreation Strategy (as per Recommendation 5.0 in this submission) that
identifies existing infrastructure, community interest including current
levels of participation and a wider framework of good practice.
|
|
112
|
Collaborative
approach: Strategic region-wide work focusing on sport and recreation
is an area Sport Southland is interested in working more closely with Council
on in the future. We would like to be considered as a key partner in
the development of any strategic, regional document relating to sport and
recreation and would be interested in playing a key role with this work.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 11: Curio Bay Wastewater Project
Record No: R/15/4/6298
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 Council is currently working with Department of Conservation and the
South Catlins Development and Environmental Charitable Trust to implement a
sustainable long term wastewater treatment solution for the Curio Bay
reserve. This work is part of a wider project to help improve the overall
visitor experience at the reserve.
2 Resource consent has been granted for the discharge of treated
sewage. This allows for the construction and operation of wastewater
treatment facilities for the reserve with the long term goal of also
connecting the wider community.
3 The treatment solution based on membrane technology would treat the
effluent to an extremely high standard which is in keeping with the unique
status of the area. The plant is identical to one operated by the
Department of Conservation at its Papatowai campsite further up the Catlins
coast.
Feedback
and Submissions
4 A total of 10 submitters
commented on this issue.
5 Submission numbers which refer
to issues for the Curio Bay Wastewater Project: 26, 43, 63, 64, 67, 87,
90, 101,104 and 106.
6 Submissions regarding this
issue are summarised in the table below. The full submissions can be found in
the submissions booklet:
Summary of feedback
7 The comments were all in
support of the project.
Options
8 Options for funding the balance of the costs were outlined in the draft
Long Term Plan
2015-2025.
9 The draft Long Term Plan
2015-2025 included a project in 2015/2016 for the Curio Bay sewerage project at
a cost of $970,000. This was included in the Community Services group in
the draft Long Term Plan as the wastewater scheme is being built on a
reserve.
· Option 1: Continue with the project as stated.
· Option 2: Amend/remove the project.
Discussion
and Analysis
10 The project will result in substantial
environmental benefits to the area and as there is a large amount of community
support for the project, the recommendation is to continue the work.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 11: Curio Bay Wastewater
Project” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Confirms the Curio Bay Wastewater Project proceeds as set out in
the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2015.
|
Excerpts
received from Public Submissions on the Curio Bay Wastewater Scheme
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
26
|
Establish the wastewater
system at Curio Bay expediently.
|
|
43
|
We are fully in favour of
the Curio Bay sewerage project. The sooner this can be got under
way the better. This is extremely important to the overall protection
of this area.
|
|
63
|
We support the funding of
the Curio Bay wastewater scheme and potable water and connection of
crib owners to both.
|
|
64
|
Wastewater for Curio Bay:
SCCT support the planned Wastewater scheme as it is vital not only to protect
the Environment but to allow us to proceed with our plans to build a
Heritage Centre and upgrade the campground facilities.
|
|
67
|
We support the proposal for
the Waihopai/Toetoes Ward to build a sewerage system at Curio Bay. This
is urgently needed. We hope Council will recognise the need for
residents to have the system available for them.
|
|
87
|
In this submission I also
wish to support the wastewater/sewage system that is planned for Curio Bay.
|
|
90
|
Catlins Coast Inc.
represents a number of community groups and individuals with strong personal,
economic and environmental concerns in the broader Catlins area.
Catlins Coast Inc. works to
maintain a strong level of communication between the North Catlins and the
South Catlins, we are very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute
to the consultation process in regards to the Southland District Council 10
Year Plan.
Catlins Coast Inc. Is
writing specifically in regards to the proposed sealing of the Curio Bay -
Haldane Road in Curio Bay and the proposed Curio Bay Sewage System.
Issue one - Curio Bay
Sewerage System-
The Catlins Coast Inc.
objective is to protect and promote the natural environment and resources of
the Catlins by working alongside and fostering co-operation between local
authorities, relevant government departments and community groups.
The Catlins are experiencing
a large influx of visitor both domestic and international and the issues
surrounding the lack of infrastructure to cope with this increase are very
apparent to both local residents and businesses in the area.
Curio Bay is a key
attraction in the Catlins, our group is increasingly contacted by tourist
marketing media groups looking to advertise the Catlins as the South’s
hidden gem.
The Catlins also has been
identified a 'must see' location to international visitors to the South
Island, but currently there is an immediate lack of infrastructure to support
the increasing numbers.
Approximately 100,000 people
are visiting Curio Bay each year.
This has place a large
amount of pressure on a infrastructure that currently supports only 30
dwellings in the area.
Catlins Coast Inc. members
have reported a increase in alarming amounts of human waste at key
attractions in the Catlins. With the recent approval of the Curio Bay
Heritage Centre, we are very pleased to know that the Curio Bay waste system
will provide a desperately needed solution to the challenges that the Catlins
environment faces as we look toward an inevitable increase of visitors number
to the site.
The unique and nationally
significant Yellow-eyed penguin population and other sea life are at dire
threat from the repeated exposure to untreated human waste. There is no
price that can be put on these precious populations and we urge the Council
to continue with the planned sewerage system.
|
|
101
|
The submitter provided a
large number of comments on this topic.
For the full commentary see Submission No. 101 in the submissions booklet.
It is likely that the sealing
of the Curio Bay-Haldane Road and upgrades in facilities at Curio Bay will
increase visitor numbers to the areas placing a strain on the
infrastructure. The Council has foreseen this and are installing a new
wastewater plant which is highly commended by Iwi and will benefit not only
the users but the outstanding environment, water quality and recreational
use. The wastewater plant should be funded appropriately and any
shortfall in costs funded by a loan (page 213).
|
|
104
|
I totally support the proposed
funding of the Curio Bay wastewater system.
|
|
106
|
The Southland Conservation
Board (the Board) is a statutory body appointed by the Minister of
Conservation and established by the Conservation Act 1987 and its functions
are set out in Section 6 of that Act, and in the National Parks Act.
The Board's area of jurisdiction is the Southland Region including the
Fiordland National Park and Stewart Island/Rakiura. Its function
include advocacy in regard to all conservation-related matters at any public
forum or in any statutory planning process.
It is proposed to establish
a wastewater treatment system for the disposal of sewerage for the Curio Bay
area. The proposed scheme will provide for a long term infrastructure
to meet the demands of the foreseeable future growth of the area.
The Southland Conservation
Board wishes to support this proposal in its entirety.
|
|
123
|
To Whom It May Concern
Letter supporting the Curio
Bay Sewerage scheme.
The Department of
Conservation supports the Curio Bay sewerage scheme.
Role of the Department of
Conservation
1. The
Department of Conservation manages all New Zealand's conservation land and
waters, including recreational opportunities in these areas. We manage
more than one-third of New Zealand's land including our 14 national parks, 44
marine reserves and six marine mammal sanctuaries. We want New Zealand
to be the greatest living space on Earth. This means ensuring New Zealanders
gain a wide range of benefits from healthy functioning ecosystems, recreation
opportunities, and through living our history.
2. DOC
works with a wide range of organisations and individuals to protect native
species and special places, and help New Zealanders get involved in
conservation.
3. DOC
has a leading role in conservation work that contributes to our prosperity,
including:
• managing
natural and historic heritage on roughly one third of New Zealand’s
land area, as well as marine environments.
• doing
hands-on work with species and ecosystems.
• managing
national parks, high country parks, forest parks, reserves, offshore islands,
and historic sites.
• building
and maintaining outdoor recreation facilities.
• working
with tourism operators and others running businesses on public conservation
areas.
• leading
conservation research and science.
• sharing
information and partnering with others including iwi, communities,
non-government organisations, businesses, conservation boards, and central
and local government.
• advocating
for the conservation of natural and historic heritage.
4. Our
vision is: New Zealand is the greatest living space on Earth
Kāore he wāhi i tua atu i a Aotearoa, hei wahi noho i te ao.
5. Our
outcome is: New Zealanders gain environmental, social and economic
benefits from healthy functioning ecosystems, recreation opportunities and
living our history.
Collaborative Partnership to
care for and enhance Curio Bay
6. In
2012 our organisation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the South Catlins Charitable Trust and the Southland District Council.
The purpose of this agreement was to coordinate and share the costs of
developing much needed infrastructure and amenities at Curio Bay.
7. DOC
values this collaborative approach and our contribution to the overall plan
is to provide public toilets (a part of the proposed Natural Heritage
Centre), appropriate car parking and walking tracks within the reserve.
8. This
is a significant commitment and investment by DOC in a challenging funding
environment and to date we have successfully obtained capital funding
approval in principle of approximately $850,000 which will allow detailed
design, consenting and tendering to proceed. It is hoped to construct
in early 2016 but this is dependent upon the Natural Heritage Centre and
wastewater treatment projects progressing.
Growing
appeal of Curio Bay
9.
As well as this significant project, DOC has worked
alongside the South Catlins Charitable Trust and local community for more
than 10 years on this project to develop a Natural Heritage
Centre. During this time, our staff have also looked after and
monitored wildlife and fauna.
10. The
Curio Bay area is a home to many geological and environmental attractions of
international significance, including the 170-180 million year old petrified
forest, the adjacent living forest (where walkways are currently being built
to provide enhanced recreational benefits), the camping ground and Porpoise
Bay beach. A Mätaitai reserve covers part of Porpoise Bay/Curio
Bay coastline. The Curio Bay Waikawa Harbour/Tuma Toka Mätaitai
Reserve was established in 2008, it is also a Marine Mammal Sanctuary.
11. A
number of wildlife species are resident or visit Curio Bay and are taonga
species for local Iwi. These include hectors dolphins (papakanua),
yellow eyed penguins (hōiho), little blue penguins (kororã),
seals (kekeno) and sea lions (whakahao).
Other
seasonal visitors to the area include the Southern Right Whale
(tohorã). There is no doubting the increasing appeal of Curio
Bay and subsequent growing numbers of visitors.
12. A
common threat to all of these species is increased interest in them and their
habitat and the need to provide the best visitor management and education as
possible. It is essential that the area can accommodate the needs of
these visitors in terms of the provision of adequate infrastructure or there
is a risk that there are negative impacts on the local environment.
Opportunity
for improved visitor management and education
13. This
proposed facility provides an opportunity to enhance the visitor’s
overall experience by improving their management and education.
14.
The Natural Heritage Centre will act as a ‘hub’ from
which DOC staff can operate from. Every summer we train and support
volunteer rangers who are based in the area for up to a month at a time.
We support this project because it creates a real opportunity to educate
visitors basically “on site” where wildlife are found.
15. The
Natural Heritage Centre will provide information and displays which will
educate visitors about the area and how to appropriately interact with
wildlife. The building will be accessible for everyone - even less
mobile people who cannot negotiate climbing the stairs to the forest
platform. There is an opportunity to tell the story of the area in such
a manner (with the use of interactive displays and interpretation) which will
appeal to people of all ages, including children.
Effects
on wildlife
16. It
is the opinion of DOC that local fauna will not be adversely effected by the
proposed building. The potential benefits certainly outweigh the change
to the landscape that this project will bring to Curio Bay. We believe
that appropriate planning and investigation has been undertaken by the Trust
and the design of a single
multi-purpose building with the public toilets attached will cause minimal
visual impact on the landscape.
17. However,
it is essential that noisy construction of any building occurs at times of
the year when penguins are not breeding or nesting especially in the early
stage. It is also highly recommended that there is further investigation
into extending the possible breeding/nesting area for the penguins by
creating improved habitat.
Location of the Heritage Centre
18. The
DOC support the proposed location of the facility and believe it should have
minimal disturbance to local wildlife. The reasons for this include:
• DOC
staff have had input into identifying an appropriate location
• The
proposed site is situated away from known yellow eyed penguin nests and
requires no disturbance or removal of vegetation currently known to be used
by them for nesting.
• The
proposed site does not impact on sea lions who visit the area - they prefer
to traverse the site at the other end of the reserve (near where the current
camp shop is).
• DOC
believe it is appropriate that the facility is in close proximity to our
proposed car park and that visitors to the facility utilise this amenity.
• Being
situated at the entry point to Curio Bay is also advantageous as it will help
to capture the majority of visitors who are unfamiliar with the area before
they visit the forest and interact with wildlife - it is ideally placed to
best manage visitors.
19. The area needs and deserves to be
looked after and DOC look forward to continuing to partner with the South
Catlins Charitable Trust and the local community to achieve this.
Statutory
Documents
20. I
consider the Curio Bay Sewerage scheme development proposal will meet the
purpose and principles in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) as
any potential adverse effects of the development will be minor, and the
proposed development provides for the matters of national importance detailed
in Sections 6(a) to (g) of the RMA.
21. I
also consider the proposed development to be consistent with the relevant
objectives and policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, the
Regional Policy Statement and proposed Regional Policy Statement for
Southland and the Southland District Plan.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 12: Manapouri Wastewater Disposal
Record No: R/15/4/6303
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
1 Wastewater projects are
district funded. Local estimates for the Manapouri Community Development
Area Subcommittee (CDA) in November included two high value projects discussed
at the local estimates meeting. The first of these projects is the planned
upgrade project associated with the application for a new resource consent for
the Manapouri wastewater scheme. The current resource consent expires in
September 2024. The current project is indicated to involve construction
of a pipeline between the oxidation ponds and the Council owned land at Kepler.
This is based on indications provided by Council in the past in relation to the
acquisition of the Kepler block and the need to base an initial budget estimate
on a potential option. The value of this project is approximately $1.55
million.
2 The second project has
been included in the project schedule for the first time as part of the draft
Long Term Plan 2015-2025. It is a continuation of work to desludge all of
Council’s oxidation ponds. The value of this project is around
$880,000.
3 At the local estimates
meeting, the Manapouri CDA expressed a preference for an alternative disposal
option. Council officers indicated that the current preferred option was
for disposal to the land at Kepler and that the project estimate had been drawn
up on this basis but that the CDA could seek to have the project description
amended through the Long Term Plan submissions process. In that way there would
be a Council decision to support the change.
4 Since the ward estimate
meeting in November, the timing of these projects has been amended. The
projects have been spread to better reflect the time required to complete these
projects. A final decision on whether the current identified option or an
alternative option is implemented will need to be made closer to the expiry of
the current resource consent in 2024. At that time Council will need to
identify and evaluate the range of reasonably practicable options before it
makes a final decision about the option to be pursued. As a result there is no
absolute need for Council to be specific at this stage. What is important is
that an allowance is made for renewal of the current consent and for
implementation of any new capital works that may be required at that time.
5 Currently, the following
projects are listed in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 -
see attachment.
Feedback
and Submissions
6 Two submitters commented on this issue: submitters 83 and 91.
7 A submission received from the Manapouri CDA Subcommittee has
expressed concern over future upgrades of the Manapouri Wastewater
Scheme. Concerns relate to the project itself and to its funding.
The CDA states that it has not been adequately consulted regarding this
issue. As a result, the CDA has opposed the Manapouri wastewater upgrade
outlined in the Long Term Plan.
8 A comment in support of funding the Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater
projects to improve treatment processes and prevent the discharge of
contaminants was also received.
9 The full submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
Options
10 Council could choose to:
· Option 1: Amend the draft Long Term Plan wording to make it
clear that a final decision on the option to be pursued will be made prior to
expiry of the current resource consent in 2024; or
· Option 2: Not provide further details in the Long Term Plan.
|
Option
1: Amend the Long Term Plan and supporting documents to reflect that
further details regarding this project will be made available as Council
progresses through the resource consent process
|
|
Advantages:
Given that Council has not
received consent for these projects, details listed in the draft
Long Term Plan at this stage are purely indicative. The information
contained in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 has been included to signal
that work is expected as a result of applying for a resource consent.
|
|
Disadvantages:
There are no significant
disadvantages to this option.
|
|
Option
2: Not amend the Long Term Plan
|
|
Advantages:
Since
projects have not received a resource consent, information contained in the
draft
Long Term Plan is indicative at this stage. As such, the wording
indicates the need for these projects to occur in future and shows the
corresponding budgeted amounts. While there is no particular advantage
to the current wording, it would not significantly influence the process of
identifying the options available and obtaining resource consent in future.
|
|
Disadvantages:
At this stage, Council does not have
sufficient detail to provide further information on these projects. It
is intended that further consultation would be undertaken regarding these
projects prior to applying for resource consent.
Community
stakeholders may have remaining concerns regarding the scope and funding of
the Manapori wastewater project. However, engagement with Council on
this issue is not limited to Long Term Plan consultation. Stakeholders
will have the opportunity to engage during future consultation on these
projects, as the options are scoped and a decision made about which option to
pursue.
|
Discussion
and Analysis
Upgrades
in relation to application for a new resource consent
11 The
current resource consent for the Manapouri Wastewater Scheme expires in
September 2024. The current discharge from the oxidation ponds is to Home
Creek which flows into the Waiau River close to Pearl Harbour. Given the
sensitive nature of the receiving environment, it is reasonable to assume that
the continued discharge would not be the favoured option amongst some
stakeholders. Although it is currently planned that the discharge is
pumped to the Kepler block, other options will be considered as part of the
development of the resource consent application.
Oxidation pond desludging
12 The proposal to desludge the
oxidation ponds is required to maintain the performance of the ponds. As
long as it is planned to retain the ponds, this project is required to ensure
operational functioning. Council is currently in the process of
desludging a number of other oxidation ponds throughout the District.
This project is a continuation of that work.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 12: Manapouri Wastewater
Disposal” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Amends
the current wording in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and supporting
documents to make it clear that further detail on the scope of the Manapouri
wastewater discharge project will be determined closer to the expiration of
the current resource consent for the Manapouri treatment site.
|
Excerpts
from public submissions on planned Manapouri Wastewater upgrades
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
83
|
Manapouri
Wastewater Project:
In
the 10 Year Plan, there is expenditure of $2,722,051 for
Manapouri.
Wastewater
Upgrade, between the years 2017 and 2025. There is no commentary as to
how this expense is to be funded, or the Project itself.
This
planned Project or Projects have not been discussed with the Manapouri
Community Development Area Subcommittee at all.
We therefore have no knowledge as to what is entailed.
When
Ian Evans was asked at a Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee
meeting, he said it was for the replacement for the consent which expires in
2024, and that it was considered that Manapouri Sewage would connect with the
Te Anau Sewage at the Kepler Block.
He
was advised that the people of Manapouri do NOT want to pump their sewage to
the Kepler Block, and that the wastewater could be discharged closer to
Manapouri. He said he could not comment on alternate proposals for
Manapouri wastewater as it forms part of the Te Anau consent application
presently under application.
When
asked to look into securing some land close to Manapouri, he said he would
not look into any alternatives for Manapouri until the consent for Te Anau
was finalised.
The
projected expenditure figures for Manapouri wastewater have changed quite
significantly from those presented three years ago in 2012.
It is
the view of Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee that the
projected expenditure of $2,977,617 is extremely excessive for an upgrade of
the Manapouri Wastewater System, and one the Manapouri Community Development
Area Subcommittee has no knowledge of. It is our contention that a project
with expenditure of this magnitude should have received full consultation
with the people of Manapouri before it was included in the 10 Year Plan.
The
Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee therefore can only be
against this Manapouri Wastewater Project as set out in the 10 Year Plan
2015-2025.
|
|
91
|
Mararoa/Waimea Ward
Real Journeys supports the proposed
financial contributions to Te Anau and Manapouri water supply and wastewater
projects to ensure there are not contaminants discharged into the waters of
Lake Te Anau and Lake Manapouri.
|
Attachments
a Manapouri
Wastewater Projects for 2015-2025 View
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 13: District and Local Issues and
Comments
Record No: R/15/4/6420
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Synopsis
District
1 A total of 15 submissions were
received relating to district issues and comments.
2 Submission numbers which
include district issues and comments are: 1, 5, 13, 25, 26, 38, 48, 58, 63, 64,
71, 91, 98, 101 and 114.
3 Submissions regarding district
issues are summarised in the table below. The full submissions can be
found in the submissions booklet.
Local
4 A total of 16 submissions were
received relating to local issues and comments.
5 Submission numbers which
include local issues and comments are: 1, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, 29, 40,
42, 55, 56, 58, 59 and 80.
6 Submissions
regarding this issue are summarised in the table below. The full
submissions can be found in the submissions booklet.
7 District
Comments
|
|
Topic
|
Council Officers’
Comment
|
|
1
|
Submitter suggests the demolition of the concrete toilet
outside 340 Colac Foreshore Road and the construction of a new
facility closer to the boat ramp.
|
At this stage there are no plans to upgrade or replace
this facility in light of a new toilet that will be provided at
Surfies Corner and the construction of new toilets at the Colac Bay
Playground in 2015/2016.
Further, the existing facility is partly located on
private property subject to a subdivision consent which also includes
provision of water supply to the toilet. Future replacement of this
facility will be considered once these issues are fully resolved.
|
|
5, 58
|
Roads and Footpaths
Submission requested to tar
seal roads that are badly affected by dust nuisance or pay half of the
cost of oil suppression for the properties that are badly affected by dust
nuisance.
Submission suggested that
Council move to providing footpaths on only one side of the street to reduce
ongoing maintenance costs.
|
Dust Suppression
Council is actively seeking
a viable solution for Road Dust suppression and is one of the few local
authorities still permitting oil treatment to suppress dust. It is
unknown how long this option will be available because of concerns held by
Environment Southland.
Currently, Council’s
Transport Department has the power of review during the permit application
process. If commercial transport operators are determined to be
generating the majority of dust Council can establish whether the operator is
willing to contribute to dust suppression.
Dust suppression
interventions cannot be undertaken without a permit from Council’s Area
Engineers. A permit is required because of safety considerations and
because oil based dust suppression requires the appropriate signage.
Safety considerations include risks arising from oil mixing with rain.
This can result in a slippery surface and can cause serious crashes. If
oil is applied without a permit from Council, the person who applied the oil
may be liable.
Location of Footpaths
Council’s Community
Boards make decisions regarding the location of footpaths and the
corresponding amenity and safety features. Determining amenity may be
part of a broader decision making framework including the look and feel of a
township.
A one sided footpath may
also have safety implications by creating more crossings in congested areas -
such as near schools.
|
|
5, 58
|
Funding Community Halls
Submitters suggest that rates should not be collected for
community halls that are no longer being used or are used infrequently.
Submissions state that the actual use of the halls should be looked at - not
the potential for use.
|
One submission specifically mentions Otahuti Hall, which
is not a Council owned hall.
However, for Council owned facilities the Asset Management
Plan states that any decisions to close under-utilised facilities, or those
where retention and maintenance costs make them unviable, will be driven by
the local community to make the relevant recommendations to Council.
Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee Comment
At this point in time the Community Development Area
Subcommittee is of the opinion that the community hall is a local asset that
should be maintained. This is reviewed periodically. The
Community Development Area Subcommittee is mindful that once an asset is
relinquished it is very difficult to replace, should the need arise.
|
|
25
|
Wheelie Bin Collection
Submitter suggests that to save cost yellow wheelie bins
are collected monthly.
|
The current service provides for the collection of rubbish
and recycling bins on alternative weeks, with the recent customer survey
showing a high level of satisfaction with the current level of service
provided. The frequency with which people need to put their bins out
for collection varies depending on a number of factors including the number
of people in a household, amount of recyclables they produce etc.
Given the high presentation rate every fortnight it is
unlikely that those with larger families who produce higher volumes of
recycling would not support monthly collections.
A reduction in the service to monthly collection would
still require the same number of collection trucks to service the district
and hence be unlikely to save significant costs.
|
|
26, 38, 63, 64, 101
|
Freedom Camping
Submitters expressed support for a bylaw to regulate
freedom camping in the Waikawa Domain because of loss of revenue to camping
grounds, rubbish left by campers and environmental impacts of this activity.
There was also a suggestion received to upgrade facilities
at Weir's Beach for freedom campers and to cease camping on DOC land above
Fortrose golf course on headland because it is dangerous and culturally
sensitive.
|
Council is aware of some concerns regarding freedom
camping in the Catlins area generally, and more specifically concerns with
regard to the use of the Waikawa Domain for freedom camping, particularly by
non-self-contained vehicles.
In March 2015, the Council's Policy Review Committee
discussed this issue in detail and resolved to request that Council officers
undertake further work on this issue with a view towards amending the Camping
Control Bylaw 2012.
Amendments may create further controls on freedom camping
in this locality. This work is being progressed by Council
officers and would proceed through the public consultation process in due
course.
The Policy Review Committee noted that it is important
that individual sites are not considered in isolation, as doing so can have
the effect of shifting a problem from one site to another. The Policy
Review Committee also commented that it did not wish to impose unnecessarily
onerous levels of control District-wide to address localised problems.
Council does not regulate freedom camping on conservation
land and the concerns about the land near Fortrose Golf Course should be
directed to DOC.
|
|
48
|
Relocation of Wyndham Recycling Facility
Submission suggests that recycling facility for Wyndham be
moved outside of the dump facility to encourage its use and limit illegal
dumping.
|
Currently, recycling facilities are located within the
Wyndale Transfer Station where they are controlled by the site operator
during opening hours and are consistent with recycling facilities at the
other six transfer stations across the district.
Installation of additional recycling containers such as
those at Te Anau, Lumsden and Riverton transfer stations would be required to
be funded by the local community as was the case with the others.
Edendale-Wyndham Community Board
comment
The practicality and feasibility of this locally funded
option will be investigated further. The anticipated costs involved are
approximately $40K and resource consent must also be obtained. Note
that this may not prevent illegal dumping, particularly of greenwaste, however
it is understood that many people in the surrounding rural area do not have
roadside recycling available to them, and having an externally accessible bin
system would be beneficial to those ratepayers.
|
|
91
|
Milford Community Trust
The submitter expresses
concern that the Milford Community Trust has struggled to obtain funding for
financial support, planning and development of the Milford Sound Emergency
Response Team. The submitter requests that Council continue to fund the
Milford Community Trust and in particular the Milford Sound Emergency
Response Team.
The submitter also has
concerns regarding the overheads of the Milford Community Trust and contends
that Council should fund the Trust on an ongoing basis to avoid costs falling
to tourism operators.
|
The Milford Community
Trust’s current sole source of income is from concessionaires' fees,
and the Trust is conscious of seeking to keep these fees at reasonable
levels.
Insofar as the Milford
Sound Emergency Response Team (MERT) is concerned, the Trust supports this
organisation financially, and when Milford Community Trust funds are not
available the Trust applies for grant monies through various external funding
agencies.
For years 2015-2018 the
Trust has allocated $37,000 per year to assist towards the operations of
MERT. MERT is managed through the Southern Rural Fire Authority.
The Trust is investigating
options and opportunities for future funding. This investigation
is to be carried out in the immediate future and one option for consideration
would be partial or total funding of the Milford Community Trust.
|
|
98
|
Tuatapere Water Supply Upgrade
The submitter requests that funding for Tuatapere water
supply upgrade be funded by Meridian Energy.
|
Meridian Energy contributed to work in relation to the
Tuatapere water supply facility in 2011. Since all of the community
uses the water system it is appropriate for the entire community to
contribute to any capital work relating to the system.
|
|
101
|
Engagement with Māori
The submitter supports Council’s efforts to foster
Māori capacity through regular engagement, maintaining existing
protocols, commitment to funding and the continued acknowledgement of
Māori cultural landscape through the commitment to display Māori
taonga at Council offices.
The submitter also supports the environmental health goals
of Council.
|
The Council considers that engagement with Māori and
with Ngāi Tahu as the tangata whenua for Murihiku is extremely important
for the future of the District and in terms of giving effect to the
partnership relationship.
|
|
71, 91 and 101
|
Te Anau Sewerage
One submitter opposes the
scheme and two are in support but want to ensure that no contaminants are
discharged into the lakes.
|
Consent has been granted
for discharge of the treated wastewater from Te Anau to land at Kepler farm
north of the airport runway. The decision is currently the subject of an
appeal, the outcome of which will not be known for some time.
As part of the consent
application Council prepared an assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)
which demonstrated that effects to surface and groundwater were less than
minor. This document formed a key component of the application and the
Commissioner’s decision to grant the consent.
|
|
98
|
Environmental Issues:
The protection of soils for food growing, biodiversity
protection and water values are of paramount importance. Urban sprawl,
intensive farming, upper catchment and riparian protection require
co-operative decision-making with Department of Conservation and Environment
Southland.
|
The Council has considered this issue closely as part of
the review of its
District Plan, and has sought to encourage consolidation of future urban
development around existing settlements to minimise loss of productive land,
while noting that there is reasonably strong ongoing demand for
rural-residential lifestyle blocks.
The Council works closely with Environment Southland and
the Department of Conservation around issues associated with the management
of indigenous biodiversity and has liaised with both agencies in the
formulation of District Plan content relating to biodiversity.
|
|
98
|
Supports Dark Sky Light Up, which can be introduced as
part of any maintenance plan.
|
Council considers lighting issues closely when either
replacing existing street lights or considering lighting proposals for new
developments. The Council seeks to promote and encourage energy -
efficient lighting which is designed and cowled to minimise loss of amenity
to neighbouring properties and to maintain, as much as is practicable while
still fulfilling safety functions, dark sky views. However, at
this stage, the Southland District Council has not gone as far as some other
councils, such as MacKenzie District Council, in advancing this
concept.
|
|
98
|
Supports the use of local funding to retrofit houses and
other buildings for energy efficiency, conservation and healthy outcomes is
urgently required.
|
The Council concurs with the submitter on the value of
this in principle, and has supported this financially through its ongoing
support for the Southland Warm Homes Charitable Trust which provides such
retrofit programmes.
|
|
98
|
Government decisions regarding regional futures without
local, meaningful consultation continues to impede progress in environmental
protection. Intensive dairying loss of soil and water values on the
plains and increasingly in hill country areas put pressure on any remaining
wetlands, bush and forest where native birds and other creatures are fully
protected but not their habitats.
The Council should work with Environment Southland and the
Department of Conservation to help and encourage landowners to continue to
protect our biodiversity.
|
Council already works with Environment Southland and DOC
and other agencies to encourage protection of indigenous biodiversity and has
co-funded the Biodiversity Southland co-ordinator with Environment Southland
and Landcare for many years, whose role is to work with landowners to
encourage protection of biodiversity on private land. With regard to
the level of landscape protection which is appropriate to Southland District,
the Council undertook consultation on this matter as part for the District Plan
review. While the Southland District Plan does not contain as high a
level of landscape protection as some other district plans
(eg Queenstown Lakes District), it reflects the level of landscape protection
sought through consultation on this issue via the District Plan
process.
|
|
114
|
Similarly, there is mention
about the need to improve energy supply for Stewart Island. Is this an
opportunity to look at ‘renewable’ energy self-sufficiency
options for the Island? The price of renewable energy supply options
has been coming down recently; in the 10 year time frame it could be a
very competitive option? What is the status of the Venture Southland
Renewable Energy Project?
|
A study is currently being carried out at three sites on
Stewart Island to measure the potential for alternative energy sources to
generate electricity. The three sites are being used to monitor solar,
wind and hydro potential. Analysis of the data collected over a period of
time will inform decision making about future options.
|
|
|
|
|
Local Comments
|
|
Topic
|
Council Officers’ Comment
|
|
1
|
Water Assets
The list of Water Assets does
not include the Colac Bay Boat Ramp.
|
This boat ramp has never been
identified as a Council asset and has not been included on that basis.
Follow up enquires will be made with Environment Southland to try and
ascertain historical ownership and responsibilities.
|
|
1
|
Otautau Camping Ground
Submitter states that upgrades
for the Otautau Camping Ground should be removed on the basis that should not
be in the business of running camping grounds.
|
Community Board will consider
this submission when making the final decision on whether to proceed with the
project or not.
|
|
12,
15, 16, 17, 56,
80
|
Riverton
Grandstand
The
Riverton/Aparima Community Board request the following change to the Parks
and Reserves Schedule of Projects for the Riverton/Aparima Community Board
2015/2016. $100,000 labelled as Grandstand Work be renamed to a Replacement
Grandstand Facility.
Submissions
of support have been received from:
· The Southland and Otago Axemens Club;
· Riveria Touring Car Club;
· Riverton Athletics Club;
· Aparima College; and
· Riverton Rugby Club.
|
Council
officers support the recommended change in wording which better reflects the
scope of this project.
|
|
22,40, 42, 59
|
Community Facilities in
Edendale and Wyndham
One submission suggests putting money into Wyndham hall instead of
Edendale. The submitter states that there is no need for a hall in both
townships.
Several submitters suggest the
construction of a walkway or cycleway between Edendale and Wyndham to enable
better use of the joint facilities and increase road safety. Submitters
also suggest an annual event to promote such a trail.
Wyndham
school seeks to have the footpath outside the school sealed because of the
high volume of use and safety concerns.
Edendale Primary School supports
the development of a large community facility on the recreation grounds
stating that its proximity to the school would mean that it would be well
used.
|
The Edendale facility proposal
is not to construct another hall, rather what is proposed is a smaller multi
use community centre facility. The community owned building in these
two townships with a large auditorium will be the Wyndham Town Hall.
Edendale Primary School support for a community facility is noted.
Edendale-Wyndham Community Board comments.
No money is being
invested into the Edendale Hall, which has been officially closed. The
proposal for a shared development at the Edendale Recreation reserve (upgrade
to an existing building) is currently supported by grant funding, which
cannot be used for alternatives such as the Wyndham Hall.
This idea is proposed
and included in the "Southern Southland Community Plan"
documentation. The Community Board supports the idea and has requested
that investigation into likely location options, costing etc be
developed. The main concern is funding. This project is likely to
be included in the next revision of the Long Term plan, once likely costs are
known.
The Community Board acknowledges that it would be
preferable to have a sealed path rather than gravel, in this high use area of
town. Affordability of maintaining all existing pathways is a great
concern for the Board, and having a full footpath condition rating report
will help decisions regarding the prioritisation of footpath renewal works
between the two towns.
Thank you for noting
your support of this proposed project.
Thank you for noting
your support of this existing rate and the success of its utilisation at the
pool.
|
|
28
|
Renaming Te Anau and
Manapouri
The submitter suggests renaming Te Anau and Manapouri to Lake Te Anau
and Lake Manapouri promote the communities and attract visitors.
|
There is a formal protocol to go through
to change the name of a town. Council officers would need to investigate and
report back if Council wanted to pursue this proposal.
|
|
29
|
Request for support: Community Business Group
Te Anau Support Groups request
assistance in supporting local businesses.
|
Groups are welcome to attend Community
Board meetings and present ideas in the Public Forum section of the
meeting. Prior notice has to be given to the secretary. The
relevant Community Development Officer from Venture Southland will be present
too and so hear the discussion. That creates an opportunity for the
Board to agree on some action or actions and request officers undertake work
or studies in response to the request. The proviso is that the request
is in line with the Board’s responsibilities and delegations.
|
|
27
|
Submitter states that airport needs
funding and marketing. Wants airport to be a business and tourist hub.
|
Whilst the advantages of marketing the
airport available land options appear obvious the roles and responsibilities
and objectives of this are not defined. Recent work on the development
of a strategic plan for the airport has begun to identify opportunities but
this work is not at a point where the costs and benefits of expenses such as
marketing can be identified. The finances of the airport operation are
tightly controlled and marketing of the current facilities is carried out
within those budgets.
The Te Anau Community Board has the
ability to consider proposals for marketing expenditure as the year
progresses as and when the costs and the benefits are understood.
Venture Southland comment
Destination Fiordland promote the airport in its visitor
guide and the website, and if the airport has any news, sends it out.
|
|
55
|
Public toilet: Dipton
The submitter has made a request
for a public toilet in Dipton. The submitter queries local spending on
other services and facilities.
|
The draft Long Term Plan
2015-2025 proposes a new public toilet in Dipton in 2015/2016.
Other proposed spending on the
Dipton hall is for projects to maintain the structure and integrity of the
building asset.
|
|
58
|
Community facilities:
Ohai
The submitter suggests the
closure, sale or demolition of community housing in Ohai.
The submitter opposes recladding
the Ohai Hall in 2022/23 because other facilities could be used in place of
the hall.
|
All community housing units in
Ohai are currently tenanted.
Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee Comment
There is a demand for this
facility as is confirmed by the occupancy rate. The situation
is monitored on a regular basis.
Although the Ohai Hall
recladding has been budgeted, closer to the time when this is due to occur
the Ohai Community Development Subcommittee will decide if project worth
undertaking or not after considering use of the building versus cost to
proceed. The decision-making process at that time may include whether retention
of the facility is beneficial or not.
|
Additional
Comments
8 The tables above do not
include all comments made about district and local issues, only those which
require actions, decisions or comments from Council.
9 All other comments raised in
submissions relating to local and district issues have been noted.
Council
Officers’ Submissions:
|
Area/ topic
|
Amendment required
|
|
Tokanui
stormwater renewals and repairs
|
Renewal of a
section of stormwater main culverts is required in the next three to five
years. The line currently piped under the fire station will require
replacement and will need a new alignment and access chamber which will not
go under a building. The estimated cost of this project is
approximately $48,000. It is proposed that this is funded 50% from
general reserves (predominantly accumulated from former Stormwater Monitoring
fees) and 50% from a loan funded over 15 years. This amendment would
require changes in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan.
|
|
Winton - Heavy
Traffic Bypass
|
10 It is requested that the Winton Heavy
Traffic Bypass feasibility study project is removed from the draft Long Term
Plan 2015-2025. This proposal was supported by the Community Board at
its meeting on 2 February 2015.
|
|
Woodlands
Community Development Area Subcommittee - gravel footpath and walking track
|
It is requested
by the Woodlands Community Development Area Subcommittee that the gravel
footpath Woodlands South Road Project scheduled in 2015/2016 is removed and
funding for this is placed in reserve. It is also requested that
funding for a walking track project is added in 2016/2017.
The estimated cost of this project is between $75,000 and $90,000.
However, this project may qualify for partial community funding.
The project is supported by the Woodlands Community Development Area
Subcommittee.
It is requested that a project for $75,000 is included in the budget with
$35,000 funded from Woodlands general reserves and the remainder funded from
grant income.
|
|
Addition of Two
Wastewater Projects in Riverton
|
The addition of two additional
wastewater related projects within Riverton - due to health and safety
requirements.
As outlined below:
1. Riverton
WWPS RPZ Project - $50K year to complete 2015/2016.
2. Riverton WWMH Dropper Renewals Project
$80K year to complete 2015/2016.
|
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 13: District and Local Issues and
Comments ” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Agrees
to refer submission 1 on the Otautau Camping Ground to the Otautau Community
Board.
d) Agrees
to an amendment to the draft Long Term Plan and associated budgets and
documents to replace the “Grandstand Work” project with the
specified “Replacement Grandstand Facility” project.
e) Agrees
to an amendment to the draft Long Term Plan and associated budgets and
documents to add the specified Tokanui renewal stormwater projects.
f) Agrees
to an amendment to the draft Long Term Plan and associated budgets and
documents to remove the Winton Heavy Traffic Bypass feasibility study.
g) Agrees
to an amendment to the draft Long Term Plan and associated budgets and
documents to remove the Woodlands South Road project and add the specified
walking track project.
h) Requests
Council Officers to investigate the protocol of changing the name of a town
and report back if Council is interested in pursuing a possible name change.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 14: Operational Matters
Record No: R/15/4/6301
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☐
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information
Synopsis
1 This report includes
submissions where submitters have made requests relating to specific
operational matters which will not impact on proposed levels of service.
The relevant Council business units will review the submissions received and
consider steps that can be taken in response.
2 A total of seven submissions
were received relating to operational matters.
3 Submission numbers which
relate to operational matters are: 1, 34, 59, 66, 73, 119 and 125.
4 Submissions
regarding operational issues are summarised in the table below. The full
submissions can be found in the submissions booklet:
|
Submission numbers
|
Issue raised
|
Council Officer’s
Comment
|
|
34
|
Workmanship, causeway to main
bridge to Riverton
|
The point is noted regarding the
causeway to the main bridge in Riverton. However, as this is a State Highway
Council is not the Road Controlling Authority and has no jurisdiction.
|
|
59
|
Pedestrian crossing request in
Edendale
Request 50 and 70 km signs
in Edendale
|
1. The
submitter’s point is noted and will be investigated and assessed in
line with national guidelines for establishing pedestrian crossings when
State Highway 1 is realigned.
2. A
speed limit review was completed in May 2014 in line with the Setting of
Speed Limit Rules 2003. This took account of the new development along
this road as well as the new subdivision. The outcome of this review
was that no change is warranted at this point in time. This section
will continue to be monitored as development occurs.
|
|
1
|
Requests for resource management
legal work to be put out to tender. Suggests there is a conflict of
interest with legal representation being provided to Southland District
Council and Environment Southland by Barry Slowley.
|
The Council has an existing
long-standing arrangement for resource management legal services with Barry
Slowley, who has provided a high quality and cost effective legal service for
Council over many years and who hence holds considerable organisational
knowledge and broader knowledge of Southland .
This has delivered significant
benefits to the organisation and the ratepayer as compared to some other
legal adviser who may need to be briefed in considerably more detail in order
to fully understand the District context to the extent of Mr Slowley, with
associated time and costs involved in such upskilling. Council does not
exclusively use Mr Slowley for all its legal advice and has sometimes used
other legal advisers who may hold specialist knowledge in areas such as
commercial law and employment law.
Council also benchmarks Mr
Slowley's charge-out rate against other similarly qualified and experienced
legal consultants and is confident this represents good value to the
ratepayer. With regard to the concern of the submitter that
Mr Slowley has a conflict of interest by acting for both Southland
District Council and Environment Southland, the Southland District Council is
aware of this, and has actively sought to manage this arrangement to avoid
any real or perceived conflicts over the years. Mr Slowley himself
has also been proactive in flagging to Council any situations where he is
unable to act for Southland District Council due to conflicts with his
advisory role to Environment Southland or with any other parties who are in
his client base.
|
|
66
|
Resource Management legal representation
Council
should make the provision of Resource Management legal services to it
contestable and subject to a written contract and performance measures and
protections from conflict of interest. The current arrangement,
where the same sole practitioner does all RMA legal work for both
Southland District Council and Environment Southland, (including without any
contract for services, performance measures, monitoring or conflict of
interest policy) should not continue.
|
The
Council has an existing arrangement with Barry Slowley and is satisfied that
this arrangement provides a robust and costs effective service, and that
appropriate arrangements are in place to deal with any conflict of interest
issues as raised by the submitter. The Council hence has no immediate
intention to revisit this arrangement, although it does have an alternative
arrangement with another resource management legal practitioner to provide
Resource Management Act 1991 legal advice, should Mr Slowley have a conflict
of interest in any given situation.
|
|
73
|
Roading - Suggestion that Mersey Street in Fortrose be
sealed please.
|
At present there is no funding
available for seal extensions on low volume roads. Subsequently there is no programme for the sealing of
unsealed roads. An actual traffic count was done in June 2014 which had
an average daily count for the week of 36 vehicles per day. The average
annual daily traffic (AADT) is set at 40 vehicles per day (vpd) as part of
determining the use of the road which in term is used to establish levels of
service and prioritising maintenance requirements. The current focus is
on maintaining the existing roading asset base particularly with a reduction
in the funding assistance rate from NZTA in coming years.
|
|
119
|
Grade gravel roads at
Frasers Beach, Manapouri
|
Gravel roads are highly dynamic
in nature and their condition can rapidly change depending on use and weather
conditions. Gravel being pushed to the side is a common occurrence on
gravel roads and is particularly common in wheel lanes. This road
has a 30 km/hr speed limit and will have new signage installed to reflect
this. Lower speeds should assist with slowing degradation.
The new signage will be installed
to reflect the 30 km/hr speed limit in May 2015.
At present the widening of
bridges as standalone project cannot be economically justified however
Council will investigate the option of carrying out the most cost effective
safety interventions based on priorities and funding.
|
|
125
|
Seal
Roslyn Road
|
At present
there is no funding available for seal extensions on low volume roads.
The sealed section of Roslyn Road has an average annual daily traffic
(AADT) of 120 vehicles per day, and the unsealed road has an AADT of 80
vpd. The last count on the sealed section was done at the end of
2012 and 2009 on the unsealed section. The AADT is one of the
factors used to establish levels of service and prioritising maintenance
requirements.
There are
approximately 90 km of unsealed road in the district with an AADT above
90. It is very difficult for Council to obtain NZTA funding for
seal extensions due to funding criteria requirements. The current focus
is on maintaining the existing roading asset base, particularly with the
continued reduction in funding contribution from NZTA.
|
|
1 Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 14: Operational Matters” dated 12
May 2015.
|
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
34
|
Hold the contractors accountable
for the shocking workmanship. They should not be paid. Why
is there so many failures in their pothole filling and resealing? Who
checks the work? "Don't pay until work is up to Code".
Why when there is a roading
problem pointed out, namely the causeway to main bridge to Riverton, I've
pointed this out and now the delay in Opus not acting on this is going to
cost mega dollars to fix when if they last asphalted this it would have fixed
the problem and stopped water from penetrating the base. Listen to what
people have to say and open your eyes and use your common sense.
|
|
59
|
Should State Highway 1 be
realigned we would love to have a pedestrian crossing placed from the school
to the recreational grounds. We think a good place would be near the
cenotaph as it is away from the school's main entrance and way from the
pool's entrance.
To make it safer for the
children of Edendale we would propose that the current 50 and 70 km
signs that are positioned on the way to Wyndham (as you exit Edendale)
be reviewed and changed. We would like to see the 50 km sign
shifted to the 70 km sign and then the 70 km sign pushed out from
there into somewhere new. There are large logging trucks that come into
Edendale from Wyndham, carrying substantial loads and their speeds are still
to high by the time they are in the 50 km zone. Further, with the
new subdivision housing is now were there once was paddock.
We support the Bookbus and love
that it has included the school in as part of its regular rotations. We
would love to see this continue.
|
|
119
|
Grading of gravel roads needs
close inspection as Frasers Beach Road in Manapouri has had a very poor
standard of grading - the gravel is being pushed to the side leaving bare
patches on the road.
The one-way bridges on the
Blackmount Road ideally should be widened but clearing of obstructive
vegetation would go somewhere to improving safety.
|
|
125
|
To the Southland District
Council from the Roslyn Road residents:
Again it is the time to put in a submission to have our road sealed.
Over the last eight years we have seen changes on the road - more homes
built, children born and one or two of our elder residents shifting or
passing away. Time goes on. The road changes too - made wider,
graded more often, trials with dust suppression. It still remains a pot
holed, dusty, muddy road. Oil has been used by some of the
residents but oil is a pollutant. In some areas of New Zealand there
are bylaws to prevent oiling of roads. Recently a by-election was held
in Northland which highlighted the plight of the regions. Perhaps now
there is an opportunity to ask the government to put more funds into
Southland roads. Southland is an exporting province and needs a good
road infrastructure to aid getting its produce to markets. Dust is a
health hazard. Although it is a nuisance to have dirty cars, dust in
the air and on our roofs and so into our water is not good for our
health. Please seal our road - Roslyn Road.
|
|
66
|
Submission asks:
· Council should make the provision of resource management
legal services to it contestable and subject to a written contract and
performance measures and protections from conflict of interest.
The current arrangement, where the same sole practitioner does all
Resource Management Act legal work for both Southland District Council and
Environment Southland, (including without any contract for services,
performance measures, monitoring or conflict of interest policy) should not
continue.
|
|
|
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Appendix 15: Performance Measures
Record No: R/15/4/6295
Author: Susan Cuthbert, Strategy and Policy Manager
Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Issue
Background
1 The Council’s
performance management framework includes a number of components. It shows
how each of Council’s activities contribute to achieving Council’s
outcomes (through its aim and rationale), the levels of service it will provide
and then how it will monitor performance (through Key Performance Indicators
(KPI) and associated targets for each activity).
2 The performance management
framework shows how each group of activities contributes to the community
outcomes, what levels of service will be provided, how performance will be
measured, KPI and what the Council’s targets are. It also shows
where the data for measuring the KPI will be obtained from.
Consultation
3 Council released the
performance management framework was adopted on 18 March as a supporting
document for the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
Options
4 Option 1: Confirm the
performance management framework adopted by Council on 18 March 2015.
5 Option 2: Amend the
performance management framework as per received submission. Considerations
when deciding on the proposed option.
Feedback
and Submissions
6 One submitter commented on
Council’s performance management framework.
7 Submission numbers which refer
to performance measures are: 1.
8 The submission regarding this
issue is summarised in the table below. The full submission can be found
in the submissions booklet:
Summary of
Feedback
9 The submitter wanted more
detail around responsiveness for the Resource Management level of service
“responsiveness”.
10 The submitter asks that all ratepayers
complete the survey that measures the performance of the Representation and
Advocacy activity.
Discussion
and Analysis
11 The level of service for the Resource
Management activity is set at “Responsiveness”. All public
complaints about effects on the environment are investigated and reported on,
in a timely and professional manner. The Level of Service description is
then linked to the Key Performance Indicator which sets out that
“timely and professional” means “the percentage of complaints
where investigation has commenced within five working days”.
This is an objective measure and therefore Council officers recommend no amendment.
12 The three yearly resident survey is
conducted by an independent research company. The method of
collection was via a telephone survey. In addition, this survey used a
stratified sampling (ie ‘quota’) design. This means that a
representative sample of genders and ages was achieved in each ward.
Residents and ratepayers were contacted to complete the survey so it was not
just ratepayers who provided a response. Council officers recommend no
amendment.
Legal and Statutory Considerations
13 Council is required to include a
statement of the intended levels of service within its Long Term Plan that
specify the performance measures that the local authority considers will enable
the public to assess the level of service for major aspects of groups of
activities.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Appendix 15: Performance Measures” dated
12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Confirms the performance management framework that was adopted by
Council on 18 March 2015 with no further amendments.
|
Excerpts from
Public Submissions received on Performance Measures
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
1
|
The second Level of Service
"Responsiveness", under Resource Management is too vague.
"Appropriate" and "timely" are not defined and are
therefore incapable of being measured. Because responsiveness is so
crucial to the RM function, the process needs to be broken down into several
measurable components and measured by independent professional
reviewers. User impressions should be one component, but only as a
check on the other results, not as a substitute for them.
Under performance measure for
"Representation and Advocacy”, all ratepayers, not just residents,
should be invited to complete the survey.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Development and Financial Contributions Policy
Record No: R/15/4/7220
Author: Tamara
Dytor, Policy Analyst
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 This
report presents feedback received during consultation on the draft Development
and Financial Contributions Policy. It also requests that Council adopt
the draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy.
Executive
Summary
2 This
report seeks guidance from Council on the Development and Financial
Contributions Policy. The policy covers both development contributions
and financial contributions and puts the development contributions only into
remission until there is sufficient evidence of population growth.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Development and Financial Contributions
Policy” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Adopts
the Development and Financial Contributions Policy.
|
Content
Background
3 The
Development and Financial Contributions Policy has been reviewed to propose a
new direction around the use of development contributions and to comply with
the changes required by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act (No. 3)
2014.
4 Financial
contributions are established under the Resource Management Act 1991 to
mitigate the environmental effects of development. Although financial
contributions are covered by this policy, they are set through the Southland
District Plan. The proposal is to continue to collect them.
Development contributions are established under the Local Government Act
2002 and allow councils to apportion the costs associated with additional
demand to those creating the demand. In the proposed policy, these are
put into remission due to low population growth in the Southland District.
Issues
5 During
consultation, it was highlighted that the proposed Development and Financial Contributions
Policy may frustrate some developers who have already paid development
contributions. However, it is suggested that the proposed policy is more
likely to encourage development in the Southland District given the current
economic outlook which will result in benefits for the broader community.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
6 The
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 3) contained a number of changes
to the Development Contributions provisions in the principal Act.
From 8 September 2014, a requirement was introduced for councils to have:
• A
schedule which lists the assets for which development contributions are
intended to be used or already have been used, the estimated capital of each
asset and the proportion of the capital cost the territory authority proposes
to recover from development contributions and from other sources; and
• A
reconsideration process which sets out how the request can be lodged with the
territorial authority and the steps that it will apply when reconsidering the
requirement to make a development contribution.
Council’s
proposed policy meets both of these requirements.
Community Views
7 Five
submissions commented on the proposed Development and Financial Contributions
Policy. Three submitters supported the proposed Development and Financial
Contributions Policy (62, 63, 66) and one opposed the draft policy (89).
One submitter (18) stated that the policy was not easy to understand.
8 Submitters
supporting the policy did not provide further comment, however, the submission
which opposed the draft policy expressed that developers should incur the cost
of additional demand.
Costs and Funding
9 The
Development and Financial Contributions Policy places development contributions
into remission until it is assessed that the level of population growth
requires these to be levied again. This means that if the policy is
adopted, developers will not be required to pay a development contribution at
this stage.
10 Placing
development contributions into remission will shift costs from developers to
existing ratepayers. However, Council has taken an approach which
encourages development in the Southland District, recognising that this will
benefit the community as a whole.
Policy Implications
11 This
Development and Financial Contributions Policy is required to be reviewed every
six years.
Analysis
Options Considered
12 Council
could choose to:
· Option
1: Approve the Development and Financial Contributions Policy, with
amendments as required; or
· Option
2: Not approve the Development and Financial Contributions Policy.
Assessment of Significance
13 The
Development and Financial Contributions Policy has potential impacts on
development activity as well as economic and population growth. However,
it impacts on a small number of residents and ratepayers and does not involve a
significant amount of money.
It is therefore determined that the Development and Financial Contributions
Policy is not a significant policy.
Recommended Option
14 There
was no major opposition to the policy as it is currently drafted and therefore
it is recommended that Council adopt the Development and Financial
Contributions Policy. A final version of the Development and
Financial Contributions Policy is attached.
Next Steps
15 If
Council adopts the Development and Financial Contributions Policy, changes will
need to be made at an operational level. Developers will no longer be
invoiced for development contributions until Council decides to change the
policy.
Attachments
a Excerpts
from public submissions received on draft Development and Financial
Contributions Policy View
b Development
and Financial Contributions Policy View
Excerpts from public submissions on the
Draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
18
|
I
didn't really understand this section of your document. Not clear to
me.
|
|
62
|
I
accept that approach (Development Contributions Policy).
|
|
63
|
Agree.
|
|
66
|
I
support the proposal (Draft Development Contributions Policy).
|
|
89
|
The
Council needs to charge developers the true costs for developments.
|
SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
POLICY ON DEVELOPMENT AND
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2015-2025
This policy applies to:
DOCUMENT
CONTROL
|
Policy owner:
Finance
|
TRIM reference number:
R/14/11/17513
|
Effective date:
«type
date»
|
|
Approved by:
«type
date»
|
Date approved:
«type
date»
|
Next review date:
«type
date»
|
|
|
Operational policy
|
Council policy
|
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. 1
2. POLICY DETAILS. 3
4. METHODOLOGY. 17
5. SCHEDULES. 22
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 25
7. REVISION RECORD. 25
APPENDIX 1
- DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS. 26
APPENDIX 2
- DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION CATCHMENTS. 29
APPENDIX 3
- ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS. 30
APPENDIX 4
- SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION PROVISIONS. 31
APPENDIX 5
- CALCULATING UNITS OF DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 32
POLICY ON DEVELOPMENT
AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS - 2015-2025
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
To
provide predictability and certainty about the sources and levels of funding by
enabling Council to recover development contributions from those persons
undertaking development, a fair, equitable, and proportionate share of the
total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long
term and to recover financial contributions to deal with the adverse effects of
new development in the Southland District.
1.2 Statutory
context
1.2.1 Council is required by Section
102(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), to have a policy on
development contributions or financial contributions.
1.2.2 Council has chosen to use both
development contributions and financial contributions to recover the total cost
of capital expenditure necessary to service new development and to deal with
its effects.
1.2.3 Financial contribution
provisions for recovering the growth related costs of roading and reserves are
detailed in Section 2.14 of the Proposed District Plan.
1.2.4 This policy deals with
development contributions for water supply, sewerage and community
infrastructure.
1.2.5 Council, in addition to determining
matters of content in this policy, has determined:
(a) that
the decision to adopt the Southland District Policy on Development and
Financial Contributions 2015 - 2025 is a significant decision;
(b) that
it believes it has met the decision-making and consultation requirements of the
Act to the extent required.
1.3 Approach
to growth and development
1.3.1 The population of
Southland District grew by only 900 persons (3.1%) in the 12 years between 2001
and 2013. In spite of this, the total number of dwellings increased by
just over 1,000 (9.4%) and the number of rating units increased in the same period,
indicating that there is limited development taking place over the long
term. Development is known to be occurring in particular parts of the
District and not generally across the District.
1.3.2 In
making this policy, Council has considered the matters under Section 101(3) of
the Act. Section 101(3)(b) of the Act states that the funding needs to
meet expenditure requirements must be met from sources that the local authority
determines to be appropriate, following a consideration of the overall
impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.
1.3.3 Although it
does not wish to burden current households and businesses by making them fund
additional capacity in capital assets that will mainly benefit new development,
it is aware that development contributions may discourage new development.
1.3.4 In the wider community interest, Council may from
time to time resolve to suspend the requirement for the payment of development
contributions under this policy by putting the policy into remission. In
doing so it shall specify an appropriate alternative source of funding for the
share of the total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service any limited
growth known to be occurring.
1.4 Remission
of policy and background
1.4.1 This
Southland District Policy on Development and Financial Contributions 2015
– 2025 policy is currently in remission and development contributions
will not be required under it. The financial contributions provisions in the
Southland District Plan are not in remission and continue to apply to
development in the Southland District.
1.4.2 In
view of the limited growth of the Southland District between 2001 and 2013 and
limited projections for growth in the Long Term Plan period, the Council
proposes to fund the total cost of capital expenditure for water supply and
sewerage necessary to service development from sources other than development
contributions. Development contributions will not be required under this policy
until resolved otherwise by Council in which case the provisions of the policy
will apply in full. Council has full discretion
as to the timing of a review.
1.4.3 Council
will continue to require financial contributions for roading and reserves under
Section 2.14 of the Proposed Southland District Plan. Council
is concerned that in the event of any substantial development, the resulting
costs for roads and reserves to serve the development could affect the level of
rates unless funded by financial contributions. The ability to
require financial contributions will not limit the ability of Council to impose
resource consent conditions requiring an applicant to carry out roading and
reserves works to offset the adverse effects of a development.
1.4.4 Council
may review its position on remissions at any time but shall do so no more than
three years from the date on which it adopts its Long Term Plan.
1.4.5 Prior
to 2012, the development contributions policy applied to development across
Southland District and application of the policy resulted in persons
undertaking new developments in the Southland District being subject to a development
contributions regime.
1.4.6 Council
has been conscious of the fact that development contributions may have
previously been an impediment or barrier to new economic development. This is
contrary to the Council’s aspirations for encouraging growth. The
Council also recognises that when new developments occur, these often
contribute significantly to ongoing community wellbeing and also contribute
financially on an ongoing basis through rates.
1.4.7 In
recognition of this, the Council removed development contributions from most
parts of the District in 2012, with the exception of Te Anau. The 2012-22
development contribution policy was limited to water and sewerage projects at
Te Anau and only in cases where developments proposed to connect to reticulated
services.
1.4.8 Findings
of the 2013 New Zealand Census have confirmed the limited growth taking place
in Southland District since 2001.
2.
POLICY DETAILS
Council
has considered all matters it is required to consider under the Act when making
a policy on development contributions or financial contributions. The
Council has also considered requirements in Section 106, Section 201 and
Section 201A of the Act relating to the content of such a policy. Policy
resulting from these considerations is set out in this section. The way
in which the policy will be applied in practice is set out in Section 3.
2.1 Appropriate
sources of funding
2.1.1 Council
incurs capital works expenditure in order to:
(a) provide
additional capacity in assets to cater for new development;
(b) improve
the level of service to existing households and businesses;
(c) meet
environmental and other legislative requirements; and
(d) renew
assets to extend their service life.
2.1.2 Section
101(3)(a) of the Act states that the funding needs to meet these expenditure
requirements must be met from sources that Council determines to be
appropriate, following a consideration, in relation to each activity, of a
number of matters. Council’s consideration of these matters as it
relates to the funding of capital expenditure is outlined in the Revenue and
Financing Policy. The analysis contained in the Revenue and Financing
Policy is also applicable to this policy.
2.1.3 Council
has had regard to and made the following determinations under each activity in
relation to the matters set out under section 101(3)(a)(i) to (v) of the Act:
(a) that
development contributions are an appropriate source of funding for providing
additional capacity in water supply, sewerage and community
infrastructure assets because when development occurs it takes up capacity
in these assets and requires Council to provide additional capacity in existing
assets or new assets or to serve the development;
(b) that
financial contributions are an appropriate source of funding for roading and
reserves assets because the Council only seeks contributions towards
these assets to mitigate adverse effects in the vicinity of developments and
not to fund these assets in the wider network;
(c) community
infrastructure contributions will only be required on residential
developments although the Council may still require financial contributions for
reserves on non-residential developments as a condition of resource
consent under the Resource Management Act 1991.
2.1.4 In
keeping with the principles in Sections 197AB(e) and (f) of the Act, Council is
required to make information available and provide certain schedules.
2.1.5 Section 201A of the Act requires
a development contribution policy to include a schedule of assets, and
specifies the contents of that schedule. This requirement is met by Schedule
1 of this policy.
2.1.6 Section 106 of the Act requires
Council to:
(a)
summarise and explain the total cost of
capital expenditure that Council expects to incur to meet the increased demand
for community facilities resulting from growth; and
(b)
state
the proportion of that total cost of capital expenditure that will be funded
by—
(i)
development
contributions;
(ii)
financial contributions; and
(iii)
other sources
of funding.
2.1.7 These requirements are met in Schedule 2
of this policy.
2.1.8 Section 201 of the Act requires inclusion in a
development contribution policy of a schedule of development contributions.
This requirement is met by Schedule 3 of this policy.
2.2 Financial
contributions
2.2.1 The Resource Management Act
1991 authorises local authorities to impose financial contributions to address
effects associated with subdivision, land use or development. Council may
require a financial contribution, as a condition of consent, in accordance with
any relevant rule in the Southland District Plan.
2.2.2 Provisions regarding financial
contributions towards roading and reserves infrastructure are detailed in
Section 2.14 of the Proposed District Plan and should be referred to when
reading this policy. The financial contribution rules in Section 2.14 the
Proposed Southland District Plan are operative[3].
2.2.3 Section 106(2)(f) of the Act
states that if financial contributions will be required this policy must summarise
the provisions that relate to financial contributions.
This summary is set out in Appendix 4.
2.3 Limitations
on contributions
2.3.1 While
Council is able to seek both development contributions for infrastructure
under the Local Government Act 2002 and financial contributions under the
Resource Management Act 1991, Section 200 of the Local Government Act 2002
prevents Council from requiring a development contribution where it has imposed
a contribution requirement on the same development under the Resource
Management Act 1991 or where developers or other parties fund the same
infrastructure for the same purpose.
2.3.2 Although
under the Southland District Plan, Council may impose a financial contribution
as a condition of resource consent, it shall ensure that no condition of
resource consent is imposed that would require work to be done or funded that
is identified in the Long Term Plan and funded in whole or in part by
development contributions.
2.3.3 Nothing
in this policy, including the amounts of development contribution payable in Schedule
3, will diminish from any other legal requirement to make a payment for
community facilities other than a development contribution, including
connection fees or any other fee required to be paid pursuant to any other
policy or bylaw or by agreement with Council.
2.4 Limitations
on costs eligible for inclusion in development contributions
2.4.1 In calculating development
contributions under this policy, the contributions shall not include the value
of any project or work or part of any project or work required for:
(a) rehabilitating
or renewing an existing asset; or
(b) operating
and maintaining an existing asset.
2.4.2 In
accordance with Section 200(1) of the Act, no development contribution calculated
under this policy shall include the value of any funding obtained from third
parties, external agencies or other funding sources in the form of grants,
subsidies or works. This limitation shall not include the value of works
provided by a developer on behalf of Council and used as a credit against
contributions normally payable, which Council may seek to recover from other
developers in contributions.
2.4.3 Council
may require development contributions where it has incurred capital expenditure
via a third party and has provided a credit against development contributions
payable by any person where that person has incurred capital expenditure on
behalf of Council, which provides additional capacity to serve further
development.
2.4.4 The
value of any subsidy or grant toward the value of any project or work shall be
deducted prior to the allocation for funding of the balance portion of project
cost between development contributions and other sources of Council
funding.
2.5 Vested
assets and local works
2.5.1 The
value of assets vested or expenditure made by a developer, pursuant to a
requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991, shall not be used to
off-set development contributions payable on a development unless all or a
portion of such assets or expenditure can be shown to avoid or reduce the need
for Council to incur costs providing an asset that is included in its capital
works programme, for which development contributions are sought.
2.5.2 The
value of assets vested or expenditure made voluntarily by a developer to
enhance a development shall not be used to offset development contributions
payable on development.
2.6 Past
surplus capacity provided
2.6.1 In
accordance with Section 199(2) of the Act, development contributions may be required
to fund capital expenditure already incurred by Council in anticipation of
development, prior to the adoption of this policy.
2.6.2 Where
Council has in recent years incurred expenditure to undertake works or acquire
land in anticipation of development, it may seek to recover this expenditure
from development contributions yet to be made. Council may include the
value of past surplus capacity in its calculation of development
contributions.
2.7 Cumulative
and network effects
2.7.1 In
accordance with Section 199(3) of the Act, development contributions may be
required under this policy, where a development, in combination with other
developments, has a cumulative effect including the cumulative effect of
developments on network infrastructure.
2.8 Geographic
grouping (Catchments)
2.8.1 In
keeping with the principle in Section 197AB(g) of the Act, Council considers
that development contributions should be required from new development on a
geographic basis using separate catchments those being determined:
(a)
in a manner that balances practical and
administrative efficiency with considerations of fairness and equity; and
(b)
avoids, wherever practical, grouping
across the entire District.
2.8.2 A
catchment is an area of the Southland District within which growth and
development is occurring, which is likely, either solely or cumulatively, to
give rise to the need for, or benefit from, particular Council activities.
2.8.3 This
policy avoids the use of district-wide catchments for the recovery of
development contributions.
2.8.4 This
policy uses four separate ward based catchments for community
infrastructure assets because it is considered impractical to divide the
areas of benefit of these types of asset into smaller geographic areas.
2.8.5 The
policy uses separate local scheme-by-scheme catchments for water supply and
sewerage activities. Development contributions will be payable only where
the service is available and in the case of water supply and sewerage, only to
those new households, businesses or other developments connecting to the
networks concerned. It is considered reasonably practical to administer
the policy using local scheme-by-scheme catchments.
2.8.6 The
catchments used in this policy are summarised in Appendix 2.
2.9 Principles
of Cost Allocation
2.9.1 In
keeping with the principle in Section 197AB(a) of the Act an asset should not
be considered for cost allocation for recovery through a development
contribution unless it is a new or additional asset or an asset of increased
capacity required to be provided by the Council to deal with the effects of
developments.
2.9.2 In
keeping with the principle in Section 197AB(c) of the Act, the cost of any project
identified in the Long Term Plan will, after deductions for subsidies and
other sources of funding, be allocated between:
(a) the
costs if any for improving levels of service to existing households and
businesses by bringing assets up to the service standard and/or by
providing additional service life, to be expressed as the ILOS cost; and
(b) the
costs if any for providing additional capacity to service the development of
new households and businesses, to be expressed as the AC Cost.
2.9.3 Council
will allocate project cost between ILOS costs and AC costs, in
the manner described in Section 4.0 - Methodology.
2.9.4 The
methodology used to allocate costs is a need/benefits matrix approach.
2.10 Capacity
life of assets
2.10.1 In
keeping with the principle in Section 197AB(b) of the Act, Council has
considered the period over which the benefits of capital expenditure for new
development are expected to occur. It considers that capital expenditure
on infrastructure during the Long Term Plan period should be recovered over the
full take-up period of each asset, from all development that created the need
for that expenditure or will benefit from capacity it provides, including
development occurring after the Long Term Plan period.
2.10.2 Council has
determined that:
(a) new
development occurring in the Long Term Plan period will contribute only to that
proportion of additional asset capacity that it is expected to consume;
(b) future
development occurring after the Long Term Plan period will contribute toward
the remaining surplus capacity in assets at the end of that period.
2.10.3 In
calculating the development contributions payable by new development for each
activity type, Council will:
(a) include
the value of any past surplus capacity in assets provided after 1 July
2005 that is expected to be consumed by new development, where this can be
identified and where it can be shown to have been provided in anticipation of
growth;
(b) include
the value of capacity in assets to be provided in the Long Term Plan period,
that is expected to be consumed by new development; and
(c) exclude
the value of remaining surplus capacity in assets at the end of the Long
Term Plan period, which is likely to be consumed by future development.
2.10.4 Recovery
of the whole of a project’s cost from only those households and
businesses establishing in the Long Term Plan period may place an unfair burden
on them. Households and businesses developing after the period will
arrive to a fully paid up asset with spare capacity for their developments.
2.10.5 This
policy uses a development contributions calculation period extending
from 1 July 2005 (to include past surplus capacity) to 30 June 2045 - 30
years after the adoption of the Policy to ensure more equitable attribution
under Schedule 13 of the Act.
The 30 year future outlook is to take account of major infrastructure projects
that may retain spare capacity for up to 30 years, particularly as a result of
prolonged periods of slow growth as have been experienced in Southland
District.
2.11 Significant
assumptions
2.11.1 Section
201(1)(b) of the Act requires this policy to set out the significant
assumptions underlying the calculation of the schedule of development
contributions, including an estimate of the potential effects, if there is a
significant level of uncertainty as to the scope and nature of the effects.
2.11.2 The
significant assumptions underlying the calculation of the schedule of
development contributions are that:
(a) the
rate, level and location of growth will occur as forecast in the rating growth
projections accompanying the Long Term Plan;
(b) capital
expenditure will be in accordance with the capital works programme in the Long
Term Plan and future capital expenditure is based on the best available
knowledge at the time of preparation. These are to take into account
known or likely construction costs and assumed inflation rates;
(c) no
significant changes to service standards are expected to occur in the
Long Term Plan period other than those planned for in the Asset Management
Plans;
(d) the
level of any third party funding for projects will continue at predicted levels
for the period of the Long Term Plan;
(e) there
will be no significant variations to predicted rates of interest and inflation
to those set out in the Long Term Plan;
(f) it
is assumed each residential dwelling comprises the average number of residents
from the 2013 Census. The demand on Council assets placed by a standard
dwelling (Unit of Demand) is assumed to be 2.5 persons per dwelling and this is
applied district-wide.
2.11.3 An
assessment of effects, if there is a significant level of uncertainty as to the
scope and nature of the effects, is set out in Appendix 3 of this
policy.
2.12 Financial
policy
2.12.1 All
project costs used in the development contributions section of the policy
should be based on current estimates of infrastructure construction prices at
the time of planning in the dollars of the year of planning, with inflation of
all capital costs over the period using local government cost adjusters
supplied by a commercial research and analysis agency, such as BERL.
2.12.2 All
capital expenditure and development contributions contained in this policy are
exclusive of GST (except where shown to be inclusive).
2.12.3 No
cost of capital, including interest is included in growth cost calculations for
the purposes of this policy.
2.13 Policy
on existing lots or development
2.13.1 When
granting a consent or authorising a connection for development, and calculating
the units of demand from that development, Council will deduct the units of
demand generated by existing lots or development already legally
established at the date of granting consent, other than as required in sections
2.13.2, 2.13.3 and 2.13.5 below.
2.13.2 Section
2.13.1 shall apply to any lot or development that:
(a) was
already legally established at the date on which this policy became
operative, on 1 July 2015; or
(b) has
been legally established since the date on which this policy became
operative and for which a development contribution has been paid; or
(c) is
not yet legally established but for which a development contribution has
been paid (and not refunded).
2.13.3 Legally
established development includes buildings and structures which can be
shown to have been in existence on but have been demolished up to three years
prior to this policy becoming operative on 1 July 2015.
2.13.4 Section
2.13.1 shall not apply to any lot or development for which a
contribution has been required and has not yet been paid.
2.13.5 Council
may require a development contribution to be paid for any existing legally
established lot or development, in a water supply or sewerage area,
with no connection to the service, which is to be connected for the first time
or seeks connection to either a water supply network or a sewerage network, as
the case may be, where no development contribution or other such payment for
these services can be shown to have been previously paid.
2.13.6 Council
may require a development contribution to be paid for any existing legally
established lot that has previously been prevented from being
developed by any open space covenant or by any other restriction registered
against the title of the lot and that covenant or restriction has been
removed.
2.13.7 In
considering legally established developments already on a development
site, the Council will use the current or most recent use of the site and not
it’s zoning to determine the existing units of demand that will be
deducted when calculating the development contribution.
2.14 Use
of development contributions
2.14.1 In
keeping with the principle in Section 197AB(d) of the Act, development
contributions will be used:
(a) for
or towards the purpose of the activity or the group of activities for which the
contributions were required; and
(b)
for
the benefit of the Southland District or the part of the district that is
identified in the Southland District Policy on Development and Financial
Contributions 2015 – 2025 in which the development contributions were
required.
2.14.2 Development
contributions will be used for the capital expenditure for which they were
required in accordance with section 204(1) of the Act and will not be used for
the maintenance of reserves, network infrastructure or community
infrastructure.
2.15 Network
infrastructure
2.15.1 Under
Section 197 of the Act, the term development excludes the pipes and
lines of any network utility operator. Council will not seek development
contributions for the installation or expansion of network infrastructure,
including the pipes, lines, roads, water supply, wastewater and stormwater
networks by network utility operators.
2.15.2 Section
2.15.1 does not apply to development by network utility operators carried
out in order to run their normal business such as offices, industrial
buildings, warehouses and storage areas, which may be liable for the payment of
development contributions.
2.16 Policy
on remissions or postponements of development contributions
2.16.1 In
accordance with Section 201(1)(c) of the Act, Section 3.5 of this policy
includes provisions that will enable Council to consider remissions and
postponements of development contributions.
2.17 Policy
on refunds
2.17.1 Council
will refund development contributions in accordance with the requirements of
Sections 209 and 210 of the Act.
2.18 Development
agreements
2.18.1 The
Council may enter into development agreements with developers for the
provision, supply, or exchange of infrastructure, land, or money to provide
network infrastructure, community infrastructure, or reserves the District or a
part of the District. The provisions of Sections 207A to 207F shall apply
to such agreements.
3. PRACTICAL
APPLICATION
3.1 Requirement
for Development Contributions
3.1.1 Upon
granting:
(a) a
resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991;
(b) a
building consent under the Building Act 1991;
(c) an
authorisation for a service connection;
Council
will determine whether the activity to which the consent or authorisation
relates is a “development” under the Act, which:
(a) has
the effect of requiring new or additional assets or assets of increased
capacity (including assets which may already have been provided by Council in
anticipation of development); and
(b) as
a consequence requires (or has required) Council to incur capital expenditure
to provide appropriately for those assets; and
(c) that
capital expenditure is not otherwise funded or provided for.
3.1.2 Upon
determining that the activity is a “development”, Council
may require a development contribution to be made towards the activity
associated with that development, according to the geographic catchment
in which the development is located, for:
(a) water
supply;
(b) sewerage;
and
(c) community
infrastructure.
3.1.3 Council
shall calculate the development contribution payable at the time of granting
the consent or authorisation and issue an assessment of development
contributions payable.
3.1.4 A
development contribution may be paid at any time from the date of assessment up
to the date when the contribution is required to be paid as a result of Council
issuing an invoice.
3.1.5 In
accordance with Section 198(2A) of the Act, a development contribution must be
consistent with the content of the policy that was in force at the time that
the application for a resource consent, building consent, or service
connection was submitted.
3.1.6 Council
will invoice a development contribution at the following times:
(a) in
the case of a resource consent for subdivision, at the time of application for
a certificate under section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, with
payment required prior to the issue of the certificate;
(b) in
the case of a resource consent for land use, at the time of notification of
commencement or commencement of the consent, whichever is the earlier, with
payment required prior to commencement of the consented activity;
(c) in
the case of a building consent, at the time of granting the building consent
with payment no later than 90 days from the date of granting consent or prior
to the issue of a code compliance certificate, whichever is the earlier;
(d) in
the case of a service connection, at the time of approval of the service
connection with payment prior to connection.
3.1.7 In
accordance with Section 208 of the Local Government Act 2002, if contributions
are not paid at the times required in section 3.1.6, the Council may:
(a) withhold
a certificate under section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 in the
case of a subdivision;
(b) prevent
the activity commencing in the case of a land use consent;
(c) withhold
a code compliance certificate or certificate of acceptance in the case of a
building consent;
(d) withhold
a service connection to the development.
If,
after exercising its powers under Section 208 of the Act, any development
contribution remains unpaid, the Council may under Section 252 of the Act
regard the amount payable as a debt and take debt recovery action to recover
that development contribution.
3.1.7 In
the case of a resource consent for land use only, where a building consent is
required to give effect to the resource consent, the applicant may apply for a
postponement of payment under Section 3.5 of this policy. If this
is granted the Council will only require payment at the time it issues a
building consent.
3.1.8 If
a grantee of consent is in possession of two development contribution invoices
for different consents relating to the same lot, both invoices will continue to
have effect until payment is made of one of those invoices. When the
first invoice is paid, the second invoice will be withdrawn and a reassessment
of development contributions payable for the subdivision or development, as the
case may be, relating to the second invoice will be made under Section 3.2.1.
If any development contribution is payable on re-assessment, a new invoice will
be issued.
3.1.9 No
consented activity or building work shall commence prior to the payment of the
development contribution and where such activity or work has commenced prior to
such payment, Council shall require this to cease until payment has been made.
3.2 Amount
of Total Development Contribution
3.2.1 The
total amount of development contribution payable when issuing any consent or
authorisation for subdivision or development, shall be the sum of the
development contribution payable for each activity, calculated as:
[(a)
X [Σ(n) – Σ(x)]] + GST
Where:
(a)
= the applicable development contribution per unit of demand determined
from Schedule 3 and the activity-funding area for each type of
community facility in which the subdivision or development lies.
Σ
= the sum of the terms inside the brackets.
(n)
= for each lot at the completion of the consent or authorisation
application, the total lot units of demand OR the total activity
units of demand, determined by
Table 1, whichever is the greater.
(x)
= for each lot in existence (or for which a section 224 certificate
under the Resource Management Act 1991 has been issued) prior to the date of
the consent or authorisation application, the total lot units of demand
OR the total activity units of demand for the existing development,
determined by Table 1, whichever is the greater.
3.2.2 Examples of the method for
calculating units of demand from different types of development are set out in Appendix
6.
3.2.3 The
development contribution per unit of demand in Schedule 3, may be
increased for any Producer Price Index adjustment in accordance with Section
106(2B) of the Act.
3.3 Determination
of Units of Demand
3.3.1 In
accordance with Schedule 13 of the Act, the additional capacity (AC cost)
component of capital expenditure associated with new development in any catchment
will be allocated equally between the numbers of new units of demand
expected to occur in that catchment during the development contributions
calculation period.
3.3.2 Council
has determined that units of demand generated by different land use
types shall be those reflected in Table 1.
3.3.3 Demand
for services may be necessitated by the creation of new lots (lot
units of demand) that are required to be serviced in advance of their
occupation. Demand for services may also be generated by the use and
development of lots (activity units of demand), including
the intensification or expansion of activity on those lots.
|
Table 1
Units of Demand Generated by
Subdivision and Development
|
|
|
|
Lot Unit
of Demand
|
Units of
demand
|
|
One residential or rural lot
|
1.0
|
|
One mixed-use residential/commercial lot
|
1.0
|
|
One commercial, industrial or other non-residential lot with an area
of less than 1,000 m2
|
Lot area divided by 1,000 per square metre
|
|
One commercial, industrial or other non-residential lot with an area
of 1,000 m2 or more
|
1.0
|
|
For the purposes of calculating community infrastructure development
contributions only, one commercial, industrial or other non-residential
lot
|
0
|
|
For the purposes of calculating water supply and sewerage development
contributions ONLY, any existing legally established lot not
connected to either the water supply network or the sewerage network as the
case may be
|
0
|
|
For the purposes of calculating water supply and sewerage development
contributions ONLY, any proposed lot not to be connected to
either the water supply network or the sewerage network as the case may be
|
0
|
|
One serviced camping site
|
Special application
|
|
One lot:
§ wholly covenanted in perpetuity as provided for by
section 22 of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977
§ the title of which prevents any form of development
on the lot.
|
0
|
|
Activity Unit of Demand
|
Units of demand
|
|
One dwelling unit or accommodation unit
(excluding a serviced camping site) of two or more bedrooms per unit
|
1.0
|
|
One commercial unit including the commercial part of any activity but
excluding any part that comprises accommodation units
|
The net lettable area on the lot multiplied by the
applicable unit of demand factors in this table.
|
|
One industrial unit or any other non-residential development
|
Special application
|
|
For the purposes of calculating community infrastructure development
contributions only, one commercial, industrial or other non-residential
development
|
0
|
|
Any dwelling unit, or accommodation unit
(excluding a serviced camping site) of one or fewer bedrooms per
unit
|
0.5
|
|
Any room in an accommodation unit or any room in a retirement
village or school, normally accommodating more than 3 persons
|
The number of persons able to be accommodated in the room divided by
6
|
|
Any retirement unit for purposes of calculating the water
supply and sewerage contributions only
|
0.5 otherwise 0
|
|
Any aged care room for purposes of calculating the water
supply and sewerage contributions only
|
0.2 otherwise 0
|
|
Other activity (Activity not specified elsewhere in this table).
|
Special application
|
|
For the purposes of calculating water supply and sewerage development
contributions ONLY, any existing legally established
development not connected to either the water supply network or the sewerage
network as the case may be.
|
0
|
|
For the purposes of calculating water supply and sewerage development
contributions ONLY, any proposed development not to be connected to
either the water supply network or the sewerage network as the case may be.
|
0
|
|
Network infrastructure, including pipes, lines and installations,
roads, water supply, wastewater and stormwater collection and management
systems
|
0
|
|
Farm buildings associated with normal farming operations including
sheds, barns, garages and buildings for indoor poultry livestock and crop
production.
|
0
|
|
Crown developments
|
0
|
|
Unit of demand factors commercial development
|
Calculated in Appendix 5
|
|
Water Supply – Commercial development
|
1 per 769 m2 net lettable area
|
|
Sewerage - Commercial development
|
1 per 322 m2 net lettable area
|
3.3.4 The
different units of demand generated by a unit of commercial activity, as
compared with a unit of residential activity, arise mainly from the different
scale and nature of activity when compared to demand from a standard dwelling
unit.
To ensure fair and equitable assessment this policy:
(a) uses
lot size in the case of subdivision for commercial purposes;
(b)
uses net lettable area in the case
of commercial development as a proxy for assessing the different units of
demand on services, likely to be generated respectively by residential and
commercial activity and incorporates multipliers (unit of demand
factors) to quantify those differences;
(c) requires
a special application to assess development contributions on industrial
activity.
3.3.5 The
assumptions used in this policy to derive the unit of demand factors for
commercial development in Table 1 are described in Appendix 5 of
this policy.
3.4 Information
Requirements
3.4.1 The
applicant for any consent or authorisation shall provide all information
necessary for Council to calculate the amount of a development contribution,
including the net lettable area of the development if required for
purposes of an assessment under Table 1.
3.4.2 The
applicant shall be responsible for providing proof of the legal establishment
of existing units of demand for purposes of an assessment under Table
1.
3.4.3 Existing
units of demand may include legally established buildings and
structures that have been demolished up to three years prior to this policy
becoming operative on 1 July 2015.
3.5 Remissions and
Postponements of Development Contributions
3.5.1 In
addition to rights to reconsideration provided for by Section 199A and 199B of
the Local Government Act 2002, the Council will consider applications for
remission or postponement of development contributions.
3.5.2 The
Council will consider applications for and may grant a remission of any
development contribution where the applicant has provided and/or funded the
same infrastructure that a development contribution has been required for but
that remission shall be limited to the value of infrastructure provided or
funded. In cases where the value of infrastructure provided or funded
exceeds the development contribution payable, the Council shall meet the excess
costs by separate agreement with the applicant.
3.5.3 Council
will consider applications for and may grant a postponement of the payment of a
development contribution in the case of resource consent for land use only,
where a building consent is required to give effect to that resource
consent.
At the discretion of the Council, the payment of a development contribution on
the resource consent may be postponed until a building consent is granted.
3.5.4 Council
will consider applications for a postponement of the payment of a development
contribution in the case of a subdivision consent. If it grants a
postponement it may do so on whatever terms the Council thinks fit, including
that it may:
(a) issue
a certificate under Section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, prior
to the payment of a development contribution; and
(b) register
the development contribution under the Statutory Land Charges Registration Act
1928, as a charge on the title of the land in respect of which the development
contribution was required.
3.5.5 An
applicant may formally request Council to review the development contribution
required and remit or postpone the development contribution payment.
3.5.6 Any
such request shall be made in writing no later than 15 working days after the
date on which Council issues an invoice under Section 3.1.5, setting out
the reasons for the request.
3.5.7 Prior
to accepting any such request for review, Council shall require the applicant
to provide specific details of the manner in which its proposals qualify for a
remission or postponement.
3.5.8 In
undertaking the review, Council or a Committee of Council or an officer so
delegated:
(a) shall,
as soon as reasonably practicable, consider the request;
(b) may
determine whether to hold a hearing for the purposes of the review and if it
does, give at least five working days’ notice to the applicant of the
date, time and place of the hearing;
(c) may
at its discretion uphold, remit in whole or in part or postpone (as the case
may be) the original development contribution required and shall advise the
applicant in writing of its decision within ten working days of making that
decision;
(d) may
charge such fee as determined in its annual schedule of fees, to consider the
request.
3.6 Reconsideration
process
3.6.1 As
required by Section 202A of the Act, this policy must set out the process for
requesting reconsideration of a requirement for a development contribution
under section 199A of the Act. The process for reconsideration must set out:
(a) how
the request can be lodged with the Council; and
(b) the
steps in the process that the Council will apply when reconsidering the
requirement to make a development contribution.
3.6.2 An
applicant who is required to make a development contribution may request a
reconsideration of that requirement if they believe that:
(a) the
development contribution was incorrectly calculated or assessed under this
policy; or
(b) the
Council incorrectly applied this policy; or
(c) the
information used to assess the applicant’s development against this
policy, or the way the Council has recorded or used it when requiring the
development contribution, was incomplete or contained errors.
3.6.3 Any
request for reconsideration shall be made in writing, no later than 15 working
days after the date on which Council issues an invoice under Section 3.1.6 of
this policy.
3.6.4 Prior
to accepting any request for review, the Council shall require the applicant to
state the reasons under Section 3.6.2 for reconsideration and provide
sufficient information to enable the Council to reconsider the development
contribution.
3.6.5 The
Council (or a Committee of Council or an officer so delegated) will limit its
considerations to matters set out in Section 199A of the Act (Section 3.6.2 of
this policy).
3.6.6 In
accordance with Section 199B(1) of the Act, the Council must, within 15 working
days after the date on which it receives all required relevant information
relating to a request, give written notice of the outcome of its
reconsideration to the applicant who made the request.
3.6.7 In accordance with Section 199B(2) of the Act, an
applicant who requested reconsideration may object to the outcome of the
reconsideration.
3.7 Special
applications
3.7.1 Where
developments are marked for special application or not adequately represented
in Table 1 or there are specific circumstances related to the
applications, these may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Units of demand
calculated are based on potential demand not actual demand at any one
time. Accordingly specific circumstances do not include those where the
users do not utilise the full potential demand (e.g., a hotel with a 50%
occupancy rate will still be assessed at a 100% of the unit of demand relating
to hotels; a house with one occupant will be assessed at the unit of demand for
a household).
3.8 Crown
developments
3.8.1 The Crown is
exempt from the provisions of this policy
by virtue
of Section 8 of the Local Government Act 2002. If an applicant considers that it is
the Crown for the purposes of avoiding liability
to pay a development contribution, the Council may require the applicant to provide
written advice to the Council outlining the basis on which the applicant considers that it is the Crown.
3.9 Statement on
GST
3.9.1 Any
development or financial contribution referred to in this policy or in the
accompanying development contributions model and any development contribution
required in the form of money, pursuant to this policy, is exclusive of Goods
and Services Tax.
4. METHODOLOGY
The
calculation of the separate portions of the cost of any combined project
(AC/ILOS project) between that for improving levels of service to existing
households and businesses (ILOS costs), and that for providing
additional capacity to accommodate new development of households and businesses
(AC costs) under this policy, is carried out using the following
procedure.
4.1 Step 1: Listing
projects
4.1.1 Every
project in the capital works programme of the Long Term Plan for the activities
for which the Council intends to require development contributions is listed in
the Project Allocation Schedule of the Development Contributions Model.
4.1.2 Every surplus capacity project is
listed in the Surplus Capacity Schedule.
4.1.3 Where
possible, distinct stages of a project or distinct parts of a project are
listed in the schedules as separate components and separate calculations
carried out for each.
4.1.4 For each project in the schedules,
the following base information is provided:
(a) the
total project cost;
(b)
the catchment which the project
will serve;
(c) the
level of any subsidy, third party funding or other source of funding if any
which is deducted from the total project cost to give the net project cost;
(d) the year in which
the project or component is to be carried out in the
Long Term Plan, or in the case of each surplus capacity project (SC project),
the year it was completed.
(e) the
year in which the project capacity is expected to be fully consumed.
4.2 Step 2:
Initial screening
4.2.1 Each
project in the Project Allocation Schedule is categorised “Yes”
or “No” in answer to the question – “Is this
capital expenditure required at least partly to provide appropriately for new
or additional assets or assets of increased capacity in order to address the
effects of development?” By answering:
(a)
“No” - the project is
treated as a pure renewal or level of service project and the cost of the
project is removed from the development contribution calculation;
(b)
“Yes” - the project is
treated as either a combined project (AC/ILOS project) or an additional
capacity for growth project (AC project) and is subject to further
analysis.
4.2.1 Each project in the Surplus
Capacity Schedule is categorised “Yes” or “No”
in answer to the question – “Was capital expenditure on this
project incurred, at least partly, in anticipation of development?"
By answering:
(a)
“No” - the project is
treated as a pure renewal or level of service project and the cost of the
project is removed from the development contribution calculation;
(b)
“Yes” - the project is
treated as either a combined project (AC/ILOS project) or an additional
capacity for growth project (AC project) and is subject to further
analysis.
4.3 Step
3: Cost allocation of combined projects or additional capacity for growth
projects
4.3.1 Using
the information provided on combined projects (AC/ILOS projects)
and additional capacity for growth projects (AC projects) in the project
schedules, a needs/benefits matrix analysis is carried out by which it is
required to state for each project:
(a)
the degree, on a scale of 0 to 10 to which
growth created the need for the project to be undertaken. (0=Not at all,
10=Totally);
(b)
the degree on a scale of 0 to 10 to which
the growth community will benefit from the project being undertaken. (0=Not at
all, 10=Totally);
4.3.2 The
value is chosen in each case from the need/benefits matrix in the model which
produces an estimated percentage of cost attributable to growth[4].
4.3.3 The
matrix generates 121 different need/benefit combinations. The percentage
derived is applied to the net project cost to determine the AC cost. The
remainder of the net project cost is the ILOS cost.
4.3.4 A unit price is calculated for
each project by dividing the project cost by the total units of demand that
will consume its capacity comprising:
(a)
existing units of demand at 2015;
plus
(b)
additional units of demand expected
to consume capacity in the asset by the end of its asset life.
4.4 Step 4:
Capacity life - Cost allocation between new and future units of demand
4.4.1 Using
information provided on the year in which capacity take up of a project is
expected to start and the year in which the project capacity is expected to be
fully consumed, the AC cost of the project is divided between new units
of demand (N) arriving in the activity-funding area in the Long Term
Plan period and future units of demand (F) arriving after the end of the
Long Term Plan period, as follows:
(a) the
AC cost to F is the AC cost determined in section 5.3
above multiplied by the years of capacity take up after the Long Term Plan
period divided by total years of capacity take-up;
(b) the
AC cost to N is the AC cost less the AC cost to F.
4.4.2 Only the AC Cost to N is
used in the calculation of development contributions.
4.4.3 In
addition to predicting the capacity take up an asset, by comparing the start
and end years of capacity life against rating unit projections, the development
contributions model is able to accept a finite capacity figure from the asset
manager which, regardless of years of take-up, can be used to share the cost of
an asset equitably among the known number of units of demand that will
eventually consume its capacity.
4.5 Step 5:
Growth assumptions – Sharing 10 year costs among projected growth
4.5.1 In
order to calculate the amount of new development to which the growth
related portion of capital expenditure (AC costs) for infrastructure
will be attributed, area-by-area projections of new and future units of
demand for services in the period 2012 to 2042 are required.
4.5.2 Council
maintains a detailed rating database that provides the numbers of rating units
for all parts of the District.
4.5.3 The
numbers of rating units provide a close correlation with numbers of lots
in the Southland District and a measure of separate units of activity on any lot
where this is the case. They are considered to provide a reasonably sound
measure of the units of demand for infrastructure and services.
4.5.4 The
growth projection worksheet of the development contributions model, Projections
Schedule, contains as the base year, the number of rating units (units
of demand) for each activity type existing at the time of the 2014/2015
rates year. Rating data is available for the whole Southland District,
and each of the water supply, wastewater and community infrastructure
catchments.
4.5.5 Long
Term Plan assumptions have been used to determine the expected annual increase
in the numbers of rating units and hence units of demand to 2025, in
each of these areas.
4.5.6 Projections
Schedule also provides long-term estimates for future Rating Units (units
of demand) after the Long Term Plan period to 2045, in order to ensure that
any portion of remaining surplus capacity at the end of the period may be
attributed to future development.
4.5.7 Geographic
catchments will apply to each activity type. Projections Schedule
provides rating units at 2015 and projected rating units for each activity-funding
area to 2045.
4.6 Step
6: Allocation of costs to units of demand - Schedule of development
contributions
4.6.1 The
development contribution for each activity and each catchment to be charged per
Unit of Demand is derived by dividing the costs of growth in the Long
Term Plan period (AC Cost to N), derived in Step 3 and Step 4
by the number of additional rating units expected in the period, derived in Step
5.
4.6.2 A
full schedule of development contributions (Schedule 3) must be prepared
as part of the policy to enable the development contributions to be calculated
by infrastructure type and catchment on each development application.
4.7 Interest and
inflation
4.7.1 The
development contributions model does not include interest on growth related
capital expenditure in the calculation of the development contribution amounts.
4.7.2 Council
does not intend to recover past interest that has been funded from rates from
development contributions and has not included it in the development
contribution calculation.
4.7.5 The
development contributions model uses the inflated capital costs in the
Long Term Plan to calculate development contributions.
5. SCHEDULES
SCHEDULE 1 – SCHEDULE OF ASSETS
|
|
Schedule 1 - Schedule of Assets
|
|
Activity
|
DCP Catchment
|
Project name
|
Type
|
Project Cost
|
Proportion recovered through Development
Contributions
|
Proportion recovered through Other Sources
|
|
Sewerage
|
Sewerage:Te Anau CB
|
Te Anau/Manapouri Treatment & Disposal
|
LTP Project
|
12,133,896.14
|
0.00%
|
100.00%
|
|
Community Infrastructure
|
ComInf:Stewart Island/Rakiura CB
|
Moturau Gardens shelter
|
LTP Project
|
12,233.02
|
0.00%
|
100.00%
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,146,129.16
|
|
|
* The Council has
deemed that the Te Anau / Manapouri Treatment and Disposal project has a demand
component. The demand component of this project has been calculated at 38.55%.
However, the Council is proposing to put development contributions into remission
across the district in order to encourage economic growth. Whilst
development contributions are in remission, the demand share of the project
would be funded by rates and previously collected contributions. Council would
periodically review its decision to remit development contributions to ensure
that it remains appropriate in consideration of the economic and population
growth.
SCHEDULE 2 - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IDENTIFIED TO MEET
INCREASED DEMAND RESULTING FROM GROWTH* AND SOURCES OF FUNDING BY
ACTIVITY
|
ACTIVITY
|
2015-25 LTP
|
SURPLUS
CAPACITY
|
|
Total Capital Project Costs
|
Development Contributions (New)
|
Development Contributions (Future)
|
Rates
|
Subsidies/Grants/
Contributions recovered
|
Total Value of Surplus Capacity Projects
|
Development Contributions (New)
|
Development Contributions (Future)
|
Development Contributions (Already Used)
|
Rates
|
Subsidies/Grants/ Contributions recovered
|
|
Sewerage
|
$
12,133,896
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
11,791,295
|
$
342,601
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
|
Water supply
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
|
Community
Infrastructure
|
$
12,233
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
12,233
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$
12,146,129
|
$
0
|
$
0
|
$
11,791,295
|
$
354,834
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
* Although there are a
number of projects with demand components scheduled, the Council is proposing
to place the collection of development contributions into remission. Under this
proposal, funding for the Te Anau / Manapouri Treatment and Disposal project (Sewerage)
will be sourced from contributions already recovered and rates. The demand
component of this project (currently calculated at $4,335,016), would typically
be funded by development contributions. If Council deems it appropriate to
reinstate development contributions in the future, they will be used as a
source of funding for this project and reduce the rates requirement.
SCHEDULE 3 –
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
|
AREA
|
Sewerage
|
Water
supply
|
Community
Infrastructure
|
Reserves
|
Roading
|
TOTAL
|
|
Te
Anau CB
|
$-*
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
|
Note
1:These contribution amounts do not include GST
|
* The Council is
proposing to put development contributions into remission across the district
in order to encourage economic growth. As such, the Te Anau / Manapouri
Treatment and Disposal project would be funded through rates and contributions
which have already been recovered. Council will periodically review its
decision to remit development contributions to ensure that it remains
appropriate in consideration of the economic and population growth.
If development contributions
were not placed in remission, the amount of contributions for the Te Anau /
Manapouri Treatment and Disposal project would be $2,707.36 per unit of demand
from 1 July 2015.
6. ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
|
Party/Parties
|
Roles and
Responsibilities
|
|
Council
|
Decision on whether to
review and reinstate the Policy when in remission
|
7. REVISION
RECORD
This policy may be reviewed at
any time but no longer that three years from the date of its adoption.
Section 106(6) of the Local
Government Act 2002 requires that a policy on development or financial contributions
must be reviewed at least once every three years using a consultation
process that gives effect to Section 82 of the Act.
|
Date
|
Version
|
Revision Description
|
|
r/14/11/17513
|
Development and
Financial Contributions Policy
|
Long Term Plan 2015-25
|
|
r/14/6/8794
|
Development and
Financial Contributions Policy
|
Annual Plan 2014-15
|
|
r/13/2/1981
|
Development and
Financial Contributions Policy
|
June 2013
|
|
r/09/9/13493
|
Development
Contributions and Reserve Contributions under Local Government Act 2002
Policy
|
LTP 2009-2019
|
APPENDIX 1 - DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
|
Definitions
|
|
Term
|
Meaning
|
|
Accommodation unit
|
Has the definition given
to it in Section 197 2 of the Local Government Act 2002 which “means
units, apartments, rooms in 1 or more buildings, or cabins or sites in
camping grounds and holiday parks, for the purpose of providing overnight,
temporary, or rental accommodation.”
|
|
“AC cost”
|
means the cost
for providing additional capacity to service the development of new
households and businesses.
|
|
“Activity”
|
means a good or service
provided by the Council under
Section 5 of the Local Government Act 2002), and for which development
contributions are normally collected.
|
|
“Activity unit
of demand”
|
means the demand for a
community facility generated by development activity other than subdivision
|
|
“Additional
capacity project” or “AC project”
|
means a capital project
in the Long Term Plan intended only to provide additional capacity to service
new and future households and businesses.
|
|
“Aged care
room”
|
means any residential
unit in a “rest home” or “hospital care institution”
as defined in Section 58(4) of the Health and Disability Service (Safety) Act
2001.
|
|
“Allotment”
or “lot”
|
has the meaning given to
the term “allotment” in Section 218(2) of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
“Allotment”
is defined under section 218(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as follows:
“(a) any parcel of land under
the Land Transfer Act 1952 that is a
continuous area and whose boundaries are shown separately on a survey plan,
whether or not:
(i) the
subdivision shown on the survey plan has been allowed, or subdivision
approval has been granted, under another Act; or
(ii) a
subdivision consent for the subdivision shown on the survey plan has been
granted under this Act; or
(b) any parcel of land or
building or part of a building that is shown or identified separately—
(i) on
a survey plan; or
(ii) on
a licence within the meaning of Part 7A
of the Land Transfer Act 1952; or
(c) any unit on a unit plan; or
(d) any
parcel of land not subject to the Land
Transfer Act 1952.
|
|
“Bedroom”
|
means a room used for
sleeping, normally accommodating no more than three persons.
|
|
Catchment
|
is an area of the
District identified in this policy within which growth and development is
occurring, which is likely, either solely or cumulatively, to give rise to
the need for, or benefit from, particular Council activities.
|
|
“Combined
project” or “AC/ILOS project”
|
means a project in the
Long Term Plan intended to deal with shortfalls in levels of service to
existing households and businesses by bringing assets up to the service
standard and/or by providing additional service life, and to provide
capacity for further growth.
|
|
“Commercial”
|
means
non-residential development using land or buildings for the provision of
goods and services in the course of a trade or business and includes retail
development.
|
|
“Community
facilities”
|
means parks and
reserves, network infrastructure, or community infrastructure for which
development contributions may be required.
|
|
“Community
infrastructure”
|
has the definition given
to it in Section 197(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.
|
|
“Development”
|
has the definition given
to it in Section 197(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.
|
|
“Development
contributions calculation period”
|
means the period between
1 July 2015 and a date 30 years after the date of adoption of this policy.
|
|
District
Plan
|
The Operative Southland
District Plan including any proposed plan or variation.
|
|
“Dwelling
unit”
|
means any building or
group of buildings or any part of those buildings, used or intended to be
used solely or principally for residential purposes and occupied or intended
to be occupied by not more than one household – and includes a minor
household unit, a utility building or any unit of commercial accommodation.
|
|
“Household
unit”
|
A building or part of a
building capable of being used as an independent residence and includes
dwelling apartments, semi-detached or detached houses, units, town houses,
granny flats (or similar), and caravans (where used as a place of residence
or occupied for a period of time exceeding six months in a calendar year).
|
|
“ILOS
cost’
|
means the cost of
improving levels of service to existing households and businesses by bringing
assets up to the service standard and/or by providing additional
service life.
|
|
“Improved level
of service project” or “ILOS project”
|
means a capital project
in the Long Term Plan intended only to deal with shortfalls in levels of
service to existing households and businesses by bringing assets up to the service
standard and/or by providing additional service life.
|
|
“Industrial”
|
A non-residential
development using land or buildings where people use material and physical
effort in the course of a trade or business to:
· Extract
or convert natural resources,
· Produce
goods or energy from natural or converted resources,
· Repair
goods; but
does not include mineral
extraction or farm buildings associated with normal farming operations
including sheds, barns, garages and buildings for indoor poultry livestock
and crops production.
|
|
“Legally
established”
|
means, in relation to
any lot or development, any lot for which a title has been
issued, or any dwelling, commercial or industrial unit for which a code
compliance certificate has been issued. Legally established
development includes buildings and structures that can be shown to have been
in existence when this policy became operative on 1 July 2012, but have since
been demolished.
|
|
“Lot unit of
demand”
|
means the demand for a
community facility generated by the creation of lots through subdivision.
|
|
“Net
lettable area”
|
means
the area for which a tenant could be charged for occupancy under a
lease. Generally, it is the floor space contained within a tenancy at
each floor level measured from the internal finished surfaces of permanent
external walls and permanent internal walls but excluding features such as
balconies and verandahs, common use areas, areas less than 1.5 m in height,
service areas, and public spaces and thoroughfares.
|
|
“Non-residential
lot or development”
|
Any lot or development
that is not for residential purposes. This includes:
· All
buildings that are considered a fundamental place of work such as dairy
milking sheds, shearing sheds, and indoor farming facilities such as chickens
or pigs
· All
buildings for the provision of sport, recreation or entertainment,
All buildings for the
provision of social and cultural pursuits.
|
|
“Past surplus
capacity”
|
means capacity in assets
provided as a result of capital expenditure made in anticipation of
development since 1 July 2001.
|
|
“Remaining
surplus capacity”
|
means the estimated
remaining capacity in capital assets at the end of the Long Term Plan period,
available to service future development occurring after the Long Term Plan
period.
|
|
“Residential
development”
|
Any use of land and/or
buildings by people for the purpose of living accommodation. It includes
accessory buildings and leisure activities associated with needs generated
principally from living on the site.
|
|
“Retirement
unit”
|
means any residential
unit other than an aged care room, in a “retirement village”
as defined in section 6 of the Retirement Villages Act 2003.
|
|
“Serviced
Site”
|
means any site dedicated
for the location of a vehicle or tent for the accommodation of persons, which
is provided with utility services such as water supply, wastewater disposal,
solid waste disposal, electricity or gas, either directly to the site or in
the immediate vicinity.
|
|
“Surplus
capacity project” or “SC project”
|
means a past capital
expenditure project carried out since 1 July 2001 in anticipation of new
development and providing surplus capacity for further development.
|
|
“Utility
Building”
|
is a structure
containing facilities (such as toilet, shower, laundry, hot water cylinder,
laundry tub) that make the site habitable prior to or during the erection of
a dwelling.
|
|
“Unit of
demand”
|
is a unit of measurement
by which the relative demand for an activity, generated by different types of
development (existing or proposed), can be assessed. A unit of demand
may be expressed as a lot unit of demand or an activity unit of demand.
|
APPENDIX
2 - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION CATCHMENTS
|
Community Facility
|
Catchment
|
Development to which
Development Contribution Applies
|
|
Water supply
|
10 drinking water supply
scheme areas and 2 mixed potable / rural water supply areas
|
Development in any
separate water supply scheme
|
|
Sewerage
|
18 sewerage scheme areas
|
Development in any
separate sewerage scheme
|
|
Community infrastructure
|
Waihopai Toetoes Ward,
Winton Wallacetown Ward, Mararoa Waimea Ward, Waiau Aparima Ward, Stewart
Island Rakiura Ward
|
Development in each separate ward
|
APPENDIX
3 - ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
|
Assumption
|
Level
of Uncertainty
|
Potential Effects
|
|
The rate, level and
location of growth will occur as forecast in the rating growth projections
accompanying the Long Term Plan
|
High
|
Lower than forecast
growth will result in a significant under-recovery of development
contributions revenue
|
|
Capital expenditure will
be in accordance with the capital works programme in the Long Term Plan and
future capital expenditure is based on the best available knowledge at the
time of preparation. These are to take into account known or likely
construction costs and assumed inflation rates
|
Moderate
|
In current circumstances
significant changes to the capital programme are unlikely
|
|
No significant changes
to service standards are expected to occur other than those planned for in
the Asset Management Plans
|
Low
|
No significant effects
anticipated
|
|
The level of third party
funding (such as NZ Transport Agency subsidies) will continue at predicted
levels for period of the Long Term Plan
|
Low
|
No significant effects
anticipated
|
|
There will be no
significant variations to predicted rates of interest and inflation to those
set out in the Long Term Plan
|
Low/Moderate
|
No significant effects
anticipated
|
|
Each residential
dwelling comprises the average number of residents from the 2013 Census. The
demand on Council assets placed by a standard dwelling (Unit of Demand) is
assumed to be 2.5 persons per dwelling and this is applied District-wide
|
Moderate
|
The average dwelling
occupancy will remain steady over time but there may be local areas where
residential occupancy goes above the District average and places increased
demands on infrastructure form that anticipated
|
APPENDIX
4 - SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION PROVISIONS
Section 106(2)(f), if the Council is to require financial
contributions then this policy must summarise the provisions that relate to
financial contributions in the District Plan.
Section 2.14 of the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 requires the
following contributions:
Roading - A contribution may be required for the
development, maintenance and upgrading of roading infrastructure that’s
serves the subdivision. The amount of contribution is 100% of the cost of
the required work reduced with regard to:
(a) the current
status and standard of roading leading to and fronting the site;
(b) the benefit of
works to existing users and the wider public;
(c) the
standard and classification of the road and expenditure required to meet this
standard;
(d) the
use or likely future use of the road by other parties; contributions made by
central government and other agencies towards the development of the road; and
(e) previous
financial contributions from developers who will benefit from the work.
Reserves - A
contribution may be required in the following situations:
(a) a
contribution of 2% of the value of additional allotments created by
subdivision, up to a maximum value of 2% of the value of 1,000 m2 per
lot, where existing reserves in the locality cannot deal with additional demand;
or
(b) a
contribution of 1% of the value (given as money or land) of additional
allotments created by subdivision for minor improvements to existing reserves
in the locality up to a maximum value of 1% of the value of 100 m2
per lot;
(c) a
contribution of the value of 20 m2 for each additional residential
unit created in a development; or
(d) a
contribution of the value of 4 m2 of land for each additional 100 m2
of net
non-residential building floor area created in a development in the Urban Zone,
Commercial Precinct or Industrial Zone.
APPENDIX 5 - CALCULATING
UNITS OF DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Industrial and other non-residential development (other than
commercial development) will be subject to special application under section
3.7 of this policy. In calculating the units of demand generated by commercial
development for water supply and sewerage, as compared to that of an average
dwelling unit, Council accepts that demand may vary between different types of
commercial activity. However changes to the type of business over time may not
constitute “development” under the Act or even trigger a resource
consent, building consent or new connection requiring a development
contribution. This policy therefore treats all types of commercial activity as
generating the same average unit of demand for a given net lettable area.
Water - comparison
of residential and commercial demand
The residential daily demand for water comprises that for
domestic purposes and
non-domestic uses (eg gardening, car washing, fire fighting, leakages
etc).
The following figures are used in the assessment:
(a) The average
daily residential demand for domestic purposes is 230 litres/person/day.
(b) The
average daily residential demand for non-domestic purposes is
1,200 litres/dwelling.
In determining the
units of demand for one dwelling unit, it is noted that not all potential
demand will occur at the same time and therefore an average peak of four
persons per household is used to assess peak usage per dwelling at 2,120
litres/day (4 x 230 litres/day + 1200 litres).
Water consumption
sampling[5]
of various commercial premises, offers data for premises which may be typical
of many Southland main street businesses in the range 0 - 5,000 m2 net
lettable area (NLA). These would also generally be premises naturally
rather than mechanically cooled with air conditioning systems using higher
quantities of water.
Sampling found
consumption in the range 875 - 1,200 m3 (average 1,037 m3)
per annum per 1,000 m3 NLA. This converts as follows:
Commercial premises consuming an average 2,840
litres per day per 1,000 m2 NLA; thus
If 2,120 litres per day is 1 unit of demand for
residential; then
2,840 litres per day (1,000 m2 NLA) is
1.3 units of demand; then
769 m2 NLA is 1 unit of demand.
Sewerage -
comparison of residential and commercial demand
Average daily residential wastewater flows are assumed to
equate to the domestic purposes water use of 230 litres/person/day, with water
for non-domestic purposes not finding its way to the sewer. Average peak usage per property at 4 persons per dwelling is therefore
920 litres/day (4 x 230 litres/day).
It is assumed that all water consumption on commercial
premises (2,840 litres per day per 1,000 m2
NLA in main street situations will find its way to the sewer. To
calculate the units of demand for sewerage:
Commercial premises generate an average 2,840
litres sewerage per day per 1,000 m2 NLA; thus
If 920 litres per day is 1 unit of demand for
residential; then
2,840 litres per day (1,000 m2 NLA) is
3.1 units of demand; then
322 m2 NLA is 1 unit of demand.
APPENDIX 6 - CALCULATION OF
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT ON A DEVELOPMENT
The formula in Section 3.2.1
of this policy calculates the demand on infrastructure from any development
site after the proposed development has taken place (n) and subtracts
the existing demand already generated by the site before the development
occurs (x). In this way, it identifies only additional demand placed on
infrastructure as a result of the development. This additional demand is
multiplied by the development contribution amount for each type of
infrastructure to calculate the total development contribution payable.
Using Table 1 of this
policy, the units of demand before and after development are
calculated, as the greater of the number of lot units of demand making
up the development site OR activity units of demand (building
development) on the development site at the time.
The calculation is [(a) X
[Σ(n) – Σ(x)]] + GST where:
(a) is the
development contribution for the catchment eg sewerage $1,316 per unit;
(x) is, for each
lot existing before development, the lot units of demand OR activity
units of demand whichever is the greater;
(n) is, for each
lot after the development, the lot units of demand OR activity
units of demand whichever is the greater.
Residential development
example using Table 1:
Before development After
development
Additional units of demand Σ(n) - Σ(x) =
4(n) - 2(x) = 2 Units
Development
contribution for sewerage is 2 units X $1,316 = $2,632 + GST.
Commercial development
example using Table 1:
Before development After
development
Additional units of demand Σ(n) - Σ(x) = 4.1(n)
- 2 (x) = 2.1 Units
Development
contribution for sewerage is 2.1 units X $1,316 = $2,764 + GST.
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy
Record No: R/15/4/7145
Author: Tamara
Dytor, Policy Analyst
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to ask Council to review the public submissions on
the Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy and for Council to adopt the
policy.
Executive
Summary
2 In
order to remit or postpone rates, local authorities require an appropriate
policy.
Southland District Council currently remits and postpones rates under the
Relief, Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy. While this policy
sets out the categories of relief and postponement, it does not clearly
establish the criteria which need to be met for Council to remit or postpone
rates.
3 The
draft Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy has been developed to address
the need for clear conditions and criteria to be established. The draft
policy was released for public consultation as part of a parallel process that
ran concurrently with the
Long Term Plan 2015-2025 consultation process. Council received four
submissions in relation to this policy.
4 In
developing the Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy, Council officers
have also identified additional categories or relief or postponement.
5 The
Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy is intended to provide clarity to
the public for when Council considers applications for remission or
postponement of rates.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy”
dated 13 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Adopts
the Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy.
|
Content
Background
6 Council
released the draft Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy for public
consultation as part of a process running parallel with consultation for the
Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
7 Conditions
and criteria have been included for each existing category of remission and
postponement to indicate when applications will be considered.
8 The
policy also includes the following additional categories:
· Remission
of rates for wheelie bin services reduced or cancelled during the year;
· Remission
of the roading rate for rating units with no primary address;
· Remission
of school sewerage charges; and
· Remission
of 50% rates (with the exception of
services rates) in respect of land owned or used
by:
- a
society incorporated under the Agricultural Pastoral Societies Act 1908, or
- a
society or association (whether incorporated or not) for games or sports,
except galloping races, harness races or greyhound races, or
- a society or association (whether incorporated
or not) for the purpose of the arts.
Issues
9 Council
received four submissions on the draft Remission and Postponement of Rates
Policy. Two submissions supported the draft policy, one queried the
circumstances in which remission or postponement would apply and one was
opposed to any form of remission or postponement. Submissions provided
limited detail regarding the preferences expressed as they were received online
in conjunction with other comments on the Long Term Plan
2015-2025.
10 Excerpts
from the submissions which commented on this policy are attached to this
report. Submissions commented on a number of issues and the excerpts
reflect only the part of these submissions which relate to the Remission and
Postponement of Rates Policy. The full submissions are located in
the submissions booklet.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
11 Under
Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002, councils are able to remit and
postpone rates if they adopt an appropriate policy. Southland District
Council is currently consulting on proposed changes to its Relief, Remission
and Postponement of Rates on Policy (the Policy).
12 Section
109 (2a) of the Local Government Act (2002) states that the policy must be
reviewed at least once every six years and that public consultation must be
undertaken.
Community Views
13 Submissions
summarised in the Issues section of this report allow Council to
consider community views.
14 Criteria
used in the policy are also consistent with a number of other local authorities
throughout New Zealand. Council has not removed existing categories of
exemption or postponement and because the financial impact of this issue is
relatively minor.
Costs and Funding
15 There
are no costs associated with implementing the policy (Option 1).
Currently, the financial value of remitted and postponed rates is low and the
number of ratepayers granted remissions and postponements is small. This
is unlikely to change if the policy is adopted.
Policy Implications
16 Council’s
Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy is required to be reviewed every six
years.
Analysis
Options Considered
17 Council
released the following options for consultation in a process which ran
concurrently with consultation on the Long Term Plan 2015-2025:
· Option
1: Adopt the proposed Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy; and
· Option
2: Maintain the existing Relief, Remission and Postponement of Rates
Policy.
Analysis of Options
Option 1
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· The
proposed policy provides conditions and criteria for each category of
remission or postponement. Conditions and criteria clarify when an
application will be considered by Council. This provides clear
guidelines to the public about what to expect from Council and enhances the
decision making framework for Council officers.
· The
proposed policy increases compliance with the Local Government (Rating)
Act 2002 by setting out when Council will consider applications for remission
or postponement.
· This
formally establishes categories of remission for schools and for associations
such as Agricultural and Pastoral societies, associations for games and
sports and associations for any branch of the arts.
· There
are new clauses relating to utilities and wheelie bins, to allow for
remissions of the roading rate for rating units categorised as ‘other
utilities’ with no primary address, and remissions for cancellation or
reduction of service in relation to wheelie bins.
|
· There
are no significant disadvantages which arise from this option.
|
Option 2
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· The
proposed policy (Option 1) builds and clarifies the existing policy.
Since the proposed policy does not remove any existing categories of rates
remission or postponement, there are no advantages to retaining the existing
policy (Option 2).
|
· Maintaining
the existing policy does not provide clarity to the public or when Council
will consider applications for rates remission and postponement.
|
Assessment of Significance
18 Proposed
changes have not been assessed as significant. The number of ratepayers
currently receiving remissions or postponement of rates (and therefore affected
by the policy) is small. Further, the financial implications of the
policy for the Council are relatively minor.
19 Since
Council has not removed any categories of remission or postponement which are
currently available under its existing Relief, Remission and Postponement of
Rates Policy, changes to the policy’s intent are not significant.
The proposed Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy merely clarifies the
conditions and criteria in which applications for remission or postponement may
be considered. This provides additional clarity to ratepayers and to
Council officers.
Recommended Option
20 It
is recommended that Council approve the Remission and Postponement of Rates
Policy (Option 1).
Next Steps
21 If
the policy is adopted, additional detail will need to be included in invoices.
Attachments
a Excerpts
from public submissions received on the draft Remission and Postponement of
Rates Policy View
b Remission
and Postponement of Rates Policy View
Excerpts from Public Submissions on the Draft Remission and
Postponement of Rates Policy
|
Submission Number
|
Comment
|
|
18
|
Okay you decide this under what circumstances?
|
|
62
|
There should be no remission or postponement of rates
whatsoever.
|
|
63
|
Agree.
|
|
66
|
A clear policy and rules are better than none.
(Draft Rates Remission Policy).
|
SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
REMISSION AND POSTPONEMENT OF RATES POLICY
This
policy applies to: All Southland District ratepayers.
DOCUMENT
CONTROL
|
Policy
owner:
Chief Financial Officer
|
TRIM
reference number:
r/14/11/17468
|
Effective
date:
«type date»
|
|
Approved
by:
Council
|
Date
approved:
«type date»
|
Next
review date:
«type date»
|
CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE.. 1
2. DEFINITIONS
AND ABBREVIATIONS.. 1
3. BACKGROUND.. 1
4. POLICY
DETAILS.. 1
4.1 Rating
of small community and sports associations with liquor licences. 1
4.2 Community
facilities owned by persons, general clubs, societies or associations. 2
4.3 Remission
of penalties. 3
4.4 Extreme
financial hardship - remission of rates. 4
4.5 Rates
remission for school sewerage charges. 5
4.6 Extreme
financial hardship - postponement of rates. 6
4.7 Grants
in lieu of remissions of rates. 7
4.8 Remission
of rates in exceptional circumstances. 7
4.9 Remission
of rates for cancellation or reduction of wheelie bin service. 8
4.10 Making an application. 9
5. ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES.. 10
6. ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS.. 11
7. REVISION
RECORD.. 11
REMISSION
AND POSTPONEMENT OF RATES POLICY
1. PURPOSE
Where it is considered fair and reasonable to do so,
Southland District Council can grant a remission or postponement of certain
rates. This policy specifies the circumstances under which rates will be
considered for remission or postponement. The objectives of the policy
are to:
· Provide
financial assistance and support to ratepayers where it is reasonable to
do so.
· Address
rating anomalies.
· Provide
Council with the ability to act reasonably in administering its rating powers
and policies.
· Address
other objectives as detailed in this policy.
Southland District
Council’s Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy has been developed
in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act (2002) Sections 85 and 87,
and Local Government Act (2002) Sections 102(2), 109 and 110.
2. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
|
Term
|
Meaning
|
|
Service Rates
|
As referenced in the Funding Impact Statement
|
|
Sports Associations
|
Sports associations include societies, clubs or
association of persons (whether incorporated or not) for games or sports,
except galloping races, harness races, or greyhound races.
|
3. BACKGROUND
This
policy is being updated for release in conjunction with the Long Term Plan
2015-2025. The current policy provides additional clarity regarding the
conditions and criteria under which rates will be remitted or postponed.
4. POLICY DETAILS
4.1 Rating of small community and
sports associations with liquor licences
Council recognises the
contribution that community, sports and other community associations make to
their community and acknowledges that small associations may have limited
financial resources.
Providing rates remission to
small community and sports associations facilitates the ongoing provision of
non-commercial recreational opportunities and makes participation accessible to
our communities.
4.1.2 Conditions
and criteria
Community and sports associations that hold a liquor
licence may apply for partial remission of rates (other than services rates) as
follows:
• Community
and sports associations with a membership of up to 75 full time member
equivalents shall be entitled to a 25% remission.
• Community
and sports associations with a membership of not less than 75 and no greater
than 100 full time member equivalents shall be entitled to a 12.5%
remission.
• This
policy applies to land owned by Council or owned and occupied by a charitable
organisation, which is used exclusively or principally for sporting,
recreation, or community purposes other than galloping races, harness races and
greyhound races.
• This
policy does not apply to organisations operated for private pecuniary
profit.
• The
sporting club or organisation must hold the liquor licence as an incidental
activity to the primary purpose of occupancy.
• Any
restaurant, bar and gaming machines areas for Chartered Clubs are excluded from
this remission and will be rated at the full commercial rating.
• The
sporting club or organisation will be required to complete a yearly statutory
declaration on or before 31 March, confirming that it meets the conditions and
criteria under the policy.
In all cases, land that is used
for the private pecuniary profit of any members of the society or association
shall not be eligible for a rates remission.
4.2 Community facilities owned by
persons, general clubs, societies or associations
Council owned public halls are
not liable for rates under Schedule 1 of the
Local Government (Rating) Act (2002). However, in addition to Council
owned halls, there are a variety of organisations who own public halls,
libraries, museums, art galleries or other similar institutions which provide a
benefit to the community as a whole. This policy provides for 100% rates
remission (with the exception of services rates) for these organisations.
Part 2 of Schedule 1 also
provides for 50% rates remission (with the exception of services rates) in respect of land owned or used by:
• a society incorporated under the Agricultural Pastoral Societies Act
(1908), or
• a
society or association (whether incorporated or not) for games or sports,
except galloping races, harness races or greyhound races, or
• a society or association (whether
incorporated or not) for the purpose of
the arts.
4.2.1 Conditions
and criteria
Rating unit(s) owned by a ratepayer other than Council and
used for a public hall, library, museum, art gallery, or other similar
institution may apply for a 100% remission on all rates other than service
rates on that rating unit. Applications for remission will be considered
if:
· Community
facilities do not operate for private pecuniary profit.
· Community
facilities do not receive any funding from government agencies or have any
contracts for fee for service with government agencies.
Community facilities which are rated for by Council are not considered to
receive government funding under this policy.
· Community
facilities operate on a voluntary basis and have no full-time or part-time paid
employees or contractors operating in this capacity.
Applications for a 50% rates remission will be considered
if the land is owned or used by:
• a society or association of persons (whether incorporated or not)
for the purpose of any branch of the arts;
• a
society incorporated under the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act (1908)
as a showground or place of meeting; or
• a
society or association of persons (whether incorporated or not) for games or
sports, except galloping races, harness races, or greyhound races.
The 50% remission is on all rates
other than service rates on that rating unit. Under the Local Government (Rating) Act (2002) Schedule 1, Part
2, land used for the private pecuniary profit of any members of the
society or association is excluded from this form of remission. If the
land is subject to a licence under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
it is not eligible for this form of remission.
4.3 Remission
of penalties
Penalties applied to outstanding
rates instalments and the amount outstanding at the end of each financial year may
be applied in accordance with Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government
(Rating) Act (2002). Southland District Council recognises that applying
penalties may exacerbate financial hardship and that in some instances there
may be a fair and reasonable explanation for delays in payment.
Penalties may be remitted in
accordance with Section 109 of the Local Government Act (2002) and Section 85
of the Local Government (Rating) Act (2002). This policy provides for a
discretionary right to remit total penalties on rates, or a portion thereof in
circumstances which the Council considers it reasonable to do so.
4.3.1 Conditions and criteria
The practice of a penalty for
non-payment of rates by due date is an accepted standard practice for local
authorities and delay in mail delivery does not constitute justification for
remission. Remission of penalties will be considered under the following
conditions and criteria.
Late payments
A payment has been received after
the date fixed for imposition of a late penalty charge, provided that none of
the previous four instalments were similarly received late.
Council has discretion to remit
one instalment penalty in any one rating year for lateness where payment is
made within five working days of the due date. In such cases,
consideration will be given to the history of payments by the ratepayer.
Payment arrangement made for arrears
Remission will be considered if a
ratepayer makes satisfactory arrangements for regular and substantial reduction
of arrears. Remission will only occur if arrangements are fully
met. If arrangements are not met, penalties may be
re-applied.
Significant family disruption
Remission will be
considered if a ratepayer provides sufficient information which, if considered
genuine and if substantiated with reasonable excuse for late payment, would
justify remission for late penalty charges. Remission will be considered
in the case of death, illness or accident of a family member.
Missing payments
Remission will be considered if a
remission of one instalment penalty in any one rating year may be granted where
it is considered that a cheque or credit card deduction slip may have gone
missing through no fault of the ratepayer. Applications to remit
penalties under this section will only be considered providing the missed
instalment is paid within seven days of the application.
Payment misallocation
Remission of instalment penalties
may be granted where instalment payments have been received by Council and
applied to an incorrect internal account.
Where
payments are repeatedly receipted to incorrect internal accounts due to
ratepayer action (such as internet banking errors) Council will advise the
ratepayer of the correction necessary for future payments and may refuse to
remit any further penalties for this reason.
Penalties on Small Overdue
Balances
When a small balance which is uneconomical to collect is
overdue, Council may write off the balance and penalties as it considers
appropriate.
4.4 Extreme
financial hardship - remission of rates
Southland District Council
understands that some ratepayers face extreme financial hardship. Section
109 of the Local Government Act (2002) and Section 85 of the
Local Government (Rating) Act (2002) provides for the Council to remit part of
the rates owing on the rating unit in cases of extreme hardship. This
policy allows for the remission of rates in cases of extreme financial
hardship, due to any range of factors including, but not limited to illness and
natural calamity.
4.4.1 Conditions and criteria
Each application for remission due to extreme financial
hardship will be considered on its own merits. However, the following
conditions and criteria must be met before any remission is granted:
• The
applicant must be the owner of the property;
• The
applicant must reside at the property and the property must be classified as
residential. Companies, trusts and other similar ownership structures of
these properties do not qualify for this remission;
• The
ratepayer has no assets except a low value property upon which rates are owed
and where the ratepayer relies on supplementary benefits;
• The
applicant must declare total household income and their total financial
position;
• Council
must be satisfied that the ratepayer will not have sufficient funds remaining
after the payment of rates, health care and normal living expenses. In
considering the ratepayers position the Council may seek independent
verification from a budget advisor or other agency working with the ratepayer.
• Applications
for remission of rates due to extreme financial hardship will be assessed
independently from the Government Rates Rebate Scheme. The Council
shall consider whether postponement of rates is a more suitable option.
4.5 Rates
remission for school sewerage charges
This form of remission intends to
provides relief and assistance to educational establishments that are subject
to multiple pan charges for wastewater services as defined in the since
repealed Rating Powers (Special Provision for Certain Rates for Educational
Establishments) Amendment Act (2001).
4.5.1 Conditions and
criteria
This part of the policy will
apply only to educational establishments as defined in the repealed Rating
Powers (Special Provision for Certain Rates for Educational Establishments)
Amendment Act (2001). The Policy does not apply to any school house, or
any part of a school used for residential purposes.
The calculated number of pans of any educational
establishment in any one year subject to the relevant wastewater targeted rate
will be the lesser of:
• The
actual number of toilet pans in the establishment; or
• The
notional number of toilet pans in the establishment. The
notional number is calculated as one pan per 20 pupils/staff. A part
thereof a notional pan will attract no charge.
The charging regime to apply to
these educational establishments will be the same as for commercial ratepayers
with multiple pans. That is a fixed amount per Separately Used or
Inhabited Part of the education establishment will apply for the first two
pans, with the third or more pan attracting a charge for each pan at
50 percent of the corresponding fixed amount.
4.6 Extreme
financial hardship - postponement of rates
Southland District Council
recognises that the postponement (in total or part) of rates and/or penalties
in cases of hardship may be the most appropriate course of action. This
policy allows for the postponement of rates in cases of financial hardship
where this is the most appropriate option.
4.6.1 Conditions and criteria
A ratepayer may apply for
postponement of rates and/or penalties in cases of financial hardship, due to
any range of factors including, but not limited to illness and natural
calamity. Each application for postponement due to financial hardship will
be considered on its own merits. When rates are no longer eligible to be
postponed on the property, all postponed rates will be payable
immediately.
Postponement of rates due to financial hardship may be
considered if:
• The
ratepayer is the property owner.
• The
property is used by the ratepayer as his or her permanent place of
residence.
• The
property is used solely for residential purposes.
• The ratepayer has not less
than 25% equity in the property.
• The ratepayer provides a
statutory declaration:
- confirming
that they do not own any other property or have a significant interest in a
business or shares;
- detailing the
value of the ratepayers property insurance and the value of encumbrances
against the property including mortgages and loans.
A postponement fee shall be added
to all postponed rates to cover, but not exceed the administrative and
financial costs of postponement to Council. Postponement fees must
be treated as part of the rates on a rating unit. Postponement fees will
be set annually as part of the rates resolution.
All postponed rates shall be
registered as a charge on the land under the Statutory Land Charge
Registration Act (1928). No dealing with the land may be registered by
the ratepayer while the charge is registered, except with the consent of
Council.
4.6.2 Process and period of postponement
Rates may be postponed:
· Until
the death of the ratepayer.
· The
ratepayer ceases to own the rating unit.
· For
a specified period so defined by Council.
· Until
the postponed rates equate to 80% of the available equity in the
property.
· Until
a date when the applicant/occupier ceases to use the property as his/her
permanent place of residence; or to use the property solely for residential
purposes.
Rates postponement agreements
shall not exceed six years, but the ratepayer may apply for a continuation of
the postponement at the termination of the agreement.
When an application for postponement is approved, the
following provisions will apply:
• Postponement
will first apply in the year a completed application is received.
The amount of rates postponed will not incur additional charges.
• Instead
of the Council requiring payment of the full annual rates bill in the year in
which it falls due, the ratepayer will be required to pay to the Council an
appropriate minimum amount determined by the Revenue Manager.
• Any
rates postponed shall be registered as a charge on the land.
Not less than once annually every
ratepayer whose rates have been postponed under this policy, will be provided
with a statement showing the total annual rates currently due. This will
be itemised to show year by year the total amount of the postponed rates and
postponement fees.
Following the end of the
financial year, a schedule of rates postponed will also be provided to the
Council (annually), listing all the properties for which rates postponements
have been granted and which remain outstanding.
4.6.3 Any part of postponed rates can be paid at any
time
The applicant may elect to
postpone the payment of a lesser sum than that which they would otherwise be
entitled to have postponed under this policy. Any part of the postponed
rates and/or any additional charges may be paid at any time.
4.7 Grants in lieu of remissions of
rates
Where the application for
remission does not meet other criteria listed above for remissions, but there
is a community benefit gained from providing a remission, the Council or the
respective Community Board or Committee of Council, may pay the rates on behalf
of the ratepayer.
4.7.1 Conditions and criteria
Where
such an application is made to Council or the respective Community Board or
Committee of Council the appropriate body of elected representatives may
resolve to pay the rates on behalf of the applicant or pay a grant to the
applicant for the amount of the rates.
Such
applications will be considered on a case by case basis. Applicants must
demonstrate that rates cannot fairly and reasonably be expected to be funded
from other sources and that providing a grant to fund rates will result in
public benefit.
Any
payments made as grants in lieu of remissions of rates shall be recorded as an
expense against Council or the respective Community Board or Committee of
Council.
4.8 Remission
of rates in exceptional circumstances
Southland District Council
recognises that there may be other instances where the collection of rates is
not reasonable. This policy allows for the remission of rates or
penalties in exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis.
4.8.1 Conditions
and criteria
Some criteria for consideration for remission of rates in
exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to instances where:
· Adjustments
are required to rates assessments that cannot then be collected under the Local
Government (Rating) Act (2002).
· Penalties
are related to rates that have been remitted.
· Collection
of rates is uneconomic.
· There
are special circumstances in relation to the rating unit, or the incidence of
the rates (or a particular rate) assessed for the rating unit, which mean that
the units rates are disproportionate to those assessed for comparable rating
units.
· The
circumstances of the rating unit or the ratepayer are comparable to those where
a remission may be granted under the Council’s other rates remission
policies, but are not actually covered by these policies.
Council may of its own volition
investigate and grant remission of rates or penalties on any land in the
District. The Council has final discretion to decide whether to grant a
rates remission under this policy.
4.8.2 Remission of roading rates on other utilities with
no primary address
Some rating units classified as
‘Other Utilities’ do not have a primary address.
These rating units include infrastructure assets such as district water,
wastewater and stormwater supply as well as utility and railway networks.
Because of the nature of these rating units, many have high capital value and
no recorded land value.
Council will remit roading rates
for these rating units because their capital values may not correlate with the
demands they place on the roading network. Further, these rating units
supply services and infrastructure which benefit the community and district as
a whole. Council has taken the view that applying additional charges to
these rating units is likely to result in costs being passed on to consumers.
4.8.3 Conditions and criteria
To be considered for remission of the roading rate, rating
units must:
1. Be
classified by Quotable Value as ‘Other Utilities’; and
2. Have
no primary address.
4.9 Remission
of rates for cancellation or reduction of wheelie bin service
Where a ratepayer cancels or
reduces their wheelie bin service after they have been charged an annual rate,
they may be eligible for a remission. This form of remission reflects the
part of the year where the service is cancelled or reduced. A reduction
in service refers to instances in which a ratepayer has elected to reduce the
number of bins being collected during the year (eg moving from two to one).
4.9.1 Conditions
and criteria
To be eligible for this form of
remission a ratepayer must inform Council of the cancellation or reduction in
wheelie bin service. This must be confirmed by Council’s
contractor.
A remission will apply from the
first day of the month after the wheelie bin has been returned to
Council’s contractor. Remissions will be automatically offset
against the ratepayers account.
4.10 Making
an application
Applications for remissions or grants
in lieu of rates must be made prior to the commencement of the rating
year. Applications received during a rating year will be applicable from
the commencement of the following rating year. Applications will not be
backdated. Applications for postponement of rates due to financial
hardship can be made at any time.
All decisions made under this
policy by Council, Southland District Council staff and committees of Council
are final.
The following table outlines
supporting documents which should accompany applications for remissions,
postponement or grants in lieu of remission. Additional information
may also be requested.
|
Application
type
|
Supporting
documentation required
|
|
Rating units not connected to water and sewerage
schemes
|
No application required.
|
|
Small community and sports associations with liquor
licences
|
· A
statement of objectives.
· Financial
accounts.
· Information
on activities and programmes.
· Details
of membership or clients.
|
|
Community facilities owned by
persons, general clubs, societies or associations
|
· Statement
of Objectives.
· Constitution
or Trust Deed.
· Full
financial accounts.
· Information
showing extreme financial hardship and operating position.
· Information
on activities and programmes.
· Information
on funding sources.
|
|
Remission of penalties
|
As requested by delegated staff.
|
|
Extreme financial hardship – Remission of rates
|
Remission of rates, or a portion thereof, may only be
made after the Revenue Manager is satisfied of the ratepayer’s true
financial position. A review of the ratepayer’s financial records
and commitments and a declaration from the ratepayer of their financial
position should accompany any request made for this form of remission.
|
|
Financial hardship -
Postponement of rates
|
Postponement of rates, or a
portion thereof, may only be made after the Revenue Manager is satisfied of
the ratepayer’s true financial position. Applications should
include a review of the ratepayer’s financial records and commitments
and a declaration from the ratepayer of their financial position.
|
|
Grants in lieu of remissions of rates
|
Applications must state the reasons a grant is required
and provide any supporting documentation appropriate. Applications must
also detail the public benefit which would be gained from providing a grant
in lieu of remitting rates.
|
5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
|
Party/Parties
|
Roles and Responsibilities
|
|
Revenue Manager
|
The Revenue Manager has delegated authority to make
decisions regarding the remission of rates and penalties.
The Revenue Manager also has authority to request any
further information and documentation required to make a decision regarding
the remission or postponement of rates or penalties.
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
The Chief Financial Officer has delegated authority to
make decisions regarding the remission or postponement of rates and the
application of postponement fees.
Recommendations to Council regarding the calculation
of postponement fees should be made by the Chief Financial
Officer.
|
|
Council or appropriate
committee of Council
|
Southland District Council or the appropriate
committee of Council may consider applications relating to grants in lieu of
rates remission.
|
|
Southland District Council Water and Waste staff
|
Staff from Southland District Council’s Water
and Waste Department are responsible for providing information to Rating
Officers regarding remittances for rating units that have the capacity to be
connected to water and sewerage systems but do not have a physical connection.
|
6. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS
• Remission
and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy.
• Local
Government (Rating) Act (2002).
• Local
Government Act (2002).
• Staff
delegations.
7. REVISION RECORD
|
Date
|
Version
|
Revision Description
|
|
Relief, Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy
|
2012-2022 LTP Version
|
r/13/8/11128
|
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates on
Māori Freehold Land Policy
Record No: R/15/4/7155
Author: Tamara
Dytor, Policy Analyst
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 This
report presents a summary of feedback received on the draft Remission and
Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy.
Executive
Summary
2 Recently,
Council reviewed its Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold
Land Policy, consistent with the requirements of Section 108 of the
Local Government Act 2002.
3 Council
proposed an option in which the policy would apply to all land within the
Southland District that has been deemed Māori Freehold Land by the
Māori Land Court, except for land which contains a dwelling or is used for
economic benefit. The proposal would also require land owners of
Māori Freehold Land to apply to the Southland District Council for rates
remission or postponement.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Remission and Postponement of Rates on
Māori Freehold Land Policy” dated 12 May 2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Adopts
the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy.
|
Content
Background
4 Remission
and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy (the policy)
acknowledges that some Māori Freehold Land may have particular conditions,
ownership structures or other circumstances which make it appropriate to remit
or postpone rates.
The policy sets out the criteria and conditions attached to the remission or
postponement of rates on Māori Freehold Land.
5 Southland
District Council proposes that the policy applies to all land that is deemed to
be Māori Freehold Land by the Māori Land Court. Land that has a
dwelling on it or that is used for economic benefit will not be eligible for
rates remission or postponement. Owners of Māori
Freehold Land may apply to Council for a remission or postponement of rates.
6 This
policy takes into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and
traditions with their ancestral land.
Issues
7 During
consultation, Council presented three options for feedback. The proposed
option (Option 1) included the following changes to the policy:
• The
policy would apply to all land within the Southland District that has been
deemed Māori Freehold Land by the Māori Land Court;
• The
policy would include rates remissions for land not currently held in a Trust
but is still deemed Māori Freehold Land by the Māori Land Court;
• References
to ‘multiple ownership’ would be removed and the policy would
therefore apply to all Māori Freehold Land within the Southland District;
• The
policy would require land owners of Māori Freehold Land to apply to the
Southland District Council for rates remission or postponement;
• The
policy would not apply to Māori Freehold Land which contains a dwelling or
is used for economic benefit.
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
8 The
Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy
(the policy) is a statutory requirement under Section 108 of the Local
Government Act 2002 and has to be reviewed every six years.
Community Views
9 Council
received a total of six submissions on the draft Remission and Postponement of
Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy. Three (18, 63, 101) submissions
supported the proposed Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori
Freehold Land Policy, stating it was appropriate and fair. Two submitters
(1, 66) stated that Māori Freehold Land should be rated on the same basis
as other land and that ethnicity should not be reflected in rating
structures. One submitter (62) stated that they supported remission on Māori
Freehold Land only where land has been set aside for public use.
Costs and Funding
10 There
are no costs associated with implementing the policy (Option 1).
Currently, the financial value of remitted and postponed rates on Māori
Freehold Land is low and the number of ratepayers granted remissions and
postponements is small. This is unlikely to change if the policy is
adopted.
Policy Implications
11 This
policy will not be included in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025. It does not
impact significantly on other financial issues and rating.
Analysis
Options Considered
12 Southland
District Council consulted on three options:
· Option
1: Use the proposed policy and remove the requirement from the current
policy that land has to be held in ‘multiple’ ownership in order to
remit and/or postpone rates;
· Option
2: Use the proposed policy and retains the requirement from the current
policy that land has to be held in ‘multiple’ ownership (four plus
persons) in order to remit and/or postpone rates; or
· Option
3: Status quo of the current policy that retains the requirement that
land has to be held in ‘multiple’ ownership (four plus persons) in
order to remit and/or postpone rates.
Analysis of Options
Option 1
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Fewer
problems regarding locating owners of land, where multiple owners exist.
· Requires
people to apply for rates remission so not automatically removing land owners
from system.
· Reliant on how Māori Land Court defines Māori
Freehold Land
(ie legal test).
|
· Could
result in a greater number of land owners being granted rates remission, if
land owners apply.
· Does
not detail definition of ownership (although this is clarified in Section 129
of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 as determined by the Māori Land
Court).
|
Option 2
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Defines
multiple ownership clearly.
· Less
rates remissions granted under this policy.
· Gain
total annual rates of ~$55,000 from including the extra properties (from two
plus to four plus).
|
· Most
of these properties have the Māori Land Court as their address, making
it difficult to find the land owners.
· Cost
of finding land owners and collecting rates is not economical for Council.
|
Option 3
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· No
change necessary.
|
· Includes
statements specific to particular land areas.
· Complex
for Council to administer.
|
Discussion
13 The
draft policy provides for a system that supports owners of Māori Freehold
Land to hold ancestral land for future generations while taking a practical and
fair approach by using the criteria of the Māori Land Court for
eligibility.
Assessment of Significance
14 Proposed
changes have to the policy not been assessed as significant. The number
of ratepayers currently receiving remissions or postponement of rates on
Māori Freehold Land (and therefore affected by the policy) is relatively
low. Further, the financial implications of the policy for the Council
are minor.
Recommended Option
15 It
is recommended that Council adopt the Remission and Postponement of Rates on
Māori Freehold Land Policy.
Next Steps
16 If
the policy is adopted, notification will need to be provided to the appropriate
stakeholders to inform them of the requirement to apply for remission or
postponement.
Attachments
a Excerpts
from public submissions received on draft Remission and Postponement of Rates
on Māori Freehold Land Policy View
b Remission
and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy View
Excerpts
from public submissions on the Draft Remission and Postponement of Rates on
Māori Freehold Land Policy
|
Submission
Number
|
Comment
|
|
1
|
To achieve economic efficiency,
ethnicity and ownership structure should not be reflected in the
rates. Maintaining full rates on all freehold land according to current
policy incentivizes owners to amend their ownership structures if they
find them cumbersome.
|
|
18
|
If appropriate and fair.
|
|
62
|
Unless Māori land has been
set aside for public use then all Māori land should be subject to the
same rates as all other ratepayers.
|
|
63
|
Agree.
|
|
66
|
Māori land should be rated
on the same basis as other land.
|
|
101
|
The submitter provided a large
number of comments on this topic. For the full commentary see
Submission No. 101 in the submissions booklet.
TAMI also support Option 1 of
the proposal for remission and postponement of rates on Māori Freehold
Land.
|
SOUTHLAND DISTRICT
COUNCIL
REMISSION AND POSTPONEMENT OF
RATES ON MĀORI
FREEHOLD LAND
This
policy applies to: Council and owners of Māori freehold land
DOCUMENT
CONTROL
|
Policy
owner:
Corporate
and Financial Services
|
TRIM
reference number:
R/14/9/13224
|
Effective
date:
«type date»
|
|
Approved
by:
«type date»
|
Date
approved:
«type date»
|
Next
review date:
«type date»
|
CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE.. 2
2. DEFINITIONS
AND ABBREVIATIONS.. 2
3. POLICY
DETAILS.. 2
3.1 Background. 2
3.2 Objectives. 3
3.3 Conditions
and Criteria for the Postponement and Remission of Rates on Maori Freehold
Land 3
3.4 Postponement
of Rates. 3
3.5 Remission
of Penalties. 3
3.6 Remission
of Rates. 4
3.7 Existing
decisions on Maori Freehold land. 4
3.8 Length
of decision. 4
4. ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES.. 4
5. ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS.. 5
6. REVISION
RECORD.. 5
REMISSION AND POSTPONEMENT OF
RATES ON MĀORI
FREEHOLD LAND
1. PURPOSE
Southland
District Council has developed the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold
Land Policy (the Policy) to ensure fair and equitable collection of rates from
all sectors. The Policy recognises that certain Māori-owned
lands have particular features, ownership structures or other circumstances
that make it appropriate to provide rates relief.
The
Policy provides the framework for granting remissions and postponements for the
payment of rates and penalties on Māori
freehold land, as is adopted under
Section 102(2)(e) and Section 108 of the Local Government Act (2002).
2. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
|
Term
|
Meaning
|
|
LGA
|
Local Government Act (2002)
|
|
LGRA
|
Local Government (Rating) Act (2002)
|
|
Maori freehold land
|
Land whose beneficial ownership has been determined by the
Māori Land Court by freehold order.
|
|
Service Rates
|
As referenced in the Funding Impact Statement
|
3. POLICY DETAILS
3.1 Background
The Southland District
Council carries out its rating function in accordance with the requirements of
the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA) and the LGA.
All Māori
freehold land in the Southland District is liable for rates in the same manner
as if it were general land (as per section 91 LGRA).
Māori freehold land is defined in the LGRA as land whose
beneficial ownership has been determined by a freehold order issued by the Māori Land
Court. Only land that is the subject of such an order may qualify for
remission or postponement under this policy.
Whether rates are remitted in
any individual case will depend on the individual circumstances of each
application. Schedule 11 of the LGA identifies the matters which must be
taken into account by Council when considering rates relief on Māori freehold
land.
When considering the
objectives listed below Council must take into account:
• the desirability and importance of the objectives
(3.2) to the District.
• whether remitting the rates would assist attainment of
those objectives.
3.2 Objectives
The objectives of rates remission and postponement on Māori
freehold land by Council are:
(a) supporting the use of the land by the owners for
traditional purposes;
(b) recognising and supporting the relationship of Māori and
their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands;
(c) avoiding further alienation of Māori freehold
land;
(d) facilitating any wish of the owners to develop the
land for economic use;
(e) recognising and taking account of the presence of
waahi tapu that may affect the use of the land for other purposes;
(f) recognising and taking account the importance of the
land in providing economic and infrastructure support for marae and associated
papakainga housing (whether on the land or elsewhere);
(g) recognising and taking account of the importance of
the land for community goals relating to:
i. the preservation of the natural character of the
coastal environment,
ii. the protection of outstanding natural features,
iii. the protection of significant indigenous vegetation
and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
(h) recognising the level of community services provided
to the land and its occupiers;
(i) recognising matters related to the physical
accessibility of the land.
3.3 Conditions and Criteria for the
Postponement and Remission of Rates on Maori Freehold Land
Conditions for the rates to receive rates remission include
for defined Maori freehold land to be:
· not
occupied by a dwelling, out-building or commercial building; and
· not
used for economic benefit.
Applications for remission of rates on Māori freehold
land must be made in writing, and should include:
• a
description of the size, position and current use of the land,
• an
indication of the ownership and documentation that shows the land which is
subject to the application for rates remission is Māori freehold land,
• outline
future plans for the land (if any),
• sources
and level of income generated by the land (if any),
• financial
accounts if requested,
• outline
the reason for the request,
• describe
how the application meets any one or more of the objectives listed in 3.2.
Council may grant a remission of up to 100% of all rates
except Service Rates.
3.4 Postponement of Rates
Council does not postpone rates for Māori freehold
land; however, it will remit 100% of rates (excluding Service Rates) on
application, if the application meets the criteria set out in 3.2 and 3.3.
3.5 Remission of Penalties
Remission on rates penalties on Māori freehold land
will be subject to application meeting the criteria set out in 3.2 and
3.3. Each application will be considered on its merits and remission will
be granted where it is considered just and equitable to do so.
Where significant arrears exist, penalties may be remitted
whilst regular payments are made to reduce the arrears balance.
Decisions on remission of penalties will be made on the same
basis as remission of rates, with the delegated authority to remit penalties
being given to the Chief Executive, with recommendations from the Revenue
Manager.
3.6 Remission of Rates
An application for remission of rates must be considered by
the Chief Executive.
All rates on Māori freehold land whose owners name or
names (or the name of the lessee) appears on the valuation roll (under Section
92 of the LGRA) will be collected in the usual manner of rate collection and
follow up.
All rates, rates arrears and penalties on Māori freehold
land vested in trustees will be collected from income derived from that land
and held by the trustees for the beneficial owners, but limited to the extent
of the money derived from the land and held by the trustees on behalf of the
beneficial owner or owners (as per Section 93 LGRA).
For Māori freehold land, any person who actually uses
the land whether for residing, farming, storage or any other use, whether they
have a lease or not, is liable to pay the rates (as per Section 96 LGRA).
The rates invoice will be delivered to that person and the rates will be
collected in the usual manner. Section 97 LGRA provides for the person to
be treated as having used the whole of the land for the whole financial year,
unless they can establish otherwise.
Rates arrears on Māori freehold land shall be reviewed
annually and amounts determined by Council as uncollectible shall be written
off (for accounting purposes) on such land.
3.7 Existing decisions on Māori
Freehold land
Any decisions made by Council regarding rates remissions on Māori
freehold land before
1 July 2015 remain recognised by Council.
3.8 Length of decision
Decisions regarding rates remission on Māori freehold
land remain in perpetuity, unless the land becomes occupied or used for economic
benefit. In this case, it is expected that the landowners would advise Council
of the change in land use. If there is evidence of the use of the land for
occupation or economic benefit, Council may request financial statements
regarding the property in order to review a decision. Reviews of decisions
regarding rates remission for Māori freehold land will be made by the
Chief Executive.
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
|
Party/Parties
|
Roles and Responsibilities
|
|
Revenue Manager
|
Receive applications and make recommendations to Chief
Executive for remission of rates on Māori freehold land.
|
|
|
May request financial statements regarding the property if
there is evidence that the land is occupied or being used for economic
benefit.
|
|
|
May write off rates if the application is accepted
|
|
Chief Executive
|
Accept or decline applications for remission of rates on Māori
freehold land.
Review applications, if applicable, for remission of rates
on Māori freehold land.
|
5. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS
· Local
Government Act (2002),
· Local
Government (Rating) Act (2002),
· Relief,
Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy (R/13/8/11128).
6. REVISION RECORD
|
Date
|
Version
|
Revision Description
|
|
2012
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold
Land
|
R/13/8/11136 - Long Term Plan 2012-2022
|
|
2007
|
Rates Remission Policy for Māori Freehold Land
|
2007/05/4523
|
|
26 June 2003
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold
Land
|
|
|
30 January 1997
|
Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold
Land
|
|
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Early Payment of Rates Policy
Record No: R/15/4/7162
Author: Tamara
Dytor, Policy Analyst
Approved by: Rex Capil,
Group Manager, Policy and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to summarise community views on the draft Early
Payment of Rates Policy and request that Council approve the policy with minor
amendments as recommended by Council officers.
Executive
Summary
2 This
report summarises feedback received on the draft Early Payment of Rates Policy.
The proposed policy sets interest for water and sewerage loan repayments for a
three year period.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Early Payment of Rates Policy” dated 12 May
2015.
b) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
c) Adopts
the Early Payment of Rates Policy with amendments recommended in this report.
|
Content
Background
3 Southland
District Council allows ratepayers connected to some sewerage and water schemes
to choose whether they wish to make early payments of rates rather than pay
annually. Making early payments offers ratepayers the opportunity to
reduce their overall costs by reducing the interest which applies if payments
are made over a longer period.
4 The
Early Payment of Rates Policy also clarifies the position of Southland District
Council on the receipt of other rates as early payments.
Issues
5 The
proposed policy sets interest for water and sewerage loan repayments for a
three year period. If repayment amounts were to change during this
period, Council would need to
re-consult through an Annual Plan process. The proposed policy calculates
contributions on an annual basis including the annual rate of interest.
Council
officers identified a typing error in the table of capital contribution
targeted rates. As highlighted in the table below, the 2015/2016
capital contribution targeted rate for Wyndham Sewerage
Loan - 25 years (including connection cost) should be $6,888 (and was
previously listed as $5,888). It is recommended that this is corrected in
the final policy.
|
Liability per unit per financial year (GST incl)
|
|
Schedule of water and wastewater
Capital Contribution
Targeted Rates
|
If paid in 2015/16
($)
|
If paid in 2016/17
($)
|
If paid in 2017/18
($)
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 10 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
3,684
|
2,847
|
1,899
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 15 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
6,080
|
5,559
|
4,970
|
|
Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (incl. connection cost)
|
7,052
|
6,851
|
6,624
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
4,071
|
3,146
|
2,099
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
5,683
|
5,521
|
5,338
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 10 years
|
887
|
685
|
457
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 15 years
|
1,572
|
1,438
|
1,285
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 25 years
|
1,616
|
1,570
|
1,518
|
|
Gorge Road Sewerage Loan
|
2,022
|
1,666
|
1,263
|
|
Oban Sewerage - Loan Charge Extension
|
2,477
|
2,041
|
1,547
|
|
Sandy Brown Road Utility Loan
|
378
|
292
|
198
|
|
Tuatapere Sewerage Loan Charge - 15
years
|
3,772
|
3,397
|
2,971
|
|
Tuatapere Sewerage Loan Charge - 25
years
|
4,801
|
4,651
|
4,482
|
|
Wallacetown Sewerage Loan Charge - 15
years
|
2,351
|
2,074
|
1,761
|
|
Wallacetown Sewerage Loan Charge - 25
years
|
3,418
|
3,301
|
3,169
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 10 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
4,088
|
3,368
|
2,554
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 15 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
5,410
|
5,007
|
4,551
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 25 years (incl. connection
cost)
|
6,888
|
6,709
|
6,506
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
3,321
|
2,737
|
2,075
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 15 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
4,395
|
4,068
|
3,697
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
5,199
|
5,064
|
4,911
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 10 years
|
1,022
|
842
|
639
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 15 years
|
1,578
|
1,460
|
1,327
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 25 years
|
1,706
|
1,662
|
1,611
|
Factors to Consider
Legal and Statutory Requirements
6 Under
Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, a local authority may
adopt a policy for the payment of some or all rates that are identified in the
rates assessment before the due date(s) for those rates in the current
financial year.
A policy adopted under this section may provide for the local authority to
discount the amount of the rates if payment is made by a specified date before
the due date or dates.
7 There
is also a requirement for policies on early payment of rates to be adopted
using the special consultative procedure outlined in Section 83 of the Local
Government Act (2002). Council has met this requirement.
8 The
Statement of Proposal allows the Early Payment of Rates Policy to be released
for public consultation in compliance with Section 83 of the Local Government
Act (2002).
Community Views
9 Council
received four submissions on the draft Early Payment of Rates Policy.
All submissions indicated support the draft policy but did not provide further
comment.
10 Excerpts
from the submissions which commented on this policy are attached to this
report. Submissions commented on a number of issues and the excerpts
reflect only the part of these submissions which relate to the Early Payment of
Rates Policy. The full submissions are located in the submissions
booklet.
Costs and Funding
11 There
are no costs associated with the amendments in the proposed policy.
The policy does not change the amount of funding which will be collected, but
rather allows ratepayers the flexibility to make early payment of these rates.
Policy Implications
12 This
policy will not be included in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025. It does not
impact significantly on other financial issues and rating.
Analysis
Options Considered
13 Council
could choose:
· Option
1: To adopt the Early Payment of Rates Policy; or
· Option
2: Not to adopt the Early Payment of Rates Policy.
14 If
Option 2 is chosen, Council will not legally be able to accept the early
payment of rates under Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act (2002).
Analysis of Options
Option 1
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Provides
flexibility for ratepayers to make payments in an appropriate manner.
· Reduced
overall cost to ratepayers as a result of saving on interest.
· Adopting
an Early Payment of Rates Policy allows Council to continue receiving early
payment of rates in compliance with legislation.
|
· Higher
level of administration required.
|
Option 2
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Less
administration involved for Council officers.
|
· Rates
would need to be collected on an annual basis and as such ratepayers would
pay more annually as a result of interest.
· There
is no flexibility available in how individuals wish to make payments.
|
Assessment of Significance
15 The
adoption of an Early Payment of Rates Policy has not been assessed as
significant.
The financial impacts relate predominantly to the method of collection rather
than a significant change in the amounts collected.
Recommended Option
16 It
is recommended that Council approve the Early Payment of Policy.
Next Steps
17 If Council chooses
to adopt the Early Payment of Rates Policy, minor changes may be required to
current rating practice. For example, invoices may require the inclusion
of further details and ratepayers would be required to make early payments by
the last Friday in May, rather than the current due date of 30 June.
Attachments
a Excerpts
from public submissions received on draft Early Payment of Rates Policy View
b Early
Payment of Rates Policy View
Excerpts from public submissions on the Draft Early Payment of Rates
Policy
|
Submission
Number
|
Comment
|
|
1
|
I support this policy.
|
|
60
|
I approve of this policy.
|
|
63
|
Agree.
|
|
66
|
I support the proposed policy (Early
Payment of Rates).
|
SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
EARLY PAYMENT OF RATES POLICY
This
policy applies to:
DOCUMENT
CONTROL
|
Policy
owner:
Chief Financial Officer
|
TRIM
reference number:
r/15/2/3793
|
Effective
date:
«type date»
|
|
Approved
by:
Council
|
Date
approved:
«type date»
|
Next
review date:
«type date»
|
CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE.. 1
2. BACKGROUND.. 1
3. POLICY
DETAILS.. 1
3.1 Specified
rates. 1
3.2 Conditions
and criteria. 2
3.3 Liability
per unit 2
3.3 Payment 3
4. ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES.. 3
5. ASSOCIATED
DOCUMENTS.. 3
6. REVISION
RECORD.. 3
EARLY
PAYMENT OF RATES POLICY
1. PURPOSE
In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government
(Rating) Act 2002, which empowers councils to accept early payment of rates,
Council will accept payment in full of all rates assessed in the current year
on or before the due date for the first instalment of the year. Early
payment of rates will attract neither a discount, nor interest on the sum paid.
2. BACKGROUND
The objective of this policy is to assist ratepayers who
want to make payment of specified rates in anticipation of liability for the
specified rates (Clause 3.1) in subsequent financial years. This policy
is made under Section 56 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
Its effect is to provide ratepayers with the opportunity to extinguish their
liability in relation to the specified rates sooner than under the long term
rating option, and at a discount to the amount payable over time.
This
policy is limited to the specified rates listed in this policy. Council
will accept payment of other rates for subsequent financial years not listed in
the conditions and criteria below. However, early payment of these rates
will attract neither a discount, nor interest on the sum paid.
3. POLICY DETAILS
3.1 Specified
rates
Definition: “specified rates” means any
one of the following targeted rates:
• Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 10 years (including connection cost),
• Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 15 years (including connection cost),
• Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (including connection cost),
• Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excluding connection cost),
• Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excluding connection cost).
• Edendale
Water Loan - 10 years,
• Edendale
Water Loan - 15 years,
• Edendale
Water Loan - 25 years.
• Gorge
Road Sewerage Loan.
• Oban
Sewerage - Loan Charge Extension.
• Sandy
Brown Road Utility Loan.
• Tuatapere
Sewerage Loan Charge - 15 years,
• Tuatapere
Sewerage Loan Charge - 25 years.
• Wallacetown
Sewerage Loan Charge - 15 years,
• Wallacetown
Sewerage Loan Charge - 25 years.
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 10 years (including connection cost),
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 15 years (including connection cost),
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (including connection cost),
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excluding connection cost),
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 15 years (excluding connection cost),
• Wyndham
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excluding connection cost).
• Wyndham
Water Loan - 10 years,
• Wyndham
Water Loan - 15 years,
• Wyndham
Water Loan - 25 years.
3.2 Conditions
and criteria
As
long as a Rating Unit is subject to one of the specified rates, the ratepayer
may, at any time before the due date for the last instalment of rates payable
in that financial year, pay an amount calculated in accordance with this policy
to clear the rating unit’s liability for the specified rate for all
future years.
The
sum to clear the Rating Unit’s liability will equal principal outstanding
amount (excluding GST) applying to that specified rate, divided by the number
of rating units liable for the targeted rate in the financial year (plus GST).
3.3 Liability
per unit
In the 2015/16 financial year,
the amount of the payment to clear a Rating Unit's liability will be:
|
Liability per unit per financial year (GST incl)
|
|
Schedule of water and wastewater
Capital Contribution Targeted Rates
|
If paid in 2015/16
($)
|
If paid in 2016/17
($)
|
If paid in 2017/18
($)
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 10 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
3,684
|
2,847
|
1,899
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 15 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
6,080
|
5,559
|
4,970
|
|
Edendale
Sewerage Loan - 25 years (incl. connection cost)
|
7,052
|
6,851
|
6,624
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
4,071
|
3,146
|
2,099
|
|
Edendale Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
5,683
|
5,521
|
5,338
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 10 years
|
887
|
685
|
457
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 15 years
|
1,572
|
1,438
|
1,285
|
|
Edendale Water Loan - 25 years
|
1,616
|
1,570
|
1,518
|
|
Gorge Road Sewerage Loan
|
2,022
|
1,666
|
1,263
|
|
Oban Sewerage - Loan Charge Extension
|
2,477
|
2,041
|
1,547
|
|
Sandy Brown Road Utility Loan
|
378
|
292
|
198
|
|
Tuatapere Sewerage Loan Charge - 15
years
|
3,772
|
3,397
|
2,971
|
|
Tuatapere Sewerage Loan Charge - 25
years
|
4,801
|
4,651
|
4,482
|
|
Wallacetown Sewerage Loan Charge - 15
years
|
2,351
|
2,074
|
1,761
|
|
Wallacetown Sewerage Loan Charge - 25
years
|
3,418
|
3,301
|
3,169
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 10 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
4,088
|
3,368
|
2,554
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 15 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
5,410
|
5,007
|
4,551
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 25 years (incl.
connection cost)
|
6,888
|
6,709
|
6,506
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 10 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
3,321
|
2,737
|
2,075
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 15 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
4,395
|
4,068
|
3,697
|
|
Wyndham Sewerage Loan - 25 years (excl.
connection cost)
|
5,199
|
5,064
|
4,911
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 10 years
|
1,022
|
842
|
639
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 15 years
|
1,578
|
1,460
|
1,327
|
|
Wyndham Water Loan - 25 years
|
1,706
|
1,662
|
1,611
|
3.3 Payment
Elections must be in writing and
addressed to the Chief Financial Officer or the Finance Manager.
The Council will credit the
payment in accordance with the policy.
The discount offered by electing
to make a payment in accordance with this policy equals the Council's estimate
of the cost of interest (plus GST) over the estimated term of the specified
rate.
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
|
Party/Parties
|
Roles and Responsibilities
|
|
Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer, Revenue Manager
|
Decisions about applying the discount will be made by the
Revenue Manager, the Chief Financial Officer or the Chief Executive.
|
5. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS
•
Local Government (Rating) Act 2002
(Section 56),
•
Southland District Council Revenue and
Financing Policy.
6. REVISION RECORD
|
Date
|
Version
|
Revision Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council
19 May 2015
|
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987
|
Recommendation
That the
public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this
meeting.
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:
|
C10.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting dated 22
April 2015
|
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 the passing of this
resolution
|
|
Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting dated
22 April 2015
|
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a
deceased person.
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to protect information where the making available of the
information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position
of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
s7(2)(f)(ii) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the
protection of such members, officers, employees and persons from improper
pressure or harassment.
s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or
disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial
negotiations).
s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for
improper gain or improper advantage.
|
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists..
|
