Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of
the Activities Performance Audit Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Wednesday, 28
October 2015
10.30am
Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill
|
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee Agenda
OPEN
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Lyall Bailey
|
|
|
|
Mayor Gary Tong
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Stuart Baird
|
|
|
|
Brian Dillon
|
|
|
|
Rodney Dobson
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
|
Bruce Ford
|
|
|
|
George Harpur
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Ebel Kremer
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
|
|
Neil Paterson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Chief Executive
|
Steve Ruru
|
|
|
Committee Advisor
|
Alyson Hamilton
|
|
|
Committee Advisor
|
Fiona Dunlop
|
|
Terms of
Reference for the Activities Performance Audit Committee
This committee is a committee of Southland
District Council and has responsibility to:
·
Monitor and review Council’s performance
against the 10 Year Plan
·
Examine, review and recommend changes relating
to Council’s Levels of Services.
·
Monitor and review Council’s financial
ability to deliver its plans,
·
Monitor and review Council’s risk
management policy, systems and reporting measures
·
Monitor the return on all Council’s
investments
·
Monitor and track Council contracts and
compliance with contractual specifications
·
Review and recommend policies on rating, loans,
funding and purchasing.
·
Review and recommend policy on and to monitor
the performance of any Council Controlled Trading Organisations and Council
Controlled Organisations
·
Review arrangements for the annual external
audit
·
Review and recommend to Council the completed
financial statements be approved
·
Approve contracts for work, services or supplies
in excess of $200,000.
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee
28 October
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 Minutes 5
Reports for Resolution
7.1 Objection
to Probationary Dog Owner Classification 13
Reports
8.1 Financial
report for the period ended 31 August 2015 33
8.2 Service
Delivery Review- Roading 67
Public Excluded
Procedural motion
to exclude the public 99
C9.1 Risk
Reports 99
C9.2 Code
Compliance Certificate Status of Building Consents approved by the Southland
District Council 99
C9.3 Wastewater
Scheme Upgrade at Curio Bay 99
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
Committee Members
are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making
when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
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 committee
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 Minutes
6.1 Minutes
of Activities Performance Audit Committee meeting dated 16 September 2015.
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee
OPEN MINUTES
|
Minutes of
a meeting of Activities Performance Audit Committee held in the Council
Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at
10.34am.
present
|
Chairperson
|
Lyall Bailey
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Stuart Baird
|
|
|
|
Brian Dillon
|
|
|
|
Rodney Dobson
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
|
Bruce Ford
|
|
|
|
George Harpur
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Ebel Kremer
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
|
|
Neil Paterson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
Chief Executive Steve
Ruru, Group Manager Services and Assets Ian
Marshall, Group Manager Policy and Community Rex
Capil, Chief Financial Officer Anne Robson, Chief
Information Officer Damon Campbell, Human Resources
Manager Janet Ellis, Manager Communications and Governance Louise Pagan and
Committee Advisor Fiona Dunlop.
1 Apologies
Apologies were
received from Mayor Tong.
|
Resolution
Moved Cr
Ford, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:
That the
Activities Performance Audit Committee accept the apologies.
|
2 Leave
of absence
There were no
requests for leave of absence.
3 Conflict
of Interest
Please see item C10.1 – “Update on the Around the
Mountains Cycle Trail” for a conflict of interest declaration from Cr
Paterson.
4 Public
Forum
There was no public
forum.
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items
There were no
Extraordinary/Urgent items.
6 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
Resolution
Moved Cr
Duffy, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:
That
Council confirms the minutes of Activities Performance Audit Committee, held
on 26 August 2015.
|
Reports for Resolution
|
7.1
|
Road Pavement Rehabilitation Programme 2015/2016
Record No: R/15/8/15644
|
|
|
General
Manager Services and Assets Ian Marshall and John Laskewitz from MWH were in
attendance for this item.
They advised that the purpose of the report was to outline
to the Committee the proposed 2015/2016 Roading Pavement Rehabilitation
Programme, and to seek feedback and the endorsement of the proposed
actions.
The Committee noted that the sites had been selected as
they required renewal to overcome their structural deterioration, which is
unlikely to be able to be dealt with as economically through heavy duty
maintenance.
The Committee also noted that the report outlined the
proposed 2015/2016 Roading Pavement, Rehabilitation Programme that is
currently being worked on. The Committees endorsement was sought on the
programme and the planned procurement processes.
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Baird and resolved
recommendation a:
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Road Pavement Rehabilitation Programme
2015/2016” dated 1 September 2015.
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr
Macpherson and resolved recommendations b and c, d as amended (as indicated)
and e.
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
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) Determines
that the sites below be included in the 2015/2016 Roading Pavement
Rehabilitation Programme, and be approved for investigation, design and
release for procurement:
1. Seaward
Downs Gorge Road [RP 8650 - 9600]
2. Webb
Road [RP 90 - 1350]
3. Gropers
Bush Thornbury Road [RP 1260 - 1455]
4. Otautau
Tuatapere Road [RP 2525 - 3810]
5. Hundred
Line Road West [RP 0 - 1900] (to be completed as a whole project)
6. Avondale
Road [RP 12660 - 14380] (to now be included as general maintenance)
e) Delegates
authority to the Group Manager Services and Assets to let contracts for all
of the listed projects, subject to satisfactory tenders being received that
provide value to the Southland District Council.
|
Reports for Recommendation
|
8.1
|
Adoption of the Information Management Strategic Plan 2015 - 2020
Record No: R/15/8/13772
|
|
|
1 Chief
Information Officer Damon Campbell was in attendance for this item.
He advised that the purpose
of the report was to enable the Committee to consider and then adopt the
Information Management Strategic Plan 2015 - 2020 (IM Strategy).
The Committee noted that in
the 10 Year Plan 2015 - 2025 one of the key budgeted projects for the
Corporate Support Activity is the Core Systems Review (CSR) Project.
The project aim is to review all of Council’s current Information
Management services to ensure that they meet the current and future needs of Southland
District Council.
3 The
Committee also noted that the project is seen as a key enabler for Council to
achieve the organisational goal of being a ‘Dynamic, Effective and
Efficient Organisation’. In order to ensure that the CSR Project
and the recently approved Property File Digitisation Project could achieve
their project goals, the Executive Leadership Team have requested that an
overarching Information Management Strategy be completed to provide a
strategic alignment to these projects as well as various other projects being
undertaken (both externally and internally).
5 The
Committee further noted that the Information Management Group completed the
development of a new Information Management Strategic Plan with the assistance
of Effectus Limited and that this work was completed between April and June 2015.
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr
Paterson and resolved recommendation a:
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Adoption of the Information Management Strategic
Plan 2015 - 2020” dated 3 September 2015.
(Cr Harpur left the meeting at
11.29am.)
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Duffy
and resolved recommendations b to d:
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
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) Adopts
the Information Management Strategic Plan 2015 - 2020 and approves the
strategic goals outlined within the plan.
|
Reports
|
9.1
|
Survey results year end
Record No: R/15/8/13739
|
|
|
Planning
and Reporting Analyst Shannon Oliver was in attendance for this item.
1
Miss Oliver advised that the report was to
provide the Committee with information on the surveys conducted that relate
to the annual report.
2
3
The Committee noted that a number of surveys
are carried out in relation to the external performance measures that are
reported on in the Annual Report. This allows reporting on whether levels of service (as outlined in
Council’s 10 Year Plan) have been achieved. For the 2014/2015
financial year six surveys were conducted. Overall, the results were
positive but some of the levels of service targets were not met. The
results of the surveys had been discussed and reviewed by the relevant
activity manager and the Executive Leadership Team. The relevant
activity managers will use the feedback and results to improve on service
delivery.
The Committee expressed
concern over the results of the issuing of Code of Compliance
certificates. As a result of this concern, a report back to Committee
will be completed on the matter.
4
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Keast
and resolved recommendation a:
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Survey results year end” dated 10 September
2015.
|
|
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr
Macpherson and resolved recommendations b and c with a new d:
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
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) Request
that Officers report back to Committee relating to the Code of Compliance
issues as reported in the survey results.
|
Public Excluded
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987
|
Resolution
Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:
That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the
proceedings of this meeting.
C10.1 Update on the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
The
general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded,
the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
|
General subject of each
matter to be considered
|
Reason for passing this
resolution in relation to each matter
|
Ground(s) under section
48(1) for the passing of this resolution
|
|
Update on the Around the
Mountains Cycle Trail
|
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)(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).
|
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.
|
That the Chief
Executive, Group Manager Services and Assets, Group Manager Policy and Community, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Information Officer, Human Resources
Manager, Communications and Governance Manager and Committee Advisor, be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been
excluded, because of their knowledge of the items C10.1
Update on the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the
matters to be discussed, is relevant to those matters because of their
knowledge on the issues discussed and meeting procedure.
The public were
excluded at 11.49am.
Resolutions in
relation to the confidential items are recorded in the confidential section of
these minutes and are not publicly available unless released here.
The meeting adjourned at 12.46pm.
(Councillors Ford and Douglas left the
meeting at 12.46pm.)
(The meeting reconvened at 3.59pm.)
(Councillors Bailey, Baird, Dillon, Dobson,
Duffy, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting
reconvened.)
The meeting concluded at 4.47pm. CONFIRMED
AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Activities Performance Audit Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY 16
SEPTEMBER 2015.
DATE:...................................................................
CHAIRPERSON:...................................................
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
28 October
2015
|
|
Objection to
Probationary Dog Owner Classification
Record No: R/15/10/18041
Author: Michael
Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager
Approved by: Bruce
Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 To
hear and determine an objection to a probationary dog owner
classification.
Executive Summary
2 Mr
David Mervyn Clapp has objected to being classified as a probationary dog
owner. He was classified because of his repeat offending under the
Dog Control Act. He is entitled to appear before the Committee and speak
in support of the objection.
3 The
Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that the Committee is required to have
regard to in considering his objection. The recommendation of the report
is to uphold the classification.
|
Recommendation
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Objection to Probationary Dog Owner Classification
” dated 15 October 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 classify Mr David Mervyn Clapp as a probationary dog
owner, and gives notice of this decision and reasons for it to Mr
Clapp.
|
Content
Background
Probationary dog ownership
4 The
New Zealand Institute of Animal Control Officers’ website summarises
probationary dog ownership as follows:
As a dog owner, you will be classified as a probationary owner
if:
· you
have received three or more infringement notices within a two-year period, or
· have
been convicted of any offence under the Dog Control Act 1996.
The probationary owner status will apply for two years.
Any dog not registered at the time of the classification
must be re-homed or disposed of within 14 days.
As a probationary owner you may be required to take dog
owner education training and/or dog obedience classes.
The classification
5 Mr
Halligan classified Mr David Mervyn Clapp as a probationary dog owner on
11 September 2015, Attachment A. The
classification applies from 11 September 2015 until 10 September 2017, unless
earlier terminated by the Council.
6 Mr
Clapp has objected to the classification, Attachment B. He
is entitled to appear before the Committee and speak in support of the
objection.
7 The
reasons for the classification are discussed in Issues
below.
Issues
8 Section
21(3) of the Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that the Committee is
required to have regard to in considering this objection. The matters are
as follows:
The circumstances and nature
of the offence or offences in respect of which the person was disqualified.
9 Mr
Clapp’s compliance history is described in Attachment C.
10 Mrs
Gillan advised in her memo to Mr Halligan:
“Mr Clapp has repeatedly allowed his dog to wander,
and has not cooperated with many different Dog Control Officers over the years
in their requests to take steps to confine the dog to his property.
The owner has shown considerable irresponsibility in dog
ownership which has been displayed through the complaints received and number
of infringements issued.”
11 An
option for Mr Halligan was disqualification from dog ownership. Mr
Halligan accepted Mrs Gillan’s advice:
“Whilst disqualification is a viable option, I hope
Mr Clapp will take the probationary classification seriously. Should this
not be the case, and his dog continues to be a nuisance in the community I will
be recommending Mr Clapp be disqualified as a dog owner.”
The competency of the person
objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership
12 Council’s
Policy on Dogs 2015 advises:
“Responsible dog owners will:
(a) Register and
microchip their dogs.
(b) Ensure that
the dogs always wear a current registration tag.
(c) Provide their
dogs with sufficient food, water, shelter and exercise.
(d) Make sure
that their dogs do not become a nuisance or danger to people or animals.
(e) Comply with
the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Council’s Dog Control Bylaws.”
13 Mr
Clapp has not been a responsible dog owner as he has repeatedly failed to
comply with the Dog Control Act. This is shown in his compliance
history.
Any steps taken by the owner
to prevent further offences
14 Mr
Clapp advises that he has changed the latching system, and put written notices
in the guest rooms regarding closing of gates.
The matters advanced in
support of the objection
15 Mr
Clapp has disputed the last two infringements. He did not exercise his
right of objection with either of the infringements within the required
period. He is legally unable to object to these infringements now.
16 Mr
Clapp gives some information concerning his expertise and experience in dog
handling.
Any other relevant matters
17 Mr
Clapp does confirm in his objection that his dog “Sid” has wandered
in the past. He believes his guests are responsible for letting the
dog out. However Mr Clapp is responsible for his dog, and is required to
ensure that his dog does not wander.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
18 A
person classified as a probationary owner may object to the classification, and
to be heard in support of the objection. This legal right is in Section
22 of the Dog Control Act 1996. There is no further right of
appeal.
19 The
Committee is required to have regard to the following matters under Section 22
—
(a) the
circumstances and nature of the offence or offences in respect of which the
classification was made; and
(b) the
competency of the person objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership; and
(c) any
steps taken by the owner to prevent further offences including, but not limited
to, the disposal of any dog or dogs or the fencing of the property on which the
dog is kept; and
(d) the
matters advanced in support of the objection; and
(e) any other
relevant matters.
20 These
matters are discussed in Issues above.
21 The
Committee may uphold or terminate the classification, and must give written
notice of its decision and the reasons for it to the objector.
Community
Views
22 The
views of the community have not been sought for this objection as this is not
required under the Dog Control Act 1996. Council’s Policy on Dogs
2015 may be regarded as being the community’s views on dog control in the
District.
Costs
and Funding
23 There
are no financial considerations.
Policy
Implications
24 Council’s
Policy on Dogs 2015 has application to this objection. Extracts include:
“The intention of this policy is to strike the
proper balance between the need to control dogs and the recognition of the
overall benefits of responsible dog ownership.”
“The Council’s objective is to encourage
responsible dog ownership that allows dog owners to enjoy their dogs without
impinging on the enjoyment and safety of others.”
“The Council will use the full range of enforcement
options available to it under the Dog Control Act 1996 and other
legislation to ensure that dog ownership in the District is undertaken in
accordance with this policy.”
The recommendation of this
report is consistent with this Policy.
Analysis
Options Considered
25 The
legal options are to either uphold or terminate the classification.
Analysis of Options
Option
1 - Uphold the classification, and record reasons for doing so
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Places
the dog owner on probation.
· Probation
can be effective in encouraging responsible dog ownership. In this
case, stopping a dog from wandering.
· Increased
public confidence in the effectiveness of Council’s dog control service
· Effective
dog control promotes responsible dog ownership in the wider community.
· Probationary
owners are monitored by Council officers.
· Consistent
with Council’s Policy on Dogs.
|
· The
continued ownership of dogs. Disqualification from dog ownership was a
valid option for Mr Halligan.
|
Option 2 - Terminate the
classification, and record reasons for doing so
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· None
identified.
|
· Contrary
to Council’s Policy on Dogs that advises that Council will use the full
range of enforcement options to ensure that dog ownership is undertaken in
accordance with the policy
· The
Committee would be indicating that it does not support probationary ownership
for repeat offending under the Act.
|
Assessment
of Significance
26 This
objection is considered to be not significant in accordance with
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
Recommended
Option
27 To
uphold the classification, and record reasons for doing so (Option 1).
This option is recommended by officers because of the reasons in
“Advantages” above.
Next
Steps
28 Staff
will give written notice of the Committee’s decision to Mr Clapp, with
the reasons for it.
Attachments
a Letter
re probationary owner classification - David Mervyn Clapp View
b Objection
to Probationary Owner Classification - David Mervyn Clapp View
c Signed
Memo to Bruce Halligan re probationary Owner - David Mervyn Clapp.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
Notice of
classification as probationary owner
(Section 21, Dog Control Act 1996)
TO: David Mervyn CLAPP
ADDRESS: 72
King Street, Otautau
This is to
notify you that you have been classified as a probationary owner under
Section 21 of the Dog Control Act 1996.
This follows:
• Three
or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion)
having been committed by you within a continuous period of 24 months.
The
classification will apply from 11 September 2015 until 10 September 2017 unless
earlier terminated by the Southland District Council.
A summary of
the effect of the classification and your right to object is provided below.
|
|
|
Bruce Halligan
GROUP MANAGER ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY
|
|
|
|
11 September 2015
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Effect of classification as
probationary owner
(Sections 23, 23A, and 24, Dog Control Act 1996)
During the
classification period you may not become the registered owner of any dog that
is not presently registered by you.
You are
required, within 14 days of the date of this notice, to dispose of every
unregistered dog owned by you.
You are
required to undertake, at your own expense, a dog owner education programme or
a dog obedience course (or both) approved by the Southland District
Council. You will commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine
not exceeding $3,000.00 if you do not comply with this requirement. This
training must be completed by 11 October 2015.
You will also
commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000.00
if you:
• fail
to dispose of every dog owned by you that was not registered by you within
14 days of this notice; or
• at any time while classified as a probationary owner, become the
owner of any dog (unless you were the owner of the dog on the date of the
offence or on the date of the third infringement offence in respect of which
the classification as a probationary owner was made); or
• dispose or give custody or possession of any dog to any person, if
you know that the person is disqualified from being a dog owner.
Full details of
the effect of classification as a probationary owner are provided in the
Dog Control Act 1996.
Right of objection
(Section 22, Dog Control Act 1996)
You may object
to classification as a probationary owner by lodging a written objection with
the Southland District Council setting out the grounds on which you
object. You are entitled to be heard in support of the objection and will
be notified of the time and place when your objection will be heard. No
objection can be lodged within 12 months of the hearing of any previous
objection to the same classification. If an objection is lodged within 14
days after the date of this notice, the requirement to dispose of every
unregistered dog owned by you will be suspended until the Southland District
Council has determined the objection.
Please note
that appealing against this classification incurs
a hearing lodgement fee of $100 as per Council’s Fees and Charges 2015.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities Performance
Audit Committee
28 October
2015
|
|
Financial
report for the period ended 31 August 2015
Record No: R/15/10/18060
Author: Susan
McNamara, Management Accountant
Approved by: Anne
Robson, Chief Financial Officer
☐
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information
Background
1 This
report outlines the financial results to 31 August 2015. This is the
first financial report for the 2015/16 financial year. At 31 August 2015,
16.7% of the financial year is complete.
2 Within
the report, no issues have been identified that raise any concerns for Council
relating to the end of year financial position.
Overview
3 The
financial commentary centres on the summary sheet in Appendix A which draws the
totals from each of the key groups together. Commentary provided focuses
on the year to date (YTD) results.
4 More
detailed variance explanations for each group can be found in the attached
Appendix B.
5 As
part of the monthly review, finance staff, review the phasing/timing of the
budgets and they are revised where beneficial. Where specific phasing of
the budgets has not occurred, one twelfth of budgeted cost is the default
to establish the monthly budget.
6 Council
will implement a formal forecasting process in November 2015 once the 31
October financial results are available. This process will allow budget
managers to indicate their anticipated year-end financial results to the
Executive Leadership Team and Council. These forecast results will be
incorporated into the monthly Council report following formal approval by
Council of the forecast changes.
7 The
format of this report is being refined over the coming months, with additional
features being added to enhance the financial information given. Any
feedback or suggestions on further amendments that could be made to this report
are welcomed.
Income
8 Overall
for the YTD, income is 15% ($1.7M) under budget ($11.8M budget vs $10.1M
actual).
9 Due
to seasonality of the capital works programme Roading and transport income is
under budget by $880K. The budget for capital funding from NZTA is
currently phased evenly over the twelve months. Roading capital
expenditure is expected to be under budget at year end due to reseal contract
prices being under budget and a falling bitumen index and a reduced drainage
programme.
10 Within
the Chief Executive budget is the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
project. The remaining half of the $1 million grant from the New Zealand
Lottery Grants Board will be received on completion of Stage Two of the
trail. The appeal for Section 8 and 9 of the trail is yet to be heard in
the Environment Court. Although the current budget allows for the
estimated cost of sections 8 & 9, given the timing of the hearing, any
construction would likely not take place until the 2016/2017 financial
year.
11 Services
and assets income is under budget by $206K due a number of items.
· An under accrual of
water meter charges ($68K) which will be corrected in September when the water
meter charges are invoiced.
· Area engineers’
revenue is under budget $35K as a result of lower employee costs which are
internally recovered.
· Work scheme revenue is
$29K under budget as a result of less work being completed over the winter
months. Work Scheme Supervisor is currently liaising with Probation
Services to secure a contribution for this financial year. This
contribution is expected to be approximately $32K. In the event that this
contribution is not secured, revenue from internal Council departments and
external customers will need to be increased to ensure this activity breaks
even at the end of the financial year.
Operating Expenditure
12 Overall
for the YTD, operating expenditure is 5% ($0.4M) under budget ($9.0M budget vs
$8.6M actual).
13 Other
activities expenditure is $250K under budget as a result of the timing of
internal interest being paid on reserves and contributions. This timing
issue will be resolved in the September financial report by correct phasing of
the budget.
14 Environment
and community expenditure is $140K under budget due to various fluctuations in
expenditure across the group. Typically expenditure fluctuations
co-relate to income levels given the nature of these activities and the impact
of the economic environment. A couple of key variances to note are;
Building Regulation is under budget by $45K of which $10K relates to a staff
vacancy; Resource Planning/Policy is under budget due to no costs being
incurred to date for notified or appealed consents as well as the District Plan
appeal being on hold; Animal Control is $15K over budget due to pound costs
being $13K more than budgeted as well as the fit out of the new animal control
vehicle ($5K); Health Licensing is $20K under budget predominantly as a result
of staff costs ($13K) being incorrectly allocated to other business units (this
has been resolved in September).
15 Roading
and Transport expenditure is $137K under budget predominantly due to a lower
level of maintenance work being completed over the winter months.
16 This
is offset by $235K over expenditure in Services and Assets predominantly
associated with the timing of work being completed on the Oxidation Pond
upgrade at Te Anau. In addition, Council and Councillors is $76K over
budget in relation to Te Ao Mārama ($40K) and Warm Homes Trust ($35K)
annual grants being paid in full at the beginning of the year.
Capital Expenditure
17 Overall
for the YTD, capital expenditure is 43% ($1.7M) under budget ($3.9M budget vs
$2.2M actual).
18 Roading
capital works are $1.3M under budget due to low levels of works being
undertaken over the winter months.
19 Information
management capital expenditure is under budget $292K due to minimal capital
work being undertaken to date. Included in the budget are costs
associated with the Core systems review and digitisation project. Work
has been planned for the digitisation project in the second half of this
financial year. The budget for this year for the digitisation project is
$756K, but it is expected that $200K will be spent this year with the reminder
in 2016/2017 when the property files are sent away. At this stage no
significant expenditure has been identified for the core systems review.
20 Services
and assets capital expenditure is under budget $365K due to minimal capital
work being undertaken to date. Included in this budget are costs
associated with the Curio Bay sewerage project, the Hansen software upgrade,
public convenience upgrades in Waikaia, Winton (Ivy Russell Park) and Dipton,
as well as the forestry revaluation.
21 Offsetting
these in the Chief Executive activity is $259K in relation to the AMCT.
Costs for the year to date total $1.1M compared to a budget of $0.8M. An
additional $400K is expected to be spent this year on stage 2 excluding stage 8
& 9. The budget for the year is $4.8M.
Balance Sheet
22 Council’s
financial position as at 31 August 2015 is detailed below and is only for the
activities of Council. The balance sheet as at 30 June 2015 represents
the audited balance sheet for activities of Council (ie excludes SIESA and
Venture Southland).
23 Council
currently has $6.0M invested in four term deposits ranging from three to six
month maturities. Interest rates on these deposits vary from 3.5% to 4.6%
per annum.
On-call accounts earn interest at 2.3% and 2.5% per annum. The funds on
call are the result of rates received at the end of August and held to ensure
there is enough cash available to meet commitments as they fall due.
24 External
borrowings have still not been required, with internal funds being used to meet
obligations for the year-to-date. The
borrowings shown in current liabilities is the outstanding amount of assets
funded by finance leases.
|
Recommendation
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Financial report for the period ended 31 August
2015” dated 19 October 2015.
|
Attachments
a Report
to Activities Performance Audit Committee - Report to 31 August - Summary
financial report View
b Report
to Activities Performance Audit Committee - Report to 31 August - Detailed
Commentary View
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
Staff costs
Due to an error in allocating staff costs to the correct
activity during July and August, expenditure for certain activities has been
overstated or understated. The following activities are affected by this
error; Financial Services, Secretarial Services, Information Management,
Knowledge Management and Property and Spatial Services. This error has been
corrected in September.
Key Financial Indicators
|
Indicator
|
Target*
|
Actual
|
Variance
|
Compliance
|
|
External Funding:
Non rateable income/Total income
|
> 39%
|
28%
|
-11%
|
x
|
|
Working Capital:
Current Assets/Current Liabilities
|
>1.09
|
1.89
|
0.80
|
a
|
|
Debt Ratio:**
Total Liabilities/Total Assets
|
<0.73%
|
0.66%
|
0.07%
|
a
|
|
Debt To Equity Ratio:
Total Debt/Total Equity
|
<0.01%
|
0.00%
|
0.01
|
a
|
* All
target indicators have been calculated using the 2015/25 10 Year Plan
figures.
** Excludes
internal loans.
Financial
Ratios Calculations:
|
Non
Rateable Income
|
|
Total
Income
|
External Funding:
This ratio indicates the percentage of revenue received
outside of rates. The higher the proportion of revenue that the Council
has from these sources the less reliance it has on rates income to fund its
costs.
|
Current
Assets
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
Working Capital:
This ratio indicates the amount by which short-term assets
exceed short term obligations. The higher the ratio the more comfortable
the Council can fund its short term liabilities.
|
Total
Liabilities
|
|
Total
Assets
|
Debt Ratio:
This ratio indicates the capacity of which the Council can
borrow funds. This ratio is generally used by lending institutions to
assess entities financial leverage. Generally the lower the ratio the
more capacity to borrow.
Debt to Equity Ratio:
It indicates what proportion of equity and debt the Council
is using to finance its assets.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
CHIEF EXECUTIVE COMMENTARY
For the year-to-date, income is under budget by 53%
($491K). Expenditure is under budget by 14% ($50K). The
year-to-date position is $441K under budget.
Chief Executive
Income in this business unit is 5% ($9K) over budget, due to
higher rates penalties income ($7K). Expenditure is 23% ($23K) under
budget, with legal costs ($9K) and consultant costs ($13K) under budget.
Civil Defence
Income and expenditure are on budget.
Human Resources
Income is 28% ($28K) under budget. Expenditure
year-to-date is 25% ($24K) under budget due to reduced expenditure on staff
costs ($4K), training costs ($4K), surveying costs ($5K) and consultant costs
($4K). As this activity is internally funded, the reduced expenditure
impacts directly on income.
Around the Mountains Cycle Trail
Income is 93% ($453K) under budget with no funding received
to date. Capital expenditure is over budget by 33% ($259K) due to the timing of
work undertaken on Stage 2.
Rural Fire Control
Income and expenditure is on budget for the year.
Shared Services Forum
Income is 5% ($2K) over budget. Expenditure for
year-to-date is over budget by 75% ($7K) due to higher consultant costs ($7K)
in relation to the Southland Regional Development Strategy.
Stewart Island Visitor Levy
Income is 73% ($16K) under budget with income expected to
increase in the tourist season. Expenditure is currently on budget with grants
expected to be paid in May.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
Council and Councillors’ Commentary
For the year-to-date, income is 3% ($18K) under budget.
Expenditure is over budget by
10% ($76K). The year-to-date position is $94K under budget.
Council and Councillors
Income is on budget. Expenditure is 11% ($13K) over
budget due to the timing of the annual LGNZ membership.
Council Contributions/Grants
Income is on budget. Expenditure is currently over budget
113% ($76K) due to the timing of IWI funding and Miscellaneous Grants.
Council Elections
Income is on budget. Expenditure is $2K under budget
with pre-election costs expected to be incurred later in the year.
Council Water and Sewerage Loans
Income and expenditure is on budget for the year-to-date.
International Relations Committee
Income is on budget. Expenditure is $2K under budget
with minimal activity year to date.
Museum
Income is 18% ($17K) under budget due to an accounting
error. This is corrected in September. Expenditure is under budget 4% ($3K).
Regulatory - Non-Recoverable
Income is on budget. It is likely this will not be
recovered. Expenditure is under budget by 57% ($9K) as a result of
quarterly charging.
Venture Southland
Income and expenditure are on budget.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
OTHER
ACTIVITIES COMMENTARY
Allocations Committee
Income is 69% ($34K) over budget due to an unbudgeted
donation towards the Men of the Trees fund ($28K). Expenditure is under
budget by 100% ($18K) with Allocation Committee meetings yet to be held.
Operating Investments
Currently, the majority of
Council’s reserves are internally loaned by Council or its local
communities for major projects. Council has set the interest rate to be
charged on these loans as part of its 10 Year Plan process and interest is being
charged on a monthly basis on all internal loans drawn down at 30 June 2015.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities Performance
Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
ENVIRONMENT AND
COMMUNITY COMMENTARY
Overall YTD Income at the end of August 2015 is $71K (5%)
below budget, at $1.37M actual versus $1.44M budget.
Key features are:
• Building
Regulations income is 13% below budget ($38K) with lower income from code
compliance ($24K) and building inspection ($5K).
• Income
from Customer Services is 19% below budget ($12K). As this activity is
internally funded this is a result of lower expenditure year-to-date.
• District
Library income is 9% ahead of budget ($19K) primarily due to $14K in donations
received.
• Resource
consent processing income is 22% under budget ($30K) with lower income from
compliance monitoring ($5K), consent income ($16K) and internal LIM income
($5K).
Overall YTD Expenditure at the end of August 2015 is
$141K (13%) below budget at $960K actual versus $1.1M budget
Key features are:
• Building
Regulations expenditure is 17% under budget ($45K) with lower staff costs
($9K), software costs ($4K), consultant costs (4K), demolition costs ($6K),
internal photocopying charges ($3K) and lower internal building regulation
costs ($9K).
• District
Library is 15% under budget ($28K) due to staff costs ($7K), stationary costs
($3K), internet expenses ($2K) and software maintenance agreement costs ($6K).
• Health
Licencing is 87% under budget ($20K) with staff costs $13K under budget as a
result of the staff costs allocation error.
• Resource
consent processing costs are 12% ($16K) under budget with lower consultant
costs ($4K), legal costs ($2K), staff costs ($3K) and internal resource consent
costs ($2K).
• Resource
Planning and Policy is 39% under budget ($28K) due to no District Plan charges
to date ($17K), legal costs ($8K) under budget and consultant costs ($3K).
• Animal
Control costs are 17% over budget ($15K) due to the timing of pound maintenance
costs.
|
Activities Performance
Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMMENTARY
Income is 12% ($45K) under budget. As this activity is
internally funded the reduced expenditure impacts directly on income.
Expenditure is 23% ($98K) under budget. This is
primarily due to the following:
• Due
to an allocation error staff costs are ($65K) under budget, these have been
corrected and will fall in line with the budget in September.
• Operational
Leases are $10K under budget with annual NCS system costs being lower than
anticipated. This is expected to be $6K below budget at year end.
• Valuation
Roll maintenance costs are $7K below budget.
• Public
Liability Insurance costs for the year are $11K under budget.
• Other
Insurance costs for the year are $7K under budget.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY
For the year-to-date, income is 4% ($21K) under
budget. Overall expenditure is 7% ($29K) under budget. The
year-to-date position is $8K over budget.
Information Management
Income is 8% ($21K) under budget, predominantly due to
internal photocopying charges ($25K) not being charged until September.
This is offset by internal computer hire ($5K). Expenditure is 16% ($38K)
under budget due to the internal Business Improvement contribution being $67K
below budget as a result of the error in allocating staff costs to the Business
Improvement business unit. This has been corrected and will fall in line
with budget in September. This is offset by overspends on software
licence fees ($13K), consultant costs ($20K) and staff costs ($8K) as a result
of the error in allocating.
Knowledge Management
Income is 10% ($15K) under budget. Expenditure is 7%
($9K) under budget, due to staff costs ($20K) as a result of the allocation
error. This is offset by software licence fees ($6K) and postage costs
($4K). As this activity is internally funded the reduced expenditure
impacts directly on income.
Property and Spatial Services
Income is 22% ($14K) over budget. Expenditure is 29%
($18K) over budget with consultant costs ($29K) ahead of budget due to the
timing of costs for the Southern Rural Fire Association Fire Permit
application. As this activity is internally funded the reduced
expenditure impacts directly on income.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
POLICY AND
COMMUNITY COMMENTARY
Income for the year-to-date is 7% ($23K) under budget.
Expenditure for the year-to-date is 7% ($23K) under budget. The net
result for the year-to-date is a surplus of $15K against a forecasted surplus
of $14K, a positive variance of $1K.
Community Outcomes
Income is on budget. Expenditure is under budget by
$8K as no projects relating to the
Our Way Southland Outcomes have been identified in the current period.
Corporate Planning
Income is 13% ($18K) under budget. Expenditure is 9%
($12K) under budget due to lower staff costs ($5K) as a result of the
allocation error, lower internal overheads ($4K) also resulting from the
allocation error, lower costs on the district survey ($3K) and consultant costs
($2K).
Secretarial Services
Income is 29% ($15K) over budget. Expenditure is 35%
($18K) over budget due to an error in allocating staff costs resulting in staff
costs $22K over budget. This has been corrected in September and will
fall in line with budget. This is offset by underspends in internal
photocopying ($4K) and training costs ($2K).
Strategy/Communication
Income is 14% ($20K) under budget. Expenditure is
underspent by 15% ($22) due to the timing of Waimumu Field Days costs ($5K),
website costs ($3K), advertising costs ($3K), communication costs ($3K) and
internal overheads ($4K). As this activity is internally funded the
reduced expenditure impacts directly on income.
|
Activities Performance
Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
STRATEGIC
TRANSPORT
Overall Financial Performance
Transport remains focused on delivering value for
money. The current focus of the business unit is the ‘lead in
work’ required for its capital works programme.
The Alliance Management Team have prepared its total cost
estimates for the 2015/2016 year and these budgets are aligned with Annual Plan
budgets. Of note, contingency budgets for frost and ice gritting
(environmental maintenance) have been fully utilised due to the weather
conditions in July and August. Unsealed road maintenance is also over budget
primarily due to the response in weather conditions namely in the North West
and South East Areas.
This has been offset with underspends in sealed road maintenance. This is
under budget due to some heavy duty maintenance work requiring better weather
conditions.
Council’s Transport capital expenditure is under
budget primarily due to timing. Council is currently in the planning
stage for this year’s programme. Of note, there has been a
significant drop in the bitumen index over the last three months. This
index has been a lot more volatile than in previous years and will be managed
with caution. At this point of time with the reseal contract price very
competitive compared to previous years and the falling index reseal budgets could
come significantly under budget. Transport is looking at the
logistics/supply chain of completing more reseals due to the current
pricing. The 2015/2016 rehabilitation schedule has been approved by APAC
and Transport is working through the process to get these projects to market.
|
Key
|
|
|
Largely on
Track
|
|
|
Monitoring
|
|
|
Action
Required
|
Maintenance and Operations (excluding Special Purpose
Roads):
|
Financial Tracking vs Plans
|
|
YTD
|
Forecast
|
Annual Plan
|
NZTA Approved
|
|
17%
|
18%
|
17%
|
16%
|
- As
discussed in the summary, environmental maintenance and unsealed roads
maintenance is over budget due to responding to the weather events over last
few months.
- This
is offset with timing variance in sealed maintenance.
Renewals and Minor
Improvements:
|
Financial Tracking vs Plans
|
|
YTD
|
Forecast
|
Annual Plan
|
NZTA Approved
|
|
17%
|
11%
|
10%
|
9%
|
As discussed in the summary section, currently Transport is
in the planning stages.
The forecast is under Annual Plan budget due to the reseal contract price been
significantly cheaper than budget.
Three Year Tracking -
Other budgeted Projects:
Unbudgeted Projects:
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
SERVICES AND
ASSETS (Excluding Roading)
COMMENTARY
Income
Overall Services and Assets
(excluding Roading) actual income is 8% ($206K) under budget for the year
($2.45M v $2.65M).
Key highlights are:
• Area
Engineers is 18% ($38K) under budget. As income is fully recovered and driven by expenditure levels the
decreased expenditure impacts directly on income.
• District Water is 17% ($84K) under budget with quarterly invoicing to be sent out in September.
• Engineering
Administration is 12% ($9K) under budget. As income is fully recovered and driven by expenditure levels the
decreased expenditure impacts directly on income.
• Public Conveniences are 13% ($14K) under budget with contributions for the
new toilet at Ivy Russel reserve yet to be transferred in.
• Work Schemes income is 54% ($29K) under budget due
to the timing of invoicing and lower work completed year to date.
Operating Expenditure
Actual operational expenditure for
Services and Assets year-to-date is 7% ($235K) over budget.
Key highlights are:
• Area
Engineers is 12% ($23K) under budget due to staff
costs $20K, cell phone charges $1K and vehicle insurance $1K.
• District
Sewerage is 34% ($256K) over budget; predominantly as a result of higher than
planned capital expenditure for the year-to-date ($661K actual capital works
compared to $365K budgeted).
• Water
Services are 42% ($69K) over budget primarily due to
the timing of software licence fees.
• Public Conveniences are 19% ($20K) under budget due to
timing of maintenance expenditure.
• Forestry is 23% ($26K) over budget due to the timing of
costs towards replanting
90 hectares in the Dipton and Waikaia forests.
• Work Schemes are 54% ($29K) under budget with lower
materials and ordinary time costs as a result of less work completed for the
year to date.
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
28 October
2015
|
|
Service Delivery Review- Roading
Record No: R/15/10/18217
Author: Ian
Marshall, GM - Services and Assets
Approved by: Ian
Marshall, GM - Services and Assets
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the findings of a service
delivery review of the Council’s roading services and to seek the
Councils decision in relation to future delivery of those
services.
2 In
so doing the Council will fulfil its requirements under section 17A of the
Local Government Act 2002.
Executive
Summary
3 This
report discusses the requirements of the Local Government Act, under section
17A to carry out a delivery of service review.
4 The
report then goes on to discuss a review of the Councils Roading services as
carried out by independent consultants Morrison Low and their report is
attached to this report. The recommendations within this report reflect
Morrison Low’s findings
5 Morrison
Low’s performance overview concludes “Actual service delivery
performance is of a high standard and providing very good value for
money”
|
Recommendation
That the Activities
Performance Audit Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Service Delivery Review- Roading” dated 20
October 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) Recommends
to Council that it continues to independently govern its roading services
delivery as at present
e) Recommends
to Council that it considers initiating within the Otago/Southland Regions a
review of options for future sustainability of roading services delivery in
the light of continually constraining budgets and aging or increasingly
loaded roading networks
f) Recommends
to Council that it continues to use its current service delivery framework of
in-house client/owner and representational functions and outsourced
specialist engineering advice and physical works services
|
Content
Background
Introduction
6 The
Local Government Act (LGAct) in s17a requires that councils periodically
undertake a formal review of how they deliver their services. The Manager
Strategic Transport commissioned Morrison Low to undertake an independent
review of Council’s delivery of Roading Services.
Section
17A requirements
7 s17A Delivery of
services provides inter alia that:
(1)A local
authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for
meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions.
(4)A review under
subsection (1) must consider options for the governance, funding, and delivery
of infrastructure, services, and regulatory functions, including, but not
limited to, the following options:
(a)responsibility
for governance, funding, and delivery is exercised by the local authority:
(b)responsibility
for governance and funding is exercised by the local authority, and
responsibility for delivery is exercised by—
(i)a
council-controlled organisation of the local authority; or
(ii)a
council-controlled organisation in which the local authority is one of several
shareholders; or
(iii)another local
authority; or
(iv)another person
or agency:
(c)responsibility
for governance and funding is delegated to a joint committee or other shared
governance arrangement, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by an
entity or a person listed in paragraph (b)(i) to (iv).
8 In essence the review must consider as a minimum:
· Governance
and funding by council alone or in a ‘joint committee’ of one or
more councils
· Delivery
by:
o Council; or
o A CCO owned
by council or jointly owned with another shareholder; or
o Another
council; or
o Another
person or agency (noting that a “person” could be a contractor
corporate and “agency” could be some form of joint arrangement with
say NZTA)
Findings
9 The
report canvasses the challenges facing Council arising from higher road network
loadings and tightening funding and new initiatives to address these and
examines options for the Roading Services delivery framework.
10 Challenges
11 There are a number of conflicting
challenges facing Council that are testing the resilience of Council to
sustainably maintain and service its roading network. In summary these
are:
12 Flat line funding from NZTA
resulting from cessation of inflation adjustments to programme levels and
reductions in financial assistance ratios from a base rate of 54% to 51%
resulting in a real reduction in available funding for maintenance and renewals
13 Economic pressure on the network
driven by dairy and associated development and other general increase in
economic activity resulting in more intensive maintenance and renewal
interventions on key routes dominating the call on funding
14 Historic design standards no longer
being appropriate for all of the network due to the necessity for targeting
heavy vehicle high use areas and putting less emphasis on lowly trafficked
roads. This has an implication for levels of service on local and
secondary roads.
15 Community expectations may not be
able to be met particularly in the areas of seal extensions and levels of
service on lowly trafficked roads
16 Increasing need for flexibility is
required reallocate funds and change priorities in maintenance and renewal delivery
in order to obtain the best value without incurring contract variations which
could increase cost
17 Market sustainability is being
impacted by the overall reducing funding levels and consequential reduction in
work causing some contractors to leave the district or focus more of their
attention in Canterbury where margins are better
18 Current Initiatives
19 Council has developed or adopted a
number of new tools to assist in ensuring the most appropriate approach is
adopted to maintenance and intervention to provide the most sustainable and
best value outcome. These include the Economic Development Plan (ENP)
approach to help determine priorities, vehicle mounted smart phone applications
to rapidly capture road condition (now also being trialled in Fonterra tankers
in a joint initiative), improving customer communications on what is being done
and why, discussions on a possible shared service with Invercargill City to
manage Council’s RAMM database and commissioning a study [1] to review the
current delivery structure to determine what refinement is possible to achieve
optimal delivery.
20 Governance
21 Governance options examined include
the concept of joint governance with one or more neighbouring councils or with
NZTA and concludes that at this point in time Council should continue to remain
independent in governing its roading service delivery. The report does
however note that roading budgets are being continually constrained and the
reduced programme levels are now affecting the viability of the market to
adequately and viably service them. It suggests it would be worth
considering a review of possible future territorial authority relationships
throughout the Otago and Southland Regions in respect of their roading
networks.
22 The review could investigate the
possible establishment of larger road controlling authorities more aligned to
the population they support, and to enable a more viable and stable market of
contractors to service them. It should be noted that this was reported
prior to the recent announcement by the Minister for Local Government that she
would be promoting a more regional focus on infrastructure provision.
23 Service Delivery
24 The report examines
Southland’s service delivery framework and concludes that this has been
through considerable refinement over recent years and the current balance of
in-house, consultants, and contractors and the use of highly flexible contracts
arrangements is providing high standard outcomes and maximising value for
money. Other options examined and discarded at this time were service
delivery through a council controlled organisation (CCO), delivery by another
council and delivery through a joint arrangement with NZTA.
Performance
25 Included
as an appendix to the report is an overview of Southland’s performance
both in terms of initiatives and trends and how it ranks when benchmarked
against neighbouring districts and peer districts with large rural
networks. It poses the questions:
· Are the right
things being done?
· Are they being
done at the right time?
· Is
value for money being achieved?
The performance overview
concludes “Actual service delivery performance is of a high standard
and providing very good value for money”
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
26 The predominant legal requirement
is in relation to s17A of the Local Government Act 2002.
27 s17A Delivery of services provides
inter alia that:
(1)A local
authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for
meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions.
(4)A review under
subsection (1) must consider options for the governance, funding, and delivery
of infrastructure, services, and regulatory functions, including, but not
limited to, the following options:
(a)responsibility
for governance, funding, and delivery is exercised by the local authority:
(b)responsibility
for governance and funding is exercised by the local authority, and
responsibility for delivery is exercised by—
(i)a
council-controlled organisation of the local authority; or
(ii)a
council-controlled organisation in which the local authority is one of several
shareholders; or
(iii)another local
authority; or
(iv)another person
or agency:
(c)responsibility
for governance and funding is delegated to a joint committee or other shared
governance arrangement, and responsibility for delivery is exercised by an
entity or a person listed in paragraph (b)(i) to (iv).
28 The Act requires in; Part 12,
Schedule 1AA;
Consequential amendments,
repeals, revocations, transitional provisions, and savings
Transitional provision relating to delivery of services
(1)A local
authority must complete its first reviews under section 17A in
relation to governance, funding, and delivery of any infrastructure, service,
or regulatory function within 3 years of the commencement of section 12 of
the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014
29
In effect this means the Council is required to carry out this service review
before June 2017.
Community
Views
30 No
specific consultation has been carried out in relation to this service delivery
review. The community is surveyed about every two years
Costs
and Funding
31 The
cost estimates for the delivery of roading services is based on the current
delivery model. This report does not propose any changes to that model
and so not cost changes are proposed.
Policy
Implications
32 There
are no policy implications
Analysis
Options Considered
33 The
options are discussed in the attached Morrison Low report.
Assessment
of Significance
34 The
assessment of significance of the issues in this report is complex but after
consideration of the various aspects of significance overall the matter or
decision is considered to be not significant.
35 The
service referred to in the report, being roading services, is a significant
service given the importance of the service, the value of the assets involved
and the budget level necessary to operate, maintain and renew the assets.
36 However
the main purpose of the report is to seek Councils decision in relation to the
delivery of service review required under section 17A of the Local Government
Act 2002. This decision in its own right will be either significant or
not significant depending on the outcome.
37 Given
the Morrison Low service review findings recommend little change to the methods
of service delivery or to the actual levels of service, then a decision in line
with this recommendation is not significant.
38 In
essence a decision by the Council to continue with the current service delivery
model, which will mean the current levels of service will be unaltered and
given the current LTP budgets are based on delivering those levels service via
the existing delivery model then the matter is considered not significant.
39
Changing the delivery model or the level of service would be significant.
Recommended
Option
40 That
Council continues to use its current service delivery framework of in-house
client/owner and representational functions and outsourced specialist
engineering advice and physical works services
Next
Steps
41 Subject
to Council confirming retention of the current service delivery framework
further work will be done on assessing the scope of work to be delivered within
the maintenance contracts
Attachments
a Service
Delivery Review- Roading (Morrison Low report) View
|
Activities
Performance Audit Committee
|
28 October 2015
|
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee
28 October
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.
C9.1 Risk
Reports
C9.2 Code
Compliance Certificate Status of Building Consents approved by the
Southland District Council
C9.3 Wastewater
Scheme Upgrade at Curio Bay
The general
subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
|
|
General subject
of each matter to be considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to
each matter
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
Risk Reports
|
s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.
s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
|
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.
|
|
Code Compliance Certificate Status of Building
Consents approved by the Southland District Council
|
s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to maintain legal professional privilege.
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).
|
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.
|
|
Wastewater Scheme Upgrade at Curio Bay
|
s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
|
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.
|
