Agenda of Activities Performance Audit Committee

sdclogo

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, 18 November 2015 at 11.05am.

present

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

Group Manager Environment and Community, Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Policy and Community Rex Capil, Group Manager Services and Assets Ian Marshall, Chief Financial Officer Anne Robson, Management Accountant Susan McNamara, Manager Communications and Governance Louise Pagan, Environment Heath Officer, Veena Lal-Boon and Committee Advisor Alyson Hamilton.

1 Apologies

There were no apologies received.

2 Leave of absence

There were no requests for leave of absence.

3 Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Public Forum

There were no members of the public seeking speaking rights in the Public Forum section of the meeting.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved:

That the minutes of Activities Performance Audit Committee, held on 28 October 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Reports

7.1

Food Act 2014

Record No: R/15/10/18126

Environmental Health Officer, Veena Lal-Boon was in attendance for this item.

Mr Halligan introduced Mrs Lal-Boon to the Committee and outlined her role within Council.

Mrs Lal-Boon reported the purpose of the report is to inform the Committee of the upcoming Food Act 2014 changes and proceeded to present a Powerpoint presentation explaining the current food control system and highlighting the benefits of a quality management system.

Mrs Lal-Boon advised the new Food Act 2014 will come into effect on 1 March 2016.

The Committee was informed this Act categories food premises under a risk based measure for approvals. High risk food premises are those that prepare and sell meals or sell raw meat or seafood, will operate under a written Food Control Plan. Businesses that produce medium to low risk food like non-alcohol beverages will operate under a National Programme.

Mrs Lal-Boon explained this Act allows clear exemptions for kiwi traditions like fundraising sausages sizzles and baking at school fairs to take place.

Members queried what support are Restaurant owners to receive through this process.

In response Mrs Lal-Boon advised it is intended staff undertake a mentoring process with the business owner so the owner has a clear understanding of the Food Control Plan, to ensure processes conform with the Food Control Plan, good record keeping and improved confidence that their food is safe.

Councillor Keast queried whether Childcare Centres and Retirement Homes are to be targeted.

In response Mrs Lal-Boon advised that home-based Childcare Centres will be exempt. She added some centre based childcare are also exempt if there is only minimal food handling where food is not prepared on-site, only handled (served) on site.

Mrs Lal-Boon advised centre based Childcare where food is prepared and served are likely to operate with a National Programme.

In regard to Retirement Homes Mrs Lal-Boon confirmed they are required to operate with a Food Control Plan.

In summarising Mrs Lal-Boon advised the transitional period commences 1 March 2016 and ends 1 March 2019 when the existing Food Act 1981 and Food Hygiene Regulations are revoked.

Resolution

Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Dobson and resolved:

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Food Act 2014” dated 5 November 2015.

7.2

Financial Report for the period ended 30 September 2015

Record No: R/15/10/19332

Management Accountant, Susan McNamara was in attendance for this item.

Financial Report for the period ended 30 September 2015, prepared by Ms Susan McNamara (Management Accountant), was tabled.

Ms McNamara informed the report outlined the financial results to 30 September 2015.

It was pointed out to the Committee 25% of the financial year is complete and that no issues have been identified that raise concerns for Council.

Ms McNamara then spoke on matters relating to the income, operating expenditure, capital expenditure, roading and transport, chief executive and balance sheet.

Ms McNamara reported roading and transport are forecasting that capital expenditure will be under budget at the end of the year.

Ms McNamara explained this variance is partly caused by a significant drop in the bitumen index over the last three months, along with the expectation that the Southern Scenic Route extension and Mararoa Bridge projects will be deferred to the 2016/2017 financial year.

Councillor Kremer queried the delay of Mararoa Bridge project.

Mr Marshall responded a business case has been presented to New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and requires their approval prior to their allocation of funds toward this project. He added Council has yet to receive a response from NZTA.

In regard to term deposits Councillor Bailey noted Council currently has $6.0M invested in four term deposits ranging from three to six months maturities with interest rates varying at 3.3% to 4.05% per annum and queried if Council is limited to which banks it can invest at.

Mrs McNamara confirmed Council holds a list of approved New Zealand registered banks.

In regard to The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail projects held within the Chief Executive budget Councillor Baird expressed concern that the costings for this project are escalating and queried when the total costings are to be disclosed to the public.

In response Mayor Tong advised a report is being prepared by the Chief Executive on this matter which will be presented to the Committee in due course.

Councillor Bailey reiterated that until the final costings including the legal challenges are available then a report will be made available to the public.

Councillor Kremer sought confirmation from staff that until the monetary side is sorted no further work is to be undertaken.

In his response Mr Marshall advised that whilst work has ceased until the results of the Environmental Court are resolved there are contractual payments to be made.

Council Kremer requested an analysis on what payments are outstanding be made available to the Committee. It was agreed Finance Staff action this request.

At this point Councillor Baird raised the issue of a possible procedural issue that he has raised with the Chief Executive, however noting his absence at this meeting, that may have occurred at the Council 15 May 2013 meeting when Council moved into Public Excluded to discuss a report presented by staff concerning the Around the Mountain Cycle Trail project with the recommendation to proceed with and to guarantee $4million of ratepayers monies toward this project. He added this report was presented twelve days prior to hearing submissions to the Draft Annual Plan 2013/2014, which included this item.

Mr Halligan responded advising he was unaware of any procedural breeches with processes to date, however notes Councillor Baird’s comments about the overall costs and Councillor Kremer’s request for further information.

Both issues to be followed up by staff.

Councillor Baird sought a response from staff to clarify if a procedural issue has occurred.

Mr Halligan confirmed this matter will be investigated by staff and a response will be forthcoming to the Committee.

Resolution

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the period ended 30 September 2015” dated 10 November 2015.

The meeting concluded 12 noon CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Activities Performance Audit Committee HELD ON 18 NOVEMBER 2015.

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Activities Performance Audit Committee

9 December 2015

sdclogo

Coastal Route Tourist Improvements

Record No: R/15/11/21277

Author: Hartley Hare, Roading Asset Management Engineer

Approved by: Ian Marshall, GM - Services and Assets

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To seek feedback and direction on the next stage of this project, along with approval to proceed with the detailed business case including the route to Waipapa Point Lighthouse.

Executive Summary

2 This report provides an update on the status of the project including a copy of the indicative business case. It is proposed that the increase in cost of the Coastal Route Tourist Improvements project along with the section of road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse be included in the Draft Annual Plan and that a detailed business case be developed.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Coastal Route Tourist Improvements” dated 2 December 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) Agree that the scope of the Coastal Route Tourist Improvement project include the unsealed roads from Haldane to Curio Bay, Waipapa Point Lighthouse and Slope Point road.

e) Agree that the Coastal Route Tourist Improvement project be included in the Draft Annual Plan, with an estimated budget of $7.15 million.

f) Endorse the development of the detailed business case including the route to Waipapa Point Lighthouse.

Content

Background

3 This report is to be read in conjunction with the attached indicative business case.

4 In summary the section of the Catlins route known as the Alternative Coastal Route runs from Fortrose to Curio Bay following the coastline. A section of the route from Haldane to Curio Bay is unsealed, including the roads to Slope Point and Waipapa Point Lighthouse.

5 As part of the Long Term Plan (LTP) process, sealing of the unsealed sections of the route from Haldane to Curio Bay including Slope Point Road was consulted on and approved.

6 During the development of the indicative business case (attachment A), the route to Waipapa Point Lighthouse was identified as a key tourist destination along this route. It was also acknowledged that sealing the remainder of the alternative coastal route, including Slope Point Road, would likely have a flow-on effect of more visitors to Waipapa Point Lighthouse.

7 At same time the indicative business case was being developed, the Southland Regional Development Strategy was released which identified tourism as a key opportunity for the region. The strategy specifically highlighted the need for including extension to new destinations.

8 On this basis, it was felt that it would be sensible to consider the potential impact and future requirements of the road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse and whether further investment should be considered.

9 It is also prudent to note that any regional funds need to be unitised by June 2018 and that any qualifying projects past this date would need to compete at a national level for funding from NZTA.

Issues

10 The growing number and types of visitors to this area is putting increased pressure on the road network, particularly on the unsealed sections along this route.

11 As part of developing the indicative business case, construction costs have been revised based on further refinement of the works required including outcomes from some geotechnical testing.

12 The original preliminary estimates of around $4M were based on a typical seal extension to a modest geometric standard.

13 The geotechnical testing showed a lack of pavement material on the existing sections of road, particularly Otara Curio Bay road, requiring the addition of significantly more material.

14 The above factors have led to an increase in cost estimates from what was originally consulted on during the LTP. This variation to the LTP does not alter significantly the level of service provision.

15 Consideration for the road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse is the other key issue and whether this road should be included in the project for improvement.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16 The seal extension from Haldane to Curio Bay including Slope Point Road was consulted on and adopted as part of the LTP 2015-2025.

17 If the road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse is to be included as part of the project the increase in scope will need to be included as part of the Annual Plan for 2016-2017.

Community Views

18 While no new community views have specifically been sought at this point in time, there was overwhelming support for the original scope of work when consultation was carried out as part of the LTP.

19 Letters from local residence have also been received in the past few months requesting that roads to Waipapa Point Lighthouse be considered as part of the project.

Costs and Funding

20 An original estimate of $4 million was allowed for through the LTP process. This was based on a typical seal extension to a modest geometric standard.

21 The funding for the project is to be made up from NZTA Regional Funds (54%) with the remaining Southland District Council portion (46%).

22 As the business case process has advance the estimate has been revised up from the original $4 million to $6 million.

23 The increase in cost is largely driven by a geotechnical testing shown a lack of pavement material on the existing sections of road, particularly Otara Curio Bay, requiring the addition of significantly more material.

24 The cost of sealing the roads to Waipapa Point Lighthouse is estimated at $1.15 million.

25 This would bring the total project estimate to $7.15 million. The SDC portion is estimated to be $3.29 million.

26 More financial detail is provided for in Attachment B – Financial Analysis of Options

27 Project cost for the detailed business case including potential survey and design has been allowed for as part of the 2015/16 programme.

Policy Implications

28 One of the key areas identified in the regional strategy is tourism. Improvements to the roads along this key regional tourist route will facilitate achieving this key objective.

Analysis

Options Considered

29 Two main options have been considered as outlined below:

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Proceed with original project scope as per the LTP

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Continue progressing the project, including securing of regional funds.

· Improved opportunity costs by increase lead in time, particularly for construction.

· Increase opportunity for potential sourcing of new aggregate supplies.

· Reduces the risk of not completing the project by June 2018.

· Does not mitigate or address the flow on effect to the road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse

· Does not fully facilitate tourism growth

Option 2 - Proceed with amended project scope (Inclusion of Waipapa Point Lighthouse)

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Enhanced visitor driving experience along the full journey.

· Mitigates flow on effect such as increase maintenance and safety risk from only improving the main route.

· Maximise the opportunity for use of Regional Funds (ceases June 2018)

· Allows the project and options to progress holistically and not in isolation.

· Costs savings through economies of scale

· Increase in financial commitment.

Assessment of Significance

30 While the size of the overall project is large as discussed above, the impact on rates does is not trigger Councils policy on significance and as such not considered significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act.

Recommended Option

31 It is recommended to the Activities Performance Audit Committee endorse that the option of a full seal along with the revised cost be included as part of the Draft 2016/2017 Annual Plan including sealing of the road to Waipapa Point Lighthouse.

32 That the detailed business case be developed in order to further refine the scope and costs of the revised project scope.

Next Steps

33 To progress to a detailed business case with the endorsed options and report back to Activities Performance Audit Committee for information and approval.

34 That the detailed business case be submitted to NZTA for endorsement and approval.

35 The Transport Team also recommends that SDC write to the Regional Transport Committee to endorse the increase in project scope to include the route to Waipapa Point Lighthouse along with the increase in total project estimate costs.

Attachments

a Indicative Business Case for Alternative Coastal Route Improvements View

b Financial Analysis of Options - Coastal Improvements View

Activities Performance Audit Committee

9 December 2015

sdclogo

Management Reports from Audit New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015

Record No: R/15/11/20591

Author: Sheree Marrah, Finance Manager

Approved by: Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Summary of Report

1 As part of the audit process, Audit New Zealand provides Council with a report at the conclusion of the interim and final stages of its Annual Report audit, outlining the work that was performed and any recommended areas for improvement.

2 Attached are the management letters received from Audit New Zealand (Audit NZ) in relation to the interim audit (Appendix A) and final audit (Appendix B) for the year ended 30 June 2015. Both reports are being presented together as a result of Audit NZ’s ongoing review and clarification of Council policies and processes, which occurred from the interim audit through to the end of the final audit.

3 Audit New Zealand did not identify any significant or material issues during Council’s audit for the year ended 30 June 2015, and thus on 7 October 2015, Audit New Zealand issued an unmodified audit opinion on Council’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2015.
This meant that Audit New Zealand found the Annual Report had no “material” misstatements and it met its statutory purpose. However, during the process Audit NZ did identify a number of areas for continual improvement.

4 The table below outlines the recommendations made by Audit NZ in these reports, in the form of an action list.

5 Council staff will work to implement/resolve the recommendations identified by Audit NZ, in accordance with the self-imposed timelines. April 2016 is the primary self-imposed deadline as this is the anticipated date that Audit NZ will visit to undertake their interim procedures for the 2016 audit.

Matters from Interim Management Report

Responsibility

Status

Due Date

NCS purchase order system

· Complete an independent review of purchase orders raised and authorised by the same person.

· Review core data changes made by administration users.

Sheree Marrah

Complete

Not started

October 2015

April 2016

Conflict of interests

· Implement a formal interest register for all senior management members.

Sheree Marrah / Janet Ellis

In progress

April 2016

Contract management

· Develop a formal approach to contract management.

· Develop a contract management policy.

Ian Marshall / Susan Cuthbert

In progress

April 2016

Risk management

· Implement a risk matrix system that can identify and rank its top risks.

Damon Campbell

In progress

April 2016

Policies

· Ensure all policies are up to date and periodically reviewed.

Susan Cuthbert

In progress

April 2016

Legislative compliance

· Develop a formal system for legislative compliance.

Susan Cuthbert

Not started

April 2016

Fixed asset stock take

· Complete fixed asset stock takes to ensure assets exist and have been appropriately recorded in the Fixed Asset Register.

Sheree Marrah

Not started

April 2016

Matters from Final Management Report

Responsibility

Status

Due Date

Southland Regional Heritage Committee

· Confirm Council’s share in the joint committee for future financial reporting purposes.

· Ensure regular reporting to Council on the Committee’s activities and performance.

Sheree Marrah

Bruce Halligan

Not started

In progress

April 2016

February 2016

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Management Reports from Audit New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015” dated 1 December 2015.

Attachments

a Interim management report on the audit of Southland District Council for the year ending 30 June 2015 View

b Final management report on the audit of Southland District Council for the year ending 30 June 2015 View

Activities Performance Audit Committee

9 December 2015

sdclogo

Financial Report for the period ended 31 October 2015

Record No: R/15/11/20698

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 October 2015. At 31 October 2015, 33% 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 appropriate. Where specific phasing of the budgets has not occurred, one twelfth of budgeted cost is the default to establish the monthly budget.

6. Council staff have implemented a formal forecasting process during early November 2015.
This process allows budget managers to indicate and seek approval for any amendment to forecasted financial results to the Executive Leadership Team and Council. These forecast results are shown in these reports in the final section of columns titled ‘Full Year Budget’. The detail on these has been provided in a separate report included in the Council agenda.

7. The format of this report continues to be 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 welcome.

8. Results at a glance, compared to budget year to date.

INCOME YTD			OPERATING EXPENDITURE YTD
Actual	Budget		Actual	Budget
$20.1M	$23.4M		$16.8M	$17.3M
Variance	$3.3M	14%	Variance	$0.5M	3%

NET SURPLUS YTD			CAPITAL EXPENDITURE YTD
Actual	Budget		Actual	Budget
$3.3M	$6.1M		$3.4M	$7.7M
Variance	$2.8M	46%	Variance	$4.2M	55%

Income

9. Overall for the YTD, income is 13% ($3.3M) under budget ($20.1M actual v $23.4M budget).

10. Services and Assets income is under budget by $474K due to a number of items.

11. The largest impact is from forestry revenue. Forestry revenue is currently $284K under budget. At the end of October harvesting had not begun, however total harvesting income is expected to be $588K less for the year than had been budgeted.

12. The income in District Water is under budget by ($60K). Invoicing for Water Meter charges being $20K lower for the first quarter than previous years. Investigation has shown a number of meters not billed for the quarter ($9K) and this is corrected in November and systems have been put in place to not occur again in future. Additionally the change in accounting standards for 2014/2015 required $22K of the first quarters invoicing to be accrued into 2014/2015, a similar accrual will occur at the end of this financial year.

13. Work scheme revenue is $55K under budget as a result of less work being completed over the winter months. The 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 that this activity breaks even at the end of the financial year. This is partially offset by a vacant staff position ($26K) and reduced material purchases of $5K.

Operating Expenditure

14. Overall for the YTD, operating expenditure is 3% ($0.4M) under budget ($16.8M actual vs $17.2M budget).

15. Council and Councillors is currently over budget by $111K. This is the result of a number of grants being paid at the start of the year.

16. Environment and Community expenditure is $251K under budget. This is mainly in the regulatory areas of building regulation, resource consent processing and resource planning. The District Plan mediation processes have been delayed at the direction of the
Environment Court due to the status of Environment Southland’s Regional Policy Statement. Until the Regional Policy Statement is progressed the amount of expenditure on the
District Plan during this year is uncertain.

Capital Expenditure

17. Overall for the YTD, capital expenditure is 55% ($4.2M) under budget ($3.4M actual vs $7.6M budget).

18. Information management capital expenditure is under budget $537K 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 for scanning. At this stage no significant expenditure has been identified for the core systems review and it is expected that the majority of the budget will be deferred.

19. Services and assets capital expenditure is under budget $496K 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.

Roading and Transport

20. The seasonality of the capital works programme directly affects the level of income received from NZTA. During the winter months the Roading and Transport team has been working on the ‘lead in work’ required for the planning of its capital works programme. The capital expenditure is currently $2.9M under the evenly phased budget. Income is $1.7M under budget.

21. Roading and transport are forecasting that capital expenditure will be under budget at the end of the year. This variance is partly caused by a significant drop in the bitumen index over the last three months, along with the expectation that the Southern Scenic Route extension and Mararoa Bridge projects will be deferred to the 2016/2017 financial year.

Chief Executive

22. Within the Chief Executive budget is the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project.
Income is $908K under budget, operating expenditure is $13K under budget and capital expenditure is $330K under budget.

23. 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. This hearing is not expected to be heard until early in 2016. Although the current budget allows for the estimated cost to construct Sections 8 and 9, given the timing of the hearing, any construction would likely not take place until the 2016/2017 financial year.

24. At the 18 November 2015 Council meeting, Councillor Kremer requested information around what the final cost would be for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail for the year to 30 June 2016. Staff have forecast that the net cost of the trail will be $1,112,171, this is for costs to complete Stage 6 & 7, actual costs and a small amount of accruals for the appeal process where an estimate can be made along with costs associated with the consent process for section 8 & 9. The $1,112,171 excludes costs for interest on any outstanding reserve/loan balance at year end and costs continued to be incurred on the Environment Court appeal process. The $1,112,171 is less than the net cost currently shown in the October report of $1,224,472 (Income $68,189 less operating expenses $33055 less capital expenditure $1,259,606) because additional income from rates and the walking commission are yet to be received, $137,197. The balance, $25,616, ($1,224,472 less income $137,917 plus $25,616 equals $1,112,171) is due to changes in cost accruals in relation to stage one, section 6 & 7 and the appeal process.

Balance Sheet

25. Council’s financial position as at 31 October 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 and includes SIESA and Venture Southland.

26. At 31 October 2015, Council had $6.0M invested in four term deposits ranging from three to six month maturities. Interest rates on these deposits vary from 3.3% to 3.54% per annum. The next term deposit will mature in mid-December.

The details at 31 October 2015 are:

Amount	Where Invested	Interest Rate	Term of Investment	Date of Expiry
$2,000,000	ASB	3.3%	91 days	13 Dec 2015
$1,000,000	BNZ	3.54%	153 days	18 Jan 2016
$2,000,000	Westpac	3.41%	119 days	12 Feb 2016
$1,000,000	BNZ	3.5%	183 days	20 Apr 2016

27. On-call accounts earn interest at 2.3% and 2.0% 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.

Balance at 31 October	Where Invested	Interest Rate
$ 633,832	BNZ	2.0%
$3,000,000	Westpac	2.25%

28. 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 for computer equipment.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the period ended 31 October 2015” dated 2 December 2015.

Attachments

a Report to Activities Performance Audit Committee - Report to 31 October - Summary Financial Report View

b Report to Activities Performance Audit Committee - Report to 31 October - Detailed Commentary View

Activities Performance Audit Committee

09 December 2015

25 November 2015

Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Amendment (2016) (PSV)

Rules Team

NZ Transport Agency

Private Bag 6995

WELLINGTON 6141 Email: rules@nzta.govt.nz

Dear Sir/Madam

Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Amendment (2016) (PSV)

The following submission on the above is made on behalf on Southland District Council (SDC). For ease of collation we have adopted your submission form layout as set out below.

Name: Hartley Hare

Roading Asset Management Engineer

Organisation: Southland District Council

Street Address: Forth Street

Invercargill

Email: hartley.hare@southlanddc.govt.nz

Proposal 1: definition

Replace the existing definition of “high capacity urban bus” with “passenger service vehicle” (PSV).

Under the proposed definition, all buses could be eligible for permits, whether travelling long distances along highways and secondary routes or providing local services. Comment also sought on whether definition needs to be more restricted (e.g. “heavy” or “large” PSV only)

Comment on Proposal 1

As an RCA SDC support all buses being eligible for permits provided operators and NZTA understand that Council are unlikely to approve these permits on significant sections of local roads due to the additional damage they are likely to cause.

Proposal 2: amend clause 5.2A in the rule to:

Replace references to “high capacity urban bus” with, “passenger service vehicle” (PSV)

· Adapt the description of scope to reflect the new PSV category

· allow RCAs to issue permits up to, but not exceeding, the Part C axle limits and

· set the conditions for such permits.

Road controlling authorities would still be required to consider the safety of the vehicle and other road users, as well as the suitability of the intended routes for vehicles with higher axle loadings.

Your comment is also sought on whether the rule should specify that the permit cannot exceed the axle mass limits in the certificate of loading.

Comment on Proposal 2

SDC support the proposal that the ability to approve or decline permits sits with Council. This allows Council to consider specific relevant issues to its network including suitability of the route and pavement/bridge capacity. Council’s expectation is that the permitting system would be along similar lines to the current HPMV permitting system where NZTA issue the consents for the highways and seek approval from RCA’s to add specific sections of their network into the specific permit. As part of the NZTA processing of these permits, it would be expected that NZTA would consider the general safety aspects of the vehicle and road users, rather than each local authority being required to do this.

Consideration of Certification of Loading restrictions should at least form part of the overall safety considerations as part of NZTA’s review of permits for the vehicles travel on the State Highway network.

SDC are pleased that the overview paper on the proposed changes acknowledges the potential for extensive additional damage being caused by some heavier vehicles on weak pavements and bridges.

Proposal 3: Clarify that permits issued to high capacity urban buses remain valid

Permits already issued to high capacity urban buses will continue to be valid until they expire, or are replaced or revoked.

Comment on Proposal 3

SDC agree with this proposal as presented.

Addition question: Should buses operating on a permit display an “H” sign?

SDC believe that buses operating under a permit should be required to display an “H” sign provided the display of the sign actually means something. Under current HPMV permits, many vehicles display their “H” sign constantly, irrespective of being fully loaded or not. This has made the use of the sign almost meaningless.

It is submitted that all vehicles operating under an HPMV permit should be required to display their “H” sign when their mass exceeds the Class 1 limits and be required to remove the signs when operating below these limits. This will make it clear to both the public and enforcement agencies what limits the heavy vehicle is operating under. Council currently receives many complaints and notifications from concerned ratepayers that operators are running HPMV’s on routes that have not been approved. In many instances this is not the case, it is just that the operator has left their “H” sign displayed even though they are running at Class 1.

Additional comment:

Council notes with concern that as part of a wider review of the VDAM rule there will be consideration of significant increases for axle or gross mass limits. Existing allowable loads are already causing pavement issues, particularly on weaker local roading pavements, so increased loading could make this far worse.

Yours faithfully

Southland District Council

Hartley Hare

Roading Asset Management Engineer

Activities Performance Audit Committee

9 December 2015

sdclogo

Dog Control

Record No: R/15/11/21262

Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To respond to concerns raised about the killing of protected wildlife on Stewart Island.

Executive Summary

2 The Department of Conservation (DOC) along with members of the Stewart Island Community Board have raised concerns that kiwi and little blue penguins being killed by dogs on the Island, and have made various recommendations. This report brings this serious issue to Council’s attention and contains recommendations that should provide an effective response to this issue.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Dog Control” dated 30 November 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Requests the Group Manager Environment and Community to authorise a
dog owner door-to-door educational programme by Council’s Dog Control officers on Stewart Island.

e) Authorises the Council’s Manager of Environmental Health to provide funding of $300.00 per annum, funded from the Animal Control budget, towards kiwi avoidance dog training on the Island.

f) Endorses the operational responses in the Issues part of this report concerning proposed education.

Content

Background

3 The Stewart Island Community Board considered a letter from DOC about dog control on 12 October 2015, Attachment A. Dog Control Officer, Julie Gillan, advised the Board concerning a response to the letter, supporting DOC with its concerns.

4 The Board has since received a letter from Jessica Kany, refer Attachment B. The matter is being presented to Council, as some of the issues in this report fall under Council’s authority, such as those decisions relating to fees.

5 Ms Kany’s key points are:

· Kiwi are being killed by dogs

· The problem is likely to be from a small number of irresponsible dog owners

· Communication between Council and DOC

· Perceived lack of consequences for irresponsible dog owners

· Use DNA testing

· Promote kiwi avoidance classes

· Education (leaflets, signs, wandering dog protocols)

· Containment of dogs on properties.

6 Council’s new Dog Control Bylaw came into force on 29 August 2015. The Oban Dog Control map is in Attachment C. The town continues to be a dog exercise area, with the exception of the main streets where dogs must be on a leash.

7 Dogs must be under control in a dog exercise area, even though they may be off-leash. There are 59 registered dogs on the Island. On average, there is one dog impounded per year on the Island.

8 DOC Acting Operations Manager for Stewart Island, Dale Chittenden, advises that there have been two known kiwi killed by dogs on the Island in the last 12 months, with unsubstantiated rumours of more. Also in 2014 four little blue penguins were recovered showing evidence of dog attack.

Issues

9 DOC did not raise concerns about kiwi and little blue penguins being killed on the Island during the consultation process for the new Dog Control Bylaw. Now that Council has been made aware that there may be a problem, it is able to respond. Solutions are discussed below.

DNA testing

10 EcoGene offers a DNA testing service. EcoGene is the commercial DNA services arm of Landcare Research’s Ecological Genetics Laboratory in Auckland.

11 To date most DNA testing for protected wildlife being killed by dogs is practiced in Northland. A positive result does not prove that the dog killed the kiwi, only that the dog was at the scene.

12 EcoGene obtains a genetic profile of 16 markers, with the accuracy being about one in a million chance of the dog being wrongly identified. Costs are $360 for a saliva sample delivered, or $560 for sampling from a delivered kiwi carcass (costs exclude GST).

13 There may be some benefits in doing DNA testing, though it could raise “big brother “and other concerns. This report does not recommend that Council begins DNA testing at this point, instead the focus is proposed to be an education programme and support kiwi avoidance training as discussed below.

Monitoring

14 Council can request the Group Manager Environment and Community to authorise a
door-to-door educational programme of dog owners on the Island by Council’s Dog Control officers. This will include educating dog owners concerning their responsibilities to contain dogs on their properties and to keep them under control off-property. Also, wandering dog reporting can be discussed with owners at the same time.

Penalties

15 The consequences for a dog owner can be severe if his or her dog injures or kills protected wildlife. Refer Legal and Statutory Requirements below.

16 Some on the Island may feel that the severe penalties may hinder people coming forward, and this could well be true. Despite this, I do not recommend some kind of respite from penalties, as penalties play an essential role in the regulation of offences.

Upcoming incentives

17 Council has already resolved to introduce incentives in dog registration fees from 1 July 2017. The incentives are proposed to be for:

· Good behaviour

· Microchipping

· Fencing or enclosure

· Neutering.

18 These incentives could be effective in reducing the incidence of dog attacks on the Island.

19 The reasons for the delay in implementation were:

a) Implementation of multiple dogs’ licensing, to be completed by 30 June 2016.

b) Avoidance of bottlenecks of processing.

c) Dog owners having sufficient time to prepare for the incentives. The fee will raise from $30 to about $90 (before discounts) which is a significant increase in cost for District dog owners.

Incentive to complete kiwi avoidance training

20 The correspondence received discusses the incentivising of kiwi avoidance training.

21 Council could introduce an incentive in dog registration fees for kiwi avoidance training for dogs on Stewart Island, for example a $5 or $10 discount per year. This would not require any amendment to either the dog control policy or bylaw.

22 Council has considered this issue recently. In the Dog Hearings outcomes report earlier this year, Council resolved:

Councillors did not accept that there should be a discount for holders of this certificate [canine good citizen certificate].

The proposed fee discounts do recognise responsible ownership, with discounts for containment, microchipping and good behaviour (and de-sexing).

There are a number of other matters that could be incentivised in the proposed discounts, such as:

· Secure access to a door of the house.

· Breed/weight discounts.

· Avian awareness and avoidance training (especially relevant to dogs on Stewart Island).

· Puppy Preschool training.

All of the above would have support from some members of the public.

Problems with adding more incentives are:

· How far do you go, or what are reasonable expectations to place on our dog owners.

· The large group of responsible owners that do not qualify for such discounts end up subsidising those who do, and both groups control their dogs well.

· The cost/time burden on dog owners to achieve some of these discounts, such as a course of training or new fencing.

23 For the reasons above this report does not recommend introducing an incentive into the dog registration fees for kiwi avoidance training.

24 Council could instead provide some funding to the local dog avoidance trainer. The training on the Island is currently free of cost, however the trainer may choose to charge in the future.

Irresponsible owners

25 The door-to-door monitoring programme is likely to identify irresponsible owners. Once they have been identified, they can be educated and monitored.

Dog access rules on conservation land

26 Dogs are strictly controlled in the Rakiura National Park. Concerning other conservation land on the Island, DOC advises on its website.

“A dog may be walked and exercised on public conservation land only in permitted areas and when on a lead. These permitted areas have not yet been established within the Stewart Island/Rakiura CMS area. The Department of Conservation may look to initiate a separate public process to determine where these areas are.”

“May initiate a public process to determine open, controlled, and closed dog areas on public conservation land within the Stewart Island/Rakiura CMS area.”

27 Council’s Dog Control staff will work in with DOC to make these rules more transparent to the public.

28 In comparison, almost all of Fiordland National Park is a Closed area (closed to all dogs). There are some areas within the Fiordland (DOC) district boundaries that are Controlled access areas (open to dogs, permit needed) and Open access areas (open to dogs, no permit needed).

Education

Dog owners on the Island

29 The suggested monitoring programme will achieve effective education.

Non-dog owners on the Island

30 Periodic articles in the Stewart Island News.

Visitors with dogs

31 Signs raising awareness at entry points. A sign similar to the one in Ms Kany’s letter below could be used, though because the large dog exercise area shown in Attachment C, the wording would have to be along the lines of “Dogs must be on a lead or under control at all times”:

32 Reference would also be made to little blue penguins.

33 During the next meeting with DOC, options will be explored on how visitors with dogs could be educated (eg handout) prior to or during transport to the Island.

Press release

34 A general press release to raise awareness and Council’s plan of action.

School

35 Southland District Council Animal Control is in the final stages of introducing a new school education programme. This will be offered to the Halfmoon Bay School.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

36 The consequences for dog owners for injury or death of protected wildlife are severe:

Dog Control Act 1996

Section 58 Dogs causing serious injury

The owner of any dog that attacks any person or any protected wildlife and causes—

(a) serious injury to any person; or

(b) the death of any protected wildlife; or

(c) such injury to any protected wildlife that it becomes necessary to destroy the animal to terminate its suffering,—

commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both, and the court shall, on convicting the owner, make an order for the destruction of the dog unless satisfied that the circumstances of the attack were exceptional and do not justify destruction.

37 Upon conviction, Council may then disqualify the dog owner from owning a dog for up to five years.

38 Council’s legal advisor believes that a DNA sample may be taken from an impounded dog, provided the sample is saliva or some other source that does not involve physical intrusion like blood. The Council's rights on impounding under the Dog Control Act do not include intrusion into the dog's body except for matters relating to the welfare of the dog and the provision about microchipping.

Community Views

39 The views of the community were recently sought during the consultation process for the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. The recommendations in this report are operational responses to an issue and they do not require public consultation.

Costs and Funding

40 There will be costs associated with signage, DNA testing, and staff time. These will be funded from the existing Dog Control budget.

Policy Implications

41 Council’s Policy on Dogs 2015 supports the recommendations in this report. For example:

“The Council is also mindful of the need to minimise the adverse impacts dogs can have on communities.”

“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 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.”

Analysis

Options Considered

42 A range of options are presented for consideration.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Request the Group Manager Environment and Community to authorise a dog owner door-to-door educational programme by Council’s Dog Control officers on Stewart Island

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduced incidence of dog attacks on kiwi.

· Education of dog owners.

· Improved control and containment of dogs.

· More wandering dogs are reported.

· Seen by some property owners as being invasive or ‘big brother’.

Option 2 - Authorise the Council’s Manager of Environmental Health to provide funding of $300.00 per annum, funded from the Animal Control budget, towards kiwi avoidance dog training on the Island

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduced incidence of dog attacks on kiwi.

· Encourages the ongoing presence of this training on the Island.

· Raised awareness.

· None identified.

Option 3 - Endorse the operational responses in the Issues part of this report concerning proposed education

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduced incidence of dog attacks on kiwi.

· Raised awareness.

· None identified.

Assessment of Significance

43 This issue is considered to be not significant, in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

44 Options 1, 2, and 3. These options should provide an effective response to a legitimate and significant problem that has been brought to Council’s attention.

Next Steps

45 The Group Manager Environment and Community will organise the door-to-door programme. The Dog Control team will implement the recommendations in this report in liaison with DOC.

Attachments

a Letter from DOC View

b Letter from Jessica Kany View

c Dog Control Areas - SDC View

Activities Performance Audit Committee

9 December 2015

sdclogo

Health and Safety

Record No: R/15/11/20901

Author: Janet Ellis, Human Resources Manager

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Purpose

1 To provide an update to the Activities Performance Audit Committee on health and safety activity within the Southland District Council.

Recommendation

That the Activities Performance Audit Committee:

a) Receives the report titled “Health and Safety” dated 2 December 2015.

Content

New Health and Safety Legislation

2 The new Health and Safety legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act, has been passed and comes into effect in April 2016.

3 The Act has a number of key changes.

4 A Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) replaces definitions of “employer” and “principal”. The PCBU will have the Primary Duty of Care, so far as is reasonably practicable, for the safety of the workers they have engaged or workers whose activities are influenced or directed by the PCBU or other persons.

5 The “all reasonable practicable steps” requirement will be replaced with “so far as reasonably practicable”. This is a big change and puts more responsibility on Officers and PCBU’s to make decisions based on providing a healthy and safe workplace.

The focus will be on likelihood of risk, the degree of harm, what is known or ought to have been known and then eliminating or isolating the risk. Cost is no longer an equal consideration.

6 Introduction of due diligence obligations for Officers (which currently includes Councillors, elected Community Board Members, the Chief Executive and some Senior Managers, dependant on positions). Under due diligence requirements, Officers will be required to keep up to date with health and safety matters, ensure the person running the business has appropriate resources and processes to manage risks to health and safety, understand the nature of the business audit its hazards and risks, ensure there are appropriate reporting and investigation processes in place, monitor and verify that appropriate actions are being taken.

7 Increased worker participation requirements, including changing rules and requirements for health and safety committees and union involvement.

8 Increased enforcement tools for WorkSafe New Zealand, including the power to issue improvement notices.

9 Significantly increased penalties for both Entities (PCBU’s) and Officers. There are exemptions in the Act for Councillors and Elected Community Board Members however they will still have an obligation to comply with the duties.

10 Attached to this document is a Health and Safety Legal Presentation from Simpson and Grierson on the new Act.

Health and Safety at Southland District Council

Southland Councils Health and Safety Management Group

11 As you are know the Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council and Environment Southland have established a Southland Council Health and Safety Management Group. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the Chief Executives.

12 The purpose of this group is to define and integrate the areas of commonality in regards to health and safety matters at both a strategic and operational level to promote a regional approach to health and safety.

13 A Health and Safety Charter and action plan has been developed. This is attached for your information. The plan details the priorities, actions and when these will occur.

14 A mission has been developed “Working Together for a safer south. A safer you, a safer me, a safer south”.

15 Health and Safety Training with all staff from the Councils has been undertaken on the new Act in November 2015. This was very well received.

16 Joint Health and Safety policies are currently being drafted and reviewed.

17 Council reports are being drafted to ensure we have consistency across the Councils.

18 As part of the draft MOU, all administration and costs will be shared between the parties.

Contractor Management Project

19 Southland District Council has been undertaking a review and implementing improvements in aspects of the Contractor Management Process in terms of health and safety. As you will be aware our contractors contribute significantly to our risk profile.

20 Approved Contractor Health and Safety returns are almost complete. With a secondary (medium risk) and ancillary (low risk) return rate of 97%. Primary (high risk) 60% return rate at this stage. This is expected to be 100% by year end. The contractors in the secondary and ancillary group who have not returned agreements have now been removed from the Purchase Order System and cannot be used by Council staff until the documentation is complete.

Accidents/Incidents/Near Misses

21 Southland District Council employees have had very few accidents in the last quarter (1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015). We had 2 reported accidents a sprain of elbow/forearm and a bruised finger. Both of these accidents were investigated with improvements implemented, this included purchasing of additional safety equipment.

The number of near misses is very low with no new near misses reported in the last quarter. The Executive Leadership Team and the Health and Safety Committee would like to see more near misses being reported. Reporting of near misses is one way to demonstrate a positive health and safety culture. We are looking at rationalising the reporting process so that it is easier for staff to report.

Ladder Register

22 Development has begun on a formal ladder register that will include all ladders within offices as well as Council administered halls and buildings. Ladders have been identified as an area of risk for us as there is a variety of ladders in different conditions in use within Council. There have already been a number of ladders that have been identified that have had to be replaced to ensure the safety of the user.

Future Improvements

23 Community Groups inclusive of Boards, CDA’s, Community Trusts, Water Supply Committees, and incorporated societies need to be evaluated as to their health and safety risks and exposure. Considerations will be on two fronts, firstly contractor engagement (to give consistency to Council’s new process as a PCBU and the establishment of the due diligence responsibilities of the Officers involved), and then the education and training of their health and safety responsibilities in general under the proposed new Act and the required culture needed to ensure health and safety is at the core of everything we do.

24 Continue to develop and trial audits and safety observations around the District. It is envisaged that in the New Year we will commence assessments on selected contractor health and safety plans. This will include a number of the Primary Contractors such as Fulton Hogan and Downers.

25 Continue to develop robust leading and lagging indicators/statistics for reporting and communicating to staff, management and Councillors to assist in the due diligence obligations.

Attachments

a Health and Safety Charter Commitments - Sept 2015 View

b Health and Safety Legal presentation - 4-5 November 2015 View

We will:

Strive to take a proactive approach to health and safety, developing a positive culture within our organisations which actively engages our workers in health and safety management.

logo

Our Charter

This charter is an agreement on health and safety between the leaders of Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council,

Gore District Council and Environment Southland.

Introduction

It is our aim to continually improve the health and safety systems our organisations use and deliver to our workers.

Development for the Health and Safety Charter Commitments was informed by:

§ Relevant legislation including the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992/Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

§ Best practice in both the local government sectors and private sector.

§ Existing policies and procedures developed by all four organisations.

§ The vision and key priorities set by individual organisations

Strategic Themes

Priority 1: Leadership

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

Ensuring our leaders demonstrate a visible commitment to safety and wellbeing.

Developing a safety leadership programme that shows a visible commitment to safety and wellbeing

Governance is kept abreast with health and safety risks

Developing a Policy Manual that is updated regularly and available to all employees involved.

Development of health and safety shared services branding.

Establishing a relationship with Worksafe representatives in Southland.

A leadership programme is developed to include measurable undertakings by senior leaders, documented expectations of safety behaviours at all levels of the organisation, half day health and safety forums once a year and briefings with councillors and Executive teams on new legislation/legal responsibilities.

Quarterly reports to Elected representatives (may be through Audit and Risk Committee) and Shared Services meetings

The manual is circulated and informs workers at all levels on their legal responsibilities and expectations. All workers are aware of this and have agreed to the conditions.

A logo and communication plan is agreed on which promotes consistent safety messages across all four organisations.

A relationship is developed which is proactive, sustainable and open.

Next year

Safety and Wellness training November 2015, will organise further training for March 2016

Each Council as required.

ICC working on draft which will go to the rest of group for input and feedback - Final draft aimed for December 2015.

Completed logo. Janet Ellis (SDC) to develop communication plan.

Susan Jones (GDC) to work with Worksafe and develop ongoing relationship.

*Priority 2: Culture and Engagement*
*Key Deliveries*	*Actions*	*Measures*	*By When / By Who*
We have systems in place to encourage and support worker engagement in safety and wellbeing,	All workers are provided an opportunity to participate in health and safety management through an active employee participation system The participation system may include worker involvement in hazard identification and management, election of workplace health and safety representatives, election of health and safety committee members, processes for ensuring regular interaction between the employer and workers, processes for managing worker engagement. A process for review.	All workers are aware of this participation system including who/ where their employee representative is and are actively involved in the hazard management process through work-groups and regular interactions with management.	Will be included in Manual, and clarified to staff once this is established.
We will continue to develop a strong positive health and safety culture.	Organising safety and wellness training for all workers which encourages a positive attitude, possibly Wiremu Edmonds and/or Sam Turner. Updating approaches ie Corporate Inductions and handbook to develop a positive and engaging attitude.	All workers have attended this and good feedback has been received. All new workers are inducted in a positive manner and actively participate in Health and Safety.	½ day sessions over 2 days in November. ICC to collate induction information from all four councils, discussion planned for after manual development.

Priority 3: Critical Operational Risks

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

We will ensure all critical-risk and operational-risk work activities are identified, managed and mitigated effectively.

All critical-risk and operational-risk work activities are managed effectively.

There are updated policies in place for the following activities:

§ Working at height

§ Confined space

§ Electricity

§ Asbestos

§ excavations

§ Mobile plant and machinery

§ Workplace security

§ Driving

§ Solo field work

§ Working around water

§ Stress and fatigue

§ All activities requiring notification or certified qualification

Review the management of hazards alongside a critical analysis of the change from hazard management to risk assessment.

Critical-risk and operational-risk activities are identified and procedures are in place which mitigates risks. Workers are aware of the risks and procedures to mitigate them.

These policies are kept up-to-date and workers are aware of all policies/changes.

Risk assessment processes are developed/ clarified and workers are aware of these changes.

Policies are collated, discussion planned for after manual.

Note: Change from hazard management to risk assessment

To be included in Manual. Possible basic risk assessment training.

Priority 4: Contractor Management

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

Ensuring we have robust systems to ensure all contractors and their employees are safe.

Using a recognised system to create an approved contractor register which ensures all contractors are appropriately qualified and inducted.

Ensuring all contractors have effective and efficient processes that are appropriate for the site and activities taken.

Ensuring we monitor and effectively audit contractors regularly to ensure they are meeting requirements.

The contractor register is created, updated regularly and available to the appropriate people.

All contractors complete and maintain a plan for each site which includes at least the following content:

§ Project pre-start and toolbox meetings

§ Maintained hazard register

§ Current training register

§ Job safety analysis

§ Notifiable works

§ Toolbox attendance register

§ Permits to work

§ Evidence of an emergency management plan

§ Indications of secure boundaries and points of entry

Audits are carried out regularly checking both internal and external contractor processes.

Work in progress, Janet Ellis to present at next meeting about the new SDC process.

Janet Ellis starting to develop audit templates.

Priority 5: Reporting

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

Ensuring we have robust, proactive and accurate safety and wellbeing reporting.

Employees are aware of the systems in place ensuring accurate reporting.

Data gathered allows industry benchmarking and reporting on lead and lag indicators as follows:

Lead Indicators

§ Safety meetings (toolbox, pre-start etc)

§ Audits and inspections (internal and external)

§ Task analysis/job safety analysis

§ Safety talks

§ Near miss incidents

§ Accredited health and safety systems (such as ACC - Work Safety Management Practices, Workplace Safety Discount and Partnership Programme).

§ Training and Induction

Lag Indicators

§ Fatalities

§ Lost time injuries

§ Medical treatment injuries

§ First aid injuries

§ Serious harm injuries

§ Training

§ Workplace support

§ Health and safety wellness

ICC to look at definitions will start reporting 1^st quarter 2016 with new information.

Priority 6: Training and induction to sites

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

All our workers receive health, safety and wellbeing training, inductions and refreshers. Everyone is made aware of hazards so they can look after themselves and keep others safe.

All workers are competent, skilled and qualified to perform their work. All workers are aware of the following:

· Safety principles and legislation

· Hazard identification and the hierarchy of controls

· The relevance of site induction and site-specific safety plans

· High-risk work activity and what safe looks like for relevant tasks

· Promoting, positive safety behaviour and culture

· Knowledge assessment specific to the task eg roofer/scaffolder.

Development of a training register for all workers.

Workers are aware of their roles and responsibilities. This is verified by redevelopment of the induction process to make it easily understood and more training is provided when necessary.

The training register is updated regularly and workers understand the importance of notifying HR of any training/qualification changes.

Will be included in Manual update, final draft aimed for December 2015.

Priority 7: Personal Protective Equipment

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

Appropriate and provided PPE is worn at all times. No exceptions.

The minimum PPE or Personal Protective Clothing (PPC) standard may include:

§ Hi-vis and protective clothing and equipment

§ Sunscreen

§ Safety footwear with toe protection

§ Safety eyewear

§ Hard hat (including residential projects unless specified)

§ Other PPE to be identified and used following a risk assessment process.

All workers wear appropriate PPE and know the process regarding getting new equipment.

*Priority 8: Health, Safety and Wellbeing*
*Key Deliveries*	*Actions*	*Measures*	*By When / By Who*
We actively promote the health, safety and wellbeing of our people.	All four organisations should provide education and information about health risks related to work tasks and activity and operational procedures on injury management. Ensuring that there are processes in place which manage and monitor the health of our workers. Provision of health services such as annual influenza vaccinations and employee assistance programme (EAP)/workplace support contract.	All workers have been trained and are aware of the health risks associated with work tasks and the roles and responsibilities they have in regards to injury management. Known hazards such as dust and noise and exposure are reported and managed to reduce the risk on worker health. Workers are aware of the health monitoring processes and readily undergo checks when necessary. All workers are aware of the health services available to them and actively take these opportunities.	Part of Induction process for each council, group to ensure these are covered. Risk assessment process is developed as part of manual review, Workers should be told of health monitoring as part of their induction. Ensure this is part of staff induction packs.
We encourage and support the development of return to work programmes for our workers.	Ensuring we encourage and develop successful return to work programmes to improve recovery of workers after an injury or illness and manage associated costs.	All workers are aware of the return to work process and actively participate in these programmes when needed.	Included in Policy review

Priority 9: Workers being fit for work

Key Deliveries

Actions

Measures

By When / By Who

The safety of our people is not compromised by anyone under the influence of drugs, alcohol or fatigue.

All councils shall have a Drug and Alcohol policy which commits to work with their employees, representatives and contractors to create a work environment free from drugs and alcohol. This will also include a programme for pre-employment, post-incident and reasonable cause drug and alcohol testing through a reputable company, occupational nurse or medical professional.

All organisations have the provision to remove anyone from the worksite who is deemed ‘unfit for work’ or ‘under the influence’, or where the presence of drugs or alcohol is in excess of acceptable standards.

A programme to raise awareness and provide training about the potential harmful effects of drugs and alcohol in the workplace.

All councils have a fatigue management plan which recognises fatigue as a possible hazard and identifies possible work design risks that may cause fatigue. This plan will also identify areas where fatigue related impairment may cause safety risks and ensure staff are provided with education and appropriate counselling services.

All workers are aware of this policy and the associated programmes including pre-employment, post-incident, reasonable cause drug testing. Statistics will be collated on incidents which involve drug or alcohol use to note any improvements.

All workers are aware of this provision and management is notified immediately if staff are concerned about anyone on their worksites.

This programme will include such things as wellness days/programmes, newsletters and posters around worker areas.

The fatigue management plan is in action and workers are aware of what it includes. Workers have received education/training such as posters and handouts about the impacts of fatigue and aware of the services available to them.

All HR managers by end of 2016 could include drug and alcohol training as part of next half day training sessions for staff.

Susan Jones (GDC) to bring her current information to the next meeting.

Options – Haldane to Curio Bay and Slope Point	Project Cost	How funded	Impact on rates	Impact on community
Options – Haldane to Curio Bay and Slope Point	Project Cost	How funded	Impact on rates	Impact on community
1. Haldane Curio Bay and Slope Point full seal (current option in Annual Plan)	2015/2016 - $200K Professional Services (PS) 2016/2017 - $2.8M - Construction/PS 2017/2018 - $3.0M - Construction/PS	54% NZTA 46% Local share, local share 20 year loan	2016/2017 - No change to rates 2017/2018 - Rate increase of $105,658 2018/2019 - Rate increase of $113,205	Improved LOS Tourism, safety and maintenance
2. Otara Curio Bay and Slope Point part full seal and construction with part Otta in most appropriate places	2015/2016 - $200K Professional Services (PS) 2017/2018 - $2.45M - Construction/PS 2018/2019 - $2.6M - Construction/PS	54% NZTA 46% Local share, local share 20 year loan	2016/2017 - No change to rates 2017/2018 - Rate increase of $92,451 2018/2019 - Rate increase of $99,998	Improved LOS Tourism, safety and maintenance
3. Otara Curio Bay and Slope Point full seal on only 5 kms with rest Otta sealed with shoulder and drainage improvements and only moderate targeted strengthening	2015/2016 - $200K Professional Services (PS) 2016/2017 - $2.8M - Construction/PS 2017/2018 - $3.0M - Construction/PS	54% NZTA 46% Local share, local share 20 year loan	2016/2017 - No change to rates 2017/2018 - Rate increase of $60,376 2018/2019 - Rate increase of $67,923	Improved LOS Tourism, safety and maintenance

Options - Waipapa Point Lighthouse	Project Cost	How funded	Impact on rates	Impact on community
4. Waipapa Point Full Seal	2017/2018 - $1.15M - construction/PS	54% NZTA 46% Local share, local share 20 year loan	2016/2017 - No change to rates 2017/2018 - No change to rates 2018/2019 - $43,395	Improved LOS tourism, safety and maintenance
5. Waipapa Point Otta Seal	2017/2018 - $650K -construction/PS	54% NZTA 46% Local share, local share 20 year loan	2016/2017 - No change to rates 2017/2018 - No change to rates 2018/2019 - Rate increase of $24,528	Improved LOS tourism, safety and maintenance

Indicator	Target*	Actual	Variance	Compliance
External Funding: Non rateable income/Total income	> 39%	28%	-11%	x
Working Capital: Current Assets/Current Liabilities	>1.09	1.96	0.82	a
Debt Ratio:** Total Liabilities/Total Assets	<0.73%	0.62%	0.11%	a
Debt To Equity Ratio: Total Debt/Total Equity	<0.01%	0.00%	0.01	a

*Key*
	Largely on Track
	Monitoring
	Action Required

Financial Tracking vs Plans
YTD	Forecast	Annual Plan	NZTA Approved
*33%*	*35%*	*34%*	*33%*

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

Committee Advisor	Alyson Hamilton
Chief Executive	Steve Ruru