Agenda of Council - 16 November 2016

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

Record No: R/16/10/17253

Author: Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 This report seeks Councils approval to release a draft ‘Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy’ for public consultation.

Executive Summary

2 This report outlines what the current Easter Sunday shop trading restrictions are and how Council is able to make changes by introducing a new policy. An overview is given of the preliminary consultation that has been undertaken and other issues to consider. This report presents three options, and makes a recommendation on how to proceed.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy” dated 4 November 2016.

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) Approves the draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy (attached) be released for public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure from the 21^st of November to the 13^th of January.

CONTENT

BACKGROUND

The Status Quo

3 Currently in New Zealand, most shops are not allowed to trade on Easter Sunday because of the day’s status as a restricted trading day under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 (the Act).

The shops that have an exemption and are allowed to trade on Easter Sunday, include:

· dairies

· service stations

· takeaway bars/restaurants/cafés

· souvenir shops

· shops at genuine exhibitions and shows

· garden centres

· pharmacies

4 Some tourist areas such as Queenstown have been given exemptions and are allowed to trade under, the now repealed, Shop Trading Hours Act 1977. The current Act does not provide for any amendments to these exemptions, or for further exemptions to be created.

5 The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) enforces the Easter Sunday trade restrictions by responding to breaches. In many parts of the country, shops have ignored the restriction and have opened anyway. It is not known whether or not businesses in the Southland District are opening unlawfully on Easter Sunday. Council holds no information to indicate that this is the case.

New Legislation

6 In 2016 the Act was amended giving councils across New Zealand the authority to make a policy to allow all shops to trade on Easter Sunday.

7 If a policy is adopted, it can be applied to the whole District, or just to a particular part or parts of the District. A policy cannot define specific opening hours, what types of shops may open, or for what purposes a shop may open.

8 The new legislation gives shop employees the right to refuse to work, and employers are not allowed to treat the employee adversely for exercising their right. There is also a requirement for employers to notify their employees about the right to refuse to work, and employees must notify their employer if they intend not to work.

9 MBIE is still responsible for dealing with breaches of the Act, if a Policy does not apply to all or part of a district.

ISSUES

10 The central issue in this report is whether Council supports the draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy being released for public consultation.

Factors to Consider

Views on Easter Sunday trading

11 The question of whether to allow shop trading over the Easter period is a contentious one. Parliament has considered amending the legislation, by way of conscious vote, on numerous occasions. Each time the issue has been raised in the House, it has generated significant interest and different groups have zealously presented their views. Advocates for workers’ rights and family values, and religious groups, generally oppose Easter shop trading, while the retail and tourism sectors are generally in support. There is likely to be a large amount of public interest in this policy, with strong views for and against.

12 In Gore, retailers have met and decided that they do not wish to open on Easter Sunday. The Invercargill City Council has also carried out preliminary consultation by surveying the public and retailers. Invercargill City Council staff are preparing a report for a Council meeting on the 8^th of November.

Preliminary feedback from our District

13 To get an initial view for how Southland District council residents and business owners feel about Easter Sunday shop trading, staff have sent out brief surveys. Surveys were sent to councillors, regional promotional groups (Destination Fiordland, the Winton Business Association and Otautau Promotions), and to businesses in the District who are members of the Chamber of Commerce. None of the Chamber of Commerce members replied, but the other survey results are included as an attachment to this report.

14 A majority of Councillors thought their communities would prefer to allow all shops to trade on Easter Sunday. Councillors also identified that it might be particularly important to allow Easter Sunday trading in Te Anau and other tourist areas. A majority of Councillors also believed it would be okay to have different shop trading rules in different areas of the District.

15 Members of the all the promotional groups thought that allowing all shops to trade on Easter Sunday would be most beneficial for their regions. A large number of people in Destination Fiordland responded to the survey. Seventy six members responded and 63 of those members thought that allowing all shops to trade was most beneficial for the region.

Nature of current restrictions

16 The Easter Sunday shop trading laws were developed a long time ago, and aspects of them, such as the regional tourism exemptions, seem somewhat outdated. The current regulations are also complex and the types of shops that are permitted to open, are somewhat arbitrary. For example most of the shops that are allowed to open supply everyday necessities or meet the demands of tourists, but shops such as garden centres open to meet the needs of retailers and the public. By allowing particular shops in particular regions to open, it also creates and unfair advantage for retailers in those regions.

Ease of doing business

17 Under the current Easter Sunday shop trading restrictions, areas with a high demand for trading, such as regions with a large number of tourists, are missing out on a valuable trading opportunity. The Southland Regional Development Strategy aims to generate an ease of doing business in Southland. Introducing a policy allowing all shops to trade on Easter Sunday would eliminate a small barrier for some shops across the District, and it would recognise the importance of the retail sector to both shop owners, and the public.

Tourism

18 Allowing all shops to trade on Easter Sunday would also enable tourists to function in the District more effectively on that day. Tourists would be able to access convenience stores such as supermarkets, and stores selling other desirable items such as gifts, arts and crafts. The draft Policy would better recognise the needs of tourists on Easter Sunday.

Scope of the policy

19 The draft Policy has a District-wide approach. This approach was chosen so all shops owners and regions will be treated consistently, without generating an unfair advantage. The District-wide approach also seems most appropriate given the relatively small number of shops that will be impacted by the policy.

20 The Policy does not apply to the sale or supply of alcohol. Alcohol sale and supply is regulated under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

21 If Council adopts a policy which enables District-wide Easter Sunday trading to occur, there is no requirement that an individual retailer opens on Easter Sunday. Each retailer could decide that they do not wish to open for religious, economic or staffing reasons.

Legal and Statutory Requirements

22 There is no legal requirement to introduce a policy, and Councils can elect to have the current Easter Sunday shop trading rules by not introducing one.

23 The Act requires the use of the Special Consultative Procedure when undertaking a review and determining whether to adopt, amend, revoke, replace or continue the policy. Reviews are required to be undertaken every 5 years.

Costs and Funding

24 Costs associated with the draft Policy would be limited to advertising costs for consultation. There are no funding issues associated with implementation.

Policy Implications

25 The main implication of this policy is that all shops will be allowed to open in the District on Easter Sunday.

26 Other policy implications include generating an ease of doing business, having a consistent approach, and meeting the needs and recognising the importance of the retail and tourism sectors.

Analysis

Options Considered

27 Under the Act, Council is not required to adopt a policy, which means that one of Council’s options is to do nothing and retain the current Easter Sunday shop trading restrictions. If Council choose this option, Council may resolve to review its position within a specific time period and to release a media statement to the District, so that members are aware of Council’s position on this issue.

28 Council may also approve the draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy be released for public consultation in order to ascertain public sentiment towards this issue.

29 Lastly, Council has the option of adopting a policy and applying it to Te Anau, or applying it to Te Anau and other tourist-orientated towns such as Riverton.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Do nothing and retain the current Easter Sunday shop trading restrictions

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Aligns with the views of workers’ rights groups and Christian religious groups. It also aligns with traditional family values, and with the interest of some members of the general public.

· The current legislation has been in place a long time and most people are reasonably familiar with it.

· A Council resolution and media statement would give the District certainty on this issue and prevent staff and governance time being taken up responding to requests for policies.

· This would not align with the views of the retail sector, the tourism industry and some members of the community (particularly in Te Anau).

· This would mean somewhat dated, complex and inconsistent trading restrictions would remain in place.

· This would not promote an ease of doing business on Easter Sunday.

· This does not place emphasis on the importance of the retail sector and the tourism industry.

· Does not meet the needs of tourists.

Option 2 – Approve that the draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy be released for public consultation, which provides for District-wide trading

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Aligns with the views of the retail sector, the tourism industry and some members of the community (particularly in Te Anau).

· Would be easy to apply and consistent (no businesses would have an advantage).

· Promotes an ease of doing business on Easter Sunday.

· Recognises the importance of the retail sector and the tourism industry.

· Meets the needs of tourists.

· Does not align with the views of workers’ rights groups and Christian religious groups. It also does not align with traditional family values, and with the interest of some members of the general public.

· Workers may still be treated adversely for electing not to working on Easter Sunday, or they might be compelled to work - even though there is legislation preventing it.

Option 3 – Adopting a policy, but only apply it to Te Anau (or Te Anau and other tourist-orientated towns)

Advantages

Disadvantages

In Te Anau (and in any other towns included in the policy)

· Aligns with the views of the retail sector, the tourism industry and some members of the community.

· Meets the needs of tourists.

· The Easter Sunday trading restrictions would be easy to apply and consistent.

· Promotes an ease of doing business on Easter Sunday.

· Recognises the importance of the retail sector and the tourism industry.

In the rest of the District

· This aligns with the views of workers’ rights groups and Christian religious groups. It also aligns with traditional family values, and with the interest of some members of the general public.

· The current legislation has been in place a long time and most people are reasonably familiar with it.

· Potential confusion from shop owners and MBIE regarding the area where the policy applies.

· Shops across the District would not be being treated consistently, generating an unfair advantage for the shops in Te Anau.

· With the small number of shops that would be required to close outside of Te Anau, it might be pernickety to exclude them.

In Te Anau (and in any other towns included in the policy)

· This does not align with the views of workers’ rights groups and Christian religious groups. It also does not align with traditional family values, and with the interest of some members of the general public.

· Workers may still be treated adversely for electing not to work on Easter Sunday, or they might be compelled to work - even though there is legislation preventing it.

In the rest of the District

· This would not align with the views of the retail sector, the tourism industry and some members of the community.

· This would mean somewhat dated, complex and inconsistent trading restrictions would remain in place.

· This would not promote an ease of doing business on Easter Sunday.

· This does not place emphasis on the importance of the retail sector and the tourism industry.

· Does not meet the needs of tourists.

Assessment of Significance

30 The draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy has been assessed as having a low level of significance. The Policy is, however, likely to generate considerable public interest, and there are likely to be strong views for and against the Policy.

Recommended Option

31 It is recommended that Council adopts Option 2 and endorses the draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy and that it be released for public consultation from the 21^st of November to the 23^rd of December.

Next Steps

32 If Council endorses either Option 2 or Option 3, a draft policy will be released to the public in accordance with the special consultative procedure. This requires that the public be given a minimum of four weeks to provide feedback. Newspaper advertisements will be placed, and information will be posted on Council’s website and facebook page. A flyer will also be available in all Council offices, and posters will be put up in towns around the District.

Attachments

a Draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy 2016 ⇩

b Preliminary Consultation on Easter Sunday Shop Trading 2016 ⇩

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

2016/2017 Road Resurfacing Contracts

Record No: R/16/10/17749

Author: Joe Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by: Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 This report outlines additional funds required to complete the 2016/2017 Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme and seeks approval from the Council to approve an additional $449,000 for reseals.

2 The reseals increase will be offset by reductions in other work categories and so the total roading costs will not exceed the current budget.

Executive Summary

3 This report covers the additional funding requirements for the resurfacing of approximately 1,120,000 m² of urban and rural roads in the Southland District Council’s 2016/2017 Resurfacing Programme.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “2016/2017 Road Resurfacing Contracts” dated 9 November 2016.

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

d) Approves the increase of $449,000 for the 2016/17 Sealed Roads Resurfacing programme to be funded from within the current roading budgets by offsetting the increase in reseals budget with reduction in other work category budgets.

Content

Background

4 This report covers the additional funds required to complete the resurfacing (resealing and second coat sealing) of approximately 1,120,000 m² of urban and rural roads in the Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme.

5 The reseal sites are chosen as part of the treatment selection process based on the ongoing needs of the sealed network. The basis for assessing the treatment is assessment of the road condition, comparing treatment options and consideration of the most cost effective treatment over the whole of life period. Ideally the optimum treatment is selected. This results in revised programmes of work. Work may move from one category to another e.g. from Pavement Rehabilitation to Reseals.

6 Upon approval of the Eastern and Western reseals contracts the contractor is required to assess each site and agree the treatment options with SDC. This has been completed and the final projected cost has increased by $33K for the Eastern Area Reseals contract and $197K for the Western Area Reseals contract. This does not include, however, any fluctuations for the Bitumen and Reseals cost indices.

7 The NZTA bitumen volume based contract price adjustment formula will again apply to these contracts. This formula uses predetermined values for the percentage of bitumen and non-bitumen related costs which are fluctuated on a monthly basis using NZTA index values. This formula has had positive support from local contractors and is intended to more fairly apportion the cost fluctuation risk between the Principal and the Contractor.

8 To calculate the non-bitumen related costs 60% of the contract value is multiplied by the index rate, the average for the previous three years has been 0.75%. Using this average the expected fluctuation for costs excluding bitumen would be $10K for the Eastern and $12K for the Western Area contracts.

9 To calculate the Bitumen component the volume (litres) applied during the month is multiplied by the change in NZTA Bitumen Cost Adjustment index from when the contract was signed (June 16) to the month applied. I have calculated several scenarios below using the updated budgeted costs for each contract assuming all bitumen is applied in the same month.

10 The scenario the Strategic Roading team would like to propose is the 25% increase in bitumen index which in dollar terms is a $197K allowance for fluctuations.

11 The Bitumen index is linked to crude oil which, being a commodity, is volatile and could potentially have a significant impact on the cost fluctuations allowed for in SDC reseal contracts.

12 The graph below shows the link between the Bitumen Index and Brent Crude, these are both in USD to eliminate any Foreign Exchange fluctuations. The above contracts were let in June with Bitumen at $240 USD per tonne as at the end of September the index is $257 USD per tonne or a 7% increase.

13 The US Energy Information Administration is forecasting Brent crude to average
$43.43 USD per barrel for 2016 with the average to increase to $50.99 USD for 2017 or a 17.4% increase, as of the 26^th October Brent Crude was selling in the $50 USD range.

14 The other variable that will impact the Bitumen price will be the Foreign Exchange cross rate between the NZD and the USD currently trading in the 0.7149 the forecast for quarter one 2017 is 0.67 (Westpac), 0.69 (ANZ) and 0.70 (BNZ). Any lower exchange rate will increase the cost of Bitumen.

15 In September OPEC agreed to cut production for the first time in eight years which resulted in Brent Crude climbing 5.9% another meeting is due to be held in November to discuss specific production limits.

16 Given the volatility and the various factors that impact both of these commodities it is impossible to forecast with any certainty where the rates will be as the reseal programme is completed.

17 Strategic Roading would prefer to complete the programme given we have the available funds in the budget.

18 The following table is a breakdown of total fluctuations.

Issues

19 As with previous years the contracts will include continuing to apply the standard NZTA cost fluctuation formula. As always, predicting what this will do during the season is very difficult as it depends on changes in bitumen prices and the value of the NZD versus the USD.

20 Annual Plan/Department of Internal Affairs KPI measure is the percentage of programme completed for Reseals. If we do not complete the programme SDC will fail on that KPI.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

21 No unusual legal considerations are involved with this project.

Community Views

22 The final treatments selected take account of the existing seal, road and environmental conditions, traffic loading, community expectations and available sealing budget. This will result in use of smaller chips in urban and built up areas where possible, to cut down traffic noise.

Costs and Funding

23 The budget for the 2016/2017 Resurfacing Programme was set at $5.2M including the costs of professional services. However, NZTA has approved funding for $5.5m. Strategic Roading proposes to reduce expenditure in other activities to remain within the overall roading budget. For example the Pavement Rehabilitation category maybe reduced to offset the reseals increase. The key point is the total roading programme cost will not exceed the current total roading programme budget.

24 As cost fluctuations apply to both the 2016/2017 contracts, this could result in the final cost being significantly different from that tendered. This will be monitored during the contract period.

Policy Implications

25 The project is part of the Southland District Council 2016/2017 Resurfacing Programme and fits within the Annual Plan and budget expectations.

Analysis

Options Considered

26 In requesting the additional funds, three main options were considered as detailed below:

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Keep to within the existing approved contracts.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No pressure on the budget and the possibility of completing additional works.

· Would fail to meet the KPI’s for the year.

· The Reseals not completed this year would need to be carried forward to 2017/18 creating a greater programme.

· The cost of completing works next year could rise on the back of Bitumen and Cost indices.

Option 2 - Request additional funds

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Programme is completed and KPI’s are meet.

· No carry forwards.

· Utilise the full NZTA budget as originally applied for.

· The cost of completing works next year could rise on the back of Bitumen and Cost indices.

· The cost of completing works next year could fall on the back of Bitumen and Cost indices.

Option 3 - Request different treatments

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Maintain the budget while attempting to reach the programme m2.

· The shared risk element of the contract is removed and potential liability if the treatment fails.

· Final costs still not confirmed, could hold up the programme as final treatments are determined.

Assessment of Significance

27 This decision is not considered to be significant. It relates to a variation in the projected cost of completing one part of Council’s overall roading programme. The variation can be managed within the overall budget for the roading activity.

Recommended Option

28 Approve the additional funds of $449K for the 2016/17 reseals programme with the roading programme being adjusted to ensure that it remains within budget overall. The total value of the roading programme will not be altered as the result of this change.

Next Steps

29 Confirm with MWH and contractors the delivery of the programme.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Riversdale and Nightcaps Wastewater Consents

Record No: R/16/10/17508

Author: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To seek Council endorsement of the decision to lodge an appeal against the resource consents granted for the Riversdale and Nightcaps Wastewater schemes.

Executive Summary

2 Over the last two years Council has been through a process of seeking new resource consents for its Nightcaps and Riversdale wastewater treatment and disposal schemes. As part of this process there were extensive discussions with Environment Southland and affected parties which led to a point in which the Environment Southland consents officer had recommended that the consents be granted for terms, and with conditions, which were acceptable to this Council.

3 Without further notice to this Council, the final consents were issued in early October with the term of the consents reduced from 15 years to 7 years in the case of Nightcaps and from 25 years to an effective 9 years for consent which takes effect once upgrade works, budgeted to cost $2.4 million, are completed at Riversdale.

4 The Environment Southland decision to reduce the term for which the consents were granted has created a number of practical and financial affordability issues for this Council. These include for example, the practical implications of Council having to fund the $2.4 million budgeted for upgrades to the Riversdale scheme (which services some 250 properties) over a nine year period. The decision will also lead to increased consent processing costs as new consents will need to be sought much sooner than would otherwise have been necessary.

5 The change in approach adopted by Environment Southland has occurred within an environment in which consent conditions had been included which required upgrades to be made within 4.5 years of new catchment limits being set via the Land and Water Plan. Officers are supportive of this approach as it means that ratepayer funds are being committed to improving the quality of the discharges rather than regulatory consenting processes.

6 Given the issues created by the shorter term a decision was made to lodge appeals against the decisions made with the Environment Court. It is appropriate for the Council to endorse the lodging of these appeals.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Riversdale and Nightcaps Wastewater Consents” dated 8 November 2016.

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

d) Endorses the decision of the Chief Executive to lodge appeals against the resource consents granted for the Riversdale and Nightcaps wastewater disposal systems.

e) Delegate authority to the Chief Executive to enter into negotiations, including if considered appropriate mediation, with Environment Southland to try and resolve the appeals on terms and conditions that he considers appropriate.

Content

Background

7 Council has been through a process of seeking new resource consents for its Nightcaps and Riversdale wastewater treatment and disposal schemes.

8 The Riversdale application involved seeking consent for an initial five year period during which a significant upgrade of the disposal system would be undertaken followed by a subsequent twenty-five year term once the upgrade had been completed. Council has budgeted some $2.4 million in its 2015 Long Term Plan for the works proposed at this scheme.

9 The Nightcaps consent application sought a term of 15 years given that no major upgrades were proposed to the treatment and disposal system. The decision to take this approach was reflective of the receiving environment and the need to have further monitoring information on the receiving environment to understand the range and level of upgrade that might be justified at Nightcaps.

10 While it was not proposed that the Nightcaps treatment plant be improved immediately the Council has committed to desludging the aeration pond which would improve performance of the system and to undertake increased monitoring so that an upgrade could be pursued should the quality of the receiving environment improve during the consent period. The consent conditions proposed also included a requirement that the Nightcaps scheme be upgraded within four years of the catchment limits process provided for through the Regional Water and Land Plan being completed. Environment Southland are currently aiming to have this process completed by 2019.

11 Over the last two years officers have worked with the affected parties and Environment Southland to agree on suitable resource consent conditions including the length of consent as outlined above. At the end of this process the Environment Southland planning officer recommendations were that the consents be granted for the 15 year (for Nightcaps) and 5/25 year terms (for Riversdale) sought.

12 In early-October Environment Southland issued the final consents with changes being made to the consent period but with all other conditions remaining unchanged. The term for the Nightcaps consent was reduced to 7 years and Riversdale to 5 years plus an effective 9 years from the date of completion of the upgrade works.

13 The Environment Southland decision to reduce the length of the resource consent term, has created a number of practical and financial affordability issues for this Council. These include, for example, the practical implications of Council having to fund the $2.4 million budgeted for upgrades to the Riversdale scheme (which services some 250 properties) over a nine year period. In addition to the capital costs there are obviously the annual wastewater scheme operating costs and financing costs to be funded. In looking at these costs it also needs to be remembered that in the case of a number of communities, there will also be a need to fund the upgrading of water and stormwater systems in the future. Hence, it is important that Council ensure that upgrades required across all of its services remain affordable.

14 Given the extent of the issues created by the changes made in the final consent decisions issued by Environment Southland officers came to the view that there is a need for Council to challenge the decisions made. Now that the final decisions have been made this can only be done by way of an appeal to the Environment Court.

15 At its meeting on 28 September 2016 the Council delegated its powers, other than those which cannot be delegated by law, to the Chief Executive to exercise during the triennial elections transition period. The decision to lodge an appeal against the Environment Southland consent decisions was made using these delegations.

16 The delegation given to the Chief Executive was subject to the powers being exercised following consultation with the Mayor elect and any delegations so exercised being reported to the new Council.

Issues

17 In accordance with the delegation given there is a need for the Chief Executive to report the fact that he has utilised the delegation given to the Council. It would be appropriate for the Council to determine whether it wishes to endorse the decision that was made.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

18 Council’s powers to delegate its decision-making powers are outlined in the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002. The delegation given was in accordance with these powers.

Community Views

19 It is reasonable to assume that the community would expect the Council to protect its interests in the making of a decision to appeal these resource consents. There is clearly a significant cost associated with the Council obtaining resource consents and then making improvements to meet the new discharge standards required. Hence, it would seem appropriate for this Council to seek resource consents which allow for upgrading to occur during the term of the consent where these upgrades are justified.

20 Where sizeable capital works are required it can be expected that the community would expect the Council to ensure that it can obtain a reasonable return over the period of the consent.

Costs and Funding

21 The costs of upgrading the Riversdale Wastewater disposal system are budgeted in the 2015 Long Term Plan at $2.4 million. The costs are split over two phases as they include the purchase of land followed by the upgrading of the disposal system.

22 There will be legal and other costs associated with pursuing an appeal against the decision made by Environment Southland. The extent of these costs will depend on whether it is possible to reach a mediated settlement prior to a full hearing. At this stage officers have had an initial discussion with Environment Southland officers and are optimistic that there is the opportunity for the two parties to have informal discussions in an attempt to resolve a number of the issues in a pragmatic way.

Policy Implications

23 The consent application sought and the upgrades proposed are consistent with the 2015 Long Term Plan. The Infrastructure Strategy also acknowledges the potential need to upgrade wastewater treatment schemes to meet the Land and Water Plan and Freshwater National Policy Statement requirements particularly once Environment Southland complete the process of setting catchment limits.

24 The consent conditions which had been agreed with Environment Southland officers, prior to the final consent being issued, addressed the changing regulatory environment anticipated through the Land and Water Plan and its limit setting regime, by requiring this Council to upgrade its treatment plant to meet new catchment limits within 4.5 years of the new limits becoming operative.

25 Officers are supportive of the approach of including a consent condition requiring upgrades if needed to meet the new catchment limits as it ensures that ratepayer funds are expended on improving the quality of the discharges rather than the regulatory process of seeking new resource consents.

26 Officers understand that Environment Southland are aiming to have catchment limits set by 2019. Obviously, there is a level of risk that this timetable may slip. They are required to be set by 2025.

27 The Nightcaps consent, which has now been issued, expires in January 2024. If the catchment limits are set by, say, December 2019 then this Council will need to lodge a report outlining its proposed upgrade programme by June 2020 and then have a requirement to complete any required upgrade works by June 2024, which is after the expiry of the consent that has now been issued. As a result the practical effectiveness of this condition has been negated by the shorter term.

28 It would also not be prudent for this Council to proceed with upgrade works under a consent that had either expired or was about to expire. Rather the more appropriate approach would be to delay the upgrade works until Council can obtain a new long term resource consent that takes account of the new catchment limits. Obviously, if there is any significant delay to the catchment limit setting process then there may also be a need for Council to obtain a short term ‘bridging’ consent between the expiry of the existing seven year consent and the timeframes within which the catchment limit setting process is expected to be completed so that it can then apply for a longer term consent that reflects the extent of any capital works upgrades that might be required.

29 Similarly, albeit different, issues arise from the shorter term under which the Riversdale consent has been issued.

Analysis

Options Considered

30 The options available to Council are to either endorse the decision made to lodge an appeal or to reverse the decision and withdraw the appeal.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Endorse Appeal

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Acknowledges the issues created by the final consents being issued with a significantly reduced term and other conditions which do not fully reflect the package discussed with the ES processing planner.

· Opportunity to address issues that Council has via a mediation process.

· Reduces the risk of the approach that has being adopted for Riversdale and Nightcaps being seen as setting a precedent for future resource consent applications.

· Costs and risks associated with proceeding with an appeal.

Option 2 – Withdraw Appeal

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Avoids costs and risks associated with pursuing an appeal.

· Does not support approach of allowing for upgrades within the consent conditions.

· Costs of the Riversdale upgrade would arguably need to be recovered over a nine year consent period.

· Council will face extra costs associated with seeking new resource consents in an environment in which there remains uncertainly around the standard of upgrade that might be required particularly if ES do not meet the current timetable for catchment limit setting.

Assessment of Significance

31 In this report the Council is being asked to endorse the decision that was made under delegated authority to lodge an appeal against the resource consents issued by Environment Southland. As such the decision is considered to be administrative in nature and is not seen as being significant.

Recommended Option

32 It is recommended that the Council endorse the decision to lodge an appeal against the Riversdale and Nightcaps resource consents which have been issued by Environment Southland.

Next Steps

33 Officers will seek to meet with Environment Southland to discuss the issues relating to the appeal to explore whether agreement can be reached without the need for formal mediation and/or a hearing before the Environment Court.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Te Anau Wastewater Project - Consideration of Alternatives

Record No: R/16/10/17575

Author: Ian Evans, Strategic Manager Water and Waste

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To enable the Council to make a decision on whether it wishes to proceed through a process to allocate funding to investigate an alternative option to the current consented proposal of Centre Pivot Irrigation (CPI) at Kepler as a long term solution for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from Te Anau.

Executive Summary

2 The Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant is the current wastewater disposal system in
Te Anau. Consent was granted to the Council in 2004 which allowed treated wastewater to continue to be discharged to the Upukerora River, which in turn discharges into
Lake Te Anau.

3 The Council has been pursing development of a new land treatment and disposal option that would result in irrigation of the treated wastewater onto land with treatment provided as it passes through the soil. Consent was granted for treatment and disposal at the Kepler block in January 2015 and subsequently appealed by Fiordland Sewage Options Incorporated (FSOI).

4 FSOI argue that there are more appropriate treatment and disposal sites in the area that need to be considered.

5 The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee also requested that staff look at an alternative option based on advanced treatment with disposal by Rapid Infiltration, similar to the Project Pure Plant at Wanaka that they recently visited.

6 Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) have produced a draft estimate of the options as requested by the Committee which will be discussed in this report.

7 This report also highlights a number of issues that Council need to be aware of with this approach and decide how it wishes to move forward as a result.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater Project - Consideration of Alternatives” dated 8 November 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Notes the contents of the report titled Te Anau Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Addendum 2: Rapid Infiltration Options received from PDP which was produced in response to a resolution passed by the Te Anau Wastewater Disposal Project Committee.

e) Determines if it does wish to give further consideration to the investigation of an alternative Wastewater Treatment and Disposal option.

f) In recommending (e) above, that it agrees to include in the Annual Plan funding for investigation of a suitable alternative wastewater disposal site for the treatment and disposal of Te Anau wastewater that meets the principles set out in this report.

g) Notes that it will need to consider more fully the potential implications of such a decision and hence needs further advice in relation to the principals set out throughout the report before making a final decision.

h) Notes that as part of a separate order paper item it will be giving consideration to a proposal to reform a Te Anau Wastewater Disposal Project Committee and that it would be appropriate for the PDP report to be referred to that Committee for advice as to the one preferred alternative Wastewater Treatment and Disposal option that the Committee would recommend Council give further consideration to pursuing.

i) Notes that the current discharge consent (20157778-01) for the Upukerora River expires in December 2020 and that under current planning parameters it is considered unlikely that any alternative scheme will be able to be consented, constructed and made operational before the expiry of this consent.

j) Agrees that it is unacceptable for the Council to not have a consented discharge for the Te Anau Wastewater scheme.

k) Asks officers to provide a scoping report on the process that would need to be followed and the likely costs, timeframes and risks associated with seeking another discharge consent for the current Upukerora discharge to go beyond December 2020.

l) Asks officers to seek advice on the options, if any, which might exist for seeking an extension of the effective date by which the consent granted for the Kepler might be extended in the event that it is confirmed by the Environment Court.

m) Asks officers to report to Council in February 2017 with an update on the position that the Committee reaches in its deliberations following the completion of the first Committee meeting.

Content

Background

8 The Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant is the current wastewater disposal system in
Te Anau. Consent was granted to the Council in 2004 which allowed treated wastewater to continue to be discharged to the Upukerora River, which in turn discharges into
Lake Te Anau. The consent granted was for a 10 year term with a condition that required the Council to develop a long term strategy around wastewater treatment with the preference being to consider available land disposal options.

9 The clear direction provided by the Infrastructure Working Group (IWG) set up to develop a long term disposal strategy for Te Anau was that a discharge to water was no longer acceptable and that if feasible the overall preference was for a land based disposal route. This is consistent with Regional Council and Iwi management plans and carries as much relevance today as these plans have evolved and been further developed.

10 The Council has been pursing development of a new land based treatment and disposal option that would result in irrigation of the treated wastewater onto land with treatment provided as it passes through the soil for some time. This is a common means of treatment of domestic wastewater across New Zealand and at the time that the project was originally initiated was seen as a viable alternative to a higher tech fully mechanical plants with a high level of nutrient removal provided that sufficient land is available.

11 A 25 year consent was granted on 22 January 2015 to allow the discharge of treated wastewater onto land at the Kepler Block site via centre pivot irrigators. Nutrient removal will be managed through a cut and carry operation. This consent was appealed to the Environment Court by Fiordland Sewage Options (FSOI) and two other appellants, who have subsequently withdrawn their appeals. The FSOI appeal remains.

12 One of the fundamental objectives of the overall strategy is to secure not only as long a term as possible consented option (certainly not any less than 25 years) but also to have the confidence that Council will have the ability to renew the consent at the end of that period. Given the significant capital costs associated with development of any new disposal system it is important that Council have confidence that the option chosen will be able to obtain a new consent at the end of an initial long term consent period.

13 Following the appeal to the Kepler consent Council engaged Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd ("PDP"), an engineering and planning consultancy, to complete a peer review of the consented option and report on its viability. As part of that process PDP were also asked to compare the consented option with any identified reasonably practicable alternatives.

14 At a high level this review has identified that the proposed scheme contains no fundamental flaws. The review also identified a number of alternatives that may be worthy of further investigation should Council wish to do so. These alternatives were largely based around discussions with representatives of FSOI.

15 Subject to finalising its report, Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) has largely completed its peer review of the current consented option for the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project.
The peer review is intended to provide an independent assessment of the consented option relative to any other reasonably practicable alternatives. The peer review document is again attached for information (Attachment A).

16 PDP has presented its draft report, and an addendum to that report which confirms that the current consented option is viable and does not identify any ‘fatal flaws’. This assessment is consistent with the Commissioners’ decision that the effects of the discharge on the receiving environment would be less than minor.

17 Although the draft report also identifies a number of alternatives, which PDP note may warrant further investigation as an alternative solution to the consented proposal, it is important to remember that these initial findings were based on a ‘desktop study’.
A comprehensive evaluation of any alternative would eventually require significant physical investigation work and consenting before Council could be confident that the option was viable. Any alternative that might be pursued would have a different risk profile to that associated with the Kepler option.

18 Further evidence provided subsequent to the initial report has highlighted significant risk associated with a number of the potential alternatives, especially around those involving disposal of treated wastewater to the Slee block. Any decision to undertake work on this block will need to take these factors into consideration.

19 Through the peer review process, PDP have identified what it believes is its highest ranked alternative to the consented Kepler scheme. This alternative involves improved treatment at the oxidation pond site by membrane filtration followed by land disposal via spray irrigation to land at the Smith block on Sinclair Road some 6 km north of the oxidation pond site.

20 In their addendum report of March 2016 (Attachment B) PDP also presented a modified Kepler option which involved retaining the southern-most shelter belt with the centre pivots positioned behind it. This option has the advantage that it completely encloses the centre pivots behind shelter belts further mitigating effects of spray drift migration. A further advantage of this proposal is that it can be undertaken without any further consenting required at Kepler.

21 At its meeting of 6 July 2016, the Project Committee requested a further proposal be scoped for potential investigation. This is a proposal based around advanced treatment either by membrane bioreactor (MBR) or sequential batch reactor (SBR) with disposal by rapid infiltration to land around the oxidation pond site, or the Smith block. Attached (Appendix D) is the investigation programme scoping report prepared by PDP in response to this request.
The Project Committee has not yet considered this report.

22 Council and/or the Project Committee need to formally consider the findings from the PDP peer review and then make a number of decisions before making a recommendation/decision as to which direction it should pursue. In the interim the Committee have also recommended that Council should proceed to defend the appeal against the Kepler consent. It is important that Council ensure that it retains a consented option.

23 At its meeting of 27 April 2016, Council approved the un-budgeted expenditure incurred as a result of undertaking the peer review. At the same meeting, Council also approved further expenditure of up to $50K for the Committee to undertake site visits and further investigations to help come to a view on its recommended pathway forward. The $50K budget would also cover any costs associated with the development of a long term detailed investigation programme including timeline and overall costs. The first stage of this additional work included a visit to the Project Pure wastewater treatment facility at Wanaka. Following this visit it was agreed that further visits were unlikely to be of further benefit until one single viable alternative was identified that could then be recommended to Council for a request to investigate and develop further.

24 One key consideration that will determine the level and type of treatment to install and hence drive the costs is identification of the most suitable alternative disposal route. For example a rapid infiltration disposal route would require a significant upgrade of treatment facilities to manage nutrient loadings whereas a centre pivot or slow rate irrigation disposal route would likely require less of an upgrade as it would be relying on the soils and pasture to manage nutrient loads.

Court Assisted Mediation

25 Following agreement that Council should continue with the Kepler appeal process, it was agreed that all parties to the appeal would be prepared to enter into Court assisted mediation. Mediation between parties was held on 20 and 21 June in Invercargill.

26 The main outcome from the initial mediation process was that Council undertook to carry out further investigations into the feasibility of utilising sub surface drip irrigation as a viable alternative to the proposed centre pivot irrigation. It was further agreed that an expert witness conferencing process would be held where the findings from the investigation would be discussed and a statement of areas where agreement was reached would be signed off to the Court.

27 FSO engaged Peter Riddell, from Ecogent Ltd as consultant through the appeal process, who has proposed that the Council should: (1) consider options including an upgrade of the ponds using nitrogen reducing technologies; and/or (2) membranes such as those in use at Dunedin Airport to improve effluent quality before irrigation; (3) consider using subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) on the neighbouring property (Slee block) to reduce project costs; (4) consider hybrid subsurface irrigation options such as part irrigation, eg, in winter at Slee’s and part, eg, in summer at a second block (Smiths block). Peter Riddell was identified as FSOI’s leading expert witness through conferencing and mediation where a number of these options were raised.

28 Council appointed experts developed a brief which was shared with the appellant expert witnesses with a view to developing a report highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each type of disposal technique. The report considers the overall viability of each irrigation option. In essence, if an option proves to be viable at one site then it is in all likelihood viable at any alternative site notwithstanding differences in ground conditions, topography etc. Overall, the report identified that each option was a viable option for irrigation of treated wastewater and that factors such as cost and the level of risk would need to be carefully considered when choosing a preferred method of irrigation.

29 It is important to note that any proposal to consider sub surface drip irrigation to Council land at Kepler may require a new consent application. There is an issue as to whether sub surface irrigation at Kepler would be outside the scope of the original application. This issue is subject to discussion between legal Counsel for Environment Southland, FSOI and this Council.

30 The output from the conferencing process is a report that will be used to assist Council with its decision-making on its preferred way forward in respect of the current appeal. It will also be of relevance to decision-making on the disposal method that might be used at alternative sites.

31 Further mediation resumed on 7 October, where the high level timelines were discussed.
The two critical dates, which Council needs to be aware of are December 2020, when the current discharge to the Upukerora expires, and the date of five years from granting (if successful) of the Kepler consent. Note that Council must give effect to the Kepler consent, if it is confirmed, otherwise it too will lapse.

32 Council appointed experts did agree through the mediation process to undertake further modelling work to further develop FSOI’s sub surface proposal to provide more certainty on key parameters such as land area required, nutrient leaching, irrigation depths, dripper spacing etc that would ultimately be used to determine overall cost of a SDI scheme.

33 Parties were unable to reach a mediated agreement over the Kepler consent and as a result all parties are now working towards a hearing which is likely to be around June/July 2017.

34 Subsequent to the mediation two of the parties to the appeal have withdrawn from the process leaving FSOI as the sole appellant.

Project Timelines

35 A separate report detailing the high level timelines and critical dates that need to be factored into the decision making process is also on the agenda for the 16 November Council meeting. As indicated previously the first key date is December 2020 when the current discharge consent to the Upukerora River expires.

36 The timelines currently indicate that of the four scenarios considered, the only one that has a reasonable prospect of meeting this deadline is the current Kepler proposal. However, as the appeal process draws out there is also a risk that this date cannot be met either. This is a risk issue that will need to be monitored.

37 Informal indications from Environment Southland are that any new consent application seeking a longer timeframe for discharge to the Upukerora will likely need to be publicly notified and assessed at a hearing by independent commissioners. It would also need to be assessed under the Regional Plans, including the new Land and Water Plan provisions, applying at the date of application. This process is likely to add significant time, cost and risk into the project which has previously not been budgeted for.

38 It is also important to remember that through the application and submissions process there is the risk of parties objecting to and potentially even appealing any decision.

39 Obviously, if Council wished to pursue investigation of alternative solutions or irrigation sites then it will need confidence that it will be able to secure a further extension of the current Upukerora discharge. If it cannot then it runs the risk of committing significant time and resources to undertaking investigations and consenting of an alternative which may not be able to be used.

40 It is estimated that it could take upto 12 months to undertake the consenting process for an extension of the current Upukerora discharge up to the stage where a decision is released and free from appeal. This timeframe may be able to be shortened if there is a strong level of support from affected parties.

41 As indicated throughout this report an investigation programme in support of a full consent application will add significant additional time onto the programme. Consideration will therefore need to be given to whether Council can seek an extension of the timeframe within which it needs to give effect to any work at Kepler, should the final consent be confirmed. Further advice is needed on the options which might exist in this area.

Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee

42 Following a visit to the Wanaka Project Pure Wastewater Treatment Plant, Committee members requested, at their 6 July 2016 meeting, that an alternative solution to the Kepler proposal be developed. This is largely based on some of the work undertaken by PDP, but one which was previously discounted of being worthy of further consideration largely based around some of the uncertainties with the proposed disposal routes.

43 The proposed alternative is based around the following:

· Upgrade of treatment plant to provide a significantly higher quality effluent (potentially similar to that undertaken at Wanaka). This is likely to be a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) treatment plant or Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) plant with Ultra Violet (UV) disinfection.

· Disposal of treated effluent via a rapid infiltration system preferably at a site close to the current oxidation ponds. This could be on Council owned land or land purchased from neighbouring properties.

· If following detailed site investigation work, this land proved unsuitable then the preference was for consideration of alternative land at Sinclair Road, 6 km north of
Te Anau (Smith block).

· Preference for rapid infiltration is driven by a belief that this is potentially the lowest cost option requiring the minimum amount of land for disposal.

· An option for spray irrigation to land at the Smith block (and potentially other farm land) over summer months was also identified as a preferred outcome - subject to those wanting to use the water paying for it and obtaining the appropriate consent.

44 PDP were commissioned to undertake this work having already developed and costed an investigation programme for the Slee block to determine if it is a suitable area for land disposal. At the request of the Committee they have also developed a similar investigation programme for the Smith block.

45 At some point consideration needs to be given to whether either or both sets of investigation work go ahead. If the intention is to develop these into a full discharge consent application further work outside the scope of the investigation programmes will also need to be considered.

PDP Update Report Following Committee Meeting

46 Based on the recommendations from the Committee, PDP have subsequently completed a draft report which is essentially building on the initial peer review document and subsequent addendum report. This draft report is included as Attachment D. At a broad level the report highlights the following issues that need to be taken into account:

· It is preferable to narrow down the list of options to one preferred alternative.

· Any alternative must have certainty of receiving a long term (25 years plus) consent with a degree of confidence that this could be renewed at that time.

· Any solution utilising Rapid Infiltration as a means of disposal would require a significant upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant with a membrane bioreactor being the proposed treatment upgrade.

· Treatment systems such as this carry a significantly greater degree of operational complexity which does require skilled operators who have the training needed to operate such plants.

· There is significant risk associated with a number of options to the point where they should be no longer considered.

47 The report also notes that previous reports are still of relevance and that any recommendations or identified alternatives such as spray irrigation at Smith may still be worthy of consideration when identifying a single preferred option.

48 In addition PDP have also provided likely costings of two site investigation programmes for land around the current oxidation pond site and for work at the Smith block. These estimates are referenced in the report with a full groundwater investigation programme at the
Slee block being around $220K with the likely cost at Smiths being higher largely due to the greater depth to groundwater at Smiths.

49 It is important that Council appreciates the cost of these investigation programmes and any subsequent resource consenting, land acquisition, project design and construction processes.

50 Prior to any work it will also be necessary for Council to enter into discussions with landowners to get both agreement to access the land to undertake the investigation work and a commitment that the land can be purchased for the purposes of wastewater irrigation at what is agreed as an appropriate market rate.

51 In the past Council’s approach has been that it is preferable to own the land as this gives the most control over any future irrigation programme. There may also be an alternative to secure in-perpetuity disposal by way of, for example, an easement but this would need to be agreed with the current land owners.

Issues

52 There is a need for the Council to decide whether it wishes to look at pursuing investigation of an alternative treatment and disposal system to that which is currently proposed in relation to Te Anau wastewater.

53 Any decision to pursue further investigation of alternatives is likely to have time and cost implications that Council needs to be fully aware of before deciding to proceed with investigation of an alternative.

54 It is worth reiterating that a key consideration that will determine the level and type of treatment to install and hence drive the costs is identification of the most suitable alternative disposal route.

55 In the current instance there is broad agreement that a land based treatment/disposal route is preferred over a direct discharge to water. It is therefore important that any suitable land must be of sufficient area to accommodate long term population and tourism growth. It is also seen as important that the Council either own the land concerned or have a very long term disposal right such as via an easement. In terms of long-term it is prudent to look for a further 25-30 years beyond the life of the current 25 year consent.

56 Any decision to investigate alternatives will also trigger the need to consider applying for a further short term consent to continue the discharge to the Upukerora.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

57 It is noted that all decisions of the Council are subject to the decision-making provisions detailed in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. In broad terms, these provisions require that the Council assess the advantages and disadvantages of each reasonably practicable option. The extent of consideration given should have regard to the level of significance of the proposed decision.

58 In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991, it is noted that the Kepler Block disposal site has been granted all necessary resource consents and designated for treated wastewater disposal by a panel of independent Commissioners. These consents (but not the designation) are subject to an appeal to the Environment Court. To confirm the consents, an agreement needs to be reached with the Appellant, or failing agreement, the Court needs to confirm the grant of consent following a hearing.

59 Council’s barrister has advised that it should not surrender the Kepler consents, until it has in place, and beyond challenge, the consents needed for any alternative scheme that it may choose to pursue.

60 If agreement is reached through mediation, or consents are confirmed by the Court, this does not commit the Council to constructing the Kepler Scheme. Rather it gives Council the right to do so which does not have to be exercised. Alternatives can continue to be considered if that is the wish of the Council. However, due consideration needs to be given to a number of constraints not least around timelines in relation to expiry of the current Upukerora consent and the timeframe within which the Council needs to exercise the Kepler consent should it be confirmed.

61 When considering alternative options, Counsel has advised that it is important to remember that they must demonstrate the same level of minimal environmental effect as demonstrated through the consent for the Kepler proposal. Counsel has also advised that any alternative consent application carries the risk of being subject to an appeal.

Community Views

62 Under Section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is required to consider the range of community views that might exist in making any decisions.

63 It is clear that there are a number within the Te Anau and Manapouri communities who are concerned about the current Kepler consented option. The Fiordland Sewage Options Group (FSOI) has made it clear that it will actively challenge the Kepler consented option.

64 As part of the resource consent process, FSOI and others have raised a number of environmental concerns about the Kepler proposal. It is reasonable for the Council to assume that the environmental issues will be appropriately assessed by the Environment Court.

65 Through the appeal process and mediation FSOI have made it clear that their preference is to see the land treatment/disposal system developed elsewhere and have currently undertaken some preliminary investigations on the Slee block. Council is not currently aware of the outcome of these investigations but believe a more detailed investigation programme as developed by PDP would be required in support of any consent application at this location. Officers understand that this position is also supported by the experts employed by FSOI.

66 Given that the wastewater activity is treated as a district wide activity, and funded accordingly, it is appropriate that the Council also consider the views of other wastewater users and district wide ratepayers, in general, as they are also required to fund the costs and risks associated with the options chosen by the Council.

67 It is reasonable to expect that, in addition to appropriately addressing the environmental impacts of any proposal, there will be ratepayers who also expect the Council to manage the financial aspects of the project in a prudent and cautious way. Hence, the Council should not, for example, write off the historical investment that has been made in getting to the current point without good reason and should be conscious of the financial costs and risks associated with pursuing an alternative option.

68 It is also important to note that any alternative treatment solution and/or disposal site also carries risks of going through an appeal process. For example it should be noted that there are a significantly greater number of properties in the proximity of both the Smith and the Slee sites that could attract unfavourable submissions or threat of appeal.

69 Council also needs to be aware of the risk that a number of key stakeholders may not be supportive of a further extension of time to a continuation of discharge to the Upukerora which may add additional time and cost to the application with no guarantee of a successful outcome.

70 A further view to be considered is that of Ngāi Tahu and local iwi. Ngāi Tahu (through
Te Ao Mārama Incorporated) has been a key stakeholder in the development of the overall Te Anau Wastewater Strategy initially through involvement with the original Infrastructure Working Party and more recently through membership of this Committee.

71 Throughout the development of the overall wastewater strategy, Ngāi Tahu have been consistent in their message that direct discharges to water are unacceptable and should not be considered. This view has been a factor in the decision to pursue the Kepler consented option as well as recent potential alternatives that have been developed.

72 At the Discharge Project Committee of 6 July 2016, Committee Member Mowat provided an outline of the Ngāi Tahu perspective on wastewater treatment and disposal.

73 In general terms the discharge of wastewater to waterways irrespective of the level of treatment provided is considered unacceptable to Iwi and should be avoided. Of equal importance is the nature of land form and the permeability of soil structure and hence the length of time the discharge will take to reach the receiving environment. Given the relatively low depth to groundwater and open gravels on the area around the oxidation ponds there is a significant risk that a short time of travel to reach the receiving environment will not be sufficient to receive Iwi support for alternatives in that area. The statement tabled by Mr Mowat is included as Attachment C.

74 The Kepler proposal has been identified as Council’s preferred option in previous Long Term Plans and therefore has been subject to community consultation via the draft of these documents. Council will have considered the views expressed in adopting the Kepler option.

Costs and Funding

75 It is important to remember that all work on potential alternatives to Kepler, undertaken to date, has been desktop work. To more fully understand the impact of environmental effects it will be necessary to undertake extensive investigation work, particularly if it is to be used as part of a future resource consent process.

76 Since July 2013, approximately $1.3M has been spent through the investigation and consenting stages of the project on the Kepler option. There is an estimated $500K further expense required through the appeal process. These costs are currently being treated as a capital expense. Investigations into any alternative, other than Kepler, would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly.

77 Capital expenditure can be funded by way of loan. Currently the term of any loan can be no longer that the life of the asset or 30 years. Operation expenditure is normally funded directly from the activities operating income for the year. This is ensure Council maintains a balanced budget as required under section 100 of the Local Government Act 2002. The majority of income for the District Wastewater activity is from rates.

78 The draft Annual Plan for 2017/18 for consideration by Council in December 2016 includes $500K capital costs to enable the appeal to the Environment Court to be undertaken. As the Commissioners issued the consent for a 25 year period, any loan in relation to the consent can be for 25 year (being the life of the asset). A 25 years loan will add $4.01 (GST exclusive) per wastewater connection from 2018/19 based on the 2017/18 Annual Plan interest rate of 5.72%.

79 The draft Annual Plan for 2017/18 for consideration by Council in December 2016 also includes $500K operating costs for the investigation into an alternative option (with a short term extension to the current discharge consent). As mentioned above operational costs are usually funded in the year that the cost is incurred. If the $500K is funded entirely in the 2017/18 it would cost $53.18 (GST exclusive) per connection. Due to the amount of this increase it is proposed to fund this expenditure through a 5 year short term loan. A five year loan will add $12.30 (GST exclusive) per connection for 2018/19 to 2022/23. It can be expected that a similar level of operational expenditure would also need to be funded in the 2018/19 financial year.

80 In making a decision on whether to investigate an alternative option, the Council needs to be satisfied that the costs and benefits (including risks) of pursuing an alternative outweigh the costs and benefits of pursuing the Kepler option. While the Net Present Value assessment included in the draft PDP report contains some level of assessment, it has not been subjected to a comprehensive financial analysis and risk assessment process. It would seem appropriate for this work to be undertaken before a final decision is made into investigation of any alternative.

81 Financial implications to be taken into consideration will likely include but not be limited to:

· Capital and operational expenditure projections and the net present value of the cashflows associated with each of the alternatives.

· Sale/purchase of land considerations - including agreements to cover investigations on private land and repayment of any outstanding loans.

· Income from cut and carry operation from any alternative site and how that compares to projections from the consented Kepler site.

· The write-off of costs incurred in developing either the Kepler option or any alternative including re-consenting the current discharge to the Upukerora.

· An assessment of the risks associated with each option.

Policy Implications

82 The longer the consenting process takes, the greater the chance becomes that any new consents will be assessed against new policies and rules. In particular, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ("NPS") requires Environment Southland to develop freshwater quality limits, and impose conditions to meet those. There is currently uncertainty about when those limits will be finalised, and what they will be via the Water and Land 2020 process.

83 The preference for wastewater to be discharged to land rather than water is a well-known concept within the region. It arises in the operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in Policy 5.4, and is duplicated in the proposed RPS at Policy WQUAL.7. In both the operative and proposed RPS, the preference is to be used when discharge to land is practicable, and when the adverse effects are not significant.

84 Council has shown that it is practicable to discharge to land in the Kepler Block scheme, and in its decision to grant resource consent, the Commissioners stated that the proposal would be well within the significant adverse effect threshold under the operative RPS. The key environmental outcome of the proposal is that the discharge is to land, and not to the Upukerora River, which better meets stakeholder expectations and environmental preferences, as identified in both the RPS mentioned above, as well as in the NPS.
Any alternative option would also need to meet these criteria.

85 The District Plan provisions will also apply to any new consent application with that alternative requiring either a land use consent or a designation as is currently in place at Kepler. This would likely require notification and a hearing.

86 The decision on the notification path (ie non/limited/publically notified) will depend on the likely level of effects and whether they extend beyond the broadly adjoining properties.
For example, disposal adjacent to an urban boundary is more likely to be considered as needing to be publically notified whereas the sites further away from the urban boundary would potentially be subject to limited notification.

87 Setbacks outlined in the current and proposed plan will apply around the designation which could further restrict site selection and available land for future expansion, with it being unlikely that these could be reduced by way of consent conditions.

Upukerora Discharge Consent

88 Informal indications from Environment Southland are that any consent for a further discharge to the Upukerora will have to be assessed as a new consent, under both the current and proposed discharge plans and that the application would likely be publicly notified and assessed at a hearing by independent commissioners. This is likely to add significant time and cost onto the project which would need to be budgeted for as a separate project cost.

89 It is also important to remember that through the application and submissions process there is the risk of parties objecting to and potentially even appealing any decision.

90 Obviously, if Council wished to pursue investigation of alternative solutions or irrigation sites then it will need confidence that it will be able to secure a further extension. There is an argument to suggest that Council should secure such an extension ‘up front’ ahead of committing significant time and resources to investigation of an alternative. The downside of this approach is that it would delay the start of the alternative investigation programme.

91 It is estimated that it could take up to twelve months to undertake a new Upukerora consenting process up to the stage where a decision is released and free from appeal.

Risk Assessment

92 The key risks around the consented proposal are documented and well understood. Less well understood are the risks associated with what, if any, alternative solutions should be considered. On a broad level these include the following:

· Being unable to secure sufficient suitable land for long term treatment/disposal of
Te Anau wastewater. By long term it is meant beyond the life of the 25 year consent.

· Risk of securing a long term consent (at least 25 years as this is what has been granted at Kepler), and having the confidence that future consents could also be secured.

· Risk of appeal of any alternative consent.

· Not securing a further short term discharge consent to the Upukerora (or risk of any consent being appealed).

· Loss of support from key stakeholders and affected parties.

93 Obviously, there are mitigation strategies that could be implemented to manage each of these but overall these are all significant risks that Council needs to be aware of when making important decisions around the future direction of the project.

Decision-making Principles

94 There are clearly a number of complex issues to be considered by both the Project Committee and Council in coming to a view on how it should move forward with this project and in particular coming to a view as to whether it should investigate (and eventually seek consent for) an alternative.

95 As part of any decision-making process there is a requirement for Council to consider the principles in section 14 of the Local Government Act. In addition to these principles it is also recommended that Council should ask the Project to have regard to the following proposed principles for any alternative that they might put forward. The alternative must:

· Be formally recommended by the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

· Likely to be a viable disposal option for at least 35 years

· Likely to be technically and environmentally feasible

· Likely to be economically viable/sensible

· Likely to be culturally acceptable

· Is subject to securing a further short term consent for the Upukerora Discharge.

Analysis

Options Considered

96 There are three options identified. These are to endorse the Kepler (Option 1), to pursue an upgrade of the treatment plant with disposal via rapid infiltration at either the Smith or
Slee blocks as suggested by the Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee (Option 2) or to recommend an alternative option that the Committee believes warrants further investigation (Option 3).

Option 1 - Consented Kepler Option

97 Under Option 1 the Council would defend the appeal against the Kepler consented option through the Environment Court process and start to develop the business case to undertake the project subject to a favourable Environment Court outcome. It would not investigate any alternative options in the interim.

Option 2 - Continue with current option through the appeal process while undertaking further investigation identified by the Committee at one preferred location

98 Under Option 2 Council would ask the Project Committee to consider the latest PDP report and identify one preferred alternative option they would like Council to consider investigating. The investigation programme would need to be subject to also understanding the issues around applying for a further short term discharge to the Upukerora River. This process would run in parallel to the appeal process for the Kepler Consent.

99 The costs associated with the alternative investigations would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly over a short period of time.

100 The scope of this option is addressed in the latest PDP report.

Option 3 - Continue with current consented option through the appeal process while investigating a further alternative as identified by PDP in their series of reports

101 Under Option 3 the Council would continue with the Kepler appeal process while undertaking investigations into a further alternative site as recommended by the PDP report. Again this process would run alongside the current appeal.

102 The costs associated with the alternative investigations would need to be treated as an operational expense and funded accordingly.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Continue with current consented option

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Time and cost of future investigations will not be incurred.

· Subject to outcome of the appeal the Council will have long term certainty on future wastewater discharges.

· The costs of the appeal process will continue to be capitalised.

· Consenting process already well advanced and designation is in place.

· Is consistent with the adopted Long Term Plan.

· Consistent with legal advice.

· A decision will be received within a timeframe that would enable the current timeframes imposed through current Upukerora consent to be met.

· Further opposition likely through Environment Court process.

· Risk that it might not constitute the least cost option and that consent may not be confirmed.

Option 2 - Continue with current option through the appeal process while undertaking further investigation identified by the Committee at one preferred location

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Likely to be popular with appellants.

· Provides clarification into suitability of an alternative land site within the Te Anau Basin.

· May be a more cost effective alternative.

· Introduces significant uncertainty around getting consent at an alternative site.

· There is risk of an alternative being appealed as with the Kepler proposal.

· Alternative site may not prove to be viable or as having more advantages than the Kepler option.

· Costs incurred in pursuing alternative site investigations would need to be treated as operational expense and funded from rates today.

· Costs associated with Kepler will need to be written off and funded if this option is pursued as preferred option.

· Consenting process will need to start from scratch with associated costs and risks not yet understood.

· Will likely require a further short term extension to current Upukerora discharge consent.

· Possibility that it would not be seen as financially prudent and business like and therefore in breach of the Local Government Act 2002.

Option 3 - Continue with current consented option through the appeal process while investigating a further alternative as identified by PDP in their series of reports

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Likely to be popular with appellants.

· Provides a degree of certainty and reduces risks by ensuring that alternative investigations continue while pursuing consent for Kepler option.

· Consenting process for Kepler already well advanced and designation in place.

· Council would still have option of pursuing an alternative scheme even if consent for Kepler option is confirmed.

· Costs of investigation of alternative will need to be treated as operational expense and funded from rates.

· Risk that a suitable alternative may not be found.

· Risk that any alternative investigated option will also be appealed.

· Council will be incurring costs for pursuing two options at once. It could be argued that the financially prudent approach would have been to pursue alternative once it is known whether Kepler consent is confirmed.

· Will likely require a further short term extension to current Upukerora discharge consent.

Assessment of Significance

103 Any decision to abandon the current Kepler consented option would require the write off of the expenditure incurred by Council to date. This includes some $1.3M of expenditure currently held on the balance sheet for investigations since 2013. This expenditure would need to be written off and funded from operating revenue (ie rates). In addition, the Council would effectively be writing off the investment in the work completed prior to 2010 that has previously been funded. The quantum of this write off would exceed the financial threshold for unbudgeted expenditure in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

104 Officers are of the view that a decision to abandon the Kepler consent either now, or at some stage in the future, would constitute a significant decision. As such there would be a reasonable argument that the Council should consult on any such proposal particularly given the financial consequences and change in policy that such a decision would represent.

105 A decision to continue with the current consented option (Option 1) would be consistent with the direction that the Council has been pursuing for a number of years and with the Council’s adopted 2015 Long Term Plan. Hence, officers are of the view that a decision to adopt this option would not be significant.

106 If the investigation costs and consenting costs of exploring Options 2 or 3 are expected to exceed $500,000 then this would breach the unbudgeted expenditure threshold in the Significance and Engagement Policy. As such a decision to commit to such expenditure, particularly while continuing with the Kepler option would likely constitute a significant decision.

107 The Council is not being asked to make a final decision on whether to proceed with investigation of an alternative at this stage. This is a decision that it would make following receipt of further advice.

Recommended Option

108 In summarising the recommendations of the PDP’s peer review they have highlighted that the Kepler proposal is a viable option with no fundamental flaws. Through mediation, Council also agreed to undertake further investigation work with expert witnesses for Council and appellants to determine the suitability of alternative sub-surface disposal systems.
The outcome from this work indicates that SDI can be considered as a viable alternative to centre pivot irrigation but with the understanding that the issues around cost and risk are factors that need to be considered in identifying a preferred option. Further modelling work in support of evidence to the appeal is being undertaken to provide greater certainty around technical and financial issues associated with sub surface irrigation.

109 It should also be noted that should SDI become a preferred method of irrigation at Kepler there is a strong chance that it would require a new consent application given the significant differences between what has currently been applied for and consented and what a SDI proposal might involve.

110 At this stage Council are being presented with all three options based on information received to date. There is a need to determine whether its decision-making process would be assisted by undertaking further site visits for the provision of further information though at this stage this is considered unnecessary.

111 Councillors will have the opportunity to view the locations of the alternative sites as well as Kepler as part of the upcoming district tour.

Next Steps

112 If Council is to agree to investigate an alternative, then the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee should be required to put forward a single option on which they have either reached consensus or decided by a majority vote. Council would then then assess the ‘Option’ against the following principles to determine whether to proceed with a full investigation, the final decision sits with Council.

Principles

113 The alternative must:

· Be formally recommended by the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

· Likely to be a viable disposal option for at least 35 years

· Likely to be technically and environmentally feasible

· Likely to be economically viable/sensible

· Likely to be culturally acceptable

· Is subject to securing a further short term consent for the Upukerora Discharge.

114 Elected members will have the opportunity to see each of the sites on 17 and 18 November 2016. In the meantime all parties will continue with preparation of evidence etc required for the appeal process.

115 Council staff will circulate the PDP report to the Committee and advise of preferred alternative at which stage, Council will need to make a decision on how to proceed with any investigation work and when that should be undertaken.

Attachments

a Te Anau Wastewater Peer Review Report ⇩

b Review of Te Anau Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Options Addendum 1: Additional Options ⇩

c Te Ao Marama Incorporated Cultural Statement - Te Anau Waste Water Discharge ⇩

d Te Anau Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Addendum 2: Rapid Infiltration Options ⇩

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Southland District Licensing Committee

Record No: R/16/9/16166

Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 Council is required to appoint at least one District Licensing Committee (DLC).

Executive Summary

2 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 introduced DLCs in November 2013. This report recommends the appointment of a post-election DLC that models the status quo, with one key change being the addition of the Chairs of the Gore and Invercargill DLCs to the combined list of members.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Southland District Licensing Committee” dated 10 November 2016.

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

d) Appoints one District Licensing Committee.

e) Appoints Cr Gavin Macpherson as Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee.

f) Appoints Mayor G Tong, as the Deputy Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee to act in place of the Chairperson if the Chairperson is unable to act because of illness for absence, or for other sufficient reason.

g) Agree to make a recommendation to the Chief Executive to appoint Cr Bret Highsted Gore District Council, and Cr Darren Ludlow, Invercargill City Council, as Commissioners of the District Licensing Committee, at any time when the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are absent or cannot act and a District Licensing Committee quorum is required.

h) Agree that together with Gore District Council and Invercargill City Council, establish, maintain, and publish a combined list of persons approved by those authorities to be members of any of those territorial authorities’ licensing committees, in the event that a quorum is required.

i) Approves Cr Gavin Macpherson, Cr George Harpur, and Cr John Douglas to be included on the combined list.

j) Agree that the term of appointment of members of the District Licensing Committee and of the commissioners is a period of three years, ending upon the appointment of the post-2019 election District Licensing Committee.

Content

Background

3 Abbreviations used in this report:

The Act: The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

ICC, GDC, SDC: Invercargill City Council, Gore and Southland District Councils

DLC: District Licensing Committee

4 Attachment 1 is an extract from Council’s website that summarises the membership and operation of the pre-election DLC.

5 Council’s legal advisor has summarised DLCs in Legal and Statutory Requirements below.

6 Most applications are unopposed and are therefore determined by the Chairperson. In order to ensure continuity of customer service, it is desirable to appoint DLC members as soon as possible.

7 The Mayor was appointed as Deputy Chair given his knowledge and experience gained as a Police Officer.

Issues

Restrictions on who may be approved to be on the list

8 A person must not be appointed on the list, if –

(a) The territorial authority believes that person has, directly or by virtue of his or her relationship with another person, such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that he or she could not perform his or her duties without actual bias or the appearance of bias; or

(b) The person is a constable, a Medical Officer of Health, an inspector, or an employee of the territorial authority.

9 Assessment forms concerning requirements of the Act, will be completed by
new SDC members. Cr G Macpherson and Cr G Harpur will need to confirm that nothing has changed since they completed their assessment forms three years ago. Crs B Highsted and D Ludlow will be required to complete assessment forms prior to acting as Commissioners.

Appointment of other Chairs to the combined list

10 When the DLCs were established in late 2013, the Chairs were not added to the combined list. This report recommends their addition to the combined list, so that they may sit as members on a hearing panel. The benefit of this is their alcohol licensing experience and knowledge, along with the benefits of regional consistency that is a theme of the ease of doing business work stream in SoRDs.

Term of appointment

11 Section 192(3) allows people appointed to the list to be appointed for a term of up to five years. It is proposed that members are appointed for a term so as to allow them to cover the period of the Council elections, after which they depart the list at the end of three years shortly after the elections and the new DLC is created. They can of course be reappointed should they be returned to Council.

Appoint of commissioners

12 Mrs Diane Ridley was Council’s pre-election commissioner. Mrs Ridley was not required to act as commissioner and has advised of her wish to resign as commissioner.

13 To ensure the availability of service at all times, it is recommended that Cr Bret Highsted and Cr Darren Ludlow are appointed commissioners, in the event that both Cr Macpherson and the Mayor are unable to act. Gore District and Invercargill City Councils are making similar resolutions, including appointing Cr Macpherson as a commissioner for those Councils.

How the DLC would operate

14 A summary of how the DLC would operate is in Attachment 2, and this content will be used on Council’s website to advise the public.

Delegations

15 In 2014, Council delegated some of its powers under the Act to the Chief Executive, including:

· Appointment of two members from the list of persons approved to be members of the District Licencing Committee when a quorum of three is required.

· Appointment of commissioners.

16 In early 2015, the Chief Executive delegated the same to the Group Manager Environment and Community.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

17 Council’s legal advisor advises as follows:

18 Council is required to appoint at least one DLC to deal with licensing matters in its District [s.184].

19 The DLC consists of three members appointed by the TA [s.189 (1)].

20 The TA must appoint one elected member of the TA to be Chairperson. That person must be a member of the TA or a commissioner [s.189 (2 and 7)]. The other two members of the DLC must be appointed from the list of approved persons [s.189 (6)].

21 A TA must either establish its own list of approved persons or join with other TAs to have a combined list [s.192 (1)].

22 The effect of the above is that the Chairperson of a DLC or the deputy to act in the Chairperson’s place must be elected members of the TA. List members do not have to have TA membership qualifications.

23 The only qualifications for approved list members are that they have to have relevant experience. They cannot be involved in the alcohol industry to the extent that they cannot perform their duties without bias or the appearance of bias. For obvious reasons, a police officer, a MOH inspector and employee of the TA are disqualified.

24 Subject to the above, there is no legal reason why a member of another TA even if he or she is the Chairperson of that TA’s DLC cannot be on the approved list and sit as a member of any other DLC to deal with applications that require a quorum of three.

Community Views

25 This is unnecessary, being an operational matter.

Costs and Funding

26 The costs of the DLC are recoverable from the alcohol licensing business unit. The business unit is funded mostly from fees collected, and 10% rates.

Policy Implications

27 There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

28 The options are a DLC as described in Attachment 2; or a DLC structured in another manner.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - The adoption of the DLC as described in Attachment 2

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Councillors are neutral, local, know the District, and are experienced in high level decision-making.

· The pre-2016 election DLC has proven successful.

· The addition of Chairs to the combined list will have the benefits of sharing of knowledge and experience, and regional consistency.

· Consistent with other Committees of Council.

· Some other DLCs in New Zealand have specialist commissioners and/or list members. Councillors do not have the level of technical alcohol licensing knowledge as a specialist, and to an extent rely of staff for technical support.

Option 2 - The adoption of the DLC composed in another manner, such as the use of specialist commissions and/or list members

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Such a DLC would have a greater level of alcohol licensing knowledge, and so have little reliance on staff for technical assistance.	· The advantages above would not be achieved.

Assessment of Significance

29 This matter is considered to be not significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

30 Option 1 is recommended.

Next Steps

31 The DLC will be operational upon adoption of this report. Once all three Councils have resolved to appoint their DLCs, each of the Councils will publish the content in Attachment 2 on their websites, and the combined list will then become operational.

Attachments

a District Licensing Committee composition (pre-election) ⇩

b District Licensing Committee composition (post election) ⇩

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

The business of a Council and its administration is large and wide-ranging and it is impossible for the elected Council to deal with everything itself. Unless it is expressly stated otherwise in the Local Government Act 2002, or any other Act, a
Local Authority may delegate to a Committee, Subcommittee, Community Board or officer of the Local Authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers. Establishing Committees and delegating decisions ensures that decisions are made at a level commensurate with efficiency and effectiveness.

The terms of reference and delegations in this document are intended to allow the Council to delegate its powers and functions to the most efficient and effective levels.

In order to be efficient, effective and timely in delivering its services, Southland District Council has established a number of committees, outlined below.
This document sets out the terms of reference for each of Council’s Committees and Subcommittees.

In this document, the term Committee includes:

(a) A Committee comprises of all members of the Council;

(b) A Standing Committee or special committee appointed by the Council;

(d) A Joint Committee appointed under clause 30 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002;

(e) Any Subcommittee of a Committee described in items a), b), c) or d) of this definition; and

(f) A subordinate decision making body including Subcommittees.

2. POWERS RETAINED BY COUNCIL

Generally, the legislation, which the Council uses on a day-to-day basis, provides for delegations. When an Act or Regulation empowering the “Council” to carry out a decision-making function, that decision must be made by way of a resolution of the full Council unless the Act or Regulation, permits delegation to a Committee, Subcommittee, or Officer.

Council may delegate specific functions to a Committee (subject to any conditions or limitations imposed).

Council cannot delegate:

(a) The power to make a rate; or

(b) The power to make a by-law; or

(c) The power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan or otherwise expressly covered in the Policy; or

(d) The power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) The power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f) The power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) The power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy; or

(h) The power to approve or change a plan (RMA); or

(i) The power to approve or amend the Council’s Standing Orders; or

(j) The power to approve or amend the Code of Conduct for elected members; or

(k) The power to appoint and discharge members of committees or;

(l) The power to establish a Joint Committee with another local authority or other public body; or

(m) The power to make the final decision on a recommendation from the Ombudsman where it is proposed that Council not accept the recommendation.

Note: For (a) - (g) see clause 32(1) Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002 and for (h) - (m) see clauses 15, 27, 30 Schedule 7 of Local Government Act 2002 and Section 34A of Resource Management Act 1991.

In addition, Council has also decided to retain the following powers:

(a) To approve Council strategy and policy;

(b) To discharge Chairpersons of Committees and Subcommittees;

(d) To approve the Triennial Agreement;

(e) To approve the Local Governance Statement;

(f) To determine whether or how to fill any extraordinary Council vacancies;

(g) To make decisions on representation reviews;

(h) To appoint and discharge trustees, directors or office holders to Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and Council Organisations (CO's) and to other external bodies.

(i) In respect of District Plan decisions:

· To notify a Proposed District Plan;

· To approve the Proposed District Plan as operative (Section 34A(1)(a) of the RMA);

· To appoint a Hearings Commissioner (Section 34A(1) of the RMA);

· To make a decision on submissions and further submissions to a Proposed District Plan;

· To agree to settle and submit a draft consent order to the Environment Court relating to an appeal on a Proposed District Plan, Plan Change, Variation or Notice of Requirement to designate land or for a heritage order;

· To reject a private plan change request.

3. DELEGATIONS

Council can delegate all statutory powers (other than those listed above or as expressly provided in any other legislation) and the authority to manage and regulate on Council's behalf to committees. (Local Government Act 2002 - Schedule 7, Clause 32 (1)).

A Committee with delegated power will usually exercise the delegated power, but is not obliged to do so. The terms of reference and delegations in this document are intended to reflect the principles of subsidiarity to allow the Council powers and functions to be exercised at the most efficient and effective levels.

In exercising the delegated powers, all of Council’s committees will operate within:

· Policies, plans, standards or guidelines that have been established and approved by Council;

· The overall priorities of Council;

· The needs of the local communities; and

· The approved budgets for the activity.

4. QUORUM

The quorum for each committee are outlined in its terms of reference. Clause 23 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that the quorum at a meeting of:

(a) A local authority consists of—

(i) half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even; or

(ii) a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd; and

(b) A committee—

(i) is not fewer than two members of the committee (as determined by the local authority or committee that appoints the committee); and

(ii) in the case of a committee other than a subcommittee, must include at least one member of the local authority.

5. CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

All Committees and Subcommittees shall conduct their affairs in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1968, Council’s Code of Conduct and Standing Orders.

6. AMBIGUITY AND CONFLICT

If there is uncertainty or dispute as to which Committee or Subcommittee has the delegated authority to act in respect of a particular matter, then the Mayor will decide in consultation with the Deputy Mayor and having received advice from the
Chief Executive. The decision of the Mayor will be final and binding.

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

REGULATORY AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Authorising body	Council
Approval date

1. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is responsible for overseeing the statutory functions of the Council under the following legislation:

· Resource Management Act 1991

· Health Act 1956

· Food Act 2014

· Dog Control Act 1996

· Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

· Heritage New Zealand Act Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

2. MEMBERSHIP

The Regulatory and Consents Committee will comprise of six members.

The Chairperson for this Committee will be appointed by Council.

3. MEETING SCHEDULE

Six weekly or as required. Meetings outside of the regular meeting schedule shall be called by the Chairperson.

4. QUORUM

The quorum at any meeting of the Regulatory and Consents Committee shall be not less than three members of the Regulatory and Consents Committee.

5. DELEGATIONS

5.1 Power to Act

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is delegated the authority to undertake the following functions in accordance with the Council’s approved delegations register:

(a) Maintain an oversight of the delivery of regulatory services;

(b) Conduct statutory hearings on regulatory matters and undertake and make decisions on those hearings (excluding matters it is legally unable to make decisions on as legislated by the Resource Management Act 1991);

(d) Hear appeals on officer’s decisions to decline permission for an activity that would breach the Southland District Council Control of Alcohol Bylaw 2015;

(e) Approve Council's list of hearings commissioners (from whom a commissioner can be selected) at regular intervals and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to appoint individual Commissioners for a particular hearing;

(f) Make decisions on applications required under the Southland District Council’s Development and Financial Contribution Policy for remissions, postponements, reconsiderations and objections;

(g) Approve Commissioners and list members under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012;

(h) Exercise the Council's powers, duties and discretions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012;

(i) Hear objections to officer decisions under the Dog Control Act 1996.

The Regulatory and Consents Committee shall be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers^{^[3]}.

5.2 Power to Recommend

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a) Regulatory policies and bylaws for consultation;

(b) Regulatory delegations;

(d) Assisting with the review and monitoring of the District Plan.

6. STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS

This Committee shall maintain relationships with the following organisations:

· Southland Museum and Art Gallery;

· Southland Heritage Building Preservation Trust;

· Emergency Management Southland;

· Southland Regional Heritage Committee

· Public Health South

· New Zealand Police

· Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

· Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority

· Any other relevant organisations but not limited to those listed above.

The Committee will also hear and receive updates to Council from these organisations, as required.

6.1 Public Access and Reporting

Notification of meetings to the public and public access to meetings and information shall comply with Standing Orders, but it should be noted that:

· At any meeting of the Committee at which no resolutions or decisions are made, the provisions of Standing Orders relating to public access do not apply.

· Workshop meetings solely for information and discussions and at which no resolutions or decisions are made may be held in accordance with Standing Orders.

· Extraordinary meetings of the Committee may be held in accordance with Standing Orders.

· The public may be excluded from the whole or part of the proceedings of the meeting and information withheld on one or more of the grounds specified in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s.48.

The Committee shall record minutes of all its proceedings and present the minutes to the next available Council meeting following the Committee meeting.

6.2 Contacts with Media and Outside Agencies

The Committee Chairperson is the authorised spokesperson for the Committee in all matters where the Committee has authority or a particular interest.

Committee members, including the Chairperson, do not have delegated authority to speak to the media and/or outside agencies on behalf of Council on matters outside of the Committee’s delegations.

The Group Manager, Environmental Services will manage the formal communications between the Committee and its constituents and for the Committee in the exercise of its business. Correspondence with central government, other local government agencies or other official agencies will only take place through Council staff and will be undertaken under the name of the Southland District Council.

7. CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

The Committee shall conduct its affairs in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct.

In fulfilling their role on the Regulatory and Consents Committee, members shall be impartial and independent at all times.

8. REMUNERATION

Elected members will be reimbursed in accordance with the current
Local Government Elected Members’ Determination.

External members and advisors to the Committee will be reimbursed in accordance with their standard business rates, including disbursements.

9. FUNDING AND BUDGETS

Funding for the Committee will align with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

The Committee shall only expend funding on purposes for which that funding was originally raised and in accordance with the budgets approved by Council through its Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

Remuneration and expenses will be funded from the Leadership activity budget.

10. REPORTING

Minutes of all meetings of the Regulatory and Consents Committee will be reported to the Council.

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Authorising body	Council
Approval date

1. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

The Finance and Audit Committee is responsible for:

· Ensuring that Council has appropriate financial, risk management and internal control systems in place that provide:

- An overview of the financial performance of the organisation.

- Effective management of potential opportunities and adverse effects.

- Reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability of Council’s financial and non-financial reporting.

· Exercising active oversight of information technology systems.

· Exercising active oversight of “Council’s health and safety policies, processes, compliance, results and frameworks”

· Relationships with External, Internal Auditors, Banking Institutions and Insurance brokers.

The Finance and Audit Committee will monitor and assess the following:

· The financial and non-financial performance of Council against budgeted and forecasted outcomes

· Consideration of forecasted changes to financial outcomes

· Council’s compliance with legislative requirements

· Council’s risk management framework

· Council’s Control framework

· Council’s compliance with its treasury responsibilities.

2. MEMBERSHIP

The Finance and Audit Committee will comprise of six members.

Membership will be the Mayor, three Councillors and one external appointee.

External appointees have full speaking and voting rights on the Finance and Audit Committee.

Chairperson

The Chairperson is responsible for:

1. The efficient functioning of the Committee;

2. Setting the agenda for Committee meetings in conjunction with the
Chief Financial Officer; and

3. Ensuring that all members of the Committee receive sufficient timely information to enable them to be effective Committee members.

The Chairperson will be the link between the Committee and Council staff.

3. MEETING SCHEDULE

Quarterly or as required. Meetings outside of the regular meeting schedule shall be called by the Chairperson.

4. QUORUM

The quorum at any meeting of the Finance and Audit Committee shall be three members (at least one external member must be present for a quorum to exist) which must comprise two Councillors plus one external appointee.

5. DELEGATIONS

5.1 Power to Act

The Finance and Audit Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers.^{^[5]}

In exercising the delegated powers, the Finance and Audit Committee will operate within:

· policies, plans, standards or guidelines that have been established and approved by Council;

· the overall priorities of Council;

· the needs of the local communities; and

· the approved budgets for the activity.

The Finance and Audit Committee will have responsibility and delegated authority in the following areas:

Financial and Performance Monitoring

(a) Monitoring financial performance to budgets;

(b) Monitoring service level performance to key performance indicators.

Internal Control Framework

(a) Reviewing whether Council’s approach to maintaining an effective internal control framework is sound and effective;

(b) Reviewing whether Council has taken steps to embed a culture that is committed to probity and ethical behaviour;

(c) Reviewing whether there are appropriate systems, processes and controls in place to prevent, detect and effectively investigate fraud.

Internal Reporting

(a) To consider the processes for ensuring the completeness and quality of financial and operational information being provided to the Council;

(b) To seek advice periodically from internal and external auditors regarding the completeness and quality of financial and operational information that is provided to the Council.

External Reporting and Accountability

(a) Agreeing the appropriateness of the Council’s existing accounting policies and principles and any proposed change;

(b) Enquiring of internal and external auditors for any information that affects the quality and clarity of the Council’s financial statements and statements of service performance, and assess whether appropriate action has been taken by management in response to the above;

(c) Satisfying itself that the financial statements and statements of service performance are supported by appropriate management signoff on the statements and on the adequacy of the systems of internal control (ie, letters of representation), and recommend signing of the financial statements by the Chief Executive/Mayor and adoption of the Annual Report, Annual Plans, Long Term Plans;

Risk Management

(a) Reviewing whether Council has in place a current, comprehensive and effective risk management framework and associated procedures for effective identification and management of the Council’s significant risks;

(b) Considering whether appropriate action is being taken to mitigate Council’s significant risks.

Health and Safety

(a) Review, monitor and make recommendations to Council on the organisations health and safety risk management framework and policies to ensure that the organisation has clearly set out its commitments to manage health and safety matters effectively.

(b) Review and make recommendations for Council approval on strategies for achieving health and safety objectives.

(c) Review and recommend for Council approval targets for health and safety performance and assess performance against those targets.

(d) Monitor the organisation’s compliance with health and safety policies and relevant applicable law.

(e) Ensure that the systems used to identify and manage health and safety risks are fit-for-purpose, being effectively implemented, regularly reviewed and continuously improved. This includes ensuring that the Council is properly and regularly informed and updated on matters relating to health and safety risks.

(f) Seek assurance that the organisation is effectively structured to manage health and safety risks, including having competent workers, adequate communication procedures and proper documentation.

(g) Review health and safety related incidents and consider appropriate actions to minimise the risk of recurrence.

(h) Make recommendation to the Council regarding the appropriateness of resources available for operating the health and safety management systems and programmes.

(i) Any other duties and responsibilities which have been assigned to it from time to time by the Council.

Internal Audit

(a) Approve appointment of the internal auditor, internal audit engagement letter and letter of understanding.

(b) Reviewing and approving the internal audit coverage and annual work plans, ensuring these plans are based on the Council’s risk profile;

(d) Reviewing the internal audit charter to ensure appropriate organisational structures, authority, access, independence, resourcing and reporting arrangements are in place.

External Audit

(a) Confirming the terms of the engagement, including the nature and scope of the audit, timetable and fees, with the external auditor at the start of each audit;

(b) Receiving the external audit report(s) and review action(s) to be taken by management on significant issues and audit recommendations raised within;

(c) Enquiring of management and the independent auditor about significant business, political, financial and control risks or exposure to such risks.

Compliance with Legislation, Standards and Best Practice Guidelines

(a) Reviewing the effectiveness of the system for monitoring the Council’s compliance with laws (including governance legislation, regulations and associated government policies), with Council’s own standards, and Best Practice Guidelines as applicable.

(b) Conducting and monitoring special investigations, in accordance with Council Policy, and reporting the findings to Council.

Business Case Review

(a) Review of the business case of work, services, supplies, where the value of these or the project exceeds $2million or the value over the term of the contract exceeds $2million.

Insurance

(a) Consider Council’s insurance requirements, considering its risk profile

(b) Approving the annual insurance renewal requirements

Treasury

(a) Oversee the treasury function of Council ensuring compliance with the relevant Council policies and plans

(b) Ensuring compliance with the requirements of Council’s trust deeds are met

6. Power to Recommend

6.1 The Finance and Audit Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a) Policies relating to risk management, rating, loans, funding and purchasing.

(b) Accounting treatments, changes in generally accepted accounting practice, and new accounting and reporting requirements.

(c) The approval of financial and non-financial performance statements including adoption of the Annual Report, Annual Plans and Long Term Plans.

6.2 The Finance and Audit Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to the Services and Assets Committee on business cases completed under section 5.1 (above).

7. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PARTIES

The Chief Executive is responsible for servicing and providing support to the Committee in the completion of its duties and responsibilities. The Chief Executive generally appoints the Chief Financial Officer to provide these functions on his/her behalf.

Professional advisors to the Committee shall be invited to attend all meetings of the Committee:

· External auditor;

· Internal auditor/risk advisor (if appointed); and

· Chief Financial Officer.

At each meeting, the Chairperson will provide the external auditor and the internal auditor/risk advisor (if appointed) with an opportunity to discuss any matters with the Committee without management being present. The Chairperson shall request the Chief Executive and staff in attendance to leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion. The Chairperson will provide minutes for that part of the meeting.

The Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer shall be responsible for drawing to the Committee’s immediate attention any material matter that relates to the financial condition of Council, material breakdown in internal controls and any material event of fraud.

The Committee shall provide guidance and feedback to the Council on financial performance, risk and compliance issues.

The Committee will report to Council as it deems appropriate but no less than twice a year.

7.1 Public Access and Reporting

Notification of meetings to the public and public access to meetings and information shall comply with Standing Orders, but it should be noted that:

· At any meeting of the Committee at which no resolutions or decisions are made, the provisions of Standing Orders relating to public access do not apply.

· Workshop meetings solely for information and discussions and at which no resolutions or decisions are made may be held in accordance with Standing Orders.

· Extraordinary meetings of the Committee may be held in accordance with Standing Orders.

The Committee shall record minutes of all its proceedings and present the minutes to the next available Council meeting following the Committee meeting.

7.2 Contacts with Media and Outside Agencies

The Committee Chairperson is the authorised spokesperson for the Committee in all matters where the Committee has authority or a particular interest.

Committee members, including the Chairperson, do not have delegated authority to speak to the media and/or outside agencies on behalf of Council on matters outside of the Committee’s delegations.

The Chief Financial Officer will manage the formal communications between the Committee and its constituents and for the Committee in the exercise of its business. Correspondence with central government, other local government agencies or other official agencies will only take place through Council staff and will be undertaken under the name of the Southland District Council.

8. CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

In fulfilling their role on the Finance and Audit Committee, members shall be impartial and independent at all times.

9. REMUNERATION

Elected members will be reimbursed in accordance with the current
Local Government Elected Members’ Determination.

External members and advisors to the Committee will be reimbursed in accordance with their standard business rates, including disbursements.

10. FUNDING AND BUDGETS

Funding for the Committee will align with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

The Committee shall only expend funding on purposes for which that funding was originally raised and in accordance with the budgets approved by Council through its Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

Remuneration and expenses will be funded from the Leadership activity budget.

11. REPORTING

Minutes of all meetings of the Finance and Audit Committee will be provided to the Council.

12. Review of the Committee

The Committee shall undertake an annual self-review of its objectives and responsibilities.

Such objectives and responsibilities shall also be reviewed by the Council, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and any other person the Council considers appropriate.

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

RIVERTON HARBOUR SUBCOMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Authorising body	Council
Approval date

1. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee is delegated the following responsibilities by the Southland District Council.

(a) The management and control of all Riverton Harbour assets vested in the SDC being:

· the use and maintenance of the boat ramp adjacent Koi Koi Park.

· the use and maintenance of the “unloading wharf” and crane at Lees Point operated by the Council so that no vessel anchors, moors, secures or is placed at the unloading wharf unless actively loading or unloading fuel, provisions, fishing equipment or fish (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· the use and maintenance of the “common walkway” on the jetty leading to the privately owned berth numbered L36.

· the use and maintenance of the “common walkway” on the jetty leading to the privately owned berths numbered L22, L23, L24, L25, L26, L27, L28, L29 and L30.

· the provision and maintenance of the ‘lead lights’ markers the white light at Howells Point and red flashing light at Pearl Rock and any other navigational aids required to assist those vessels leaving and entering the Riverton Harbour.

· the use and maintenance of berth L35 currently subject to a lease.

(b) The administration, management and control of all Riverton harbour endowment lands now vested in the Southland District Council in consultation with and subject to approval by the Southland District Council being those lands comprised in Certificates of Title 5C/914, 5C/917, 5C/918, 5C/919, 5C/920, 5C/921, 5B/825, 9D/859, 10C/615, 10C/616 and all such other Riverton harbour endowment lands so vested.

2. MEMBERSHIP

The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee will comprise as follows:

· One Councillor from the Waiau-Aparima Ward

· Four members nominated by Riverton/Aparima Community Board (Community Board to nominate a representative from the Community Board, two representatives from Berth owners and one representative from either Riverton Rowing Club or Riverton Coastguard)

· One member nominated by the local Iwi Aparima Oraka Runaka.

· One representative from Environment Southland (with no voting rights).

3. MEETING SCHEDULE

The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee will meet quarterly.

4. QUORUM

The quorum of the Riverton Harbour Subcommittee will be four members.

5. DELEGATIONS

5.1 Power to Act

The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall be responsible for the following:

1. The exercise of the following powers (and enforcement of same):

· to determine whether any person shall be authorised as necessary to carry out work on any vessel or fishing equipment or any other work or lease any equipment used in fishing or any other gear on Council Harbour Endowment land and any such authorisation may be given by the Harbourmaster (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to determine whether any vessel may be left on Council Harbour Endowment land (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to determine by resolution that any particular area on Council Harbour Endowment land be a parking area for restricted periods (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to ensure as necessary that no person stops, stands or parks any vessel, vehicle, trailer, boat trailer or any other equipment in any area of Council Harbour Endowment land unless authorised by the Committee or the Harbourmaster (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to take such steps as are necessary to arrange for the removal of any vessel, gear, equipment, vehicle, trailer, or boat trailer left on Council Harbour Endowment land without the approval of the Riverton Harbour Committee provided that if the goods are not removed or remain unclaimed by the owner the matter shall be referred to the Southland District Council for further action in consultation with the Riverton Harbour Committee (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to ensure as necessary that no person drives any vehicle over Council Harbour Endowment land at a speed greater than 20 kilometres per hour (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

· to arrange for and provide such signs as deemed necessary from time to time to assist in the best use of the wharves and Council Harbour Endowment lands and for any other reason (1972 Bylaw No. 3).

2. The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall be responsible for ensuring that the income from assets and income derived from harbour activities and endowment lands is applied to the maintenance and development of Riverton harbour, to the maintenance and improvement of endowment lands vested in the Southland District Council and for such other purposes to benefit the Riverton community.

3. The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall be responsible for preparing an annual budget in every financial year in consultation with the Southland District Council and with the assistance of the Council.

4. The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall be responsible for preparing an Asset Management Plan in consultation with the Southland District Council and with the assistance of Council.

5. The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall under delegated authority from the Southland District Council perform those functions, powers and duties which have now been transferred by Environment Southland as under the Riverton Harbour Board Bylaws (No. 2) 1970 Clauses 1-14, 22 and 35-37. Accordingly the Subcommittee is responsible as under:

Control of Vessels

(a) to ensure as necessary that vessels only anchor, moor at a berth or wharf/mooring site for which that vessel has been licensed unless the licensee of that berth, wharf has given approval for same. [1970 Bylaw No. 1(a)].

(b) to ensure as necessary that any vessel not having a licensed site or wharf/berth is moored, anchored, secured or placed within the Riverton Harbour as directed by the Harbourmaster. [1970 Bylaw
No. 1(b)].

(c) to ensure as necessary that vessels are not anchored in the fairway or stopped in such a way that the approach to any wharf is obstructed. [1970 Bylaw No. 2].

(d) to ensure as necessary that all vessels anchored or moored or secured to any wharf within the Harbour are adequately secured. [1970 Bylaw No. 3].

(e) to order the removal of any vessel, timber or other obstacle to any part of the Riverton Harbour as deemed necessary by the Harbourmaster for the better working of shipping, cargo or wharves. [1970 Bylaw No. 4].

(f) in pursuance of the responsibilities under (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) the Harbourmaster may arrange to secure, moor, unmoor, place or remove any vessel and where necessary recommend to Environment Southland that it consider a prosecution for a breach of these Bylaws. [1970 Bylaw Nos. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d)].

(g) to grant permission in appropriate situations for a master of any vessel to haul a vessel on shore for the purpose of inspection or repairs. [1970 Bylaw No. 6].

(h) to require, where appropriate by Order of the Harbourmaster the removal from a wharf of any vessel having on board cargo or other matter injurious to health or offensive or dangerous in any respect or other action deemed to be necessary for the safety and interest of all vessels. [1970 Bylaw No. 7].

(i) to control as determined by the Harbourmaster the place, times and manner of bringing vessels to or in taking them from any wharf and the securing of any vessel. [1970 Bylaw No. 10].

(j) to take such steps as are necessary for the suppression of any fire happening on any vessel or on any wharf. [1970 Bylaw No. 13].

(k) to ensure as necessary that all motor-launches operating within the Riverton Harbour have a silencing device in good repair to prevent undue noise from the engine and that the master/driver of the motor-launch is over 15 years of age. [1970 Bylaw Nos. 14(2), 14(3), 14(4), 14(5), 14(6), 14(7), 14(8)].

(l) to ensure as necessary that the speed, use or management of a motor-launch or of a seaplane on the harbour surface or of a water-ski aquaplane or other object towed by any motor-launch or seaplane does not create a nuisance or continue to be a nuisance. [1970 Bylaw No. 14(9)].

(m) to ensure as necessary that the speed of a motor-launch or seaplane on the surface of the water does not exceed ten kilometres an hour in those situations prescribed by 1970 Bylaw No. 14(10)(a), (b), (c) and (d).

(n) to ensure as necessary that the speed of any water-ski, aquaplane or other similar object or person towed by any motor-launch or seaplane does not exceed ten kilometres an hour or ride on any water-ski aquaplane or other object so towed in those situations prescribed by 1970 Bylaw No. 14(11)(a), (b), (c) and (d).

(o) to ensure as necessary that any motor-launch or seaplane being used to tow any water-ski aquaplane or other similar object or person has two persons on board so that one person can warn of any mishap occurring or the possibility of any mishap occurring to the person being towed or riding upon the water-ski, aquaplane or other object. [1970 Bylaw No. 14(12)(a) and (b)].

(p) to determine from time to time what part of the Riverton Harbour is to be reserved as an access lane or lanes for any particular purpose in accordance with 1970 Bylaw No. 14(13)(a), (b) and (c).

(q) to determine in any particular case where special circumstances so justify by resolution that any of the Riverton Harbour Board Bylaws No. 2 (1970) or any specified provisions thereof shall not apply in respect of any area or areas of the Riverton Harbour. [1970 Bylaw No. 14(14)].

(r) to deal with any applications on the occasion of any yacht, launch or boat race or speed trial for the suspension of the Riverton Harbour Board Bylaws No. 2 (1970) or any specified provisions thereof in accordance with 1970 Bylaw No. 14(15)(a) and (b).

(s) to obtain where possible the name and address of any person who appears to have committed any offence against the Bylaws and where appropriate the registered number of any vessel involved in the alleged offence.

Mooring and Anchoring

To enforce the General Harbour Regulations for harbours of New Zealand as may be applicable (1970 Bylaw No. 22).

Control

To appoint a Harbourmaster for the purposes of control in terms of the Riverton Harbour Board Bylaws (No. 2) 1970 and to supervise the observance and enforcement of the provisions of these Bylaws and to appoint in consultation with the Southland District Council such other officers as may be deemed necessary from time to time [1970 Bylaw No. 35].

Offences and Penalties

- to order any person or persons who may be in breach of the provisions of the Riverton Harbour Board Bylaws (No. 2) 1970 to leave the foreshore forthwith. [1970 Bylaw No. 36].

- to recommend commencement of summary proceedings in appropriate cases against any person in breach of the Bylaw.

(6) The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee shall have the power to make submissions to Environment Southland in respect of all resource consent applications received by Environment Southland that deal with matters involving the Riverton harbour.

(7) The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee will report at three monthly intervals to Environment Southland on any actions taken pursuant to the powers transferred by Environment Southland and any issues or concerns identified by users of the harbour.

5.2 Power to Recommend

The Riverton Harbour Subcommittee will:

(a) Make recommendations to Environment Southland on matters of concern that pertain to Environment Southland Resource Management Act function.

(b) Make recommendations to the Services and Assets Committee on all matters of policy not delegated to the Riverton Harbour Subcommittee.

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

AROUND THE MOUNTAINS CYCLE TRAIL PROJECT SUBCOMMITTEE - TERMS OF REFERENCE

DOCUMENT CONTROL

DATE APPROVED
TRIM REFERENCE NO.	r/15/10/18140
RELATED LEGISLATION

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee is to perform the role of governance oversight on behalf of the Southland District Council for the completion of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail.

The Southland District Council will retain the authority to approve the final project budget. Once funding is approved by Council the responsibility for delivery of the project falls to the Services and Assets committee.

This Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee is a Subcommittee of the Services and Assets committee and will have authority to act as delegated by that committee.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES/SCOPE OF ACTIVITY

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall have responsibility for:

Function	Responsibility	How will this be achieved
Project Completion	To ensure the cycle trail project is completed to the standard expected on a no surprises basis	Monitoring progress and making decisions to allow completion to be achieved.
Project Progress	To monitor progress of the project and make necessary decisions to keep the project on track in accordance with the project plan. To ensure the project is completed on time in accordance with the project plan.	Receive sufficiently detailed progress reports from the Project Manager to be able to be fully informed of progress towards the completion outcome. Make decisions on actions necessary to overcome constraints that put achieving the planned outcome at risk
Financial Management	To ensure the project is completed to the agreed budget.	Receive sufficiently detailed progress reports from the Project Manager to be able to be fully informed of the likely completion outcome. Make decisions on actions necessary to overcome constraints that put achieving the completion within budget at risk. Approve Procurement Plans and Let Contracts in accordance with those plans for the purchase of goods and services to complete the cycle trail project.
Risk Management	To monitor Risk Management processes and ensure that risks are being identified, mitigated and managed.	Receive reports on risk management. Assess if all important risks are being managed properly. Flag any unmanaged risks.
Health and Safety Management	To monitor Health and Safety management and ensure it is being carried out appropriately.	Receive reports on Health and Safety management including evidence of proactive management and evidence of safety observations and due diligence. Ensure unsafe practices are eliminated from the project.
Compliance	To monitor consent compliance to ensure all work is carried out under necessary consents and to ensure all consent conditions are complied with.	Receive confirmation reports of consent compliance Receive exception reports on issues of non-compliance and proposals to correct non-compliance.

3. MEMBERSHIP

The membership of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall be:

a) The Chairman of the Services and Assets Committee who shall be chairman of the Subcommittee;

b) His Worship the Mayor;

c) Four Southland District Council Councillors.

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall have the power to co-opt Councillors and/or other suitably qualified persons, with interests in special topics, for the duration of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee’s consideration of those topics.

4. CHAIRPERSON

The Chairperson is responsible for:

(a) The efficient functioning of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee;

(b) Setting the agenda for Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee meetings; and

(c) Ensuring that all members of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee receive sufficient timely information to enable them to be effective Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee members.

The Chairperson will be the link between the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee and Council staff.

5. QUORUM

The quorum at any meeting of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall be not less than four members of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee.

6. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall meet at least as often as is necessary to effectively manage the project.

7. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PARTIES

The primary relationship of the Project Subcommittee will be with the Project Management Team through the Project Manager. The Project Subcommittee will report via progress reports and meeting minutes to the Services and Assets Committee.

8. CONTACTS WITH MEDIA AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Chairperson is the authorised spokesperson for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee in all matters where the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee has authority or a particular interest.

The Group Manager, Services and Assets will manage the formal communications between the Subcommittee and its constituents and for the Committee in the exercise of its business.

Correspondence with central government, other local government agencies or other official agencies will only take place through Council staff and will be undertaken under the name of the District Council.

9. CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

The Committee shall conduct its affairs in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the
Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct.

10. PUBLIC ACCESS AND REPORTING

Notification of meetings to the public and public access to meetings and information shall comply with Standing Orders, but it should be noted that:

• Any meetings of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee are subject to Standing Orders

• Workshops meetings solely for information and discussions and at which no resolutions or decisions are not subject to Standing Orders

• Extraordinary meetings of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee may be held in accordance with Standing Orders

• The public may be excluded from the whole or part of the proceedings of the meeting and information withheld on one or more of the grounds specified in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Section 48.

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall record minutes of all its proceedings and after adoption at its next meeting will present the minutes to the next available Services and Assets meeting.

11. TERMS OF APPOINTMENT

The terms of appointment shall be until the completion of the project and the dissolution of the Subcommittee by the Services and Assets Committee.

12. REMUNERATION

Remuneration will be in accordance with the Elected Members’ Remuneration Policy.

13. FUNDING AND BUDGETS

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall only expend funding on purposes for which that funding was originally raised and in accordance with the budgets approved by Council through its Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

Funding for Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee will align with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

Remuneration and expenses will be funded from the allocated budget within the Council’s governance budget.

14. DELEGATIONS

The Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee shall have authority to:

• Expend funds in accordance with the approved budgets for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail project.

• Approve Procurement Plans and let Contracts in accordance with those plans for the purchase of goods and services to complete the cycle trail project.

Council

16 November 2016

OHAI RAILWAY FUND

POLICY

1. Ohai Railway Fund Area

“The boundaries of the Ohai Railway Fund Area are generally defined as:-

East - the Aparima River and from the Hundred Line at Aparima North to Home Creek.

West - the Wairaki River from the Wairaki River bridge on the Clifden/Blackmount main highway north along its course into the Takitimu Mountains.

South - the Hundred Line from Aparima to Scotts Gap, along the Scotts Gap Feldwick Road to Feldwick, along the Clifden Gorge Road to Eastern Bush, and the Otahu - Eastern Bush Road to the Wairaki River Bridge.

North - Takitimu Mountains to Home Creek, then along its water course to the Aparima River.”

The boundary of the defined area is indicatively demonstrated on the map attached to this Policy Manual and is legally described in the New Zealand Gazette Notice, page 1671 of 11 May 1916 that is also attached to this Policy Manual.

2. Purpose of Fund

The purpose of the fund is to provide grant(s) for the benefit of the “residents” of the former “Ohai Railway Board Area” as defined on the attached map. A “resident” being a person or a descendant of a person whose name appeared on the Parliamentary Electoral Roll for a nine year period during the years 1960 to 1999, both years inclusive, and whose address at this time or times was within the area of the district of the former Board.

From the date of the Triennial elections of members of the Committee to be held in 2014, the reference in the above subclause to the year ‘1999’ shall read as a reference to ‘2008’, and on the date of each subsequent Triennial election of members of the Committee shall be amended by the addition of a further three years to that reference.”

3. General Information

The Ohai Railway Fund Committee has the discretion to change the level of grants allocated annually.

The Background Paper for the creation of the Ohai Railway Fund Committee is the Local Government Commission Determination on the former Ohai Railway Board 1993.

Ohai Railway Fund Committee, is a Committee of Southland District Council, and will be subject to Southland District Council’s Code of Conduct.

4. Eligible Purposes

Listed below is a summary of eligible purposes:

• The provision of bursaries for post-secondary school study or adult education.

• To facilitate Employment Opportunities.

• The development of:

- Community facilities, reserves and resources.

- Recreational and leadership opportunities.

- Community programmes, activities, events and charitable purposes.

- Operating costs can be considered where they are incorporated into a specific project. NOTE: This is not to be interpreted as an offsetting of rates.

• Assistance may also be provided to individuals or groups taking part in events, which reflect credit or provide benefit to the community.

• Consideration may be given to projects aimed at providing public utilities.

• Loans

• Community Education and Training

• Transport - Transport Allowance may be considered for specific projects, but does not allow for transport to and from work or study.

• Assistance for other initiatives outside the above broad categories may be provided at the discretion of the Committee.

5. Fund Allocation Criteria

Priority is given to assisting new ventures and developments, particularly those that provide ongoing benefit.

The level of assistance should reflect the level of contribution from the applicant and the potential benefits.

Priority may be given to applications where there are limited alternative means of raising funds.

Priority will be given to supporting educational initiatives for applicants whose opportunities are limited by difficult circumstances.

Where projects are of equal merit levels of previous assistance may be considered when establishing priority.

6. Membership

The Ohai Railway Fund Committee comprises the following members:

• Three representatives whom are appointed by the Southland District Council.

• Four local representatives whom are elected at the Committee’s Triennial meeting.

7. Triennial Meeting

The Triennial meeting of the Committee is held within the first three months of the year following the Triennial elections of the Southland District Council.

The venue of the Triennial meeting is to alternate between Ohai, Nightcaps and Wairio.

The Triennial meeting is chaired by the current Chairperson of the Ohai Railway Fund Committee.

Advertisement of the Triennial Meeting to be placed in local and public newsletters and flyers placed in local communities.

8. Eligibility of Local Representatives

Persons who are entitled to stand as a local representative on the Ohai Railway Fund Committee must qualify as a ‘resident”, and must reside in the area for a minimum of nine (9) years

DEFINITION: A “resident” being a person, or a descendant of a person, whose name appeared on the Parliamentary Electoral Roll in any year from 1960 to 1999 (both years inclusive) and whose address at the time was within the area of the former Board.

From the date of the Triennial Elections of members of the Committee to be held in 2011, the reference above to the year ‘1999’ shall read as a reference to ‘ 2005’. On the date of each subsequent Triennial Election of members of the Committee the closing year shall be amended by the addition of a further three years to that reference ie: Triennial Election in 2011 - the applicable years will be amended to read “1960 to 2005 (inclusive)”.

9. Election of Local Representatives

The election of the four local representatives to the Committee is held at the Triennial meeting.

The successful candidates are the four nominees whom receive the highest number of votes at the Triennial meeting.

The election process is by way of nomination from “the floor” from members of the public attending the triennial election.

In the event of a local elected representative retiring during the three year term, the highest unsuccessful candidate is to fill the vacancy. If no vote was necessary at the Triennial meeting, then the Committee has the right to appoint.

Numbered voting papers are to be issued to eligible voters on their entrance to the Triennial meeting.

Following the Triennial election in 2017, in the event of a local elected representative retiring during the three year term, a new election will be held to appoint a replacement local representative.

10. Voting Rights at the Triennial Meeting

Persons entitle to voting rights at the triennial meeting:

• Must qualify as a ‘resident.’

· Must have resided within the defined area for a minimum period of three years immediately preceding the date of the triennial election; and

• Must be in attendance at the triennial meeting. Proxy votes at the triennial meeting are NOT ACCEPTED.

All persons must sign a declaration at the Triennial Meeting confirming their residency in the Ohai Railway Fund defined area for a minimum of three years.

11. Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson shall be elected at the first ordinary meeting of the Committee following the Triennial meeting, and are elected by the members of the Ohai Railway Fund Committee.

12. Applications

Any application submitted for building alterations or extensions to an existing building must have copies of plans, specifications and quotes attached.

Applicants seeking funding in excess of $15,000 must be accompanied by a
Long-Term Management Plan.

In the event of an organisation winding up within five years of receiving grant monies that organisation must repay the Ohai Railway Fund Committee a portion of the funds allocated on a pro rata basis of 20% depreciation per annum.

Organisations seeking funding must submit their latest financial accounts with their application.

Grants for post-secondary school or adult education assistance are to be allocated as follows:

• Students who reside in the defined area up to $1,000.

• Non resident students who qualify for funds up to $1,000.

• Short courses (12 months or less) and reside in the defined area up to $700.

• Short courses (12 months or less) and the applicant is not a resident in the defined area up to $700.

Applicants who qualify for post-secondary school or adult education grants are entitled to one grant only and cannot re-apply for similar type applications.

NOTE: Only applications from residents’ children and grandchildren of the Ohai Railway Fund defined area will be considered, and those applicants who reside ‘outside the defined area’ with a parent or grandparent still residing in the area will be given priority, however the Committee has the discretion in respect of every application that is lodged.

Grant monies will not be released until confirmation is received of the project’s commencement date. Unless an extension is received by the Committee, in writing, and the said project has not commenced by six months from date of confirmation of successful grant application, the grant will become null and void.

Applications that are deemed to have commenced will be classed as retrospective and in normal circumstances will not be considered, however, in special circumstances the Committee has the right to consider same.

13. International Opportunities

For those undertaking a recognised overseas opportunity the following policy applies:

• Those who qualify under eligibility criteria, reside in the defined area, and the length of the exchange is a minimum of seven months are entitled up to $1,000.

• Those who qualify under eligibility criteria, reside in the defined area, and the length of the exchange is one-six months are entitled up to $500.

• Those who qualify under eligibility criteria but do not reside in the defined area and:

- the length of the exchange is for a minimum of seven months are entitled to a maximum figure of $1,000;

- the length of the exchange is between one-six months are entitled to a maximum figure of $500.

· Those allocated grant monies for international opportunities are not eligible to be considered for a post-secondary school or adult education grant.

14. Community Education and Training Fund

This Committee supports a community education and training fund for persons aged 15 years and older who wish to undertake non-traditional leadership or life skills education programmes, and such applicants must reside in the defined area of the Ohai Railway Fund, and the maximum amount available to any one applicant being $2,500 per annum.

Allocation of a Community Education and Training Fund Grant does preclude the applicant from applying for a post-secondary school or adult education grant.

15. Loans

This Committee agree to have loans included as part of its policies manual with each loan application treated on its own merits.

This Committee has the right to place a caveat on the title of the land and property of the applicant, or next of kin, and such caveat to have ‘first-call’ status.

Applications for loans by individuals or community groups shall include the following information:

• applicant’s details.

• the loan requirements.

• bank statements.

• an audited copy of the latest annual financial report (or a schedule of assets and liabilities for an application by an individual).

• income and expenditure details.

• details of security offered.

Applications for commercial loans shall include the following information:

• a company profile.

• a proposed summary.

• historical data.

• a business plan.

• certification by the applicant.

An independent consultant, with suitable qualifications in the relevant industry, shall assess applications for commercial loans and make a recommendation to the Committee.

The applicant shall meet all costs associated with the independent assessment. Such costs will be met from an initial non-refundable application fee of $500. If costs are going to exceed the initial application fee the applicant will be asked to agree to the costs before any further work shall proceed.

Where loans have been advanced to a business, the company/partnership will be expected to submit financial reports to the committee on either a quarterly, six monthly or an annual basis. The basis for reporting will be at the discretion of the committee.

Loans are to be secured over the assets of the business in accordance with the provision of the land transfer act or the properties securities act 1999. The assets to be secured shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Recipients of loan monies will pay an interest rate calculated on a yearly basis (31 March) and based on the current weighted average rate of return of Southland District Council investments.

16. Declaration of Interest

If a Committee member has any connection to an application greater than that of the general public that member should declare an interest in the said application, prior to it being considered.

In such circumstances, the member affected shall still be entitled to speaking and voting rights, unless that member has a pecuniary interest in said application.

17. Applications Received After Closing Date

Applications lodged but received after the closing date for applications are decreed to be out of time and not to be considered for allocation of grant monies, unless the Committee determines there is a special case that requires consideration.

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

Record No: R/16/11/18206

Author: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider how it wishes to address the formation of a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee following the recent triennial elections.

Executive Summary

2 This report proposes the reformation of a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee following dissolution of the previous Committee due to the triennial elections. The purpose of the committee is to perform the role of governance oversight of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project.

3 The Committee will provide overall direction of the project, ensure the project stays on-time and within approved budgets in accordance with an approved business case. The Committee will also act as a conduit for communication and consultation with interested parties and the broader district community.

4 It is proposed that the Committee makeup include the individuals who were previously members of the Committee, and remain in office following the elections, Mr Don Mowat as a representative from Te Ao Marama and an external professional.

5 It is proposed that the individuals previously nominated by the Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA be appointed as individuals, rather than representatives of these bodies given the policy position that the Community Board and CDA have now expressed in relation to the consented Kepler option.

6 Should Council confirm the proposal to appoint an independent external professional with experience in managing and providing governance oversight for this type of project there is a separate report in public excluded that discusses an individual who may be considered suitable.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee” dated 9 November 2016.

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

d) Determines that it will establish a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee and adopts the Terms of Reference (r/15/2/3989) attached.

e) Appoints the Mayor, Cr Kremer and Don Mowat to the Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee.

f) Appoints Alan Youldon, Shirley Mouat and Rachel Cockburn, in their capacity as individuals rather than as representatives of any particular body, as members of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee.

g) Appoints the Mayor as Chair of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee.

h) Agrees that it should appoint an external professional within significant experience in the management and governance of projects of this type as a member of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee.

i) Notes that, as part of a separate public excluded order paper item, it will consider the appointment of a potential candidate to fulfil the external professional role.

Content

Background

7 Under clause 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 all committees and subcommittees are deemed to be discharged at the end of each electoral term.

8 In March 2015 the Council formed a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee (the Committee) to provide governance oversight of the Te Anau wastewater project. In forming the Committee, the Council sought representation from the Te Anau Community Board, Manapouri CDA and Te Ao Marama. It also appointed the Mayor, Cr Bailey and Cr Kremer to the Committee.

9 The Te Anau Community Board subsequently appointed Members Cockburn and Deaker and Members Youldon and Mouat were appointed by the Manapouri CDA. Mr Mowat was appointed by Te Ao Marama.

10 During 2015 and 2016 the Committee met on a number of occasions. A key part of the work that it completed was to have PDP complete a peer review of the consented Kepler option. Following the production of the draft peer review report it then considered in more depth a number of the potentially viable alternative options outlined in the draft PDP report.

11 At its meeting on 6 July 2016 the Project Committee asked for work to be done to scope, as a possible preferred option, the development of a treatment plant that would provide treatment of the wastewater to a high level and allow for disposal via rapid infiltration either at, or close to, the existing wastewater treatment plant or Smith block.

12 The work required to provide this assessment has recently been completed and is the subject of a separate order paper item at this Council meeting. As part of that report Council is asked to confirm the reestablishment of a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee.

13 Given that Council is still at the stage of considering whether to continue with the Kepler scheme and/or pursue investigation of an alternative scheme it is still in the early stages of the lifecycle for this project. Hence, there could be a need for strong governance oversight of the project to be maintained for at least another four to five years.

Issues

14 There is a need for the Council to decide if it wishes to re-establish the Te Anau Wastewater Project Discharge Committee.

15 The decision that the Council needs to make has to take into account:

· The current status of the project and the governance role that will be needed to oversee the project from its current point through to completion

· The membership of the Committee given the changes in elected members following the recent triennial elections and the range of skills that might be needed to see a project of this complexity through to completion

· The position that has now been adopted by the Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA in relation to the consented Kepler option.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16 Under the Local Government Act 2002 a local authority is able to establish the committees, sub-committees and other sub-ordinate decision making bodies that it considers appropriate.

17 All such committees are subject to the ultimate control of and must comply with any general or specific directions given by the Council.

18 Pecuniary conflicts of interest are managed under the Local Authorities (Members Interest) Act 1968. Non-pecuniary conflicts are subject to common law and in particular the principles of natural justice which require that a decision made by a public body should be seen to be free from bias.

Community Views

19 In forming the Project Committee in 2015 the Council was conscious of the need to ensure there was a conduit, being the Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA representatives, via which the views of the local communities could be identified and considered as part of Council’s decision making process.

20 It is reasonable to expect that members of the Te Anau and Manapouri communities will see it as important that the Committee be retained so that there are local members of the community that are involved with the decision-making process.

Costs and Funding

21 Costs of the Project Committees operations will be met from the Governance budgets.

Policy Implications

22 The Project Committee will need to operate within the Council governance policies including its code of conduct and standing orders.

Role of the Project Committee

23 Attached are the terms of reference proposed for the Project Committee. They are as used in the term of previous Council. The specific responsibilities of the Project Committee are to:

a) Provide overall direction for the project.

b) Ensure a robust Business Case is developed and submitted to Council for approval.

c) Ensure that the projects are completed on time, within the approved budgets and in accordance with the respective approved Project Definitions and Business Cases.

d) Monitor project progress, including sub-projects.

e) Ensure that appropriate reporting systems are maintained to provide accurate and timely information to the Committee and Council.

f) Act as a conduit for communication and consultation with the Te Anau Community Boards and the Manapouri Community Development Area.

g) Ensure that proper risk assessment is performed and mitigation strategies are developed.

h) Ensure that appropriate agreements are finalised and to forward, with recommendations, completed agreements to Council for final approval.

i) Ensure that final business cases are presented to Council for approval prior to the letting of physical works contracts.

j) Approve project timelines, budget, and deliverables within the Council approved Project Definitions and Business Cases.

k) Recommend, to Council, changes to the project objectives, timelines, budget and deliverables outside the Council approved Project Definitions and Business Cases.

l) Sign off the project deliverables at the relevant milestones.

m) Ensure that the proper financial checks and professional balances are included.

n) Ensure that the projects meet Council’s statutory obligations.

o) Ensure that the projects deliver the required benefits.

p) Ensure that all decisions and processes are well documented and the communities are kept informed.

q) Ensure that appropriate quality assurance processes are maintained throughout the projects.

24 Under the terms of reference the Council retains responsibility for approving the business case and approving the project budgets.

Committee Membership

25 Given the complex nature of the issues which the Project Committee needs to manage both in coming to a decision on the option(s) that Council might pursue and subsequently providing governance support for what is a sizeable project there is argument that it would be appropriate for the Council to appoint an external professional who has significant experience in managing and/or providing governance support to similar projects.

26 During the term of the previous Committee it was evident that there is a wide range of complex technical, engineering, financial, environmental management, risk and project management material that needs to be carefully considered by the Project Committee. To date the work of the Committee has been focused on the peer review process and whether it should pursue evaluation of an alternative option. In that sense it has been at the start of a journey.

27 Given the complexity of the issues to be managed it is clear that the committee needs to have, within its membership, access to a broad range of skills covering the areas of:

· A sound understanding of local government.

· Broad governance experience.

· Strong financial management experience.

· Community engagement skills.

· A comprehensive understanding of risk management and project assurance frameworks.

· Significant project and contract management experience.

· A strong understanding of resource management and consenting processes.

· Significant experience in the management and governance of engineering projects within the local government sector.

28 The existing Committee members bring significant skills and background in terms of community representation and an understanding of the range of views which exist within the local communities and other stakeholder groups.

29 To complement the range of skills that the existing Committee members bring it is recommended that Council agree to appoint an external professional to the Committee. The ideal person would have significant experience in providing management and governance support to engineering projects of this type within the local government sector. They should also have significant financial, risk and contract management experience.

Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA Resolutions

30 At its meeting on 5 October 2016 the Te Anau Community Board considered a request made by FSOI at the Board’s 31 August 2016 meeting, that the Community Board pass a resolution indicating that it did not support the discharge of wastewater at the Kepler. Cr Kremer and Members Cockburn and Deaker declared an interest in the issue and left the room. The Community Board subsequently resolved as follows:

That the Te Anau Community Board

(a) Formally resolves that the Te Anau Community Board is not in support of the discharge of wastewater at the consented Kepler site.

31 At its meeting on 16 August 2016 the Manapouri CDA considered, as a late item, a request made by FSOI in the public forum, that the CDA pass a resolution indicating that it did not support the discharge of wastewater. Cr Kremer and CDA Members Youldon and Mouat declared an interest in the issue and left the room. The CDA subsequently resolved as follows:

That the Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee

(a) Formally resolves that the Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee is not in support of the discharge of wastewater at the consented Kepler site.

32 The decisions made by the Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA now represent the policy position, in relation to the consented Kepler option, of these two governance bodies.

33 The policy adopted is contrary to that of the Council itself, which has previously adopted the Kepler as its preferred option albeit that it has more recently sought a peer review of that option and is going through a process to consider whether it should investigate an alternative option.

34 It would appear that the Community Board and CDA decisions were made with limited information before them and limited documentation as to the basis upon which the decisions were made. This raises a question as to whether, in making the decisions the statutory obligations that these entities have under the Local Government Act 2002 were met. The Court of Appeal (CA 258/2009) has noted that it is for the decision-making body “…to show it had carried out its statutory obligation”, in making its decision.

Conflicts of Interest and Bias

35 The common law requires that public decision-making be procedurally fair and should be seen to be such. Predetermination and bias are significant parts of the law in this area.

36 These aspects of the law have been developed to achieve two main goals. First, to ensure that the best decision is made based on relevant information and arguments, not ulterior motives or prejudices. Secondly, to ensure that people affected by, or interested in, a decision have trust and confidence in the process. This means that the rules about bias must operate in a way that not only ensures that there is no actual bias, but also so there is no appearance or possibility of bias. The test is often described as being how the decision would be seen by “…a fair-minded lay observer….”

37 Given the policy position adopted by the Community Board and Manapouri CDA there is a risk that should the Council go through the process of asking these governance bodies to nominate members to the Committee or appoint individuals as representatives of these entities, that their appointments would create a predetermination and bias risk. Normally, an entity nominating someone for appointment on their behalf would expect that individual to promote their stated policy position.

Analysis

Options Considered

38 The options considered are to reform a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee, utilise the Services and Assets Committee to provide governance oversight of the project or Do Nothing.

39 Under the Do Nothing option Council would provide governance oversight of the project.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Reform a Project Committee

Advantages

Disadvantages

· A project specific committee with a focus on the Te Anau project.

· Enables an external professional to be appointed to support the work of the committee.

· Wide stakeholder membership.

· Greater local transparency.

· Better two way communication with community groups

· Better understanding of the community issues

· Community develops better understanding of the project details including risks and costs.

· Additional personnel resources required to administer the committee functions

· Additional costs incurred

· Risk of conflicts of interest from committee members.

Option 2 – Services and Assets Committee

Advantages

Disadvantages

· An existing structure.

· Experienced committee members versed in the governance role and familiar with financial and project management.

· Committee members relatively independent from the local influences.

· Low marginal cost to transact the project business.

· Members more removed from the Community of interest

· Community members may feel disenfranchised through not having local elected representatives on the committee.

· More difficult to appoint an external professional to assist with governance of the project.

· The community may feel the Council is not listening to their concerns.

Option 3 – Do Nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

· An existing structure.

· Avoids conflict of interest and bias issues.

· Low marginal cost to transact the project.

· Ensures that Council has a good oversight of an important project for Council.

· Councillors are more removed from the local community of interest

· Community members may feel disenfranchised through not having more local elected representatives on the committee.

· It is not an option to appoint an external professional to assist with governance of the project.

Assessment of Significance

40 The issue being considered relates to whether the Council should reform a Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project following the disestablishment of the previous committee as a result of the triennial election process.

41 While there will be a good level of interest in this decision from the Te Anau and Manapouri communities a decision about which governance body(s) the Council might use to provide oversight of the project is not considered to be significant.

Recommended Option

42 The recommended option is that a new Project committee be formed and that an external professional be appointed as a member of the Committee.

Next Steps

43 A meeting of the Project Committee will be called.

Attachments

a Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee Terms of Reference - Updated November 2016 ⇩

Council

16 November 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

TE ANAU WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROJECT COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Authorising Body:	Southland District Council
Title:	Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee
Approval Date:
Delegated to:
Alternative Role:
Legislation:

1. PURPOSE

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee shall perform the role of governance oversight on behalf of the Southland District Council for the upgrading and discharge of treated wastewater effluent from the Te Anau wastewater treatment plant.

2. ROLE OF THE PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee is delegated the role of project management governance for the Te Anau wastewater discharge project, except that:

• The project business case shall be as approved by Council; and

• The separate project physical works stages tenders cannot proceed until final business cases have been approved by Council for each respective stage.

The specific responsibilities of the Project Committee are to:

a) Provide overall direction for the project.

b) Ensure a robust business case is developed and submitted to Council for approval.

c) Ensure that the projects are completed on time, within the approved budgets and in accordance with the respective approved project definitions and business cases.

d) Monitor project progress including sub-projects.

e) Ensure that appropriate reporting systems are maintained to provide accurate and timely information to the Committee and Council.

f) Act as a conduit for communication and consultation with the Te Anau Community Board and the Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee.

g) Ensure that proper risk assessment is performed and mitigation strategies are developed.

h) Ensure that appropriate agreements are finalised and to forward, with recommendations, completed agreements to Council for final approval.

i) Ensure that final business cases are presented to Council for approval prior to the letting of physical works contracts.

j) Approve project timelines, budget, and deliverables within the Council approved project definitions and business cases.

k) Recommend to Council changes to the project objectives, timelines, budget and deliverables outside the Council approved project definitions and business cases.

l) Sign-off the project deliverables at the relevant milestones.

m) Ensure that the proper financial checks and professional balances are included.

n) Ensure that the projects meet Council’s statutory obligations.

o) Ensure that the projects deliver the required benefits.

p) Ensure that all decisions and processes are well documented and the communities are kept informed; and

q) Ensure that appropriate quality assurance processes are maintained throughout the projects.

In exercising its delegated powers and responsibilities, the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee will operate within:

§ policies, plans, standards or guidelines that have been established and approved by Council

§ the overall priorities of Council

§ the needs of the local communities

§ the budgets approved by the Council.

The Project Committee members are asked to deliberate dispassionately and thoroughly on information available to them, to give advice and make decisions in the best interests of the Council. While Project Committee members may reflect the experience and insights of the agency, sector or community from which they are drawn, they are not representatives of any one agency, sector or community.

3. MEMBERSHIP

The membership of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee shall be:

a) His Worship the Mayor, Gary Tong, who will be the Committee Chair.

b) Don Mowat as a representative from Te Ao Mārama Incorporated.

c) Alan Youldon, Shirley Mouat, Rachel Cockburn

d) Cr Ebel Kremer

e) An external professional to be appointed by Council.

The Project Manager shall be an ex-officio non-voting member of the Committee.

4. CHAIRPERSON

The Chairperson is responsible for:

a) The efficient functioning of the Project Committee; and

b) Setting the agenda for Project Committee meetings; and

c) Ensuring that all members of the Project Committee receive sufficient timely information to enable them to be effective Project Committee members.

5. QUORUM

The quorum at any meeting of the Project Committee shall be not less than five members of the Project Committee.

6. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

The Project Committee shall meet as often is necessary to make decisions in a timely manner so that the project stays on time.

7. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PARTIES

The primary relationship of the Project Committee will be with the Project Management Team through the Project Manager. The Project Committee will report via progress reports and meeting minutes to the Southland District Council.

8. CONTACTS WITH MEDIA AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES

The Project Committee Chairperson is the authorised spokesperson for the Project Committee, in all matters where the Project Committee has authority or a particular interest.

The Governance and Communications Manager will manage the formal communications between the Committee and its constituents and for the Committee in the exercise of its business.

9. CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

The Committee shall conduct its affairs in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the
Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct. The Committee is required to operate in accordance with the stated policies of the Council.

10. PUBLIC ACCESS AND REPORTING

Notification of meetings to the public and public access to meetings and information shall comply with Standing Orders, but it should be noted that:

• Any meetings of the Project Committee are subject to Standing Orders.

• Workshops meetings solely for information and discussions and at which there no resolutions or decisions are not subject to Standing Orders.

• Extraordinary meetings of the Project Committee may be held in accordance with Standing Orders.

• The public may be excluded from the whole or part of the proceedings of the meeting and information withheld on one or more of the grounds specified in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Section 48.

The Project Committee shall record minutes of all its proceedings and after adoption at its next meeting will present the minutes to the next available Council meeting.

11. REMUNERATION

Remuneration will be in accordance with Elected Members’ Remuneration Policy.

12. FUNDING AND BUDGETS

Funding for Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee will align with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee shall have no authority to expend funds.

Remuneration and expenses will be funded from the allocated budget within the Council’s governance budget.

13. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

No documents to include.

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Council Membership on External Organisations

Record No: R/16/9/15325

Author: Gary Tong, Mayor

Approved by: Gary Tong, Mayor

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of the report is to appoint Council representatives to Council organisations, joint committees and Council Controlled Organisations.

Executive Summary

2 The Council is represented by elected members and/or officers on the boards of a number of organisations and bodies. The Councillor positions were vacated at the end of the 2013/2016 triennium and, if the Council so decides, Councillors can be reappointed to them for the duration of the new triennium.

3 In some cases the appointments are required because of board membership criteria set out in trust deeds or constitutions. These documents may or may not stipulate that appointees must be Councillors. In other cases the Council has elected to appoint Councillors, usually at the request of the entities concerned.

4 The Council should note that any entity whose board includes a Council appointee, whether a Councillor, officer or external person, is automatically classified as either a Council Organisation, Joint Committee or Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This brings with it, performance monitoring obligations involving consideration of the contribution which such an entity makes to the strategic outcomes of the Council.

5 In the case of entities where such an appointment is at the discretion of the Council, these obligations can be avoided simply by not making the appointment. Where an obligation to appoint exists but that right is not exercised, they cannot be avoided. In the case of the latter, a change to the relevant trust deed or constitution would need to be executed if the Council wishes to avoid its monitoring obligations.

6 The organisations to which Council has representation is broken down into three types of organisations as prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002 and in general terms are;

· Joint Committee (JC) where Council may appoint a joint committee with another local authority or other public body (LGA 2002, schedule 7 Part 1 Clause 30)

· Council Organisation (CO) means a company in which a local authority has a shareholding or any entity in which one or more local authorities has voting rights or the ability to appoint a trustee, director or manager. This includes any partnership, trust or arrangement for the sharing of profits, union of interest, co-operation, joint venture or similar arrangement. (LGA 2002, schedule 7 Part 1 Clause 30)

· Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) means a council organisation that is-

(a) a company

(i) in which equity securities carrying 50% or more of the voting rights at a meeting of the shareholders of the company are -

(A) held by 1 or more local authorities; or

(B) controlled, directly or indirectly, by 1 or more local authorities; or

(ii) in which 1 or more local authorities have the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors of the company; or

(b) an entity in respect of which 1 or more local authorities have, whether or not jointly with other local authorities or persons,—

(i) control, directly or indirectly, of 50% or more of the votes at any meeting of the members or controlling body of the entity; or

(ii) the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the trustees, directors, or managers (however described) of the entity

(LGA 2002 Part 1 Clause 6)

7 A review of the need for appointments to the organisations, that by virtue of appointment made to them in the last triennium and categorised as Joint Committees, Council Organisations, Council Controlled Organisations, I recommend Councillors be appointed to the organisations listed in the recommendations for the 2016-2019 Triennium.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Council Membership on External Organisations” dated 9 November 2016.

b) Agree to appoint the representatives to the following Joint Committees, Council Organisations and Council Controlled Organisations for the 2016/2019 Triennium:

Council Organisations:

External Organisation	Representation	Nominated Appointee
Age Concern Southland	An Officer	Janet Thomas
Destination Fiordland	Two Councillors	Crs Kremer, Douglas
Discover Fiordland Heritage Trust	One Councillor	Cr Kremer
Gore and Districts Community Counselling Centre Inc.	One Councillor	Cr Keast
Heritage New Zealand (formerly NZ Historic Places Trust)	One Councillor (and two alternates)	Crs Duffy, Macpherson, Paterson
Milford Sound Development Authority	Chief Executive and One External Appointee	Steve Ruru, Jeff Grant
Pioneer Women’s Memorial Trust (Gore)	One Councillor	Cr Keast
Predator Free Rakiura Governance Group	An Officer	Bruce Halligan
Rakiura Heritage Centre Trust	One Councillor	Cr Ford
Regional Community Road Safety Network	An Officer	Joe Bourque
Shared Services Forum	Mayor and Two Councillors	Mayor Tong, Crs Dillon, Baird
Southland Community Wastebusters Trust	One Councillor	Cr Baird
Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust	One Councillor	Cr Baird
Southland Medical Foundation	Mayor	Mayor Tong
Southland Regional Heritage Building and Preservation Trust	Two Councillors	Crs Duffy, Macpherson
Southland Rural Heritage Trust	One Councillor	Duffy
Te Roopu Taiao	Mayor (and an alternate)	Mayor Tong, Cr Duffy
Waiau Working Party	One Councillor	Cr Harpur
Waituna Partners Group	One Councillors plus One Staff representative	Cr Duffy, Bruce Halligan

Joint Committees:

External Organisation	Representation	Nominated Appointees
Emergency Management Group	Mayor and Deputy Mayor	Mayor Tong, Cr Duffy
Southland Regional Heritage Committee	Two Councillors (and an alternate)	Crs Duffy, Macpherson
Southland Regional Land Transport Committee	One Councillor (and an alternate)	Crs Dillon, Macpherson
Venture Southland Advisory Subcommittee	Mayor and Two Councillors	Mayor Tong, Crs Macpherson, Baird
Venture Southland Joint Committee	One Councillor	Cr Macpherson
WasteNet (Waste Management Advisory Group)	Two Councillors	Crs Baird, Paterson

Council Controlled Organisation:

External Organisation	Representation	Nominated Appointees
Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust Board	Two Councillors	Crs Macpherson, Paterson

Content

Responsibilities

8 On behalf of the Southland District Council, the representatives shall have specific responsibilities for:

· Developing effective working relationships with members of the council organisation, committee and other associated agencies.

· Advocating for the needs of the Southland district in local, regional and national forums.

· Keeping Council informed of material issues and applying acquired knowledge in the review of relevant Council policies and plans.

· Monitoring the performance of the council organisation or committee to evaluate its contribution to the achievement of Council’s objectives for the organisation or committee and the overall aims and outcomes of Council.

Delegations

9 In order to carry out their specific responsibilities, representatives are delegated authority to:

· Vote on matters in accordance with:

(a) the organisation or committee terms of reference; and

(b) approved Southland District Council policy.

· Represent Council at ceremonial functions associated with the role.

· Advocate on associated issues on behalf of Council in accordance with approved Council policy or guidelines.

Without prior approval from Council, the representatives do not have delegated authority to:

· Delegate any of their responsibilities, duties, or powers; or

· Commit Southland District Council to contractual obligations or expenditure.

Skills Required by Representatives

10 Representatives are required to demonstrate the following skill sets:

· A collaborative approach to addressing the economic, environmental, cultural and social objectives associated with the activity.

· An ability to work across organisational boundaries and political jurisdictions.

· An ability to build support from leaders, citizens, interest groups and policy professionals for a shared vision.

· An understanding of governance issues.

· Business or other experience relevant to the activity.

· Sound judgement.

· A high standard of personal integrity.

· The ability to work as a team member.

Frequency of Attendance

11 The representatives may attend:

· All meetings of the organisation or committee;

· Ceremonial functions associated with the role;

Associated meetings approved by the organisation, committee or Council

12 The representatives may attend:

· All meetings of the organisation or committee;

· Ceremonial functions associated with the role;

· Associated meetings approved by the organisation, committee or Council.

Relationships with Other Parties

13 Although representatives are encourage to develop relationships with service providers in the community to acquire an awareness of relevant issues, the representatives do not have any authority to become involved in operational activities.

Contacts with Media and Outside Agencies

14 Representatives may only speak to the media/and or outside agencies on organisation or committee members in accordance with the authorised delegation from that organisation or committee.

Conduct of Affairs

15 The representative shall conduct their affairs in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the
Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, Council’s Standing Orders, Code of Conduct and approved Southland District Council policy.

Reporting

16 The representative(s) shall present a report of the meeting and any issues arising to Council if considered relevant after having discussions with the Mayor or in his absence the Chief Executive.

Remuneration

17 Representatives will be reimbursed in accordance with the current Elected Members’ Remuneration and Reimbursements Policy which was adopted by Council at its meeting on 8 June 2016.

Funding and Budgets

18 Funding for the organisation or committee activities will align with Council’s Revenue and Funding Policy.

19 Funding shall only be expended, by delegated staff, on purposes for which that funding was originally raised and in accordance with the budgets approved by Council through its 10 Year Plan and Annual Plan.

20 Remuneration and expenses will be funded from the Council and Councillors budget.

Administrative Support

21 The Chief Executive is responsible for servicing and providing support to the representatives in the completion of their duties and responsibilities. The Chief Executive appoints an appropriate manager to provide these functions on his/her behalf.

Recommended Option

22 The recommended option is that Council endorse the recommendations that Council representatives be appointed to the organisations.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

16 November 2016

sdclogo

Schedule of Meetings for 2016 and 2017

Record No: R/16/10/17040

Author: Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of the report is to approve a schedule of meeting dates for the remainder of 2016 and all of 2017 so that meetings can be publicly notified in accordance with the requirements set by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Executive Summary

2 The adoption of a meeting schedule allows for reasonable public notice preparation and planning for meeting agendas. The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 details the requirements for public notification of meetings.

3 The meeting schedule for Council, Regulatory and Consents Committee, Services and Assets Committee, Community and Policy Committee and Finance and Audit Committee being set for the remainder of 2016 and all of 2017.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Schedule of Meetings for 2016 and 2017” dated 3 November 2016.

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

d) Agrees to the schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for the remainder of 2016 and all of 2017 as follows:

Date	Meeting

Wednesday 14 December 2016	9am – Community and Policy Committee 11.30am - Council
Wednesday 1 February 2017	9am – Council
Wednesday 22 February 2016	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee
Thursday 23 February 2017	9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 15 March 2017	9am – Finance and Audit Committee 11am – Council
Wednesday 5 April 2016	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee
Thursday 6 April 2016	9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 26 April 2017	9am – Council (To hear oral submissions to the Draft Annual Plan and note that Thursday 27 April 2017 is scheduled as a reconvening day)
Wednesday 17 May 2017	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee 1pm – Council (Annual Plan deliberations)
Thursday 18 May 2017	9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 7 June 2017	9am – Finance and Audit Committee 11am – Council
Wednesday 28 June 2017	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee 1pm – Council (approval of Annual Plan)
Thursday 29 June 2017	9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 19 July 2017	9am - Council
Wednesday 9 August 2017	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee
Thursday 10 August 2017	9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 6 September 2017	9am – Finance and Audit Committee 11am – Council
Wednesday 27 September 2017	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee 1pm – Council (approval of Annual Report)
Thursday 28 September 2017	9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 18 October 2017	9am – Council
Wednesday 15 November 2017	9am – Services and Assets Committee 11am – Community and Policy Committee
Thursday 16 November 2017	9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee
Wednesday 13 December 2017	9am – Finance and Audit Committee 11am – Council

Content

Background

4 An approved schedule of meetings dates is required so that meetings can be publicly notified in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

5 The legal and statutory requirements for meetings of Council, Committees and Community Boards are spelt out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Community Views

6 The community expects meetings to be advertised in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements.

Costs and Funding

7 The only costs for the implementation of a meeting schedule are the public notification via the daily newspaper once a month in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Policy Implications

8 There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

9 Options considered are that should no meeting schedule be agreed then no meetings of the Council, Regulatory and Consents Committee, Services and Assets Committee, Community and Policy Committee and Finance and Audit Committee could be held. The other option is to adopt a meeting schedule as proposed in the recommendations which enables dialogue between the Community Board and District Council Officers on a regular basis.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – No meeting schedule

Advantages	Disadvantages
· There are no advantages	· Councillors unable to complete their statutory responsibilities as no meetings would be held in a planned manner.

Option 2 – Adoption of a schedule of meetings

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Councillors able to provide effective leadership of Council.

· Meeting schedule can be amended at future date if required.

· There are no disadvantages

Assessment of Significance

10 The assessment of significance is that this is not significance as defined in the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommended Option

11 The recommended option is option 2 – Adoption of a schedule of meetings.

Next Steps

12 The next steps once the schedule is adopted it to ensure that each month the meetings are publicly notified to enable the Council, Regulatory and Consents Committee, Services and Assets Committee, Community and Policy Committee and Finance and Audit Committee to meet.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[2] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[3] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[4] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[5] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[6] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

[7] Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 32

Mayor	Mayor Gary Tong
Deputy Mayor	Paul Duffy
Councillors	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	John Douglas
	Bruce Ford
	Darren Frazer
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson
	Nick Perham

Term	Meaning
Shop	is a building, place, or part of a building or place, where goods are kept, sold, or offered for sale, by retail; and includes an auction mart, and a barrow, stall, or other subdivision of a market; but does not include - (a) a private home where the owner or occupier's effects are being sold (by auction or otherwise); or (b) a building or place where the only business carried on is that of selling by auction agricultural products, pastoral products, and livestock, or any of them; or (c) a building or place where the only business carried on is that of selling goods to people who are dealers, and buy the goods to sell them again.
Employer	has the same meaning as in s5http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0057/latest/link.aspx?search=ta_act_S_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1&id=DLM58337 - DLM58337 of the Employment Relations Act 2000
Employment Agreement	has the same meaning as in s5http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0057/latest/link.aspx?search=ta_act_S_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1&id=DLM58337 - DLM58337 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Shop Employee	means an employee within the meaning of s6http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0057/latest/link.aspx?search=ta_act_S_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1&id=DLM58619 - DLM58619 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 who works in or from a shop.
Southland District	is the area depicted in Appendix 1.

Party/Parties	Roles and Responsibilities
Environmental Services	Providing advice on the content and scope of the policy. Advising on adopting, reviewing, amending, revoking, replacing or continuing the policy.
Strategy and Policy	Adopting, reviewing, amending, revoking, replacing or continuing the policy. Undertaking consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure.
Communications	Developing a communications strategy and assisting with consultation.

		No.	2016 $	No.	2015 $
1.	Dwellings	15	3,536,500	12	3,980,340
2.	Additions to Dwellings	17	769,725	22	727,365
3.	Commercial/Industrial Buildings	15	486,600	9	449,900
4.	Swimming/Spa Pools	0	0	0	0
5.	Heating Units	17	76,100	14	55,300
6.	Garages	5	133,500	3	105,894
7.	Farm Buildings	14	446,046	18	1,994,274
8.	Houses for Removal	1	0	1	80,000
9.	Cowsheds	0	0	0	0
10.	Miscellaneous	1	1,500	0	0
11.	Certificates of Acceptance	8	7,000	0	0
	TOTAL	93	5,456,971	7979	7,393,073

	2016	2015	Variation %
Total consents for month	93	79	17.72
Total consents for year	286	265	7.92
Total project values for month	5,456,971	7,393,073	-26.19
Total project values for year	18,549,235	21,324,948	-13.02

Average Residential Cost	321,500	331,695
Average House Area (m²)	197.72	223.44

Number of Inspections Carried Out	373	393

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
Committee Advisor	Fiona Dunlop

Advantages	Disadvantages
· None identified.	· Increased cost of applications and an inefficiency.

Indicator	Target*	Actual	Variance	Compliance
External Funding: Non rateable income/Total income	> 36%	27%	-12%	x
Working Capital: Current Assets/Current Liabilities	>0.39	2.87	2.48	a
Debt Ratio:** Total Liabilities/Total Assets	<0.82%	0.52%	-0.30%	a
Debt To Equity Ratio: Total Debt/Total Equity	<0.01%	0.00%	-0.01%	a

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
Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee - Membership	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)(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.
Public Excluded Minutes of the Tuatapere Community Board Meeting dated 16 August 2016	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	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.
Public Excluded Minutes of the Activities Performance Audit Committee Meeting dated 7 September 2016	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary 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.

Date	Version	Revision Description