Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Meeting of Southland District Council will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

9am

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                7

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                7

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             7

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         7

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        7

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                                             7

Reports - Policy and Strategy

7.1         Feedback received on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy                                                                          9

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Te Anau Wastewater - Decision-making Process                                                                    1073

8.2         Financial Report for the month ended 28 February 2018                                                  1089

8.3         Risk Management Framework Project Development                                                           1135

8.4         Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme - 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019 1143

8.5         Balfour Area Guardrail Project Update                                                                                         1215

8.6         Harvesting Trees at the Mossburn Cemetery.                                                                          1223

Reports - Governance

9.1         Minutes of the Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 9 February 2018        1253

9.2         Minutes of the Riverton/Aparima Community Board Meeting dated 12 February 2018                                                                                                                                                                               1255

9.3         Minutes of the Tuatapere Community Board Meeting dated 13 February 2018 1257

9.4         Minutes of the Riverton Harbour Subcommittee Meeting dated 16 October 2017 1259

9.5         Minutes of the Balfour Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 October 2017                                                                                                                                                 1261

9.6         Minutes of the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 30 October 2017                                                                                                                                          1263

9.7         Minutes of the Nightcaps Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 10 October 2017                                                                                                                                          1265

9.8         Minutes of the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 10 October 2017                                                                                                                                                 1267

9.9         Minutes of the Riversdale Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 October 2017                                                                                                                                          1269   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                    1270

C10.1    Chaslands Highway Slip Repair Procurement Outcome

C10.2    Public Excluded Minutes of the Riverton Harbour Subcommittee Meeting dated 16 October 2017

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

1             Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2             Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

Councillors are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a councillor and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4             Public Forum

 

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)        The reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)       The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)       that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)       the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)       no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes

6.1             Meeting minutes of Council, 22 February 2018 and 27 March 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Feedback received on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy

Record No:             R/18/3/5176

Author:                      Shannon Oliver, Planning and Reporting Analyst

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide Council with copies of the feedback received on the 2018 - 2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation document and supporting information as well as the draft Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy.

2        The report also includes a schedule of people who have asked to speak to Council about their feedback, at a hearing being held on 18 April 2018. 

Executive Summary

3        The consultation document titled “We’re just getting started, Southland” was made available for public consultation during the period 7 March 2018 to 8.00pm Monday, 9 April 2018.  The consultation document was advertised by newspaper and radio and a summary of the document was distributed to all households in the District.  In addition, just over 100 copies of the consultation document were distributed by post or email to organisations and individuals who requested a copy. There have been some issues with the distribution of the consultation document to households, and as a result, submissions that came in after the deadline have been included in the report.

4        The consultation document set out a number of questions around issues and options proposed for Council’s LTP, and Council’s proposals regarding the Revenue and Financing Policy and the Development and Financial Contributions Policy. 

5        The questions posed were around the level of investing in community future planning, how to fund and improve the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail experience and the level of investment Council should make in open space experiences.

6        Attached are copies of the 159 formal submissions received, as well as comments received through Councils facebook page.  Twenty six submitters wish to be heard on 18 April 2018 and a list of these people and the times they are planning to speak, is also attached. 

7        A deliberation meeting will be held on 2 May 2018 to follow the hearings meeting. At this meeting Council will consider the feedback received along with issues and options papers prepared by staff, and Council will indicate what changes are required to the Long Term Plan and policies as result. 

8        The final LTP and policies (incorporating any changes) will be audited and then adopted by Council on 20 June 2018.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Feedback received on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy” dated 12 April 2018.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised 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)           Receives the public submissions received on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and the Development and Financial Contributions Policy as detailed in Attachment A. 

 

e)            Receives the informal feedback from Council’s Facebook page as detailed in Attachment B.

 

f)             Receives the oral submitters as is outlined in the timetable in Attachment C.

 

g)           Thanks the submitters for their attendance.

 

 

Background

9        A copy of the consultation document was distributed to all households in the District.  The availability of the document and statement of proposals for the Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy were also advertised through newspaper, radio and facebook.

10      A copy of the consultation document and supporting documentation including the Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy was available on the Council’s website along with the supporting information adopted by Council on 27 February 2018.

11      Members of the public provided their feedback either through the on-line submissions system, manually on the form enclosed with the consultation document, and by writing to or emailing Council. 

12      The feedback received related to the questions posed over key issues identified by Council as well as other general issues. The detail of the submissions received is included in Attachment A.

13      Feedback was also received via Council’s Facebook page and the comments have been collated in Attachment B.

14      On 18 April Council will hear from those people who wish to speak (Attachment C).  Following this, a deliberation meeting has been scheduled for 2 May at which Council will consider feedback received along with the issues and options papers being prepared by staff to assist with the deliberations.

15      As part of the deliberations Council will be asked to advise staff of any amendments they want to make to the LTP and the relevant policies, before their adoption on 20 June 2018.

 

Issues

16      As part of adopting the consultation document on 27 February 2018, Council identified a number of key issues that it wished to receive feedback on as well as seeking feedback on the draft Revenue & Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy.  These issues were:

·      Investing in community future planning

·      Improving the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail experience and funding the costs

·      Investing in open space experiences.

17      The consultation document also highlighted to the community:

·      The increased environmental standards impacting on water and stormwater discharges

·      Drinking water quality projects as a result of the Havelock North inquiry

·      The approach being taking to road pavements, replacing bridges and Council facilities

·      The financial and infrastructure strategies and changes to key policies.

 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

18      All councils are required by legislation to adopt a LTP and to review it every three years. The LTP sets out Council’s activities, plans, budgets and policies and must be adopted before the beginning of the first year it relates to, having used a special consultative procedure to consult with the community.

19      Instead of a draft LTP, local authorities are required to develop a consultation document for the purpose of consulting with the community, as well as making publicly available the information that provides the basis for the preparation of the LTP.

20      The consultation document was prepared to meet all legislative requirements and to include sufficient information to inform the public about what is planned for the District and the key issues.

21      As part of the special consultative procedure Council must provide an opportunity for persons to present their views to the local authority in a manner that enables spoken (or New Zealand sign language) interaction between the person and the local authority.  As part of the consultation process, a hearing meeting will be held on the 18 April to allow submitters to speak to the Council about their views in person or via video or teleconference.

22      All feedback (written and verbal) will be taken into consideration at the deliberations meeting scheduled for 2 May 2018.  

23      As a result of submissions received, Council may direct staff to make changes to the final LTP before audit and adoption on 20 June 2018.

Community Views

24      The consultation document titled “We’re just getting started, Southland” was made available for public consultation during the period 7 March 2018 to 8.00pm Monday, 9 April 2018.  The consultation document was advertised by newspaper and radio and a summary of the document was distributed to all households in the District.  In addition, just over 100 copies of the consultation document were distributed, by post or email, to other organisations and individuals who requested a copy.  There have been some issues with the distribution of the summary document to households, and as a result, submissions that came in after the deadline have been included in the report.

25      Council received 159 written submissions and comments from Councils facebook page on the Long Term Plan.  Of the 159 submissions received, 60 included feedback related to the draft Revenue and Financing Policy and 48 included feedback related to the draft Development Contributions Policy.

26      At this stage, 26 people have requested to speak to Council on 18 April. Staff have also written to the remaining people to let them know that if they change their mind about speaking to Council – that there is still an opportunity to do this. As such, additional hearing times may need to be scheduled for the 18/19 April if there are submitters who wish to take up this option. If this occurs, updated hearing schedules will be circulated prior to the meeting.

27      Attachment C outlines the speakers and the times at which they will speak.  As part of this time allocation Councillors can ask questions of speakers, but should not enter into a debate.

Overview of Feedback

28      An initial analysis of the feedback has been completed and an overview of this is included below. This will be further developed for the Council meeting on 2 May, where issues and options papers will be prepared on the main topics. Additional information on the feedback Council received on these issues will be included in the report prepared for the Council meeting on 2 May. There may be some changes to the statistics included below as Council staff review and analyse the feedback that has been received.

 


 

A.  Feedback on Key Issues

Investing in our community future planning

29      Seventy six people commented on this issue with 74 indicating a preferred option as shown in the table below.

Options

No.

%

Option 1: Future-proof (allocate between $150,000 - $250,000 per year to develop an integrated community future planning model)

48

64%

Option 2: Status quo (make no extra investment)

13

17%

Option 3: Fast track (increase the allocation to $300,000 per year for the community planning model to get the work done faster)

5

6%

Option 4: Something else

8

10%

Improving the Around the Mountain Cycle Trail experience

30      Eighty four people commented on this issue with 80 indicating a preferred option as shown in the table below.

Options

No.

%

Option 1: Centre Hill Connection ($126,000)

48

60%

Option 2: Hybrid Trail ($3.11 million)

4

5%

Option 3a: Great ride - peak/scenic ($3.88 million)

4

5%

Option 3b: Great ride - flatter ($4.0 million)

0

0%

Option 4: Other

24

30%

 


 

Funding the Cycle Trail Costs

31      Sixty six people commented on this issue with 58 indicating a preferred option as shown in the table below.

Options

No.

%

Option 1: 100% loans

19

32%

Option 2: 100% reserves

11

18%

Option 3: Mix (50% loans / 50% reserves)

13

22%

Option 4: Other

15

25%

 

Investing in open space experiences

32      Eighty one people commented on this issue with 74 indicating a preferred option as shown in the table below

Options

No.

%

Option 1: Future-proof (extra $150,000 opex per year and $5.5 million capex in years 4-10)

40

54%

Option 2: Status Quo (no additional funding)

16

21%

Option 3: Do more faster (as per option 1 and increase the capex funding to $1 million per year)

8

10%

Option 4: Something else

10

13%

 

B.  Feedback about concept of combining Te Anau Library/Office to form community hub

33      This issue was mentioned in the consultation document as a proposed project that the Council is considering. Seventy four people provided comments about the project and these have been categorised into support or opposition for the project as shown in the table below.

View

No.

%

Opposed to combining

66

94%

Support combining

0

0%

Other

4

5%

 


 

C.  Proposed Revenue and Financing Policy

34      The key changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy were outlined in the consultation document and supporting Statement of Proposal. Six questions in the feedback form related to the Policy, and people were asked to indicate whether they supported the Council’s proposed approach.

35      The responses are summarised for each change in the pie charts below, and a mixture of views were received about the changes. Further detail on the comments made in respect to these issues will be included in the report for 2 May.

 

 

 

 


 

D.  Proposed Development and Financial Contributions Policy

36      Council also sought feedback about whether people supported Council making no changes to the policy approach in the above policy. Responses are summarised in the pie chart below.

E.  Other Rating Changes

37      Council also sought feedback on two other changes proposed, which affect how some rates are collected. Responses are summarised in the pie charts below.

 

 

F.   Other Feedback

38      People commented on a range of topics which were not related to the proposals outlined in the consultation document or the related policies. The number of points made by people for each topic/category are shown in the table below. Please note that staff are still categorising the feedback, so there may be some changes to the statistics shown below.

Category

Number of points

Roads and Footpaths

32

Wastewater

16

Community Facilities

14

Resource Management

10

Freedom Camping

10

Local Projects

9

Rates and Finance

9

Regional Development (SoRDs) / Visitor Promotion

8

Governance

8

Water Supply

7

Stormwater

5

Strategic Framework

5

Out of Scope

5

Other

5

Water Structures

4

Grants and Donations

4

Solid Waste

2

Climate Change

2

 

Costs and Funding

39      Council will need to consider the financial implications of any points raised as part of its deliberations process on the 2 May 2018 before directing staff to make the suitable changes for adoption of the LTP and related policies on 20 June 2018.

40      Any significant amendments will be subject to review by Audit New Zealand as part of their requirement to audit the final plan.

 

Policy Implications

41      There are no policy implications for receiving the feedback.

42      Council is however consulting on its Revenue and Financing Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy and will consider feedback on these as part of its deliberations process on the 2 May 2018.  As a result of this process Council may recommend changes to these policies before adopting the final policies on the 20 June 2018. 

Analysis

Options Considered

Council is asked to receive the submissions and informal feedback it has received as part of the public consultation process on the LTP and related policies.

 


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Accept the feedback on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan & Policies

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the process to proceed in line with statutory requirements.

·        None

 

Option 2 – Do not accept the feedback on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan & Policies

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None

·        Submitters will not have an opportunity to speak to the Mayor and councillors about their submission

·        Is not in line with the legislation for the special consultative procedure

 

Assessment of Significance

43      The process of receiving the feedback and hearing the submitters is not a significant decision. 

Recommended Option

44      Option 1 – Accept the feedback on the LTP & Policies.

Next Steps

45      Council will consider all the feedback and any changes to the supporting information at its deliberation meeting on 2 May 2018.

46      The final LTP and related policies (incorporating any changes) will be adopted by Council on 20 June 2018.

 

 

Attachments

a             Full Submission Booklet

b             Informal Facebook Feedback to LTP Engagement Posts

c             Hearing Timetable and Speakers Submissions    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

2018 -2028 LTP & Policies Consultation

 

Hearing Timetable and with Submitters Written Feedback

 

Wednesday 18 April 2018

No.

Submitter

Page ref

Hearing Time

51

Mary Napper

873

9:05 a.m.

to

9:10 a.m.

111

Mervyn & Patricia Cave VC

875

9:15 a.m.

to

9:25 a.m.

124

Janice Templeton

884

9:25 a.m.

to

9:35 a.m.

3

Caroline Loo (Loss and Grief Centre)

889

9:35 a.m.

to

9:45 a.m.

135

Nathan Burdon (Sport Southland)

901

9:45 a.m.

to

9:55 a.m.

 

 

9:55 a.m.

to

10:00 a.m.

63

Marilyn Hunter (The Friends of the Library (Te Anau)) VC

912

10:00 a.m.

to

10:10 a.m.

Morning Tea Break

 

10:10 a.m.

to

10:30 a.m.

126

Ray Willett

915

10:30 a.m.

to

10:35 a.m.

140

Blair Hamilton

917

10:35 a.m.

to

10:45 a.m.

119

Chris Henderson

926

10:45 a.m.

to

10:55 a.m.

136

Gary and Erica Carruthers

928

11:00 a.m.

to

11:10 a.m.

120

Alistair Wilson (New Zealand Farm Forestry Association – Southland Branch)

930

11:10 a.m.

to

11:20 a.m.

132

Allan Youldon VC

935

11:20 a.m.

to

11:30 a.m.

10

John Whitehead TC

937

11:30 a.m.

to

11:40 a.m.

153

Stevie-Rae Blair (Te Ao Marama)

946

11:40 a.m.

to

11:50 a.m.

50

Mr John Turner

947

11:50 a.m.

to

12:00 p.m.

145

Darryl Sycamore (Federated Farmers of New Zealand)

953

12:10 p.m.

to

12:25 p.m.

 

 

12:25 p.m.

to

12:30 p.m.

Lunch

 

12:30 p.m.

to

1:30 p.m.

92

Ali Meade (Environment Southland)

960

1:30 p.m.

to

1:40 p.m.

155

Nathan Surendran

973

1:40 p.m.

to

1:50 p.m.

149

Mary O'Brien (CCS Disability Action)

981

1:50 p.m.

to

2:00 p.m.

8

Sir Alan Mark TC

990

2:00 p.m.

to

2:15 p.m.

158

Roger Hodgkinson

 

2:15 p.m.

to

2:35 p.m.

 

 

2:35 p.m.

to

2:45 p.m.

 

 

 

2:45 p.m.

to

2:55 p.m.

 

 

2:55 p.m.

to

3:00 p.m.

47

Sue Maturin (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc)

1000

3:00 p.m.

to

3:15 p.m.

143

Leanne Liggett (Southern District Health Board)

1004

3:15 p.m.

to

3:25 p.m.

1

Jean Anderson (Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust) TC

1007

3:25 p.m.

to

3:35 p.m.

Afternoon Tea Break

 

3:35 p.m.

to

4:00 p.m.

146

Andrew Feierabend (Meridian Energy Limited)

1041

4:00 p.m.

to

4:15 p.m.

147

Andrew Feierabend (Te Waiau Mahika Kai Trust)

1045

4:15 p.m.

to

4:25 p.m.

Italics – submitter still to confirm attendance details

VC = joining by videoconference  - TC = joining by teleconference


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Te Anau Wastewater - Decision-making Process

Record No:             R/18/3/4716

Author:                      Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek endorsement of the decision-making process proposed to advance the Te Anau Wastewater Project in light of the decisions made at the 13 December 2017 Council meeting.

Executive Summary

2        At its 13 December 2017 meeting Council approved, subject to a final decision being made as to the final discharge method, the business case for the development of a new discharge system for Te Anau wastewater at the Kepler block.  As part of its series of decisions Council also requested that work be progressed to further evaluate the merits of sub-surface drip irrigation to enable a final decision to be made.

3        This report seeks a decision from Council as to whether the advice requested is to be reported back to it, in the first instance, or to be referred to the Council committees that have previously been involved in providing advice to Council on this project before it is submitted to Council for consideration.

4        The report also notes that there will eventually be a need for the Council to expense the investigation and design costs that are incurred with evaluating the disposal method that is ultimately not pursued by Council.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Te Anau Wastewater - Decision-making Process” dated 5 April 2018.

 

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)           Notes the decision that it made at its 13 December meeting, subject to a future decision as to the final discharge method to be used, to approve the business case for development of a new wastewater discharge system at the Kepler block based on the consented Option 1 and in so doing set an approved budget of $14.5 million for the project.

 

e)            Confirms that as a result of making this decision the Chief Executive is authorised to proceed with implementation of the business case, including employing the staff, consultants and other contractors that he considers are needed to progress the project, in accordance with the approved budget subject to a future decision on the final method of disposal.

 

f)             Notes that in approving the business case it also requested further advice on Option 3 as a possible discharge method and that the costs of developing this advice were not included within the scope of the $14.5 million budget for Option 1.

 

g)           Notes that it will not be able to capitalise the costs associated with evaluating and undertaking initial design work for two disposal methods.

 

h)           Agrees that the cost associated with developing the advice requested on Option 3 should be funded from the district wastewater activity as unbudgeted expenditure until a decision is made as to the final discharge method at which time it will make a decision about the expensing of the investigation and design costs associated with the disposal option not selected as the final discharge method.

 

i)             Approves as unbudgeted expenditure, to initially be funded from the district wastewater activity, the costs associated with evaluating Option 3 as per the Council resolution of 13 December 2017.

 

j)             Provides direction as to whether the advice requested on Option 3 at its 13 December 2017 meeting is to be reported to the Finance and Audit Committee, Services and Assets Committee and Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee in the first instance or directly to Council itself.

 

k)            Notes that it has the ability to seek further advice from Council committees and/or the Te Anau Community Board and Manapouri CDA should it consider it appropriate to do so at a later date irrespective of the option chosen.

 

l)             Determines that the role and terms of reference for the Services and Assets Committee, Finance and Audit Committee and Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee should remain unchanged at this point in time but that it will reconsider the role of these Committees once it has made a decision as to the final discharge method to be used. 

 

m)          Notes that staff will report back to Council outlining a suggested procurement methodology once they are ready to proceed to tender for the construction aspects of the Te Anau wastewater discharge project.

 

 

Background

5        Council has had a project to develop a new discharge method for the Te Anau wastewater scheme for a number of years.

6        At its 13 December 2017 meeting Council considered the business case, which provided an assessment of the reasonably practicable options, for the development of a new discharge system. The decisions made as a result of Council’s consideration of the business case were:

That the Council:

a)       Receives the report titled “Final Business Case for Kepler Option” dated 4 December 2017.

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

c)       Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that:

i)        it believes that the options outlined in the business case are the reasonably practicable options available.

d)        Determines that in making this decision it has had regard to:

i)        the principles in section 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 including in particular the need to take account of the diversity of its communities and the range of views held by those communities and the need to take a sustainable development approach

ii)       the need to be conscious of the financial impact that this project will have on its wastewater targeted rates and Council’s overall financial position

iii)      the need to have an alternative discharge option consented and operational before the expiry of the current consented discharge to the Upukerora River in December 2020 and that the timeframes within which the design and construction of a new discharge scheme needs to be completed is now limited.

e)       Notes the requirement to manage its financial arrangements in a prudent manner and make effective provision for the capital and operating costs associated with the Te Anau wastewater scheme project

f)       Notes that the capital costs of the three options outlined in the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme – Kepler Block Business Case range between $14.5 million (Option 1 – Centre Pivot Irrigation) and $21.8 million (Option 3 – Slow Rate Drip Irrigation).

g)      Notes that the financial analysis included at section 5.3 of the business case suggests that rates are at or nearing what is recognised as an affordability threshold for a number of communities in the Southland district

h)      Notes that proceeding with option 1 is expected to see the district wastewater rate increase by some 47% (to $571 excl GST or $656 incl GST in 2028/29) over the next 10 years while proceeding with option 3 will see the district wastewater rate increase by approximately 63% (to $635 excl GST of $731 including GST in 2028/29) over the next 10 years.

i)       Notes that there are a number within the community who would like to see Council proceed with the implementation of Option 3 - Slow Rate Drip Irrigation and that the Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee has resolved it strongly prefers this option.

j)       Notes that due to Option 3 not being the preferred option identified from the multi-criteria analysis and that it breaches some of the investment objectives and constraints previously approved by Council that Option 3 has not been scoped and/or costed to the same level of detail as the other options included in the business case. 

k)      Instructs the Chief Executive to further scope and develop more detailed cost estimates for Option 3 - Slow Rate Drip Irrigation and revise the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme – Kepler Block Business Case to include this information.

l)       Instructs the Chief Executive to provide, in further developing Option 3 to enable it to be considered by Council, advice on:

i)     The process and estimated timeframes that would need to be followed to obtain a decision on the resource consent and any other approvals that might be required to proceed with the implementation of Option 3

ii)    The financial implications and relative costs and benefits of proceeding with option 3 and whether these represent financially prudent spending given the financial management requirements that Council has under the Local Government Act 2002

iii)   The decision-making process that the Council would need to follow, given the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, if it were to form the view that it was desirable to proceed with the implementation of Option 3

iv)   The alternative options which might exist for funding the increased costs of Option 3, relative to Option 1, including the possibility of a portion of the increased cost being funded by way of a rate on the Te Anau and Manapouri communities

v)    Any other risks associated with Option 3, including potentially financial, timing or environmental

vi)   The timeframes that would be associated with proceeding with the further development and implementation of Option 3 should the Council make a decision to approve it.

m)     Determines that despite asking for further advice to be developed on the merits of Option 3, that it needs to proceed with the implementation of the consented option, being Option 1, including the development of the detailed design for a pipeline for transporting treated wastewater from the Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Kepler Block, until such time as it is in a position to make a final decision as to the final method of disposal.

n)      Instructs the Chief Executive to proceed with the steps needed to advance the implementation of the business case including the development of the detailed design for the construction of a treated wastewater reticulation system from the Te Anau Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Kepler Block with such design to allow for a disposal method via any of the three discharge options included in the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme – Kepler Block Business Case.

o)      Subject to making a final decision at a future meeting as to its preferred method of final discharge Council approves the business case.

7        The practical effect of the above resolutions can be summarised as:

·    Council has approved the development of a new wastewater disposal system at the Kepler block and instructed staff to take the necessary steps to implement the consented Option 1 in accordance with the scope, which includes a projected financial cost of $14.5 million, detailed in the business case that was approved. These practical steps will obviously include employing the relevant engineering and other expertise needed to progress implementation of the project.

·    Council is still to make a decision on the final method of disposal to be used and in particular whether this will be by way of centre pivot irrigation or sub-surface drip irrigation. A decision on the final disposal method may change the scope of the project and the approved budget within which the work needs to be completed. 

·    Staff have been instructed to develop advice covering the range of issues that the Council will need to consider in making its final decision on the disposal method. This advice will cover, amongst other issues, the implications of a change in disposal method on the scope of the project, the requirement to have a new disposal system operational before the existing discharge consent expires in December 2020, the resource consenting requirements for development of a new disposal system and the likely impact of such a decision on project costs and risks.

8        Following the decisions made at the 13 December 2017 Council meeting staff have been progressing the work needed to give effect to the decisions made. This includes:

·    Establishment of the project team and associated processes needed to enable the project to proceed to the next phase

·    Commissioning the development of the detailed design for the reticulation system needed to transport the treated wastewater from Te Anau to the Kepler block. This has included surveying of the proposed route for the disposal pipeline. 

·    Development of a conceptual design for a sub-surface drip irrigation disposal system at the Kepler block

·    Identification and appointment of an engineering consultant to act as a peer reviewer for the proposed sub-surface drip irrigation system.

·    The development of terms of reference and basis upon which Council might be able to employ Peter Riddell to provide comment on the technical aspects of the project

·    Commissioning of a bird strike risk assessment for the Te Anau Manapouri airport

·    Commissioning of legal advice on the resource management issues that will need to be considered in advancing a new disposal method

·    Development of further financial models to support future decision-making as to a preferred disposal method once the costs and risks associated with Option 3 have been developed further

·    Development of advice (including the drafting of a brief for legal advice) on the Local Government Act 2002 decision-making requirements if the Council were to make a decision to adopt an alternative disposal method

·    Preliminary consideration of the procurement methods that might be used and the process that might be used to assess each of these.

9        While the work needed to advance the project is progressing staff are keen to ensure that there is clarify as to the expectations that Council has about the role of its different committees, as distinct from itself, as this work is progressed.

Issues

10      Staff are aware that there has been some questioning of the role of Council and its committees in the subsequent stages of the Te Anau wastewater project and in particular a suggestion that the advice requested by Council should, in the first instance, be directed to Council committees for comment, prior to it being submitted to Council.

11      This paper seeks to confirm:

·    That staff are empowered to proceed with implementation of the project in accordance with the approved business case.

·    The role of Council, and each of its committees, as work begins to progress the implementation of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project business case as approved by Council at its 13 December 2017 meeting.

·    The process that Council wishes to follow in regard to whether the additional advice requested is to be reported to its Committees or direct to Council itself in the first instance.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12      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.

13      All such committees are subject to the ultimate control of and must comply with any general or specific directions given by the Council. They also represent Council and are able to make decisions that are binding on Council to the extent that they act within their delegated authority.

14      Council is required to comply with the decision-making provisions in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 in making any decisions. A number of the decisions that Council is making in progressing the Te Anau wastewater project are of a high level of significance, if not significant.

15      Under section 76(3) a local authority is required to ensure that there has been an appropriate level of compliance with the decision-making provisions. It is for this reason that Council has asked for specific advice on the decision-making process that it must follow in making a decision related to the final disposal method that it wishes to use at the Kepler block.

16      All decisions made by Council are subject to natural justice principles.

Community Views

17      Council is aware that there are a number of groups that have strong views on the development of a new disposal system at the Kepler block. The fact that there is a diverse range of views and the diversity of a number of these views has been discussed in previous Council reports. Councillors have also heard directly themselves a number of these views directly.

18      Under section 78 of the LGA 2002 the Council is required to identify and then consider the range of views that do exist in making decisions. It is not required to adopt a particular viewpoint that may be promoted by one group of interested stakeholders and it is also not required, section 78(3), to undertake any particular consultation process or procedure as a result of this requirement.

19      It is clear that there are a number of people within the Te Anau and Manapouri communities who are concerned about the current Kepler consented option. Over the last two years FSO has made it clear that they have a strong preference for the level of treatment to be significantly increased and for the final discharge to occur at a site other than the Kepler. Indeed, the objects in their constitution make it clear that they are opposed to any formal of disposal at the Kepler block. More recently FSO have indicated that regardless of the level of treatment of the wastewater they do not support the use of centre pivot irrigation but prefer it to be disposed of through a sub-surface discharge field.

20      The Te Anau Community Board supported the development of the Kepler scheme including purchasing the land from Landcorp. Subsequently however, in 2016, after the resource consent had been appealed the Board formally resolved not to support the Kepler option. At the same time the Manapouri Community Development Area sub-committee (Manapouri CDA) also made a similar resolution. Both committees have commented on the potential environmental effects, the desire to treat the wastewater a higher level, and that it would be better if a discharge site could be found closer to Te Anau.

21      At the meeting of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee on 28 November up to 90 members of the public attended with up to 15 speaking in public forum. Through their presentations it was clear that while many still did not agree with the use of the Kepler site they would be more accepting of a sub-surface disposal option as opposed to centre pivot irrigation.

22      Common themes among the speakers included concerns over spray drift and pathogens, impact on the airport operation including risk of increased bird strike, clean up the effluent at source and keep it in Te Anau. A similar range of concerns were also expressed to Council at its 13 December 2017 meeting. While these are all matters that have been previously considered and will be managed through appropriate consent conditions they remain as concerns to some in the community.

23      To ensure that the range of community views which do exist are considered Council has taken a number of steps to further consider and address the issues raised by stakeholders in its deliberation processes. This work has included:

·        A Pattle Delamore Partners peer review of the early MWH reports

·        Preparatory investigation and initial consultation with landowners on Sinclair Road (a potential alternative site)

·        Greater spatial sampling of the northern Kepler Block to further assess the possibility of iron pans

·        A review of the baleage component of the business case with an independent agriculture consultant nominated by the Te Anau Discharge Project Committee members

·        A public advertisement seeking alternative sites using criteria agreed by the Te Anau Discharge Project Committee

·        An assessment by e3Scientific of the alternative sites offered for consideration.

24      As part of this next phase of work the range of issues raised by the community will also be considered further as part of the work in evaluating the costs, risks, advantages and disadvantages of Option 3 relative to the other options being considered.

25      The range of views which do exist, on the different aspects of the project will continue to be presented in staff reports as different matters are put forward for consideration. This will include the decision as to the final disposal method.

26      In this report the Council is being asked to consider the role of its committees and the role that they should play as the implementation of the Te Anau wastewater discharge project proceeds including consideration of the final disposal method to be used.

27      There is an argument that a decision to take the advice developed via the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee will provide an opportunity for a wider section of the local community to present their views than if the advice was to go directly to Council in the first instance. In this regard it is, for example, easier for this Committee to hold its meetings in Te Anau. Having said that it would be logistically possible for the full Council to meet in Te Anau when the additional information was being presented for consideration or if Councillors wanted to hear directly from a wide cross section of the community.

Costs and Funding

28      The costs associated with operating Council committees are met from the Governance budgets.

29      Costs associated with progressing the development of the advice needed to develop a new wastewater disposal system for Te Anau wastewater are met from the district wastewater activity budgets.

30      In approving the business case at its 13 December Council meeting Council approved the budget for the consented Option 1. This budget does not include an allowance for the advice being sought to enable further consideration of Option 3. It will also not be possible for Council to capitalise the costs associated with the investigation, consideration and design of two different disposal options. As a result the costs associated with the disposal option that is not finally used will need to be treated as an operational expenditure.  

31      Given that a decision will not be able to be made about which investigation and design costs are to be expensed until a final decision is made on the discharge method staff suggest that the costs associated with the further investigation of Option 3 be expensed at this stage. If a decision is subsequently made to proceed with SDI as the discharge method then these costs can be capitalised and the costs incurred investigating, consenting and designing centre pivot irrigation can be expensed.

Policy Implications

32      All Council committees are required to operate within the scope of their terms of reference as well as Council’s governance policies including its code of conduct and standing orders.

33      The Services and Assets Committee has responsibility for monitoring the delivery of Council’s infrastructural asset services including the delivery of capital works projects. For this reason the committee was asked to consider and provide a recommendation to Council on whether the business case should be adopted at its 15 November 2017 meeting. Staff will also continue to report on the progress being made with implementation of the project from time to time.

34      The Finance and Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring that Council has appropriate financial, risk management and internal control systems in place. It also has delegated responsibility for reviewing and making a recommendation to Council on whether it should approve any capital works projects with a capital cost in excess of $2 million.

35      The Finance and Audit Committee considered the Kepler business case at its 16 November 2017 meeting. Staff will also continue to periodically report to this Committee on the financial and risk management implications of the project as implementation proceeds. If there continues to be a sizeable variation between the projected costs for the two disposal methods being considered then Council may also want to see further advice from this Committee. That is, however, a decision for the Council to make once it has received the initial advice on the two options.

36      The terms of reference (refer Attachment A) for the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee make it clear that they were to provide advice and input to the development of the business case for the project.

37      Now that the Council has approved that business case their role changes to being one of monitoring the progress that is made with implementation of the project and providing advice to Council where there may be variations between actual and planned delivery. This role will, of course, also be subject to the Council decision as to the final discharge method to be used.

38      As part of this paper it is suggested that Council should also confirm that the existing terms of reference for the Services and Assets Committee, Finance and Audit Committee and Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee continue to apply at present. This approach is considered appropriate given what is known at this time. It may, however, be appropriate for Council to reconsider this issue once the further advice on the different disposal methods is known. In particular, the scope of the project and the range of issues to be managed would change if a decision was made to pursue Option 3, sub surface drip irrigation

Analysis

Options Considered

Option 1 – Provide Advice to Council

39      Under this option Council would confirm the decisions that it has already made and make it clear that it expects the advice requested in relation to alternative disposal methods to be provided directly back to itself in the first instance. If following consideration of this advice it comes to a view that it wishes to seek comment from one of more of its committees before making a final decision then it will be able to refer the matter to the appropriate committee at that time.

40      The business case considered by Council and the decisions that it made at its 13 December meeting record the fact that there are a number of complex issues that need to be considered in making a decision as to the final disposal method. The decision that Council makes will, for example, potentially have implications beyond the wastewater activity given the overall cost of this project. It is therefore important that Council has a good overview of the issues involved and the decisions that need to be made given that they have ultimate responsibility.

Option 2 – Provide advice to Committees

41      Under this option Council would direct that the advice that it has sought in relation to Option 3 is to be provided to the Te Anau wastewater discharge project committee, service delivery committee and the finance and audit committee before it is submitted to a Council meeting for its consideration.

42      This option would be appropriate if Council considers that there are aspects of the advice to be presented that it would like to have considered by one or more of its committees before it makes a decision on the disposal method. It would also be appropriate if Council see it as important that the wider Te Anau and Manapouri communities be given an opportunity to present their views to a Council committee on the additional advice being provided prior to it being presented to Council for consideration.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Provide advice to Council

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Reinforces the governance role of Council. 

·        Is consistent with the 13 December resolution.

·        The range of issues to be considered will become clearer once the advice on the final discharge method is prepared. This would mean, if Council were to seek advice from its committees, that the issues on which it was seeking advice could be better defined.

·        Ensures that Council can develop and maintain a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved while also retaining the option of being able to seek further advice should that be considered necessary.

·        Council can review the terms of reference and role for any of its committees at any time. The nature of the task to be completed will be clarified once a decision is made on the final method of discharge.

·        Council would not receive comment from its committees before considering the advice developed on different discharge methods.

·        May limit the number of members of the Te Anau and Manapouri communities able to present their views on the new advice to Council.

 

 

Option 2 – Provide advice to Council Committees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Would make it easier for the Te Anau and Manapouri communities to present their views on the additional information being developed.

·        Would enable the different committees to express a view on the advice being provided to Council.

·        Council would receive recommendations from its committees prior to considering the additional information requested itself.

 

·        Would delay the provision of advice to Council as input is sought from committees prior to submission to Council.

·        Does not allow Council to form initial views on the advice or provide an indication of the areas in which it would like further input from the community and/or its committees prior to the matter being referred to these bodies. 

·        The Te Anau wastewater project committee has already expressed, via a formal resolution, a “strongly preferred” view that Option 3, subsurface drip irrigation should be the discharge method used by Council.

·        The full extent of the issues to be managed will not be clear until a final decision is made as to the method of discharge. It would therefore seem appropriate to retain the current terms of reference for all Council committees until the extent of the issues to be managed is clear.

 

Assessment of Significance

43      In this report the Council is being asked to confirm a decision that it has already made and also consider whether the role of its committees should be changed. As such the issues being considered are administrative in nature and therefore not considered significant.

44      The conclusion reached in relation to the issues considered in this report do not detract from the fact that a number of the decisions relating to the Te Anau wastewater discharge project are of some significance.

Recommended Option

45      It is recommended that Council should confirm that the existing terms of reference for the Services and Assets Committee, Finance and Audit Committee and Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee continue to apply at present but in doing so determine that it will consider this issue further once a decision is made as to the final discharge method.

46      In relation to the question of whether the advice sought on Option 3 should go direct to Council or its committees in the first instance staff are seeking direction as to the approach that Council wishes to pursue.

Next Steps

47      Staff will report back with the advice requested on Option 3 once the development of this advice has been completed.

48      Staff will also seek Council endorsement of the proposed procurement approach before a request for tenders is let. Post the tender evaluation process a decision to award a contract to the preferred tenderer would also be reported back to Council.

 

Attachments

a             Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee -Terms of Reference revised February 17    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

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:

15 March 2017

Delegated to:

 

Alternative Role:

 

Legislation:

 

 

 

1.         PURPOSE

           

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee shall assist the Southland District Council to progress implementation of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project in accordance with the project scope approved by Council and the Deed of Agreement that it has entered into with Fiordland Sewage Options.

 

 

2.         ROLE OF THE PROJECT COMMITTEE

 

The Southland District Council has entered into a Deed of Agreement with Fiordland Sewage Options (FSO). The Deed creates a contractual framework within which Council has agreed to progress the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project. 

The Committee is required to provide guidance and assistance to the Council as it proceeds with meeting its obligations under the Deed and subsequent implementation of its preferred option.

The specific responsibilities of the Project Committee are to:

a)         Provide advice on how the Council might progress implementation of the Deed of Agreement it has with FSO

b)         Provide advice on how it might undertake the investigation of the Smith Block in accordance with the programme and budget approved by Council

c)         Provide advice on how Council might consult with and communicate with the community, affected parties and other stakeholders in an appropriate manner about the project and the disposal of wastewater generated in Te Anau

d)         Monitor the progress that is being made in progressing the evaluation of the Smith Block given the regulatory and timeframe constraints within which Council needs to operate. These include the need to ensure that Council has a consented wastewater discharge option available at all times

e)         Assist with the development of a robust business case for Council consideration in relation to the treatment and disposal systems which should be developed to meet the needs of the Te Anau community into the future

f)          Monitor the progress that is made in delivering on the overall project, and any sub-projects, relative to the approved milestones, budgets and project scope and business cases

g)         Provide guidance and where appropriate recommendations to Council, on how any variations between actual and planned delivery might be best addressed

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

i)          Provide advice to Council on the assessment of project risks and appropriate mitigation strategies given the overall scope of the project

j)          Assist with providing information to the Te Anau Community Board and the Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee on the project

k)         Recommend to Council any changes to the project objectives, timelines, budget and deliverables that the Committee consider might be required

l)          Ensure that Committee decisions and processes are well documented in accordance with Council policies and its statutory requirements.

 

2.         DELEGATIONS

 

The Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee has delegated authority to provide advice and monitor the progress being made with the project in accordance with the responsibilities outlined above.

 

The Project Committee does not have delegated authority in relation to the following matters:

a)         The expenditure or committal of Council funds

b)         Approval of project timetable(s) and budget(s) within which the different stages of the project need to be progressed

c)         Negotiation and approval of any Land Access, Acquisition or Disposal Agreements

d)         Approval of the final business case and/or decisions in relation to the type of treatment and disposal systems to be developed

e)         Approval of the procurement strategy and/or methods to be used for services and other works which need to be progressed as part of the project

f)          The approval of any tenders or other expenditure associated with the project

g)         Negotiation, approval or limitation of any other contractual arrangements that Council might have and/or put in place including with its staff.

 

3.       MEMBERSHIP

 

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

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

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

c)         Allan Youldon

d)         Shirley Mouat

e)         Rachel Cockburn

f)          Cr Ebel Kremer

g)         Alan Bickers.

 

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 including the Mayor and/or Councillor.

 

 

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 Communications Manager 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.

 


 

 

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 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 or as otherwise approved by Council.

 

 

12.     FUNDING AND BUDGETS

 

Funding for the 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 or commit Council to the expenditure of funds.

 

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

 

 

13.     RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

 

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Deed of Agreement.

 

 

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

 

Financial Report for the month ended 28 February 2018

Record No:             R/18/3/6728

Author:                      Dipal Patel, Project Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

  

 

Background

1.         This report outlines the financial results for the eight months to 28 February 2018 or 66.6% of the financial year.

2.         The Monthly and YTD Actual results are compared to the Full Year Budget (Projection) in the attached Summary Monthly Financial Report. 

3.         The projection values include any 2016/2017 carried forward items approved by Council in September 2017 and October forecast changes approved by Council in December 2017.

4.         The 2017/2018 Annual Plan budget is shown in the Reports as the Full Year Budget (Budget).

Overview

5.         The Summary Monthly Financial Report consolidates the business units within each of the key areas of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) responsibility.  The following commentary focuses on the year to date (YTD) results excluding GST.

6.         The Detailed Monthly Financial Report includes more detailed explanations and commentary on variances by the Executive Leadership Team.  Commentary generally focuses on the year to date (YTD) results and, where specified, monthly results. 

7.         In the Council Summary and Detailed Reports, the values in the columns for:

·              The Monthly Budget, is phased where appropriate and is based on the full year projection and includes carry forwards and forecasting.

·              The YTD Budget is based on the full year projection and is a combination of the Annual Plan, carry forwards and forecasting. 

·              The Full Year Budget is the Annual Plan budget for the year.

·              The Full Year Projection is the forecasted year end result.

8.         Phasing of budgets occurs in the first 2 months of the financial year, at forecasting and when one-off costs have actually occurred. This should reduce the number of variance explanations due to timing.

9.         Where phasing of budgets has not occurred, one twelfth of annual budgeted cost is used to calculate the monthly budget.

10.       Council staff will continue to refine the format of this report to enhance the financial information reported.  We welcome any feedback or suggestions on further improvements that could be made to this report.

11.       The Council Summary Report (actuals vs phased and forecast budget) year to date are as follows:

 

Income

12.       Operating Income is $3.2 million (6%) under budget year to date ($52.4 million actual vs $49.2 million budget).

13.       Transport (Roading) income is 12% under projection, a variance of $2.7 million compared to the YTD budget of $22.7 million. This relates to the timing of various works and those being weather dependent including special purpose roads (lower Hollyford) which have required minimal work this financial year.

 

14.       Services and Assets is under budget by $510 thousand (4%).The significant contributor to this is Forestry, which is under budget by $804 thousand (39%).  The budget has been previously phased with the expectation that harvesting would commence at Waikaia in February and Ohai in May.  Harvesting began at Ohai in February and will begin at Waikaia in April.  The harvesting income expected from the two forests through this period is significantly different however it is expected to be on budget at year end.

 

 

 

Operating Expenditure

15.       Operating Expenditure is $1.9 million (4%) under budget for the year to date ($46.1 million actual vs $47.9 million budget).

 

16.       Transport (Roading) costs are 4% under budget, a variance of $710 thousand. This relates to the timing of various works and those being weather dependent including special purpose roads (lower Hollyford) which have required minimal work this financial year.

 

17.       Services and Assets are $822 thousand (6%) under budget. District water is under budget by $143 thousand.  This is due to less electricity being used than expected, and lower interest costs this year due to a reduced loan required in previous years for capital work completed. Both of these items have been reduced as part of forecasting. Forestry is $603 thousand under, however this is expected to correct by the end of the year once harvesting is completed.  Road safety is $185 thousand over budget, a limited budget has been included in the Annual Plan as the costs are recovered from all councils involved in this shared service.

 

Capital Expenditure

18.       Capital Expenditure is $7.1 million (30%) under budget year to date ($16.2 million actual v $23.3 million budget).

 

19.       Customer Support, Services & Assets, Environmental & Financial Services have vehicle replacements in their budgets, some of which have not been spent to date. 20 vehicles are due for replacement by 30 June 2018, 16 of which were due for replacement by 28 February or earlier. Of these 16 – 13 replacement vehicles have been delivered during January-March, 4 others have been ordered in February and are scheduled to arrive in the coming months. Orders for the remaining vehicles are anticipated to be placed in April/May.

 

 

20. Capital expenditure for Services and Assets is 53% ($2.9 million) under budget for the year to date with a significant reduction shown in round two of forecasting for the work expected to be completed. Projects that contribute to this variance are:

 

®   Wastewater ($1.1 million):

·   Winton ($286 thousand) – It is now only expected that $200 thousand of a $460 thousand project will be spent this year for the wastewater treatment upgrade investigations moved into the 18/19 Long Term Plan.  The Long Term Plan incorporates the expected full cost of the project.  The winton aerator has been procured to budget.

·   Te Anau ($173 thousand) – The te anau aerators are expected to be $40k less than budget.  It is expected that some budget $248 thousand of the current year $623 thousand budget for the oxidation ponds willl be carried forward as it is subject to the finalisation of the treatment and disposal project.

·   Riversdale ($255 thousand) – The budget in relation to the treatment upgrade $300thousand will be moved into 18/19 as additional testing is still required prior to any final purchasing done.  The sludge removal at riversdale has began and it is expected that it will be $85thousand over budget at year end due to increased costs of disposing to the AB Lime landfill.  The funding for this will come from the savings in cost in Winton. 

·   Otautau ($180 thousand) – Currently $169 thousand underbudget it is expected all three projects will be completed by year end within current budgets.

·   Stewart Island ($106 thousand) – Work in regards to the pumps and additional standby generation is ongoing.  Although it is still expected to be completed within budget it is not expected to be completed in this year and as such $110 thousand is proposed to be carried forward to 2018-2019 as there has been difficulty employing contractors on the Island to complete relevant work..

 

®   Water ($1.5 million):

·    Manapouri ($100 thousand) – The survey work in relation to the water treatment plant is completed, with design work in progress, the balance of funds will be carried forward as tanks are unable to be supplied in this financial year.  The project to replace the tressels carrying the main over the swamp has been downgraded as a result of an onsite assessment.  As such the project is now only expected to cost $20k compared to a full year budgety of $144 thousand.

·    Riverton ($189 thousand) – The riverton water scheme main project has been completed, as part of commissioning it has been identified that a number of smaller projects need to be included.  It is proposed to use the balance of funds to cover these costs which may occur in the next financial year.

·    Eastern Bush water supply upgrade ($837 thousand) – the design is being confirmed post receiving the outcome of Havelock North inquiry. The construction of this project will commence is 18/19.

·    Winton Water Supply ($187 thousand) – The project is in progress to replace the water main. It is expected to be on budget at year end.

 

®   The council property project included in the Annual Plan for the Invercargill office of $300 thousand has been removed as part of the first round of forecasting.

®   Around the Mountain Cycle Trail is currently $113 thousand over projection for the year.  This is expenditure approved by Council on 27 September 2017 for signs, realignment of the trail and shelters.  $107 thousand is to be funded by MBIE.  This expenditure has been included in the second round of forecasting.

 

21.       Overall roading capital expenditure is $4.1 million less than projected for the year to date due to the seasonality of the programmed works. Two bridge replacements were awarded in February. An issue with fish passage has again put the projects in jeopardy of being completed by 30th June. As a condition of being an ‘Affected Party’, DOC will only allow works to be undertaken between December and March. It is expected to be on budget by year end.

 

22.       The Alternative Coastal Route: Slope Point Road is complete, with curve advisory signage being completed in February, only the car park remains to be completed which will be undertaken prior to 30th June 2018. Approximately 36% of the project is now sealed with a further 15% likely to happen by the end of March. The project is expected to be completed by year end.

 

23.       Council’s financial position as at 28 February 2018 is detailed below and is for the activities of Council only.  The balance sheet as at 30 June 2017 represents the audited balance sheet for activities of Council only.

24.       At 28 February 2018, Council had $17 million invested in six term deposits ranging from three to six month maturities as follows:

25.       Funds on call are : 

Balance at
28 February 2018

Bank

Account

Interest Rate

$ 1,313,317

 BNZ

 Funds on Call

1.00%

$ 10,000

 BNZ

 Operating Bank Acc

1.00%

$ 298,537

 BNZ

 Restricted Funds Acc

0.25%

 

26.       The movement in Property, Plant and Equipment is due to capital additions during the year less budgeted depreciation.

27.       The increase in Non-Current Assets (Intangible Assets) is the continued acquisition costs of Council’s digitisation software.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the month ended 28 February 2018” dated 12 April 2018.

 

Attachments

a             Council's District Activities - Summary Monthly Financial Report - 28 February 2018

b             Council's District Activities - Detailed Monthly Financial Report - 28 February 2018    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 



Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 




Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 





Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


Council

18 April 2018

 




Council

18 April 2018

 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 





Council

18 April 2018

 


 


 


 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Risk Management Framework Project Development

Record No:             R/18/4/7445

Author:                      Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of the report is to update Council on the status of the Risk Management Framework (RMF) project and seek Council’s approval so to undertake the next steps in the project development.

Executive Summary

2        The Finance and Audit Committee at the 15 March 2017 meeting resolved that “a risk management review project to be established to develop a project scope and terms of reference to be considered at the June 2017 Finance and Audit Committee meeting.”

3        Subsequent to this the project scope and terms of reference for the Southland District Council (SDC) risk management review project was endorsed by the Finance and Audit Committee at the 7 June 2017 meeting.

4        The RMF project is now at a stage to progress the development of the RMF and undertake a review of the SDC Risk Management Policy. The project involves the design and development of a RMF that can be applied across all activities and areas of Council business.

5        SDC provides a wide range of services to its communities directly and indirectly which can include a number of potential risks, hazards, uncertainties and unforseen events that could impact on Council’s ability to deliver both the range and level of service required.

6        Council recognises the need for a robust and operative RMF and acknowledges the importance of and need to invest and resource the next stages of this RMF project.

7        The Finance and Audit Committee at the 26 March 2018 meeting resolved the following:

Endorse the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

Recommends to Council to support the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

Recommends to Council a request for approval for unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the Council District Operations Reserve to undertake the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework project.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Risk Management Framework Project Development” dated 6 April 2018.

 

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)           Endorse the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

 

e)            Approves unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the Council District Operations Reserve to undertake the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework project.

 

Background

8        The Finance and Audit Committee at the 15 March 2017 meeting resolved that “a risk management review project to be established to develop a project scope and terms of reference to be considered at the June 2017 Finance and Audit Committee meeting.”

9        The project scope and terms of reference for the Southland District Council (SDC) risk management review project was endorsed by the Finance and Audit Committee at the 7 June 2017 meeting.

10      The Finance and Audit Committee at its 26 March meeting received a report titled Risk Management Framework Project Development. This report updated the Finance and Audit Committee on the status of the RMF project and provided a series of recommendations which the Committee subsequently approved.

11      The Committee resolved the following:

Endorse the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

Recommends to Council to support the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

Recommends to Council a request for approval for unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the Council District Operations Reserve to undertake the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework project.

12      This report to Council is a follow up to the Finance and Audit Committee resolving to recommend to Council these actions as per its terms of reference and scope of activities.

13      In accordance with the SDC Finance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference and 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.

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

-     Council’s risk management framework.”

14      In accordance with the SDC Finance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference and power to act:

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

-     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.”

15      Over recent times it has been acknowledged that Council needs to invest in and further develop its risk management processes and approach. It is acknowledged that an organisation wide approach to risk management is important.

16      In developing the RMF the objective is to create a framework to effectively understand, plan for and mitigate risk across all levels and activities within SDC. Understanding and mitigating risks is central to safeguarding Southland District’s critical community assets and services and other activities it is responsible for.

17      Risk management is a core enabling function that adds value to the activities of Council and supports the achievement of the strategic framework and Council’s objectives and vision.


 

18      A comprehensive RMF will inform Council’s Risk Management Policy and will:

·    Provide a consistent, structured approach to identifying and managing risk

·    Support the achievement of Council’s strategic and operational objectives by managing risks that would otherwise impede success

·    Encourage an open and transparent organisational culture where risk discussion and awareness are supported

·    Facilitate better decisionmaking practices that support risk informed choices, prioritise actions and distinguish between potential options

·    Provide assurance to Council, the Southland district community and stakeholders that critical risks are identified and are being managed effectively.

19      The Finance and Audit Committee endorsed the approach to recommend that Council engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the design and development of the RMF project for Council.

20      Structured Conversations Ltd has been engaged by Council on a number of projects and has a strong track record of high quality deliverables and understands the business of SDC.

21      Structured Conversations Ltd has recently completed the SDC Corporate Performance Framework project, developed the business case for the second stage of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail project, prepared service delivery recommendations for regulatory services and facilitated a workshop with Council and contractor representatives for roading alliance governance and management options.

Issues

22      It is recognised by Council and staff that a RMF needs to be developed. To complete this development of the RMF unbudgeted expenditure is required to be approved.

23      The current Risk Management Policy is also currently overdue for review – being approved and effective from 29 October 2014.

24      It is appropriate to review this policy as part of the RMF project development and have Council staff work alongside and align the policy development with the RMF development.

25      It is also important to note, that to ensure success of the development and implementation of the RMF that elected representatives, stakeholders and staff are engaged in this process to ensure that the objective of assisting Council to better understand and manage risk is achieved.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

26      There are no direct or specific legal or statutory requirements for Council to meet with regards the development of the RMF project.

Community Views

27      Wider community views have not been sort in relation to the RMF project.

28      The RMF project relates to organisation wide operational practices.

Costs and Funding

29      The RMF project is an additional project to be added to the existing work programme of the Strategy and Policy Team in the Community and Futures Group.

30      The Finance and Audit Committee has previously endorsed the RMF project and recommended to Council the project scope and terms of reference for the RMF.

31      As an additional project there is no allocation of funding for the project and it will require Council to approve unbudgeted expenditure to deliver the RMF project.

32      Council officers have received a proposal based on preliminary discussions with Structured Conversations Ltd to deliver on an inclusive methodology involving stakeholders, elected representatives and staff and clearly defined milestones.

33      The Finance and Audit Committee recommends to Council approval for unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the District Operations Reserve.

Policy Implications

34      The RMF project and review of Risk Management Policy supports the practice of assisting Council in operating with a current policy.

35      The current SDC Risk Management Policy was approved and effective from 29 October 2014 and was identified as being due for review in November 2015.

36      The Risk Management Policy review is therefore overdue but this should be considered on the understanding that the RMF project is an identified priority project. It is deemed appropriate to review and update the Risk Management Policy alongside and in conjunction with the RMF project.

Analysis

Options Considered

37      Council is requested to consider two options. 


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Endorse the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the RMF project and approve unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the Council District Operations Reserve

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Provides the ability to advance the RMF project as soon as is practicable.

·      Preferred supplier is a high performing external resource with a proven track record of delivery.

·      Has existing knowledge of Council systems, processes and can build on existing staff, elected representatives and stakeholder relationships across the organisation.

·      Provides experience, technical and professional knowledge and expertise to add value for Council.

·      Provides for alignment to other corporate and strategic projects.

 

·      Loss of opportunity to ‘test’ the market.

·      Loss of opportunity to consider alternative external resourcing provider options.

 

Option 2 – Request staff call for request for proposals by way of a tender process to undertake the RMF project and report back to Council with preferred contractor and the required amount of expenditure requesting approval for unbudgeted expenditure to be sourced from the Council Operations Reserve in 2018-2019.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Provides the opportunity to ‘test’ the market.

·      Provides an opportunity to consider alternative external resourcing provider options.

·      Requires additional time and internal resource commitment to progress the tender process

·      Delay in project start time

 

 

Assessment of Significance

38      This decision is not considered significant in relation the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

39      It is recommended that Council endorse the approach to engage Structured Conversations Ltd on a preferred supplier basis to undertake the Risk Management Framework project and approve unbudgeted expenditure of up to $60,000 exclusive of GST to be split evenly over the two financial years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and to be sourced from the Council District Operations Reserve.

Next Steps

40      If Council supports the recommended option Structured Conversations Ltd will be engaged to complete the work as agreed.

41      If Council does not support the recommended option staff will assess the appropriate approach to be undertaken based on the Council’s decision.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme - 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019

Record No:             R/18/4/7498

Author:                      Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To present to Council the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 to 31 January 2019.

Executive Summary

2        Venture Southland is required every year as per the Heads of Agreement signed between signatory local authorities – Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council and Southland District Council – to produce an annual business plan.

3        The Heads of Agreement details the process for the development of the annual business plan – involving the signatory local authorities providing a joint letter of expectation outlining regional priorities and Southland District Council providing an individual letter of expectation outlining SDC specific community development priority projects.

4        However, as a result of the Southland Regional Development Agency establishment process currently being undertaken by Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council, Southland District Council and Environment Southland it has been informally agreed with Venture Southland that that there be a variation to the process for the development of the Venture Southland draft annual business plan 2018-2019.

5        Venture Southland had previously prepared a draft business plan/work programme for the full 2018/19 financial year through to 30 June 2019.

6        This did not recognise the decisions already made by the Gore District Council and Southland District Council to formally exit the existing Venture Southland Agreement from 1 February 2019.

7        AS a result Council resolved at the 22 February 2018 Council meeting amongst other resolutions to “Ask Venture Southland to prepare a work programme and budget from 1 July 2018 to 1 February 2019 for Council to consider – with deliverables to be negotiated based on being 7/12 of the operating year time and resource allocation and 7/12 of the allocated Southland District Council annual budget for Venture Southland contribution of $1,742,000 – or specifically $1,016,167.”

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme - 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019” dated 6 April 2018.

 

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)           Receive the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

 

Background

8        Venture Southland is required, as per the Heads of Agreement signed between signatory local authorities - Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council and Southland District Council, to produce an annual business plan.

9        The Heads of Agreement details the process for the development of the annual business plan. This traditionally has involved the signatory local authorities providing a joint letter of expectation outlining regional priorities and Southland District Council providing an individual letter of expectation outlining SDC specific community development priority projects.

10      As a consequence of the Southland Regional Development Agency establishment process the Gore District Council and Southland District Council made a decision to exit the Venture Southland Agreement from 1 February 2019.

11      Given this decision, and the fact that there will be a need for a new business plan to be developed for the Southland Regional Development Agency should this proposal be confirmed it had been informally agreed with Venture Southland that for the draft annual business plan 2018-2019 development there was to be a variation to the ‘standard’ process.

12      In light of the decisions that Council previously made to exit the Venture Southland Agreement from February 2019, Council requested that Venture Southland prepare a draft business plan/work programme for the seven month period from 1 July 2018 to 31 January 2019.

13      As a result of this request Venture Southland has prepared the attached 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

14      This was presented to the Venture Southland Joint Committee at its 26 March 2018 meeting.

Issues

15      There are no identifiable issues raised with the preparation of the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16      The preparation of the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019 means that this complies with the previous decision made by Council to exit the current Venture Southland Heads of Agreement on 1 February 2019.

Community Views

17      The Southland Regional Development Agency establishment process has provided an opportunity for community input into matters related to regional development and future delivery structures.

18      This particular situation has been widely communicated as part of and as a consequence of the Southland Regional Development Agency establishment process and community representatives have had the opportunity to provide feedback throughout that process.

Costs and Funding

19      Southland District Council has allocated $1,742,000 per year for regional development activity, which is currently undertaken via Venture Southland, in the current Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

20      With Council enacting the Venture Southland Heads of Agreement 2014-2017 exit clause as per clause 4.1 and giving notice that it is effective from 1 February 2019 it is agreed the amount available for the remaining period of the Venture Southland 2018-2019 draft annual plan is for seven months.  The Southland District Council allocation to Venture Southland for this 7/12 period is in effect $1,016,167. 

21      It is important to note that Council will be provided further details and a suggested approach as to what and how it may wish to proceed with regards the reallocation of the available funds as a result of exiting the Venture Southland Heads of Agreement 2014-2017 effective from 31 January 2019.

22      This will be the subject of a separate order paper once the Southland Regional Development Agency establishment process is further advanced.

Policy Implications

23      Council does not have any formal policy on how it delivers and undertakes regional development activities. As a result there are no policy implications related to this matter.

Analysis

Options Considered

24      Council is requested to consider two options.


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Receive the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Assists in fulfilling Council’s obligation to Venture Southland Heads of Agreement.

·        Provides clarity for the duration of the time period Council is committed to invest in the Venture Southland Joint Committee.

·        Provides a clear plan and work programme for delivery of agreed outcomes for the period 1 July 2018-31 January 2019.

·        There are no disadvantages in Council receiving the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

 

Option 2 – Not receive the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        There no advantages in Council not receiving the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

·        Means Council does not fulfil its obligations as per the Venture Southland Heads of Agreement.

·        Creates uncertainty around Council’s investment in economic development under the current arrangements.

 

Assessment of Significance

25      This matter is not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is addressing the actions required relating to the development of the Venture Southland business plan for the period from 1 July 2018 to 1 February 2019 given the previous decision of Council to exit the Venture Southland Heads of Agreement.

Recommended Option

26      It is recommended Council adopt Option 1 and receive the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

Next Steps

27      Council staff will inform Venture Southland management that Council has received the Venture Southland 2018-2019 Work Programme for the period 1 July 2018 - 31 January 2019.

 

Attachments

a             Venture Southland work programme July 2018 to 31 Jan 2019    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 



Council

18 April 2018

 

Balfour Area Guardrail Project Update

Record No:             R/18/4/8092

Author:                      Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To update Council on the progress of the Balfour Area Guardrail project and to seek clarification and direction on the levels of services when replacing bridge hand rails or site rails with a safety barrier system.

Executive Summary

2        A report was presented to the Services and Assets Committee on 15 November 2017 outlining the remainder of the Transport Programme for the 2017/18 construction season. As part of the programme a guardrail package was approved for the instillation of guardrails in the Balfour Area.

3        Subsequent to the award of the tender a concern has been raised around one site in particular (Keowns Bridge), due to the width of the one lane bridge. The installation of guardrail would narrow the width of the ‘free board’ beyond the wheel arches as the current handrail system is flared away from the bridge. Further, the proposed installation would reduce the height of the guardrail protection and increase the risk for farmers who utilise the bridge to move stock.

4        The main concern relates to large farming vehicles crossing the bridge causing damage to the barrier system. Taking this factor into account along with the approach topography and angles to the bridge it has been considered that the guardrail on the bridge be offset further back (beyond the design standard) to reduce the risk of vehicle strike by large farming equipment and implements.

5                 On balance of risk and probability it is recommended that the project proceed with the installation of the guardrail and recess the guardrail on the bridge as far back as safely practicable recognising that the higher likelihood of area crash sits with the approaches which would be compliant with NZTA standards.  It is anticipated that this solution will be acceptable to NZTA and as such their portion of funding for the project will not be at risk.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Balfour Area Guardrail Project Update” dated 12 April 2018.

 

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)           Allows for the installation of guardrail at Keowns Bridge with a modified offset as much as practicably safe on the bridge to mitigate against accidental vehicle strike.

 

e)            Allows for the installation of handrail system to assist with stock movement but at the expense of the interested party or parties and provided it does not compromise road user safety.

 

Background

6        A report was presented to the Services and Assets Committee on 15 November 2017 outlining the remainder of the Transport Programme for the 2017/18 construction season. As part of the programme a guardrail package was approved for the installation of guardrails in the Balfour Area.

7        The packaged covered the installation of guardrail along Glenure Road over the Waimea stream and Keowns Bridge road over the Mataura River (attachment A).

8        The two sites where selected through the drop off prioritisation tool which takes into account, traffic volumes, crash history, consequence of crashing, geometry and drop-off. Other factor such as current asset condition of handrails and site rails are also taken into account.

9        A particular concern has been raised around the Keowns Bridge site due to the width of the one lane bridge only being 3.8m kerb to kerb.

10      The current wooden handrails are attached to the outside of the bridge and flared away from bridge providing a greater level of width beyound the kerb than what would be provided with a safety barrier system which could provide some leverage for ‘overhanging’ implements.

11      It should be noted that wheel guards are not installed for the purposes of being driven on but rather to aid in confining vehicle movement and the instillation of a guardrail system does not reduce the design of the trafficable lane width i.e. kerb to kerb will remain at 3.8m.


 

Issues

12      Following the award of the tender concerns have been raised around this project in particular the height of the guardrail (730mm to top of the rail) versus the current handrail height (1400mm to the top of the current rail). The main concern with this relates to the risk posed to stock while droving animals across the bridge.

13      The second issue relates to the gap (width) between handrails. Keowns Bridge is a one lane bridge (3.8m between kerbs) the concern is that larger farm vehicles and implements would strike the guardrails.

Discussion

14      The handrails have reached the end of its useful life with several section in urgent need of replacement. When considering the priority of the site using the guardrail prioritisation tool along with the cost to replace like with like (approximately $50,000) with no improvement to road safety the site was recommended for guardrail instillation.

15      It is recognised that the current handrail setup provides a greater area of ‘free board’ compared to what guardrail system beyond the edge of the kerb however it is total ineffective when it comes to road user safety.

16      While there are many examples of bridges around the district and other roading networks with similar handrails these are historic in nature and where not design with motor vehicle safety in mind. These handrail systems are not considered an effective safe barrier system for motor vehicles, especially in higher speed environments (open road).

17      The issues of stock movement is also acknowledged however there is currently no approved handrail systems that can be attached guardrail.

18      From research and enquiries a bolt on systems is available which would add a railing systems to the existing guardrail however this has not been tested and as such is not classified as NZTA approved.

19      For Keowns Bridge adding on the system would cost approximately $20,000. This does raise design issues and precedent setting as to what level of services and design should be followed.

20      As an example should allowance be made for sheep only or should the design be catering for the cattle and deer?

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

21      Council have entered into a contract for these works. The first portion of works covering Glenure Road has been completed and paid for.

22      If the contract is terminated prior to the remainder of the work being completed this will result in a cost to Council. The condition of contract is based on NZS 3910:2013 - Contract for building and civil engineering construction.


 

23      Under the contract condition the contractor would be entitled to claim for items such as the cost of material ordered for the work, cost reasonably incurred but not covered by other payments already made, costs resulting from the termination to compensate the contractor for disruption if not provided for in the contract.

24      The potential costs are discussed further under the Costs and Funding.

Community Views

25      No specific community views have been sought for this project.

Costs and Funding

26      The total contract value awarded was $250,551.50 with the Keowns Bridge component making up $142,823.90 which includes $10,000 contingency.

27      Using the scheduled contract rates the cost for the supply and installed of the guardrail alone is $84,889.

28      The posts on the bridge have specifically been manufactured to suite the site as the centre of the W-beam needs to be 635mm above ground level to comply with NZTA standards. The bridge section makes up $54,842.80 of the $84,889.

29      If the contract was terminated in its current state Council would at a very minimum be liable to pay the contractor for the materials. This is estimated to be around $43,000.

30      If the project does not proceed this financial year the NZTA portion would also be lost and this equates to $74268.43.

Policy Implications

31      The outcome of the decision on whether to proceed with this guardrail projects will be setting a precent on Council placing higher importance around the accessibility of large agricultural vehicles over general road user safety when it comes to barrier systems i.e. convenience is considered a higher priority than road safety.

32      In recent years single lane bridges have successfully had handrails systems replaced with guardrail systems. One such example is on Papatotara Coast Road (3.8m kerb to kerb).

33      It is also worth noting that a change in approach will most likely be at odds with the new draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport which places road safety as the highest priority.

34      The project was tendered and evaluated under the NZTA Lowest Price Conforming Tender process and in compliance with Council’s Procurement Policy.

35      The activity forms part of the overall annual roading programme.

Analysis

Options Considered

36      Three main options have been considered around the replacement option. Retain the current timber hand rail structure, continue with the current design and thirdly implemented a slightly modified options of the current design to mitigate against the risk of accidental vehicle strike by large agricultural equipment.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Maintain the Status Quo (Timber Handrail)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Maintain current width and reduce the risk of vehicle strike by larger farming equipment.

·        No improvement to road safety.

·        Cost liability due to contract termination.

·        Does not align with new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

 

Option 2 – Proceed with current design

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Improve road safety

·        Minimal to no hold up with the contract

·        Utilise available NZTA funding

·        Limit liability for early contract termination

·        May provide some limitation to larger farming equipment. Increase risk of accidental vehicle damage.

·       

 

Option 3 – Proceed but offset the face of the guardrail on the bridge

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Improve road safety

·        Minimal to no hold up with the contract

·        Utilise available NZTA funding

·        Limit liability for early contract termination

·        May provide some limitation to larger farming equipment. Increase risk of accidental vehicle damage but less than option 2.

·        Not fully compliant with guardrail instillation standard

 

37      On balance of risk and probability it is recommended that the project proceed with the installation of the guardrail and recess the guardrail on the bridge as far back as safely practicable (Option 3) recognising that the higher likelihood of area crash rest sits with the approaches which would be compliant with NZTA standards.

Assessment of Significance

38      Based on the Council’s Policy on Significance and given that any decision made is in line with the Annual Plan and budget expectations, it is believed that the decision made based on this recommendation is not significant.

Recommended Option

39      It is recommended to proceed with the project in its current form with a slight modification to be made by offsetting the guardrail on the bridge much as safely possibly to mitigate against the risk of accidental vehicle strike by large agricultural machinery.

40      The installation of a handrails system can be considered on a case by case basis but all cost associated with this including installation shall be at the expense of the interested party or parties.

Next Steps

41      Formally notify the contractor to proceed with the project.

 

Attachments

a             Keowns Bridge Guardrail Location    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Harvesting Trees at the Mossburn Cemetery.

Record No:             R/18/4/8215

Author:                      Ian Marshall, Senior Projects Manager

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval to harvest trees on the Mossburn Cemetery site and for replanting of the same area into production forest.

Executive Summary

2        The report discusses the background to trees on the property at 20 Cemetery Road being – Mossburn Cemetery.  It proposes that the trees be harvested and the land be replanted.  The net revenue from the trees harvest and replanting will be added to the Mossburn Community Development Area financial reserves.

3        The Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee has considered this matter and has resolved to recommend to Council that the trees be harvested.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Harvesting Trees at the Mossburn Cemetery.” dated 12 April 2018.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised 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 proposal to harvest the trees on the property at 20 Cemetery Road being - Mossburn Cemetery.

 

e)            Notes that the estimated net return from the harvesting operation is $70,995 and that the revenue from the harvesting and replanting process will be added to the Mossburn Community Development Area financial reserves.

 

f)             Approves the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee recommendation that the net revenue from this harvest and all subsequent harvests be used for the benefit of the Mossburn Community Centre.

 

g)           Approves the unbudgeted expenditure of $7,650 to replant the harvested area and that this be funded from the harvesting operation funds.

 

Background

4        The Council owns the property at 20 Cemetery Road being - Mossburn Cemetery (Section 12, Block III, Mossburn Survey District. Area = 4.4514 ha)

5        Ownership of the trees is therefore with the Southland District Council through the Mossburn CDA Subcommittee. As this property is locally funded, all expenditure liability for the trees rest with the CDA Subcommittee and conversely any revenue from the trees will go to the Subcommittee. There is a plantation of trees on the property that were planted for the purposes of creating revenue. 

6        A report on the status of the land and trees was considered by the CDA Subcommittee on the 20th July 2015.  This report is attached as Attachment A.

7        The minutes of the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee dated 19 March 2018 records;

8.4     Mossburn Cemetery - Forestry Appraisal

          Chairman Guyton reported that One Forest has submitted an estimate for the 4.5 hectare block of 30 year old trees at the Mossburn Cemetery to be harvested.

 

          Mr Guyton advised that the estimate return for the trees is $70,995 with the windrowing and replanting costs at approximately $1700 per ha. 

 

Resolution

 

Moved Member MacKenzie, seconded Member Newlands and resolved:

 

That the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee:

 

a)      Receives the communication titled “Mossburn Cemetery Forestry Appraisal” dated the 19 March 2018.

 

b)      Requests staff to prepare a report on harvesting the trees accordingly.

 

8        Subsequently a report was prepared and presented to the Mossburn CDA meeting on Tuesday 10th April 2018.  The Subcommittee resolved;

 

Moved Chairman Guyton, seconded Member Mackenzie

That the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Mossburn Cemetery Trees” dated 6 April 2018.

 

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

 

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)        Recommends to Council that the proposal from One Forest to harvest the trees on the property at 20 Cemetery Road being - Mossburn Cemetery, be accepted including the harvesting and the replanting.

 

e)         Notes that the net revenue from the harvesting and replanting process will be added to the Mossburn Community Development Area financial reserves.

 

f)         Recommends to Council that the net revenue from this harvest and all subsequent harvests be used for the benefit of the Mossburn Community Centre.

 

Issues

9        The issue is the trees at the cemetery property are at maturity so a proposal has been obtained from the Council’s forestry manager, IFS and their harvesting company One Forest, to harvest the trees and to replant the area.

10      The CDA Subcommittee is supportive of the trees being harvested.

11      The CDA Subcommittee does not have authority to make a decision to harvest and replant trees.  Therefore it was necessary for the CDA Subcommittee to recommend to Council that approval be given for the harvesting and replanting of the trees.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12      A report prepared for the CDA in 2015 describes the history of the land ownership and identifies the current status. The report states;

20 Cemetery Road - Mossburn Cemetery (Section 12, Block III, Mossburn Survey District. Area = 4.4514 ha.

In 1994 the Mossburn Cemetery Trust initiated action to terminate its “Control and Management” of the Mossburn Cemetery.  NZ Gazette 1995 No. 107 page 3393 dated 21 September 1995 appointed the Southland District Council to “Control and Manage” the cemetery, by virtue of Section 53 (1) of the Burial and Cremations Act 1964. This vests that land in the Southland District Council for cemetery purposes. Ownership of the trees is therefore with the Southland District Council through the Mossburn CDA Subcommittee. As this property is locally funded, all expenditure liability for the trees rest with the CDA Subcommittee and conversely any revenue from the trees will go to the Subcommittee.

 

Community Views

13      There has been no specific community consultation on this proposal.  The CDA Subcommittee members are considered to represent the community views on this matter.

Costs and Funding

14      The harvest estimate supplied by IFS, One Forest is in the same form as harvest estimates supplied to Council for its production forests.  The net revenue is estimated to be $70,995.  This takes into account the costs of harvesting, transport and roading requirements.

15      However it does not allow for replanting which is estimated to be $1,700 per Ha.  Given the plot is 4.5Ha the estimated cost of planting is $7,650. Council approval is being sought for this unbudgeted expenditure.

Policy Implications

16      The most relevant policy is the asset management of the cemetery.  There are no asset management issues that are in conflict with the concept of harvesting and replanting the area.

Analysis

Options Considered

17      The three simple options are to harvest or not and to replant or not.


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Harvest the trees and replant

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Revenue is gained from the trees.

·        Advantage is taken of the very good log prices being offered at the moment.

·        A future revenue stream will be created.

·        Aesthetically the site will be “untidy” until the new trees establish height in three to five years.

·        Costs will be incurred to replant.

 

Option 2 – Not harvest the trees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Aesthetically the site remains appearing as a mature forest.

·        No revenue is gained.

·        The trees will degrade as they go beyond maturity.

 

Option 3 – Harvest and not replant

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Revenue is gained from the trees.

·        Advantage is taken of the very good log prices being offered at the moment.

·        No costs are incurred in replanting.

·        The site will be need land management of some form to control vegetation growth including pest plants.

·        No future revenue stream will be created.

 

Assessment of Significance

18      This issue is considered to be not significant.

Recommended Option

19      Option 1 is recommended which is to engage IFS, One Forest to harvest the trees and replant the area as production forest.  This option is recommended to Council for approval. 

Next Steps

20      IFS, One Forest will be advised of acceptance of their proposal and engaged to carry out the work.  The work will be carried out under the Councils agreement with One Forest for harvesting agreed forest plots.

 

Attachments

a             Mossburn Forestry Blocks- Report to Mossburn CDA    

 


Council

18 April 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Minutes of the Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 9 February 2018

Record No:             R/18/4/7530

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Otautau Community Board meeting held 9 February 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 9 February 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Minutes of the Riverton/Aparima Community Board Meeting dated 12 February 2018

Record No:             R/18/4/7916

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Riverton/Aparima Community Board meeting held 12 February 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Riverton/Aparima Community Board Meeting dated 12 February 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Minutes of the Tuatapere Community Board Meeting dated 13 February 2018

Record No:             R/18/4/8090

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Tuatapere Community Board meeting held 13 February 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Tuatapere Community Board Meeting dated 13 February 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

18 April 2018

 

Minutes of the Riverton Harbour Subcommittee Meeting dated 16 October 2017

Record No:             R/18/3/5487

Author: