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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Friday, 20 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

20 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                5

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                5

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             5

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         5

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        5

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                                             5

Reports - Policy and Strategy

Nil

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Dog Registration Fees for 2018/2019                                                                                                     7

8.2         Approval for Unbudgeted Expenditure - Pathways Module for New Dogs                  15

8.3         Predator Free Rakiura- Council approval to receive and administer Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment funding                                                                                                 19

8.4         Report seeking Council endorsement of Museum Support Agreement for Wyndham and Districts Historical Society Incorporated                                                                                          35

Reports - Governance

9.1         Initial Proposal and Consultation Booklet for the 2018 Representation Review      47

9.2         Southland Regional Development Agency                                                                                   151   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       168

C10.1    Removal of Ouvea Premix

 


Council

20 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

There are no minutes to confirm.

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Dog Registration Fees for 2018/2019

Record No:             R/18/3/5184

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To set the dog control fees for the 2018/2019 year.

 

Executive Summary

2        Council’s dog control fees must be prescribed by resolution.  It is proposed to continue the current 2017/2018 fees for the 2018/2019 year.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Dog Registration Fees for 2018/2019” dated 23 March 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)           Sets the dog control fees in Attachment A for the 2018/2019 registration year. 

 

e)            Publicly notifies the fees in the Fiordland Advocate during the weeks starting 4 June 2018 and 18 June 2018. 

 

f)             Delegates authority to the Chief Executive and the Group Manager – Environmental Services to authorise rehoming providers, taking into account the following criteria:

i)          the provider is a suitable, reputable, legal, and non-commercial entity; and

ii)        the purposes and objectives of the provider are suitable; and

iii)       the suitability of premises operated by the provider; and

iv)       consideration of any other services provided by the provider; and

v)        the resourcing and experience of the provider.

 

g)           Authorises an incentive prize draw to encourage more dog owners to register their dogs online.

 

h)           Authorises payments to authorised rehoming providers, relating to dogs impounded by Council, for their costs relating to:

i)          Dog registration fees for other Councils; and

ii)        Sustenance costs while in their care for the first 7 days; and

iii)       Veterinary costs for dogs that require specialist care.

 

Background

3        The Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to set dog control fees.  The Council currently has approximately 13,000 registered dogs within its District.

4        The Dog Control service operates a register of dogs, investigates complaints about dogs, monitors the District, and promotes responsible dog ownership. 

5        The Dog Control business unit is staffed by a manager, one full-time and part-time dog control officer, a part-time ranger, and a customer services officer.  Support services are provided by a contractor (Armourguard) and via a shared service with the Invercargill City Council.

6        Council has a combined dog pound with the Invercargill City Council.  Council has a licence to occupy the pound with an exclusive licence to use five of the 28 kennels. 

 

Issues

Continuation of fees

7        It is proposed to continue the dog registration fees for 2018/2019 at the same level as 2017/2018 fees. The proposed fees for 2018/2019 are in Attachment A. 

 

Rates

8        Dog control is funded from dog registration fees, infringements, and fees and charges. There is no rates funding for dog control.

9        While Council may consider a rates contribution at a later date, this is not being considered during the current LTP cycle.

 

Discounts

10      The number of non-working dogs that qualified for the discounts is shown in the graph below.

 

 

11      The last two bars above mean the number of dogs that did not have any discounts, and the number that had all three discounts applied.

 

Rehoming providers

12      Council’ s current fees provide as follows:

 

A dog impounded by SDC released to a SDC authorised rehoming provider for either fostering or rehoming (initial registration only)

 

Free

 

13      In order to more accurately reflect practice, it is proposed to change the wording to:

 

Registration fee for a dog that is required to be registered with SDC, that has been impounded by SDC, and released to a SDC authorised rehoming provider (initial registration only)

 

Free

 

14      For clarity, this report recommends that Council makes a delegation to permit the CEO, or the GM – Environmental Services, to authorise rehoming providers on behalf of Council.  Some criteria are suggested in the recommendation of this report.

15      Currently Council has not authorised any rehoming providers, and this delegation will permit Council to readily authorise providers.

16      It is reasonable that Council reimburses a rehoming provider for the following costs:

a)   Initial registration fees for other Councils; and

b)   Sustenance fees while in their care for the first 7 days; and

c)   Veterinary fees for dogs that require specialist care.

17      Council would be required to pay sustenance and veterinary fees if the dogs were in Council’s pound, and so these payments are like for like. Concerning paying the registration fees for other Councils, the alternative would be paying more for euthanasia fees.

18      The Council’s rehoming arrangements with Furever Homes have had a significant positive animal welfare effect. Over the last several years Council has had a near 100% rehoming success rate of dogs, with the few dogs that are not considered suitable for rehoming being euthanised by a vet. This is not only a great result for dog welfare, but also morale benefits for Council’s Animal Control staff that infrequently have to arrange euthanasia.

19      From 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, 141 SDC dogs were impounded. Of these 110 were released back to their owners, 29 were rehomed via Furever Homes, and 2 were euthanised. 

 

Incentive to register online

20      It is highly desirable to increase the number of dog owners registering their dogs online. Benefits are:

·    Less staff time in processing an application = less cost

·    High accuracy – this also results in less cost, due to less time following up on errors

21      Staff recommend that a prize draw is conducted this year, to increase the number of online applications. It is proposed that 20 free dog registrations are promoted as prizes for dog owners that apply online by 1 July 2018. This will involve refunding the dog registration of the dogs that are selected from the draw. Assuming that the dogs selected qualified for all three discounts, then the fees refunded would total $600. 

22      Applying online means that the dog owner, once receiving the registration pack in the post, goes onto Council’s website to the “Payments” shortcut, and then pays for the dog registration using a credit/debit card.   Owners that register by this method are not required to send back their registration form.

23      In 2017/18, about 22% of dogs were registered online. For the efficiency reasons as outlined above, the Council is seeking to increase this number and it is considered that any lost revenue as referred to in 17 above will be more than made up for in the benefits of reduced staff time and greater efficiencies involved.

 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

24      Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996, is concerned with fee setting, and is attached to this report in Attachment B. 

25      The Council is legally required to set the fees by resolution and to subsequently publicly notify these fees.

26      The prize draw is a ‘Sales Promotion Scheme’ under the Gambling Act 2003, as defined in Section 4 of that Act. Sales Promotions Schemes are authorised under Section 18 of that Act.

 

Community Views

27      Members of the community will have an opportunity to express their views on the registration fees when they are publicly notified. 

Costs and Funding

28      The dog control service is funded mainly from registration fees, and also from infringements, and fees and charges.  Council has resolved that dog control is to be fully funded by fees and charges. 

Policy Implications

29      There are no specific policy and plan considerations.

Analysis

Options Considered

30      There are no options, Council must set dog control fees by resolution and may make any changes to the proposed fees in Attachment A as it sees fit. 


 

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – That Council sets the dog control fees in Attachment A for the 2018/2019 registration year, with any amendments as it sees fit.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The recommended fees are considered suitable for the District. 

•   None identified. 

 

Assessment of Significance

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

Recommended Option

32      Not applicable. 

Next Steps

33      Council’s decision will be publicly notified in the Fiordland Advocate and also on Council’s website; and the fees will come into effect on 1 July 2018. 

 

 

Attachments

a             Proposed Dog Control Registration Fee Schedule 2018/19

b             Section 37 of the Dog Control Act    

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

DOG CONTROL FEE SCHEDULE

 

EFFECTIVE 1 JULY 2018

 

(All fees GST inclusive)

 

 

 

 

 

Registration - Dog (non-working)

 

$90.00

Discounts

 

 

(a)     The dog is spayed or neutered

 

-$10.00

(b)     The dog is in a fenced or controlled property

 

-$20.00

(c)     Responsible owner (according to Council’s criteria) and microchipped dog

 

-$30,00

Registration fee inclusive of (a), (b) and (c)

 

$30.00

Registration - Working Dog

 

$30.00

Late Registration - All Dogs

 

50%

Registration fee for a dog that is required to be registered with SDC, that has been impounded by SDC, and released to a SDC authorised rehoming provider (initial registration only)

 

Free

 

Dog Control Fees

 

 

(a)

Dog hearing lodgement fee

 

$100.00

(b)

Multiple dog licence application fee

 

$50.00

(c)

Sale of collars

 

$9.00

 

(d)

Withdrawal of infringement fee, per infringement

 

$30.00

 

Microchipping

 

 

(a)

Microchipping of a dog registered by SDC

 

Free

(b)

Commercial breeders that require more than four pups to be microchipped per registration year

 

$30.00 per dog,

for the fifth and

subsequent dog

Dog Impounding Fees

 

 

(a)

Impounding of dogs

 

$100.00

(b)

Sustenance of impounded dog per day or part thereof

 

$20.00

(c)

Euthanasia

 

$40.00

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Section 37 Dog Control Act 1996

Territorial authority to set fees

(1)        The dog control fees payable to a territorial authority shall be those reasonable fees prescribed by resolution of that authority for the registration and control of dogs under this Act.

(2)     Any resolution made under subsection (1) may—

(a)        fix fees for neutered dogs that are lower than the fee for dogs that have not been neutered:

(b)        fix fees for working dogs that are lower than the fee for any other dog, and may limit the number of working dogs owned by any person which qualify for lower fees under this section:

(c)        fix different fees for the various classes of working dogs:

(d)        fix fees for dogs under a specified age (not exceeding 12 months) that are lower than the fee that would otherwise be payable for those dogs:

(e)        fix, for any dog that is registered by any person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of any dog control officer that that person has a specified level of competency in terms of responsible dog ownership, a fee that is lower than the fee that would otherwise be payable for that dog:

(f)        fix by way of penalty, subject to subsection (3), an additional fee, for the registration on or after the first day of the second month of the registration year or such later date as the authority may fix, of any dog that was required to be registered on the first day of that registration year:

(g)        fix a fee for the issue of a replacement registration label or disc for any dog.

(3)        Any additional fee by way of penalty fixed under subsection (2)(f) shall not exceed 50% of the fee that would have been payable if the dog had been registered on the first day of the registration year.

(4)        In prescribing fees under this section, the territorial authority shall have regard to the relative costs of the registration and control of dogs in the various categories described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2), and such other matters as the territorial authority considers relevant.

(5)        Where any 2 or more territorial authorities have formed a joint standing or joint special committee in accordance with section 7, the resolution of that committee under subsection (1) may fix different fees in respect of dogs kept in the different districts, having regard to the costs of registration and dog control in the districts concerned.

(6)        The territorial authority shall, at least once during the month preceding the start of every registration year, publicly notify in a newspaper circulating in its district the dog control fees fixed for the registration year.

(7)        Failure by the territorial authority to give the public notice required by subsection (6), or the occurrence of any error or misdescription in such public notice, shall not affect the liability of any person to comply with this Act or to pay any fee that is prescribed by the territorial authority under subsection (1).

(8)        No increase in the dog control fees for any year shall come into effect other than at the commencement of that year.”


Council

20 April 2018

 

Approval for Unbudgeted Expenditure - Pathways Module for New Dogs

Record No:             R/18/3/6691

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To obtain Council’s approval for unbudgeted expenditure.

Executive Summary

2        A Pathways module is available that would enable Council to register new dogs online.  This module is a step forward towards Council’s goals of increased online lodgement and processing.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Approval for Unbudgeted Expenditure - Pathways Module for New Dogs” dated 11 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)           Approves the unbudgeted expenditure of $16,568.18 (excl. GST) for the purchase of the new dogs Pathways module.  

 

Background

3        The Environmental Services Group recently completed a Section 17A review, with a key outcome being the need for greater online delivery of services. The report advised:

Online and mobile service delivery and increasing use of technology in the field for efficiency and improved health and safety are changing the face of how councils operate and interact with their customers and communities.  In an increasingly digital world, customer expectations are changing rapidly, with the demand for electronic services on the rise and increased expectations of reduced timeframes and costs.

SDC has electronic processing capability through the use of internal software ‘Pathway’ but does not have an online lodgement, payment or application tool available for the community.

And,

The unique challenges facing the Southland District, such as geographic spread and physical access to services, is further complicated by recent changes to the New Zealand Post service, significantly increasing the time it takes to complete manual application and consent processes. 

 

Online services and electronic processing abilities provide an opportunity to better reach the community and deliver services with greater convenience and automation, improving the customer experience and driving internal efficiencies. 

 

Engaging with customers online also presents opportunities for improving the frequency and quality of community feedback about Council services.  For example, customers could complete a short online survey at the conclusion of an application or consent process, removing the barriers to engaging (such as the current postal survey) and providing fast, relevant data.

 

4        There is a Pathways module that is available but has not been purchased by Council, which allows new dogs to be registered online. Currently only existing dogs can be registered on Council’s website.

5        Council registers over 2,000 new dogs every year on average. 

6        Incidentally, staff are investigating the implementation of a software product that allows customers to make payments using bank to bank.  Currently only credit cards may be used on Council’s payments page of our website. The author may be able to update Council on whether this will be available for this year’s dog registrations, at this meeting.

Issues

Increasing online processing

7        The purchase of this module is a step forward in the direction of increased online lodgement and processing.  This has been identified as a significant issue in the Section 17A review, and subsequently also in the Environmental Services Activity Management Plans. 

8        The benefits of this are summarised in the analysis of options below.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9        There are no legal considerations which are a barrier to implementing this module.

10      Concerning the need for certain forms to be signed, Council’s legal advisor has previously advised that Electronic Transactions Act permits electronic signatures; that can be captured for example in a banking transaction.

Community Views

11      Not required.  However as identified in the Section 17A review, customer expectations are changing rapidly, with the demand for electronic services on the rise and increased expectations of reduced timeframes and costs. This module is customer friendly, as it will enable dog owners who prefer to register their new dogs online, to do so.

Costs and Funding

12      The module has a one off fee of $16,568.18 (excl. GST); and an annual 20% maintenance fee. It is proposed that the Animal Control business unit will fund the new dogs module. At the time of writing, the Animal Control business unit reserve is $95,000.

13      It is expected that this product will pay for itself in a short time, as online registrations are significantly more efficient than registrations over the counter or by post.

Policy Implications

14      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

Option 1 – Purchase of new dogs Pathways module

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Promotes greater use of online lodgement and payment, and this conforms with Council’s future direction

·      Efficiencies, with less staff time required in processing, error correction and tracking

·      Ease of doing business

·      A number of Southlanders do not have credit cards, and so cannot use Council’s online payments

·      Increased internal effectiveness

·      Customer focussed

·        Purchase cost of module

 

Option 2 – Status quo

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Savings in not purchasing the module

 

·        Advantages above not realised

 

Assessment of Significance

15      Not significant.

Recommended Option

16      Option 1 - that the module is purchased.

Next Steps

17      If Council approves the expenditure, staff will arrange purchase and implementation.  Whether this module can be operational for this year’s dog registration period will depend on both the supplier and SDC staff resourcing for implementation/testing.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Predator Free Rakiura- Council approval to receive and administer Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment funding

Record No:             R/18/3/6334

Author:                      Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval toreceive unbudgeted income from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for the creation of the Predator Free Rakiura Project Manager - Community role, and for the Council to act as administrator of this funding, including fulfilling reporting-back requirements to MBIE.

Executive Summary

2        The Predator Free Rakiura Leadership Group (PFR LG) recently lodged an application with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for $100,000 (excluding GST) of funding to create a Project Manager role to progress the Predator Free Rakiura project.

3        This application was successful. This is very positive for Stewart Island/Rakiura, as during recent collaborative community and interagency work which the Council has been involved in, the advancement of predator free concepts was seen as a major environmental and socio-economic opportunity for the future of the Stewart Island/Rakiura community.

4        Council approval is hence now sought to receive this unbudgeted income, and for Council to act as administrator of this funding, including fulfilling reporting-back requirements to MBIE.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Predator Free Rakiura- Council approval to receive and administer Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment funding” dated 11 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)           Approves the receipt of the unbudgeted income of $100,000 excluding GST from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for the Predator Free Rakiura Project Manager role.

 

e)            Agrees to act as funding administrator for this role, and for Council staff to fulfil the reporting back requirements to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in relation to this funding.

 

f)             Authorises the Chief Executive to sign the funding agreement with Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

 

 

Background

5        Councillors will no doubt be generally aware of the Predator Free Rakiura (hereafter PFR) Project which came into being approximately four years ago.

6        This is an inter-agency initiative to seek to progress predator- free work on Stewart Island/Rakiura; including representatives from DOC, local community representatives, aquaculture representatives, Ngai Tahu, Rakiura Maori Lands Trust and Rakiura Titi Islands Administering Body, Environment Southland, Real Journeys and the Southland District Council. The Group Manager of Environmental Services has been the SDC representative. This group has been recently renamed as the PFR Leadership Group (PFR LG). The current chair is Mr Paul Norris of Real Journeys.

7        An application was prepared to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for $100,000 excluding GST of funding for the creation of a Project Manager position for PFR.

8        This application was coordinated through Mr Phil Tisch, Partnerships Manager at DOC, with a subcommittee of the PFR LG also providing input to the formulation of the application.

9        The PFR LG has recently been advised that this application was successful.

10      This is very positive for the future progression of this work on Stewart Island/Rakiura. As Councillors will be aware, some SDC elected representatives and staff have been involved in a recent significant broader consultation process with the community, which flowed from the recent bonamia outbreak. This sought to identify future socio-economic opportunities for the Stewart Island/Rakiura community. The advancement of initiatives to seek to make Stewart Island/Rakiura predator free came through these processes as having strong community support and the potential for significant socio-economic benefit. This project also has broad alignment with the SoRDS Action Plan.

11      A series of technical background papers have been prepared for the PFR LG with significant support from the Department of Conservation (DOC). These will assist in informing and guiding the future direction of the project. DOC has been a very strong and significant supporter of the PFR project, bearing in mind the project’s close links to the broader Predator Free 2050 goal which DOC is working towards.

12      Attached as Appendix A is the draft funding agreement with MBIE. This outlines the scope of the agreement, including reporting-back requirements and the focus areas for the position itself.

13      It is intended that the Department of Conservation will oversee this role on a day to day basis, initially via Mr Tisch, Partnerships Manager at DOC. Hence, the Council’s role will be to act as funding manager and to fulfil the reporting back requirements of MBIE in relation to this funding. This was agreed through discussions between the Chief Executive and MBIE and DOC senior management. A separate Memorandum of Understanding will be prepared between DOC and SDC over day to day matters such as payment of salary, managerial oversight and dispute resolution processes.

Issues

14      An issue with the receipt of this funding is that it creates an additional fund administration responsibility for Council, which it does not currently have. However, this is seen as an important position to progress the PFR work and hence the Council acting as fund administrator will assist this occurring.

15      Ongoing funding of this position is not guaranteed, and would be dependent on demonstrating progress and securing future funding, which may or may not include MBIE as a funding source.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16      There is no statutory requirement for Council to be involved in this process, nor to receive this funding.

17      However, it is considered that this will assist the PFR LG to advance predator free work which has significant potential to yield broad environmental and socio-economic benefits to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community and to assist with the delivery of the SoRDS Action Plan.

Community Views

18      In the recent community leadership planning process, undertaken by consultant Sandra James, on Stewart Island/Rakiura, the advancement of predator free work received strong community support, coming through as the second-most supported concept.

19      There is no statutory requirement to consult the community in relation to whether or not the Council should act as administrator of the funding.

Costs and Funding

20      As referred to above if the recommendation is agreed to by Council, the Council will receive $100,000 excluding GST of funding from the Ministry, to fund salary and administration costs of the position for one year. Ongoing future funding is not guaranteed beyond this initial one year period.

21      As outlined in Clause 7.1 of the agreement funding will be payable by MBIE in 3 instalments when key milestones are achieved, with $50,000 payable on signing.

Policy Implications

22      There are no specific policy implications, although it is consistent with Council’s general approach that any additional funding administration roles such as this should be considered at elected representative level.

 

Analysis

Options Considered

23      Options are either to agree to receive and administer this funding or not to receive and administer this funding.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Receive and administer the MBIE funding

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Supports “ leading the way” with the environmental and socio-economic advancement of Stewart Island/Rakiura

·        Supports delivery of the SoRDS Action Plan

·        Show support for the interagency PFR LG

·        Strengthens relationships with iwi and with other stakeholders 

·        Creates a further administrative function for Council

·        Involves a level of exposure/risk (e.g. financial and potentially reputational ) for Council which it would not incur if it did not fulfil this role

 

Option 2 – Not receive and administer the MBIE funding

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Does not expose Council to any risks associated with performing this role 

·        Does not support “ leading the way” with the environmental and socio-economic advancement of Stewart Island/Rakiura nor the SoRDS Action Plan

·        Does not show support for the interagency PFR LG

·        Does not strengthen relationships with iwi and with other stakeholders 

 

Assessment of Significance

24      This matter is not considered significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommended Option

25      Option 1- that the Council receives and administers the funding from MBIE for the Predator Free Rakiura Project Manager role and agrees for Council staff to fulfil the reporting back requirements to MBIE in relation to this funding.

Next Steps

26      The Council decision will be communicated back to MBIE. If Option 1 is agreed, the creation of the position description and the progression of the recruitment process will continue.

 

Attachments

a             Draft Funding Agreement - Predator Free Rakiura - Project Manager    

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 April 2018

 

Report seeking Council endorsement of Museum Support Agreement for Wyndham and Districts Historical Society Incorporated

Record No:             R/18/3/6583

Author:                      Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of the Museum Support agreement between the Southland Regional Heritage Committee and the Wyndham and Districts Historical Society Incorporated, which proposes that the Southland District Council acts as agent for the Southland Regional Heritage Committee.

Executive Summary

2        Councillors will be aware of the regional heritage cataloguing project which is a key priority for the Southland Regional Heritage Committee (SRHC), and which is currently going by the name of “Project Ark”.

3        It is proposed that the Wyndham and Districts Historical Society (WDHS) be the pilot museum for this project, and a support agreement has been prepared between the SRHC and the WDHS. This museum is located within the Southland District and hence the Council’s approval is sought to this agreement as agent for the SRHC.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Report seeking Council endorsement of Museum Support Agreement for Wyndham and Districts Historical Society Incorporated” dated 11 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)           Approves the Museum Support Agreement.

 

e)            Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to execute this document on behalf of the Council.

 

Background

4        Councillors will be aware that a key focus of the Southland Regional Heritage Committee has been on a regional cataloguing project. This project aims to consistently catalogue and record all heritage items held by Southland museums into a single consistent repository, and to ensure that digital cataloguing and packing is consistent and coordinated. This project is currently going by the name of “Project Ark”.

5        As part of this process, consideration has been given to which museum within Southland could logically form the ‘pilot project’ for Project Ark.

6        The Wyndham and Districts Historical Society Incorporated has been selected as the pilot project by SRHC, based on analysis of a combination of collection significance and collection vulnerability.

7        On this basis a Museum Support Agreement has been prepared by Mr David Luoni the Project Ark Manager, and has been signed by the WDHS. This agreement is important in managing matters such as the expectations of the respective parties, and intellectual property.

8        For example, the intention of Project Ark is that collection information will be publicly available, unless there are specific reasons (e.g. Iwi cultural sensitivity) where this may not be appropriate. This is reflected in the content of Clause 2.1.4.

9        Similarly, the intention of Project Ark is also to apply a consistency of approach to collection management, to assist Museum Committees to decide what they collect, keep and let go (see Clause 3.1.2).

10      These approaches are seeking to position Southland heritage collections at a regional level so they are protected for the future, digitally available for the public, and also well positioned for a future regional storage facility, if and when such a facility is developed.

11      Project Ark is developing a pool of skilled cataloguers which will ensure a consistent approach to the project. These cataloguers would be working from a premises ( yet to be determined)  in Wyndham for the duration of the project ; and only accessing the existing Wyndham Museum building on a limited/as required basis bearing in mind the earthquake-prone nature of the Museum building.

12      Mr Luoni has provided the following further background in support of this request:

“Implementing Project Ark’s Pilot requires the Southland Regional Heritage Committee to enter into a number of Agreements. My recommendation is that one of the three funding Councils acts as the SRHC’s agent for such purposes because the SRHC is not a formal legal entity, rather it is a joint committee of the ICC, SDC and GDC.

 

The GDC’s Department of Arts and Heritage is going to employ/manage the cataloguers and purchase the necessary equipment (as the SRHC’s agent).

 

Applying the same rationale, we invite the SDC to enter into the Museum Support Agreement with the Wyndham & Districts Historical Society Inc. We see this as appropriate both geographically and politically. All of the work envisaged in the Museum Support Agreement is covered by the Pilot’s approved budget.”

 

Issues

13      The agreement proposes that the Southland District Council will act as agent for the Southland Regional Heritage Committee.

14      While this involves a new role for Council, this will assist the SRHC in progressing Project Ark and the cataloguing and protection of the WDHS collection.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15      Project Ark is a non-statutory process, but will assist the combined councils in fulfilling their broader statutory duties in relation to heritage preservation. It is also important to ensure that the responsibilities which the parties have under the Health and Safety at Work Act are suitably addressed.

Community Views

16      Community consultation is not required in relation to this decision. The intention of Project Ark is that community heritage resources will be managed and preserved in perpetuity. Consultation has already occurred in relation to the use of regional heritage rate funding for this purpose and SRHC reserves are also being directed towards it.

Costs and Funding

17      The costs of funding this pilot project for Project Ark in relation to the WDHS are to be funded through the regional heritage rate and through reserves which have accumulated through the SRHC. There will be no additional direct costs to the Council other than its already scheduled regional heritage rating contributions.

Policy Implications

18      There is no specific Southland District Council policy of relevance.

Analysis

Options Considered

19      The options with respect to this matter are to either approve the agreement and act as agent for SRHC or not approve the agreement and act as agent for SRHC.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve the Agreement and act as agent for SRHC

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Assist the progression of Project Ark

·        Assists the WDHS and the wider Wyndham community in preserving its heritage

·        Will facilitate the wider availability of heritage information held by the WDHS

·        Could expose the Council to some additional liability ( e.g. Health and Safety) by acting as agent

 

Option 2 – Not approve the agreement and do not act as agent for SRHC

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Minimises risks/exposures for Council

·        Does not assist with the progression of Project Ark

·        Does not assist the WDHS and the wider Wyndham community in preserving its heritage

·        Will not facilitate the wider availability of heritage information held by the WDHS

 

Assessment of Significance

This matter is not considered to be significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommended Option

20      Option 1- Approve the agreement and act as agent for SRHC.

Next Steps

21      If Option 1 is agreed, then Mr Luoni will proceed with the progression of the project in accordance with the project plan previously agreed by the SRHC. If Option 2 is taken, then further consideration would be required as to how to advance this work on behalf of the SRHC.

 

Attachments

a             Draft Museum Support Agreement     

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Initial Proposal and Consultation Booklet for the 2018 Representation Review

Record No:             R/18/2/2419

Author:                      Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present for adoption the Initial Proposal (consultation booklet) for the 2018 Representation Review.

2        This report also provides for Council to receive the Southland District Council Community Governance Reference Document which, while outside of the Representation Review requirements, provides important context information. 

Executive Summary

3        The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) requires local authorities to conduct a review of their representation arrangements at least once every six years. 

4        The Southland District Council previously conducted a representation review in 2012 for the 2013 local authority elections, the council is now required to undertake a representation review for the 2019 local authority elections.

5        Representation reviews are defined by the LEA as reviews of the representation arrangements for a local authority.  Section 19H of the LEA requires the council to consider the number of councillors to be elected to the Council; whether councillors are elected by wards or the district as a whole (or a mixture of both systems); if elected by wards, the number, boundaries and names of those wards and the number of councillors that will represent them. 

6        The Mayor is elected at-large in accordance with Section 19B of the LEA and that position is not part of this review.

7        As well as review of wards and the number of elected members of the Council, Section 19J of the LEA requires a review to be carried out of community boards, in particular whether there should be communities and community boards, and if so, the nature of any community and the membership and structure of any community board.

8        The LEA details criteria that must be satisfied when the council conducts its representation review.  There are three key factors that comprise this criteria.  They are identification of communities of interest; effective representation for these communities of interest; and fair representation of electors – this is based on the +or- 10% rule. 

9        Through the Representation Review the Council is looking to deliver a structure that is more efficient, effective and fit for the future, while at the same time enhancing community involvement, based on the premise of communities of interest delivering equity of representation.

10      The adoption of the Initial Proposal (attached as Attachment A) for consultation provides the public with an opportunity to submit their views.  There will be an opportunity for submissions to be heard by the Hearing Panel.  Council will then consider the submissions and adopt a Final Proposal. 

11      The Final Proposal will then be publicly notified with a period for appeals and/or objections.  The Final Proposal along with any appeals and/or objections will then be sent to the Local Government Commission (the Commission) whose role it will be to issue a final determination following consideration. 

12      The new representation arrangements will then be in place for the 2019 local authority elections.

13      In order to provide a greater context, and additional related information, Council has undertaken a wider community governance review project and a Southland District Council community Governance Reference Document is attached to this report (Attachment B).  The document is not being consulted on but rather provides background information on the process together with a draft indicative terms of reference and way of working for the proposed governance structure. 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Initial Proposal and Consultation Booklet for the 2018 Representation Review” dated 12 April 2018.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Resolves under sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to adopt the Initial Proposal for the Southland District Council for the elections to be held in 2019 and elections thereafter until altered by a subsequent decision:

 

i)          That the district be divided into five wards with three wards each electing three councillors one ward electing two councillors and one ward electing one councillor

 

ii)         That the ward names remain as follows:

·        Mararoa Waimea – three councillors

·        Winton Wallacetown – three councillors

·        Waiau Aparima – three councillors

·        Waihopai Toetoe – two councillors

·        Stewart Island Rakiura – one councillor

 

iii)       That the five wards reflect the following identified communities of interest:

 

Proposed Ward

Localities

Mararoa Waimea

Ardlussa, Athol, Balfour, Benmore, Caroline, Cascade Creek, Castlerock, Cattle Flat, Dipton, Dipton West, Five Rivers, Freshford, Garston, Glenure, Hollyford, Jamestown, Josephville, Kingston Crossing, Lintley, Longridge, Longridge North, Lowther, Lumsden, Manapouri, Mandeville, Milford Sound, Mossburn, Nokomai, Otapiri, Otapiri Gorge, Parawa, Potters, Riversdale, Saint Patricks, Sandstone, Te Anau, The Dale, The Key, Waikaia, Waimea, Waiparu, Waipounamu, Wendon, Wendonside

 

Stewart Island Rakiura

Halfmoon Bay (Oban), Horseshoe Bay, Ringa Ringa

Waiau/Aparima

Aparima, Avondale, Bayswater, Birchwood, Blackmount, Clifden, Colac Bay/Oraka, Crawfords, Cromarty, Drummond, Dunearn, Eastern Bush, Ermedale, Fairfax, Feldwick, Five Roads, Gladfield, Gropers Bush, Gummies Bush, Happy Valley, Hazletts, Heddon Bush, Isla Bank, Longwood, Merrivale, Monowai, Nightcaps, Ohai, Opio, Orawia, Orepuki, Otahu Flat, Otahuti, Otaitai Bush, Otautau, Pahia, Papatotara, Piko Piko, Port Craig, Pourakino Valley, Pukemaori, Raymonds Gap, Ringway, Riverton/Aparima, Round Hill, Ruahine, Scotts Gap, Spar Bush, Taramoa, Te Oneroa, Te Tua, Te Waewae, Thornbury, Tihaka, Tinkertown, Tuatapere, Waianiwa, Waihoaka, Waikouro, Waimatuku, Waipango, Wairio, Wakapatu, Woodlaw, Wreys Bush, Wrights Bush

Waihopai Toetoe

Ashers, Brydone, Bush Siding, Chaslands, Curio Bay, Dacre, Edendale, Fortification, Fortrose, Glenham, Gorge Road, Haldane, Kamahi, Kapuka, Kapuka South, Kennington, Longbush, Mataura Island, Menzies Ferry, Mimihau, Mokoreta, Mokotua, Morton Mains, Niagara, Ota Creek, Otara, Oteramika, Oware, Pine Bush, Progress Valley, Pukewao, Quarry Hills, Redan, Rimu, Seaward Downs, Slope Point, Te Peka, Timpanys, Titiroa, Tokanui, Tuturau, Waiarikiki, Waikawa, Waikawa Valley, Waimahaka, Waimatua, Waituna, Woodlands, Wyndham

Winton Wallacetown

Branxholme, Browns, Centre Bush, Gap Road, Glencoe, Grove Bush, Hedgehope, Heenans Corner, Hokonui, Kauana, Lady Barkly, Limehills, Lochiel, Lorneville, Mabel Bush, Makarewa, Makarewa Junction, Northope, Oporo, Oreti Plains, Pukemutu, Rakahouka, Roslyn Bush, Ryal Bush, South Hillend, Springhills, Te Tipua, Thomsons Crossing, Tussock Creek, Waimumu, Waitane, Wallacetown, West Plains, Wilsons Crossing, Winton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iv)       That the population each member will represent is as follows:

Ward

2013 Census Statistics

Elected Members

Population per Councillor

Mararoa Waimea

7803

3

2601

Winton Wallacetown

7890

3

2630

Waiau Aparima

8139

3

2711

Waihopai Toetoe

5421

2

2713

Stewart Island Rakiura

384

1

384

 

v)         That the population that each member represents is within the range of 2,469 +/- 10% (2,223 – 2715) in accordance with section 19(V)2 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 except for the Stewart Island Rakiura ward.

 

vi)       That the Stewart Island Rakiura ward warrants a member under section 19V(3)(a) as it is an island community of interest.

 

vii)      That the boundaries for each ward be as per the attached maps in the Consultation Booklet.

 

viii)     That there be eight communities represented by eight community boards as follows:

 

Proposed Community Board

Localities

Ardlussa

Ardlussa, Balfour, Cattle Flat, Freshford, Glenure, Kingston Crossing, Longridge, Longridge North, Mandeville, Potters, Riversdale, Saint Patricks, Sandstone, Waikaia, Waimea, Waiparu, Waipounamu, Wendon, Wendonside

Fiordland

Cascade Creek, Hollyford, Jamestown, Manapouri, Milford Sound, Te Anau, The Dale, The Key

Northern

Athol, Castlerock, Five Rivers, Garston, Lintley, Lowther, Lumsden, Mossburn, Nokomai, Parawa

Oreti

Benmore, Branxholme, Browns, Caroline, Centre Bush, Dipton, Dipton West, Gap Road, Glencoe, Grove Bush, Hedgehope, Heenans Corner, Hokonui, Josephville, Kauana, Lady Barkly, Limehills, Lochiel, Lorneville, Mabel Bush, Makarewa, Makarewa Junction, Northope, Oporo, Oreti Plains, Otapiri, Otapiri Gorge, Pukemutu, Rakahouka, Roslyn Bush, Ryal Bush, South Hillend, Springhills, Te Tipua, Thomsons Crossing, Tussock Creek, Waimumu, Waitane, Wallacetown, West Plains, Wilsons Crossing, Winton

Stewart Island Rakiura

Halfmoon Bay (Oban), Horseshoe Bay, Ringa Ringa

Takitimu

Aparima, Avondale, Bayswater, Crawfords, Drummond, Dunearn, Five Roads, Gladfield, Heddon Bush, Isla Bank, Nightcaps, Ohai, Opio, Otahuti, Otautau, Ringway, Scotts Gap, Spar Bush, Tinkertown, Waikouro, Wairio, Woodlaw, Wreys Bush

Taramea Te Waewae

Birchwood, Blackmount, Clifden, Colac Bay/Oraka, Cromarty, Eastern Bush, Ermedale, Fairfax, Feldwick, Gropers Bush, Gummies Bush, Happy Valley, Hazletts, Longwood, Merrivale, Monowai, Orawia, Orepuki, Otahu Flat, Otaitai Bush, Pahia, Papatotara, Piko Piko, Port Craig, Pourakino Valley, Pukemaori, Raymonds Gap, Riverton/Aparima, Round Hill, Ruahine, Taramoa, Te Oneroa, Te Tua, Te Waewae, Thornbury, Tihaka, Tuatapere, Waianiwa, Waihoaka, Waimatuku, Waipango, Wakapatu, Wrights Bush

Waihopai Toetoe

Ashers, Brydone, Bush Siding, Chaslands, Curio Bay, Dacre, Edendale, Fortification, Fortrose, Glenham, Gorge Road, Haldane, Kamahi, Kapuka, Kapuka South, Kennington, Longbush, Mataura Island, Menzies Ferry, Mimihau, Mokoreta, Mokotua, Morton Mains, Niagara, Ota Creek, Otara, Oteramika, Oware, Pine Bush, Progress Valley, Pukewao, Quarry Hills, Redan, Rimu, Seaward Downs, Slope Point, Te Peka, Timpanys, Titiroa, Tokanui, Tuturau, Waiarikiki, Waikawa, Waikawa Valley, Waimahaka, Waimatua, Waituna, Woodlands, Wyndham

 

ix)       That the boundaries for each board be as per the attached maps  in the Consultation Booklet

 

x)         That the Fiordland, Northern, Ardlussa, Takitimu, and Taramea Te Waewae community boards each elect six members.  They will each have one appointed member being a councillor from the ward in which the board is situated.

 

xi)       That the Oreti community board elects eight members.  One member will be appointed from a ward in which the board is situated.

 

xii)      That the Waihopai Toetoe community board elects seven members.  One member will be appointed from the ward in which the board is situated.

 

xiii)     That the Stewart Island Rakiura community board elects four members.  One member will be appointed from the ward in which the board is situated.

 

xiv)     No community board will be subdivided for electoral purposes.

 

e)            in accordance with section 19K of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Council determines that the reasons for the proposed changes are that:

·     It wishes to see equity of representation across Southland district by having district-wide coverage of community boards, enabling local decision-making across the district

·     The Council believes that this model better reflects the community feedback on communities of interest and effective representation.

 

f)             Agrees that public notice be given of the proposals contained in this resolution:

 

g)           Agrees that the full Council (Mayor and 12 Councillors) and the following members of the elected representative working group Pam Yorke, Andre Bekhuis, Brian McGrath and Pam Naylor comprise a Hearings Panel to hear submissions on the Council’s Initial Proposal on Monday 18 and Tuesday 19 June 2018 (if needed) and deliberate on Thursday 28 June 2018.

 

h)           Agrees that the Council at its meeting on 11 July 2018 considers submissions received to the initial proposal and adopts its Final Proposal. 

 

i)             Authorises the Chief Executive to make any editorial changes necessary to the Initial Proposal Consultation Booklet.

 

j)             Notes that a Southland District Council Community Governance Reference Document has been prepared for information.

 

k)            Endorses the Southland District Council Community Governance Reference Document and agrees to it being made available to members of the public for information purposes.

 

 

Background

14      The Southland District Council is presently comprised of 12 Councillors and the Mayor.  The current structure of the District in terms of how the Councillors are elected was developed as part of a Representation Review in 2012 and introduced for the 2013 elections as a result of a determination dated 10 April 2013.

15      The determination heralded a change from 12 single member wards (the majority of which did not meet the +or-10% rule) to four multi-member wards and a single member ward for Stewart Island Rakiura as an island community of interest.

16      In addition the Council has eight community boards.  These are spread throughout the district.  However, a significant population in the district (one-third) does not have access to a governance structure that provides local decision-making.

17      In January 2015 the Council commenced a Community Governance Review project.  Council acknowledged that the current representation structure does not provide for fair or equitable representation across the whole district. 

18      Through the Community Governance Review project and subsequent Representation Review, the Council is looking to provide a solution to this and deliver a structure that is more efficient, effective and fit for the future while at the same time enhancing community involvement at a local level based on the premise of communities of interest delivering equity of representation and keeping local input and involvement at its centre. 

19      As part of the Community Governance Review project the Council established an elected representative working group comprising the Mayor, three councillors, two community board chairs and two community development area subcommittee chairs.  The role of the group was to provide feedback and inform points for consideration as part of the development of issues and options.  The working group has also provided a strong political voice in delivering the project and advocating the process to communities across the district – both from a process perspective and from a council mandate for change. Perspective.

20      In addition to the legislative criteria outlined in paragraphs five to seven, the Council endorsed a set of guiding principles providing the framework from which it has considered the development of its Initial Proposal. 

21      The Guiding Principles are:

·    Community Leadership,

·    Clear Purpose,

·    Small Council Big Community,

·    Full District Coverage,

·    Equity of Representation,

·    District-wide framework for service delivery,

·    Localism – input and involvement,

·    Relationships first,

·    Streamline delivery,

·    Tailored and targeted delegations,

·    The organisation structure to reflect the governance structure.

22      The Initial Proposal and the additional information provided in the reference document which provides a draft indicative terms of reference and way of working for the proposed governance structure is based on these Guiding Principles. 

Pre consultation

23      In preparation for the 2018 Representation Review the Council, over three years, undertook a community governance review project.  This is detailed in the reference document referred to in paragraph 14 and appended to this report.  As part of the project there have been a number of discussions and community engagement conversations.  These included, discussion at Council workshops, discussion at community board and community development area subcommittee meetings, presentation and discussion at 18 community conversations and a community fete in 2017 attended by more than 300 people in total, information provided as an article in First Edition distributed across the district with a reach of every household in the district (15,000), a survey form was available on line and at community conversations, a presence at the Southland District Council site at Waimumu South Island field days and feedback sessions for current elected members of the community boards and community development area subcommittees (CDAs).

24      During this pre-consultation period a map showing a possible extension of community development area subcommittee boundaries created with input from members of the Athol, Garston, Lumsden and Mossburn CDAs was provided to staff by Councillor Douglas following a council workshop on 8 February 2018.  Subsequent to that workshop the issue was raised as to the status of the map.  The map and associated information was then presented and considered during a Council workshop on 7 March alongside other matters relating to the representation review pre consultation process.  Council reinforced to staff a clear desire to progress developing a local representation model based on community board structures covering the whole of the District geographic area.

25      Information and feedback drawn from the community governance review and this associated pre-consultation process for the Representation Review has led to the development of this Initial Proposal. 

Issues

26      Paragraph eight of the Executive Summary sets out the issues the Council must determine in its review of representation arrangements.  These are the criteria of communities of interest, effective representation of communities of interest and fair representation of electors.  These are the factors that the Commission will focus on if there are appeals and/or objections against the council’s final proposal. 

27      These are specifically discussed below. 

Communities of interest

28      The term community of interest is not defined by statute.  It can mean different things to different people depending on an individual’s or group’s perspective from time to time.  It can include a sense of belonging to a clearly identified area or locality (perceptual), distinctive physical and topographical features, similarities in economic or social activities carried out in the area (functional), similarities in the demographic, socio-economic and/or ethnic characteristics of the residents of a community, a distinctive local history of the area or the rohe of local iwi.  There is also a political dimension – the ability to represent the interests and reconcile conflicts of the community.

29      Southland District is one of the largest by way of geographic area territorial authorities in New Zealand.  It is large rural authority with approximately 30,000 people spread over a total area of 30,000km2, with 14,300km2 of that area held in Department of Conservation National Park.  The main economic base is primary production and tourism.  Annually, more than 600,000 tourists travel to Milford Sound in the North-west of the district.  The development of the Southern Scenic Route has seen a growing number of tourists through the Waihopai Toetoe ward and on through Waiau Aparima. 

30      Outside the two major towns of Winton (pop 3168 approx.) and Te Anau (pop 3402 approx.), Southland has more than 30 smaller towns, villages or settlements spread across the district with the remaining 24,000 people residing in these towns, villages or settlements and across a large rural area. 

31      Many of these smaller settlements have historically developed independently with specific industries in many areas e.g. mining, forestry.  The changing pattern of industry and development of technology over the past 30 years has provided a catalyst for change. 

32      The role of local authorities has changed over the past 30 years and is continuing to change.  It is recognised that the pressures and challenges facing local government and the rural provincial sector mean there is the serious need for consideration of a ‘fresh approach’ with regards to representation requirements.

33      Council elected representatives and staff were told in the pre-consultation that a number of people felt connected to more than one community of interest.  Indeed for some there were multiple communities of interest including some outside of the district. 

34      A number of people identified that geographical features are a strong community of interest for some communities, rivers e.g. the Oreti, and Aparima, and mountains such as the Takitimu.  Respondents from Stewart Island Rakiura identified the island along with Invercargill, and Dunedin.  As there is no secondary school on the Island the majority of students travel to attend secondary school.

35      For other parts of the district, sporting and education catchments were identified for areas such as Waihopai Toetoe as significant in defining their community of interest.  For others it is rural and, others still, the development of tourism initiatives and routes and associated issues. 

Effective representation of communities of interest

36      Under Section 19(T) of the LEA a territorial authority must ensure that its representation proposals will provide effective representation of the communities of interest in the district.

37      As noted in paragraphs 14 and 15, the previous representation review in 2012 saw considerable identification of consideration of the identified communities of interest.  Prior to this, there existed 12 single member wards.  The outcome of the 2012 representation review which identified four multi-member wards and a single member ward for Stewart Island/Rakiura represented a significant change from the single member ward model that had been in place since 1989. 

38      It was a model developed through the consultation process and as noted by the Commission in 2013 out of the models considered the one that best provides for effective representation of communities of interest while also meeting other requirements of the Act.

39      During the pre-consultation for this representation review in 2018 there was discussion and exploration of not having wards but all councillors being elected at large across the whole of the district as is the Mayor or a mix of both.

40      While the pre-consultation identified that the majority of responders were satisfied with the communities of interest identified in the current ward structure, approximately 18% of responders to the survey thought that councillors should be elected at large, while 25% thought there should be a mixture of both systems. 

41      The working group and the council acknowledged that there is some interest in a change to the way councillors are elected, but determined to remain with the majority view.  Following the feedback provided during the pre-consultation, it is considered that the changes to the ward boundaries made at the previous representation review still apply now

42      As such, the council’s proposal is to retain the five ward, 12 councillor model. 

43      The proposal is also to retain the same names for the five wards as the current determination.

Fair representation

44      Section 19V of the LEA requires that if an authority is to have councillors elected through a ward structure then the membership of the wards is required to provide approximate population equality per member, that is, all votes are of approximately equal value (referred to as the +/-10% rule) unless there are good reasons (which are prescribed in the LEA) to depart from this requirement.  

45      When the 2013 census figures were applied to the current ward boundaries it was found that the Winton Wallacetown ward which under the 2013 determination was at +14.19% had increased to +19.77%.  While the Commission had allowed the +14% in the previous determination for the 2012 review it was considered that an additional 5.5% could not be proposed as meeting the requirements of the LEA. 

46      In considering how the boundaries could be altered the only change identified is to ensure that the proposal meets the requirement of Section 19V(2) of the LEA requiring fair representation by altering the boundaries so that Winton Wallacetown ward complies (apart from the recognition of Stewart Island Rakiura remaining as an island community of interest requiring its own ward). The proposal achieves compliance for the Winton Wallacetown ward and all other wards except Stewart Island Rakiura.

47      In order to achieve this, the boundary for the current Mararoa Waimea ward has been extended to south of Dipton and the boundary altered between the Waimea Aparima Ward and Winton Wallacetown ward to keep the township of Wallacetown in the Winton Wallacetown ward.  Feedback from members of the current governance entities including community board members has confirmed this view that the majority of communities of interest remain with the identified wards.  It was noted that Dipton may consider its community to be in the Winton Wallacetown area, therefore it has been included in the Oreti community board area which takes in the majority of the Winton Wallacetown ward. 

Stewart Island Rakiura

48      In its 2013 determination the Local Government Commission made the following comments at paragraph 34 of its determination in relation to representation of Stewart Island Rakiura:

Non-compliance with the +/-10% rule is permitted in by section 19V(3) where it is necessary for the effective representation of island or isolated communities of interest.  The council has determined that Stewart Island/Rakiura ward, being an island community of interest, requires its own ward to ensure effective representation.  We agree with the council’s assessment”.   

49      The majority of respondents to the pre-consultation considered that Stewart Island Rakiura should continue to have councillor representation through its own ward.  The working group and Council agreed. 

50      Council is therefore proposing that the representation of Stewart Island Rakiura should continue to be considered as an island community of interest requiring its own ward.

51      Note that if the Final Proposal remains to keep Stewart Island Rakiura as an island community of interest the Council must refer its proposal to the Commission, whether or not appeals or objections have been lodged against the proposal. 

Communities and community boards

52      The current community board boundaries have evolved out of the pattern adopted in the 1989 reorganisation of Local Government.  Historically, in Southland, they have been based around towns or townships.  At present there are eight community boards.

53      A major feature of the Initial Proposal is to have district-wide coverage of community boards.  In the 2013 determination, following a model proposed by an appellant, the Local Government commission noted that:

The community board model…while common in other districts, would be a radical departure from the current model operating in the district.  While the option of complete community board coverage on a ward basis was referred to in the Council’s discussion document, it was unclear to us how well debated this possibility had been and what level of public support for it there was.”  

 

54      Five years on and the Council’s position is now strongly in favour of district-wide coverage.  The working group and Council identified this as one of its guiding principles for the review. 

55      The Initial Proposal is for district-wide coverage of community boards.  As previously noted Council wants to have a structure that equitable representation across the whole of the district.  Council considers that district-wide coverage of community boards would provide this, while at the same time enhancing community involvement, at a local level based on the premise of communities of interest delivering equity of representation and keeping local input and involvement at its centre. 

56      During the pre-consultation carried out since April 2017 this was highlighted as an option.  Responders to the survey and those who attended meetings indicated support for district-wide coverage of community boards.


 

57      In determining the communities and boundaries of community boards the pre-consultation invited the public to draw on a blank map where they saw their communities.  The Initial Proposal identifies eight community boards.  These are:

·          Fiordland – incorporating the boundary and community of the current Te Anau community board area including the township of Manapouri

·          Northern – incorporating the boundary and community of the former (pre-2013) Five Rivers ward

·          Ardlussa – incorporating the boundary and community of the former (pre-2013) Waikaia ward

·          Waihopai Toetoe – incorporating the boundary and community of the Waihopai Toetoe ward

·          Oreti – incorporating the majority of the current Winton Wallacetown ward.  The Oreti River is connecting feature in the proposed board area

·          Takitimu – incorporating the boundary and community of the former (pre-2013) Wallace Community Board.  The Takitimu mountains provide a natural boundary for the proposed board area

·          Taramea Te Waewae – incorporating the current Tuatapere and Riverton Community board areas and a community linked by part of the Southern Scenic Route

·          Stewart Island Rakiura – incorporating the current and proposed Stewart Island Rakiura ward area. 

58      As part of the pre-consultation four feedback sessions were provided for members of the current community boards and community development area subcommittees.  There was general acceptance of the concept.  It was noted that community board members under the new proposal would need to think more strategically about their community as a whole (not just a particular town).

59      The Council is cogniscent of the change (if adopted) this will have on the current governance structure.  To this end it has prepared a reference document that will be available for the public to provide greater context and information to ensure its stakeholders, residents and ratepayers understand and appreciate the process and engagement that has occurred in developing this Initial Proposal.  In addition, the reference document sets out a ‘way of working’ which includes an indicative draft terms of reference for the proposed community boards and a set of protocols. 

60      The Council understands that it will be up be up to the incoming Council to adopt terms of reference and delegations but it has developed this draft document to give the public and prospective candidates an indication of the level of commitment the Council has to a new governance structure.  This is attached as attachment B.

Maori representation

61      The LEA provides that Maori wards (territorial authorities) or constituencies (regional councils) may be established.  The statutory provisions for establishing Maori wards/constituencies is set out in sections 19Z to 19ZH of the LEA.  Utilising the formula set out in the Act, the Southland District based on 12 councillors would be entitled to one Maori ward. 

62      The concept of separate wards was discussed at a meeting of Te Roopu Taiao.  Iwi present expressed satisfaction with the consultation structures inherent with Te Roopu Taiao and Te Ao Marama and saw no need to advocate for separate Maori representation with local government in Southland. 

63      On 18 October 2017 the Council resolved to take no action to establish a Maori ward as part of the representation arrangements for Southland District.

Electoral system

64      Sections 27 to 34 of the LEA provides Councils to decide which electoral system the Council will use for local elections.  There are two electoral systems that can be used – First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferrable Voting STV). The electoral system needs to be considered during a representation review.  

65      The Council reviewed the electoral system.  Southland District has previously adopted the First Past the Post electoral system and in September 2017 resolved to retain the First Past the Post electoral system for the 2019 local triennial elections and any associated election.  The Council publicly notified this decision and no poll demand was received.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

66      The legal and statutory requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001 are set out in the report.  It is considered that the Initial Proposal meets the requirements.  The Council is also required to comply with the decision-making procedures contained in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Community Views

67      There has been both external (pre-consultation process) and internal consultation with elected members.  A public notice and consultation process will commence on 30 April 2018.  Hearings will be held mid-June 2018.

Costs and Funding

68      Costs for the Representation Review have been provided for in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.  There will costs associated with the implementation of the proposal.  The costs will largely be associated with elected member remuneration and administrative costs and administration of the elections.

Policy Implications

69      The proposal is for the adoption of a new model of representation and associated ways of working.  The impacts of the proposed changes are outlined in the community governance reference document.

Analysis

Options Considered

70      Council must meet its statutory obligations to conduct a representation review in 2018.  If Council wish to change any of the matters in the Initial Proposal it will delay the timetable.  Council is required to make an Initial Proposal by 7 September 2018.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Adopt the Initial Proposal as recommended

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Meets the statutory requirements

·        Provides for a model that reflects the wide range of community views that have been heard to date

·        Is consistent with the Council’s proposed strategic framework.

·        None identified

 

Option 2 – Not adopt an Initial Proposal

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None identified

·        The council would not meet its statutory obligations

 

Assessment of Significance

71      The level of significance is determined as medium because although a large number of people are affected by the representation review, the impact on them is relatively minor.

72      The engagement and consultation reflect the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Government Act 2002. 

Recommended Option

73      Option 1 is the recommended option.

Next Steps

74      The timeline for the Representation Review is set out in the LEA and documented in the Initial Proposal.  The timeline requires Council to adopt an Initial Proposal.  Once the Initial Proposal is agreed the formal statutory review process commences.  There is no opportunity to stop or delay the statutory process.

75      Public notification commences on 30 April 2018.  The Initial Proposal will be open for submissions until Wednesday 6 June 2018.  A Hearings Panel will hear submissions on 18 – 19 June 2018.  Based on those submissions Council needs to either confirm or amend the proposal as its Final Proposal.  This will occur on 11 July 2018 and the Final Proposal is also notified.  If there are appeals or objections to the final Proposal then the Commission makes the final determination.  The commission’s determination must be made no later than 11 April 2019 and is subject to judicial review or appeal on a point of law. 

 

Attachments

a             Initial Proposal Consultation Booklet

b             Community Governance Reference Document    

 


Council

20 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


Council

20 April 2018

 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

20 April 2018

 

PDF Creator



Council

20 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


Council

20 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


Council

20 April 2018

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

20 April 2018

 

Southland Regional Development Agency

Record No:             R/18/3/4715

Author:                      Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek Council approval to the formation of the Southland Regional Development Agency as a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to lead regional development activity across the Southland Region.

Executive Summary

2        Following endorsement of the Southland Regional Development Strategy (SoRDS) Action Plan work was progressed to look at the institutional arrangements that could be put in place to lead regional development activity across the region. This work lead to a proposal to form a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) as a CCO.

3        A statement of proposal document, which outlined three possible options being; a status quo option, an advanced status quo option and an option to establish a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) as a Council controlled organisation was released in September 2017. At the same time the four Southland Councils established a Joint Committee to lead the community consultation process.

4        The Joint Committee has now completed its hearing and deliberations process and is recommending that the Councils proceed with the formation of the SRDA. This report proposes that Council endorse this recommendation and authorise the Chief Executive to proceed, in conjunction with the other Southland Councils, with the work needed to progress formation of the new Agency.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Southland Regional Development Agency” dated 11 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)        Agree to proceed with the formation, in accordance with the Companies Act 1993 and Local Government Act 2002, of the Southland Regional Development Agency as a limited liability company and Council controlled organisation.

 

e)        Agrees to the development of the Southland Regional Development Agency being advanced in general accord with each of the propositions detailed in Attachment A but in doing so notes that there will need to be changes made as the establishment of the new Agency progresses.

 

f)         Notes the overview transition schedule detailed below and give authority for the process to commence with the overall aim to have the new Southland Regional Development Agency operational by 1 February 2019.

 

g)        Agree that it be noted that a new Memorandum of Understanding will be developed with Ngai Tahu to clarify and formalise its status and role with the new regional Development Agency.

 

h)        Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to progress, in conjunction with the other Southland Councils, development of the constitutional documents and other work needed to form the Southland Regional Development Agency.

 

 

Background

5        Over the last three years a jointly funded Council programme lead to development of the Southland Regional Development Strategy and Action Plan (SoRDS). Council formally endorsed the Action Plan on 1 February 2017. 

6        Following endorsement of the Action Plan the Mayoral Forum had work progressed to look at what institutional arrangements might best be put in place to lead regional development activity, including the implementation of the SoRDS Action Plan, across the region. This work led to a proposal to form a new CCO which would have a ‘whole of region’ approach by ensuring that the agency to be formed would have shareholding and financial involvement from Ngai Tahu, business and community interests in addition to the four Southland Councils. 

7        A statement of proposal document, which outlined three possible options being; a status quo option, an advanced status quo option and an option to establish a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) as a Council Controlled Organisation was released in September 2017. 

8        The community consultation process, including the hearing of submissions, was overseen by a Joint Committee made up of two Councillors from each of the four Southland Councils. Cr Dillon and Cr Macpherson were this Council’s appointees on the Committee.

9        The Joint Committee has now completed its hearing and deliberations process and is recommending that the Councils proceed with the formation of a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA). The committee have also made a number of suggestions, which are reflected in a series of propositions, about the shareholding, operational and establishment processes that might be used by the SRDA. These propositions should be used to guide the establishment phase of work.

Issues

10      There is a need for Council to decide whether to accept the recommendation of the Southland Regional Development Agency Consultation Joint Committee to proceed with the formation of a new Council Controlled Organisation to lead regional development activity across the region.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

11      The statutory provisions relating to the formation and operation of Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) are contained in Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2002.

12      Under section 56 a proposal to form a CCO must be subject to consultation in accordance with the provisions in section 82. This process has now been completed and so Council is able to make a decision as to whether it wishes to proceed with the formation of the SRDA under the Companies Act 1993.

13      Section 64 and 65 outline the requirements for the performance of a CCO to be monitored against the statement of intent which is to be approved by the shareholders prior to the start of each financial year.  

Community Views

14      In excess of 105 submissions were received and considered by the Joint Committee before making their recommendation to the four Councils.

15      While the overall purpose of the consultation was to determine the most effective structure for leading regional development in Southland there were a number of submissions received that commented on matters other than organisation structure. For example, a number of the submissions focussed on regional strategy and particularly the SoRDS programme and its goal of 10,000 more people by 2025. Some submitters disagreed with the thrust of the SoRDS programme while others supported it.

16      The views expressed during the community consultation process have been considered by the Joint Committee in forming their recommendation.

Ngai Tahu

17      The original proposal put to the community for comment and submission, provides for Ngai Tahu to be included in the governance structure of the new regional entity, as one of the shareholders. This was not supported by Ngai Tahu which believed that its status as a Treaty partner warranted a true partnership.

18      As a consequence, proposition 12 within the attached report of the Hearing Committee provides:

Proposition 12: “That the Chair of the Mayoral Forum advance discussions with Ngai Tahu to determine how they might best be involved”.

 

An approach should be made to Ngai Tahu by the Mayoral Forum to determine how it can best be involved.

 

The exact form of the association has yet to emerge and is expected to do so during the establishment of SRDA.

 

19      Mayor Tong as Chair of the Southland Mayoral Forum, has met with Ngai Tahu on three separate occasions recently. At this point in time, the thinking on the relationship with and status of Ngai Tahu with the new Agency is that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be developed between the Southland Councils and Iwi. It envisages that the MOU would set out a process where Ngai Tahu’s collective priorities could be incorporated into the new Southland Regional Development Agency’s work plan.

20      The MOU could take some time to finalise so it is likely to be undertaken in parallel with the establishment of the new Regional Development Agency.

Costs and Funding

21      The transitional costs associated with the formation of the new entity will need to be funded by the four Councils from the shared services activity budgets.

22      It is proposed that SRDA funding be split into “core funding” and “contract funding”. The core funding would cover ‘fixed’ overhead costs such as accommodation, vehicle and senior management overheads.

23      All outputs or services to be delivered by the SRDA would be purchased using a service contract model under which each Council would be able to determine the range and mix of services that it wanted to fund. Council has budgeted for the purchase of regional development services in its draft 2018 Long Term Plan. 

Policy Implications

24      The proposal will lead to the work of Venture Southland being integrated into the proposed Southland Regional Development Agency.

25      The overall focus and strategic direction of the Agency will be set to reflect the direction outlined through the Southland Regional Development Strategy and Action Plan along with any other priorities that are set through the letter of expectation provided by the Mayoral Forum each year.

Transition Programme

26      If the proposal is approved by all four Southland Councils then it will be important for work to be progressed as quickly as possible to form the new agency. The overall aim is to have the new entity established by 1 February 2019 so that there is a clear link to the end of the existing Venture Southland Agreement. The work to be progressed includes:

·      Confirmation of shareholder arrangements and development of constitutional documents including shareholders agreement – target 1 July 2018

·      Establishment of Joint Shareholders Committee and Board appointed – target 1 November 2018

·      Management of transition process relating to existing Venture Southland assets, liabilities and staff – target 1 November 2018

·      Statement of intent developed and approved – target 1 February 2019

·      Establishment of core and contract funding agreements – target 1 February 2019.

Analysis

Options Considered

27      It is seen that there are three options available. These are to approve the establishment of the SRDA as a CCO (Option 1) or not approve the establishment of the SRDA (Option 2).

28      Option 1 is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee and would allow progress to be made with the formation of the new agency.

29      Option 2 is an option available if the Council is not satisfied with the recommendation to form a new agency. If the Council were to adopt this option then it would need to be clear about the basis of its concerns and consider whether these can be addressed by further discussion between the Councils. If there were to be a fundamental change to the CCO proposal then there may need to be a new consultation process.

 


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve establishment of SRDA

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the formation of a new ‘whole of region’ entity to lead and support regional development activity.

·        Is consistent with the SoRDS Strategy work that has been progressed over the last three years.

·        Creates an entity with clear responsibility to lead and coordinate the implementation of the SoRDS Action Plan.

·        Is consistent with the view that there is a need for a ‘fresh approach’ if the challenging goal of attracting 10,000 more people to Southland is to be achieved.

·        There will be transitional costs associated with the formation of the new entity.

 

Option 2 – Not approve establishment of SRDA

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Would be appropriate if Council has concerns about whether the new agency will achieve the gains needed and/or is not convinced that there is substantial support for the proposal.

·        Will create uncertainty about how implementation of the SoRDS action plan is to be progressed.

·        Will create uncertainty about how regional development activity is to be managed in the future.

·        Will be a need for work to be progressed to look at options for leading regional development activity in the future.

Assessment of Significance

30      In this report Council is being asked to approve a recommendation from the Joint Committee to form a new CCO to lead regional development activity, including the implementation of SoRDS across the Southland region. It is proposed that the assets and liabilities of Venture Southland will be transferred into the new entity.  

31      The SoRDS initiative is of considerable importance to the future development of the Southland region as a whole and has had a high level of support from business, NGOs and other sections of the community over the last three years. As such achievement of the goals set through SoRDS is a matter of some significance. The delivery of the outcomes expected from the implementation of SoRDS and a decision as to the nature of the entity that might best be used to deliver those outcomes are, however, separate issues.

32      In this paper the focus of the decision being considered is what the nature of the entity should be and in particular whether the Council should agree to form a company structure, which will continue to be majority owned by local government, to lead this work. As such the decision can reasonably be seen as being of an administrative nature. In these circumstances staff believe that it is reasonable for the Council to conclude that this decision it is not significant. 

Recommended Option

33      It is recommended that Council support Option 1 and agree to progress the formation of a new Southland Regional Development Agency to lead regional development activity

Next Steps

34      Work will progress with the development of the constitutional documents and other work needed to form the SRDA.

 

Attachments

a             Draft Proposals arising from the Public Consultation and Panel Process on the institutional arrangements for regional development in Southland    

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Draft Proposals

 

Client:                  Southland Shared Services

Subject:           Draft Proposals arising from the Public Consultation and Panel Process on the institutional arrangements for regional development in Southland

Version date:         19 March 2018

 

 

Recommendations

Having undertaken a review of the public submissions to the Southland Regional Development Agency proposal, the Southland Regional Development Agency Consultation Joint Committee appointed by the councils to lead the community consultation process in relation to the proposal to form the SRDA has concluded its work. It has two recommendations for the consideration of the parent councils.

The panel recommends to Environment Southland, Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council and Gore District Council that:

They proceed with the formation, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1993 and Local Government Act 2002, of the Southland Regional Development Agency as a limited liability company and council-controlled organisation. 

“The four Councils agree to development of the SRDA being advanced in general accord with each of the 38 propositions detailed below but in doing so note that there will need to be changes made as the establishment of the new Agency   progresses.”

 

The Chief Executives group of Southland recommends that:

 

“The four councils note the overview transition schedule detailed below and give authority for the process to commence in accordance with that timetable.”  

 

That the Chief Executives group, facilitated by the Chief Executive of Environment Southland, be given authority to proceed with the development of the constitutional documents and other work needed to proceed with the formation of the SRDA in accordance with the 38 propositions attached.

 

This Paper

Contained in this paper is the following:

The recommendations (above) from the Southland Regional Development Agency Consultation Joint Committee

Thirty eight propositions and brief descriptions supporting them

An overview transition schedule through to implementation


 

Introduction

This paper sets out, in a series of propositions, the findings of the Joint Committee in relation to the proposal to form, as a limited liability company under the Companies Act 1993 a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) which will also be a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). These findings are referred respectfully to the four councils of Southland for their consideration as they make decisions in relation to the formation of the SRDA.

 

The panel has met three times and has worked through the propositions in detail. It has limited its focus to the brief which is structural arrangements for regional development rather the actions and policies of the delivery of regional development services.

 

Key Principles

·      Proposition 1: “That the following guiding principles are adopted and used to guide development and operation of the SRDA.”

Reach - whole-of-region

Funding - broad as possible funding base

Integrated – councils, business, community

Regional development – economic and community

Arms-length – greater freedom to act

Iwi – close relationship with iwi

Ambition – addressing challenging goals

Council facilitation – councils are the backbone

 

 

Funding

·      Proposition 2: “That the four councils of Southland provide core funding to the SRDA.”

The councils are referred to as Type A shareholders (definition provided further through this document) and as such are responsible for covering the core overheads of the SRDA on a population basis.

That a clear definition of these core costs is developed and include management support overheads and overhead salaries which totalled approximately $1.6m in the 2017/18 Venture budget.

 

·      Proposition 3: “That the SRDA is focused on increasing non-council funding.”

A key driver for the SRDA proposal is to increase and diversify the funding sources for regional development.

While the councils would provide core or foundation funding, contributions are expected from central government, business and the community sectors.

An objective is to gradually increase the proportion of non-council funding into regional development.

 

·      Proposition 4: “That all funding over and above core funding operates on a contract funding model.”

This includes all operational funding.

The nature of “contracts” may vary and could be SLAs, MOUs, or whatever suits the particular situation.

 

·      Proposition 5: “That the sources of contract funding will be diverse.”

They could include: additional council funding, and also central government, industry, trusts and earned revenue.

Contracts would commonly be negotiated on a minimum of three-year cycle to ensure certainty and continuity.


 

 

Proposal

·      Proposition 6: “That a Southland Regional Development Agency (SRDA) is formed”.

 

·      Proposition 7: “That the SRDA incorporates the current Venture Southland.”

This involves the transfer of staff along with the assets and liabilities of Venture Southland to the SRDA.

A number of these are currently owned by either Invercargill City Council, Southland District Council or the Venture Southland Trust and subsidiary companies.

 

·      Proposition 8: “That the SRDA adopts the name of Venture Southland”.

This assumes there are no legal impediments with doing so.

Any change of name, if contemplated, would be a matter for the new board and shareholders.

 

·      Proposition 9: “That the SRDA is established as a CCO as specified under the Local Government Act 2002 and registered as a limited liability company, under the Companies Act 1993.”

It may be that the current Trust structure of Venture can be continued as a conduit for donor funding that will not fund a limited liability company.

 

·      Proposition 10: “That the SRDA is majority owned by the four councils of Southland.”

The councils would be known as Type A shareholders.

 

·      Proposition 11: “That the SRDA has “community” (non-council) shareholders who are minority shareholders.”

These shareholders will be known as Type B shareholders.

 

·      Proposition 12: “That the Chair of the Mayoral Forum advance discussions with Ngai Tahu to determine how they might best be involved. ”

An approach should be made to Ngai Tahu by the Mayoral Forum to determine how it can best be involved.

The exact form of that association has yet to emerge and is expected to do so during the establishment phase of the SRDA.

 

·      Proposition 13: “That as a company the SRDA has the power to establish subsidiaries and undertake relevant commercial activity.”

This power will be subject to any relevant legislative and/or constitutional requirements.

It is expected that the limited liability nature of the entity would protect the shareholder organisations from financial risk.

 


 

Shareholding

·      Proposition 14: “That the capital structure of the SRDA is $12,000.”

75% - the four councils (Type A)

25% - community organisations (Type B)

This means that the four councils would have equal shares of 19% (18.75% to be exact)

 

·      Proposition 15: “That the community organisations who have indicated their interest should become Type B shareholders.”

These include - SIT, CTOS, ILT, MLT, Chamber of Commerce

That the level of interest and proposed shareholding arrangement be discussed and formally agreed with the proposed community shareholders.

 

·      Proposition 16: “That a shareholders’ agreement is drafted and agreed by all shareholders (Types A & B) as a method of confirming the shareholder status of all parties.”

 

 

·      Proposition 17: “That all shareholders enter the SRDA on the understanding that they will actively facilitate, as best they can, the increased resourcing of the SRDA.”

This would mean that they assist with seeking funding contributions from other sources

 

·      Proposition 18: “That the shareholders, once properly constituted, form a Joint Shareholder Committee (JSC) to oversee appointment of the board and approval of a Statement of Intent.”

The members of the JSC are each appointed by their respective shareholders.

The delegation arrangement between each shareholder and its JSC member is a matter for each shareholder.

The total membership of the JSC is determined by the shareholders, but for the purposes of negotiating the shareholders agreement each would select one representative.

It is envisaged that these would be senior office-holders given the gravity of the role.

If a vote was held on the JSC then it would be on the basis of shareholding.

 

Associates

·      Proposition 19: “That a category of partnership with the SRDA is created – called Associates – to recognise commercial entities that might be involved in contract funding associated with the SRDA.”

These organisations would be termed associates.

These organisations could be involved as co-funders or could be involved in subsidiaries.

Contracted suppliers or deliverers would not normally be regarded as associates.

 


 

Governance

·      Proposition 20: “That a skill-based board of seven members from public nomination would be the directors of the SRDA.”

 

·      Proposition 21: “That the board is appointed by the shareholders.”

 

·      Proposition 22: “That the process of appointment could be undertaken by an appointments panel, itself appointed by the Joint Committee of Shareholders.”

 

·      Proposition 23: “That the final decision on the make-up of the board membership would be decided by the Joint Committee of Shareholders.”

 

·      Proposition 24: “That a skills register is used for appointment.” The skills register would be as follows:

 

Private sector governance experience

Local government sector governance experience

Experience with economic development agencies or organisations

Knowledge of contemporary technology industries and practice

Experience of organisation development and design

Knowledge of tourism development and destination management

Connection with iwi

Community development experience

 

·      Proposition 25: “That Central Government could appoint a non-voting observer.” Central Government could nominate an observer. Such a nomination would require confirmation by the shareholders.

 

·      Proposition 26: “That the decisions of the board would generally be by consensus but if a vote was required, a simple majority would carry the decision.”

 

 

Statement of Intent

·      Proposition 27: “That a “Letter of Expectation” is sent from the Mayoral Forum on behalf of the councils of Southland to the JSC and board of the SRDA.”

This is the first step in the preparation or refresh of the Statement of Intent.

It is intended as a leadership statement on behalf of the region.

 

·      Proposition 28: “That the Board, together with the CEO and Joint Shareholders Committee, takes the initiative in the preparation of the SOI.”

The respective roles of the JSC, the Board and the CEO in the preparation of the SOI is expected to evolve with experience. A close collaborative relationship between these three parties is regarded as the most productive approach.

The SOI would receive a major review every three years along the lines of the SoRDS strategy exercise done in the last two years. The timing of this review should also link with the three yearly review of Council Long Term Plans. In the intervening years it will be refreshed and updated as required.

At all times the SOI will have at least a three-year horizon, or longer.

 

Conflict of Interest

·      Proposition 29: “That a Conflicts of Interest Policy be created for shareholders.”

 


 

 

Staff

·      Proposition 30: “That the current council employers of Venture Southland staff (ICC and SDC) will manage the proposed transition of staff to the new entity in accordance with legal requirements including their employment agreements.”

 

·      Proposition 31: “That, in principle, this transition involves staff retaining their current terms and conditions.”

 

Operations

·      Proposition 32: “That the operational areas of regional economic development, business sector support and incentives, community development and regional events are all part of the SRDA’s brief.”

This work will fall into the “contract” portion of the work of the SRDA

Generally, the SRDA will be responsible for regional-level activities, but from time to time councils may delegate local functions to the SRDA. Such arrangements would be made between the SRDA board and the particular council.

 

·      Proposition 33: “That these areas include the following activities.”

 

·      Regional economic development

Skills and training – pre-skill; re-skill; on-the-job

Business enhancement and efficiency – Lean; Better by Design

Shared spaces, incubators

Investment – angels, venture capital

Enterprise development and extension – SME development

Innovation

 

·      Business sector support and incentives

Support to particular sectors such as tourism, food, agriculture and aquaculture

Development of regional facilities such as space science

 

·      Community development

Support for key regional initiatives and programmes such as regional warm houses and welcoming communities

Support for arts, culture and heritage ventures in association with existing governance arrangements in these areas

 

·      Regional events

Regional scale events and promotions

 


 

Industry focus

 

·      Proposition 34: “That the management of tourism in the region is considered by the incoming board as a matter of priority.”

Consideration should be given to:

The individuality of the tourism sub-regions meaning that their integrity needs to be preserved. Even if they become part of the SRDA, their integrity should be preserved.

The priorities as reflected in the SORDS Action Plan and Letter of Expectation as provided by the Mayoral Forum.

 

·      Proposition 35: “That the economic development operation of the SRDA is considered by the incoming board as a matter of priority.”

Consideration to be given to:

A more strongly business-based economic development approach.

Measures to involve local business in leadership of economic development, not just as advisors.

The priorities as reflected in the SORDS Action Plan and Letter of Expectation provided by the Mayoral Forum.

 

 

Transition

·      Proposition 36: “That a number of target dates are established for the transition to the SRDA as targets to expedite progress and the completion of the transition.”

 

By 1 July 2018 the following completions would be achieved:

The relationship with Ngai Tahu would be finalised.

The Joint Shareholders Committee is established.

The Shareholders Agreement is completed.

The Board appointment process is well advanced.

The Letter of Expectation is completed for 2018/19.

 

By 1 November 2018 the following additional completions would be achieved:

The Board would be appointed and in place.

The legal entity of the SRDA would be completed and registered.

The Statement of Intent would be in place.

 

By 1 February 2019 the following additional completions would be achieved:

The formal transition would be completed.

The Board would take over full operation of the organisation.

All staff would be transitioned..

All the legal and financial considerations associated with transition would have been resolved.

 

·      Proposition 37: That immediately following the completion of the transition, the Board would focus on tourism and economic development arrangements.”

Resolution of tourism arrangements – as outlined in this document above

Resolution of economic development arrangements – as outlined in this document above.

 

·      Proposition 38: “That once the councils have agreed the approach outlined in these propositions and the transition timetable is confirmed, they also need to agree on a process for exiting the current Venture Southland Agreement and transferring the current Venture Southland assets, liabilities and commitments  to the SRDA.”

SDC and GDC have already given notice under this Agreement with the 18-month period expiring on 1 February 2019. As a result, there is an alignment between the proposed timetable for formation of the SRDA and exit from the existing Agreement.

There will be a need for a due diligence process to identify the existing assets, liabilities and contractual commitments that Venture Southland has and determine how these might be transferred into the SRDA. This process will require agreement between SDC, GDC,  ICC the Venture Southland Trust and existing subsidiary companies.

 

Transition Detail

This section takes the high-level transition outline in Proposition 36 and adds a greater level of detail to help the councils and ultimately all shareholders to assess what might be involved in the transition and at what stage.

 

By 1 May 2018:

 

·      Negotiation of association with Ngai Tahu

Discussions would be undertaken with Ngai Tahu in a similar manner to those with the shareholders.

A formula for the arrangement would be developed and incorporated into the model of the company.

 

 

By 1 July 2018:

·      Notification

ICC would give formal notice of its intent to exit the current Venture Southland Agreement and enter discussions with GDC, ES and SDC about the creation of the SRDA.

Ideally these would focus on 1 February 2019.

 

·      Appointment of shareholders

Discussions are held with each prospective shareholder to ascertain their interest and expectations, especially the community shareholders who have not been as closely involved in the background work as the councils.

 

·      Informal establishment of the Joint Shareholders Committee

The primary task of this informal committee is to facilitate the preparation of the Shareholders’ Agreement.

The Shareholders’ Agreement would then be drafted and taken to each of the shareholders for consideration and ratification.

A legal peer review process would be required.

Any difficulties in the Shareholders’ Agreement would be ironed out.

It is envisaged the council CEOs would assist the JSC with this development work. This CEO group would include the CEO of Venture.  

 

·      Establishment of the board

The Board appointment process would be set in motion.

Public advertising for board positions would be undertaken.

A board appointment sub-committee would be appointed.

It is not expected that all appointments would be completed by 1 July 2018, but soon after.


 

·      Letter of Expectation

The process through which a Letter of Expectation is decided by the shareholders.

It is expected that it would emerge from a joint discussion between the council shareholders and would be delivered by the Mayoral Forum on behalf of the region.

 

·      Organisation transition

The Joint Shareholders Committee would have interim authority from its parent organisations to proceed with the transition until the shareholders’ Agreement is in place.

An organisation transition plan would be developed under the supervision of the Joint Shareholder Committee as an interim measure.

The draft plan would be forwarded to the incoming board to oversee its implementation through the chief Executive. Implementation would take place in the next transition period.

The transition plan would cover off:

§ Staff transition

§ Transition of funding arrangements – decisions about core and contracted funding

§ Contracts developed as required, with funding commitments for current projects

§ Transition of financial management including banking arrangements

§ Entity transition such as trust arrangements

§ Transition of legal agreements and arrangements.

 

By 1 November 2018

 

·      Legal entity

The legal entity of the SRDA would be completed and registered.

The entity would be in a position to gradually begin operating as per the transition plan.

 

·      Board

The Board would be appointed and in place.

Orientation would be undertaken.

The board would takeover operation of both the new entity and the old entity and a phase-out arrangement would be made with the current Venture Board.

 

·      Organisation Transition

The board would review the transition plan and endorse it to proceed having made any changes it sees fit and squared these off with the JSC.

In particular, it would review responsibilities and delegations, banking arrangements and relevant matters.

 

·      Statement of Intent

The first Statement of Intent would be drafted under the supervision of the SRDA Board in association with the JSC.

The SOI would be completed by 1 February 2019.

 


 

By 1 February 2019

·      Completions:

The formal transition would be completed.

The Board would take over full operation of the organisation.

All staff would be transitioned.

All the legal and financial considerations associated with transition would have been resolved.

 


Council

20 April 2018

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

Recommendation

 

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

C10.1 Removal of Ouvea Premix

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Removal of Ouvea Premix

s7(2)(d) - The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.