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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Monday, 18 June 2018

9am

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Paul Duffy

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 


Council

18 June 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                4

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                4

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             4

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         4

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        4

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                                             4

Reports - Policy and Strategy

Nil

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 - Delegation                                                                          7

8.2         Online Registration of New Dogs                                                                                                           15

8.3         Transfer of the Port William Scenic Reserve on Stewart Island to Department of Conservation as a Scenic Reserve                                                                                                          21

Reports - Governance

9.1         Representation Review Submissions and Consideration                                                       27

9.2         Appointments to the Milford Community Trust                                                                        459   

Public Excluded

Nil

 


Council

18 June 2018

 

1             Apologies

 

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

 

2             Leave of absence

 

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

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

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

 

4             Public Forum

 

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

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes

6.1             Meeting minutes of the Council meetings of 18 April 2018, 20 April 2018, 2 May 2018 and 16 May 2018

 


Council

18 June 2018

 

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 - Delegation

Record No:             R/18/5/10561

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       To consider delegating certain decisions to staff.

Executive Summary

2.       Council is able to delegate some of its powers to consider and decide on certain alcohol licensing applications. Staff are recommending that Council makes a delegation in the interests of improving how we work, efficiency, and our service to customers.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 - Delegation” dated 10 June 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)        Makes the following delegation under clause 32, Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002:  All of the functions or powers listed in the following table are delegated to the staff indicated in the table.  The delegated officers do not have the power to sub-delegate.

 

Key

 

CEO

Chief Executive Officer

GMES

GM – Environmental Services

LI

Licensing Inspector

CLI

Chief Licensing Inspector

CSOR

Customer Services Officer - Regulatory

LEGISLATION

SUMMARY OF FUNCTION/POWER DELEGATED

DELEGATED OFFICER

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Section 187(a)

To consider and determine applications for manager’s certificates

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Section 187(b)

To consider and determine applications for renewal of licences

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Section 187(b)

To consider and determine applications for renewal of manager’s certificates

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Section 187(c)

To consider and determine applications for temporary authority

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Section 137(2)

Accept late application for special licence

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Section 208

To waive certain omissions

CEO, GMES, CLI, LI, CSOR

Limitations

These delegations are subject to these limitations which staff cannot decide:

a.    Consider or decide on any opposed applications, or applications subject to public objection.

b.    Consider or decide on any waivers that do not meet any agreed criteria within the SEAL reference document.

c.    Decline, suspend, or cancel any application or licence or certificate.

d.    Vary any licence without the consent of the licence holder.

e.    Reduce the term of renewal of any certificate or licence

f.    Decide on any application that any reporting agency requests to be considered by the District Licensing Committee.

g.    Any application which the GM – Environmental Services decides should be considered by the District Licensing Committee.

 

 

Background

3.       Staff were developing a procedure to process late applications for special licences, and legal advice was sought from Barry Slowley to confirm its validity. This was one of 5 projects being undertaken by the local alcohol reporting agencies liaison group (the SEAL group), and Southland District Council took responsibility for this project.

4.       Barry Slowley’s advice included:

“Section 203 (9) of the Act allows the Committee to regulate its procedure in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to any provisions of the Act or regulations. There is nothing in the Act or regs that I can find that prevents the Committee from allowing staff to process and decide on the applications without involving the Committee or the Chair. My only concern is the situation where staff decided that the application under either s.137 (3) or 208 should not be granted. To avoid any potential difficulties, I think that in those circumstances, the application and the staff recommendation should be referred to the Chair.”

5.       Further clarification was sought from Mr Slowley whether this could be extended to for instance, deciding on unopposed manager’s renewal applications, and he replied in the affirmative.

6.       The author was not aware that the Committee could make such a delegation; and then put a post on the Licensing Inspector’s email forum, that unfortunately shed no light.

7.       Realising that such a delegation could have significant impacts on costs and efficiency, a second opinion was sought from Michael Garbett of Anderson Lloyd. He confirmed that the Committee is able to make such a delegation, his advice is in Attachment A.

8.       Later, discussions where held with Mr Garbett, Ms Clare Sullivan, Council’s Governance and Democracy Manager, and Mr Bruce Halligan, GM Environmental Services, concerning which legal entity should make the delegation; the valid options being either Council, the Regulatory and Consents Committee, or the District Licensing Committee.  It was decided that Council would be the entity to consider this recommended delegation, as this option most effectively mitigates against the risk of challenge. 

 

Issues

What decisions Council may wish to delegate

9.       The legal advice sets the following parameters, both (a) and (b) below being extracts from the legal advice received:

a)         “Provided the Committee delegates routine and unopposed applications to staff, then the risk of a formal legal challenge to those decisions seems low level.”

b)        “My only concern is the situation where staff decided that the application under either s.137 (3) or 208 should not be granted. To avoid any potential difficulties, I think that in those circumstances, the application and the staff recommendation should be referred to the Chair.”

10.     The applications to be delegated then should be those that are unopposed, routine; and not include a delegation to decline any application, or to reduce the renewal period of any certificate or licence. 

11.     Accordingly, the delegations as drafted in the recommendation of this report is considered suitable.

12.     This means that the District Licensing Committee will retain the consideration of all applications for on, off, and club licenses, along with any opposed applications, or applications that are considered to require District Licensing Committee consideration.

13.     A limitation has been included to permit the GM - Environmental Services to decide whether an application that is within the delegation of staff, should still be considered by the District Licensing Committee.

14.     Initially, it is proposed that the CSORs will consider and determine manager’s renewals; and other types of applications will be considered and determined by the GM - Environmental Services, or in his absence the CLI. It is anticipated the GM – Environmental Services will allocate work among those with these delegations where appropriate. However, the delegation as drafted permits maximum flexibility.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15.     Council’s legal advice enables Council to accept the recommendation of this report.

Community Views

16.     This is an operational matter and does not required community feedback. However, an important factor in seeking these delegations is to improve processing times and efficiency for routine unopposed applications and thereby enhance service to the customer and the community.

Costs and Funding

17.     A delegation will reduce the time required by the Chair to consider routine applications, and this will reduce costs on the Business Unit.  It is expected that this work will be absorbed by existing staff resources.  

Policy Implications

18.     There are no policy implications.

Options Considered

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Make delegations in accordance with the recommendation of this report

Advantages

Disadvantage

•   Efficiency

•   Faster processing of applications

•   Cost savings

•   Improved customer service

•   Less exposure of the Chair to alcohol licensing. This could be mitigated by copying the Chair into all decisions.

 

Option 2 – Status quo

Advantages

Disadvantage

•   Chair has regular exposure to alcohol licensing

•    Opposite to advantages above.

 

Assessment of Significance

19.     Not significant.

Recommended Option

20.     Option 1 – Make delegations in accordance with the recommendation of this report

Next Steps

21.     If Option 1 is adopted, staff will implement this delegation immediately.  

 

Attachments

a             Advice from Anderson Lloyd    

 


Council

18 June 2018

 

10 April 2018

 

Michael Sarfaiti

Southland District Council

michael.sarfaiti@southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Dear Michael

Delegation from District Licensing Committee

1      We refer to your email dated 4 April 2018 in which you requested advice on whether the District Licensing Committee (Committee) is lawfully able to delegate functions to staff of the Council.

Advice

2      We agree with the advice from Barry Slowley but for different reasons that the Committee is able to delegate decision making on certain applications to staff. That delegation should identify which applications are to be decided by staff and whether there are any conditions or limitations on that delegation.

3      Such a delegation should be made by the Committee under clause 32 of Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and recorded in writing in minutes of a Committee meeting.

Reasoning

4      The only specific power in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (SSAA) that deals with delegations is section 198 which only applies to sub-delegations from the Chief Executive. This is defined as the Chief Executive of the relevant Crown department and is not relevant to this issue.

5      The SSAA is silent on whether the Committee is entitled to sub-delegate any of its functions.

6      Clause 32 of Schedule 7 LGA provides the general power for any committee of Council to sub-delegate any of its powers to a member of Council staff. We consider this is the appropriate statutory power authorising a sub-delegation from the Committee to staff. That sub-delegation needs to be made by the Committee to delegate those powers and functions to the relevant staff concerned with any appropriate limits that the Committee sees fit.

7      Through our work in other districts we are aware of other more routine decisions being made by the Chairperson of the Committee, probably in reliance on the ability for the Committee to regulate its procedure in such manner as it thinks fit (section 203). We are also aware of licensing inspectors making some decisions on unopposed applications elsewhere, we would expect under delegated authority from the Committee as described above.

8      Provided the Committee delegates routine and unopposed applications to staff, then the risk of a formal legal challenge to those decisions seems low level.

9      We do strongly recommend that the delegation decision is made formally by the Committee and recorded in writing so that if it is ever queried then the appropriate paper trail can be produced identifying the chain of delegation to the staff member who has made the decision.

Yours faithfully

Anderson Lloyd

 

Michael Garbett

Partner

d   +64 3 467 7173

m  +64 27 668 9752

e   michael.garbett@al.nz

 

 



Council

18 June 2018

 

Online Registration of New Dogs

Record No:             R/18/5/12014

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1       To approve the collection of less dog registration fees, for new dogs registered using the online registration option.

Executive Summary

2        Council approved the unbudgeted expenditure for the purchase of a Pathways module on 20 April 2018, to enable Council to register new dogs online.  Staff have made efforts to implement the system and may be able to have the service available by 1 July this year.  The system currently cannot back calculate the puppy fee from the date of birth of the dog, rather it calculates it from the date of registration. This will result in less fees being collected, though the loss is relatively minor.

3        The service does not have to go live this year.  However staff recommend that the system is trialled during the 2018/19 registration year, due to a number of benefits including moving Council forwards with online lodgement generally, the introduction of bank to bank payments with online lodgement, learning the impacts of the flow on effects on other Council teams, and lessons that may be applied to refine the process for the 2019/20 registration year.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Online Registration of New Dogs” dated 30 May 2018.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Approves the collection of less dog registration fees than those fees set by Council resolution on 20 April 2018 for new dogs which are registered using the on-line option for the 2018/2019 registration year, to enable staff to implement software for online registration for new dogs.

 

 

Background

4        Council set dog registration fees for 2018/19 on 20 April 2018, they are in Attachment A. 
The same day, Council also approved the unbudgeted expenditure for the purchase of a new dogs Pathway module. 

5        As previously noted in a report to Council of 20 April 2018, 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.

6          Staff have since arranged the purchase of the software module, and have made efforts to implement it.

Issues

Collection of fees as set by Council

7        The system currently cannot back calculate the puppy fee from the date of birth of the dog, rather it calculates it from the date of registration, with the result that less fees will be collected.

8        Section 38 of the Dog Control Act 1996 has:

(1)     A territorial authority must reduce the registration fee for a dog, but only if, in a registration year,—

(a)     the dog is less than 3 months old on or after 2 August…

 

(2)     The fee payable for the dog under subsection (1) must be calculated by—

(a)     dividing the registration fee payable for a full year by 12; and

(b)     multiplying that amount by the number of complete months remaining in the registration year.

9        In effect this creates a reference dog, that is less that 3 months old on or after 2 August.  Throughout the registration year, any dog older than this reference dog does not get a reduced fee, and any dog that is younger does get the reduced fee.

10      For example this reference dog will be 8 months old in January. If a dog being registered in January is 8 months old or younger, it will get the reduced fee; if older, then there is no reduced fee.

11      For an example for how Council will collect less fees if the online system is to be used, consider a dog aged 6 months being registered in March.  Ideally the fee ought to be calculated from when the dog was 3 months of age (in December); however the dog will only pay the proportionate year from the month of March (and so will get three months “free”).  For a working dog, this would mean a loss of income of $7.50 (paying $7.50 and not $15.00).

12      Around 72% of new dogs are registered in June to September, 14% in October to December, and 14% the remainder of the year. This means a large proportion of new dogs will only get a small number of “free” months, meaning that the loss of income will be relatively minor. 

13      Currently around 20% of dogs are renewed online.  If the same percentage was applied to new dogs, then about 400 new dogs would be registered online for 2018/19. Of these, a significant proportion will not qualify for the reduced fee, being too old.

14      The service does not have to go live this year.  However staff recommend that the system is trialled during the 2018/19 registration year, due to a number of benefits including moving Council forwards with online lodgement generally, the introduction of bank to bank payments with online lodgement, learning the impacts of the flow on effects on other Council teams, and lessons that may be applied to refine the process for the 2019/20 registration year.

15     Dog registration fees as set by Council could be collected completely correctly through a two-step process; that is, the dog owner fills out the online form, waits for staff to advise what the fees are, then completes the process online.  This method is not recommended as it is does not conform to a typical online purchase experience, and will not maximise internal efficiencies.

 

Payment methods

16      Up until now, dog owners renewing dog registration online have only had the option of paying using a credit card. Shortly Council’s IT Team expect to have the bank to bank payment option available for use.

17     This is expected to enable more dog owners to register online, and it is hoped that a larger number of dog owners will renew their dog registration online as a result, and also encourage the registration of new dogs online.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

18      Staff do not have the authority to collect less fees than those set by Council.

19      Council’s legal advisor advises that collecting less fees than those publicly notified will need a resolution of Council, and a resolution ratifying action taken by staff to reduce the fees would be sufficient.

20     Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by implication enables the reduction of fees during a registration year; Section 37 (8) only prevents an increase in dog control fees during a registration year.

Community Views

21      Individual dog owners will not object to paying less fees.  Some members of the community may feel that it is unfair that dog owners may pay less than they have recently.  The community does support an online option as discussed in the Background of this report. 

22      It is also desirable to have dogs registered, and not to hinder dog owners registering their dogs due with the use of punitive measures. There is a link between unregistered dogs and attacks, and registration is as a result encouraged.

Costs and Funding

23      Staff believe that the income lost may be less than $5,000, however this cannot be estimated accurately as there are a number of variables, in particular the percentage of dog owners who will register their new dogs online.

24      The dog control business unit reserve is currently about $95,000, and so a minor loss of income can be funded by reserves. 

25      Online registration is significantly more efficient than other methods, such as paper forms. There will be significantly less staff time needed to enter data from paper forms, and less follow up required for errors, matching of payments, and so on. Therefore, expenditure relating to staff resourcing will be less.

26      Staff recommend that this first year is regarded as a trial, and once staff have had considerable experience registering new dogs online, recommendations may be presented to Council for the next registration year in 2019/20.

27     The experience of using this new module, along with bank to bank payments, is expected to provide a significant step towards online lodgement generally, and associated efficiency, for other Council services.

Policy Implications

28      There are no specific policy and plan considerations.


 

Analysis

Options Considered

Option 1 - Approve the collection of less dog registration fees from dog owners that register new dogs online for the 2018/19 registration year, in so far as necessary to enable the online system to be trialled.

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.

·      Increased internal effectiveness.

·      Learnings that may be applied to refine the process for 2019/20.

·      Learnings from the introduction of bank to bank payment for online lodgement.

·      Determining the impacts of the flow on effects on other Council teams

·      Customer focussed.

·        Minor loss of income.

Option 3 – Endorsement of a two-step online process (the customer completes the form online, is advised by staff of the fees owing, and then complete the process)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Accurate fee collection.

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

·      Learnings from the introduction of bank to bank payment for online lodgement.

·        An unsatisfactory customer experience that does not conform to current online payment experience. 

Option 3 – Status quo for 2018/19

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Higher income from fees.

·      The system does not need to go live now.

·        Advantages in Option 1 above not realised/postponed.

 

Assessment of Significance

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

Recommended Option

30      Option 1 – approve the collection of less dog registration fees from dog owners that register new dogs online for the 2018/19 registration year, in so far as necessary to enable the online system to be trialled.

Next Steps

31      Should Council accept Option 1, then staff will aim to have online registration for new dogs available for public use by 1 July 2018. 

 

Attachments

a             Proposed Dog Control Registration Fee Schedule 2018/19    

 


Council

18 June 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

18 June 2018

 

Transfer of the Port William Scenic Reserve on Stewart Island to Department of Conservation as a Scenic Reserve

Record No:             R/18/5/11605

Author:                      Kevin McNaught, Strategic Manager Property

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the situation at Port William in relation to the land classified as Council Scenic Reserve. It is recommended that the land be transferred to the Department of Conservation (DoC) as Scenic Reserve.

Executive Summary

2        The report is the result of a request from DoC to transfer Council owned scenic reserve land at Port William.  DoC wish to upgrade the three Great Walk Campsites on the Rakiura Track and the site at Port William is located on land owned by Council.  This creates a problem for DoC as they cannot carry out capital works on non-DoC land.

3        The recommendation is that Council transfer the land to DoC as a scenic reserve.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Transfer of the Port William Scenic Reserve on Stewart Island to Department of Conservation as a Scenic Reserve” dated 10 June 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)           Resolves that the Council owned land held as a Scenic Reserve at Port William, Stewart Island being Section 3, Block I, Anglem Survey District contained in CFR 140/171 be transferred to the Department of Conservation for a Scenic Reserve.

 

 

Background

4        DoC is looking at upgrading the three Great Walk Campsites on the Rakiura Track/Stewart Island.  When looking at the sites it was noted that the current Port William Campsite is not on public conservation land managed by DoC but on land owned by Council.

5        The aim of the upgrade is to improve waste management and increase capacity, which would involve the following:

•              Increase capacity from 6 to 10 campsites (16 to 20 people)

•              Replace the current pit toilet with a full containment toilet system

•              Replace the existing shelter with a larger one

•              Some minor vegetation and levelling work required.

 

6        It is the requirement of DoC that capital development like this proposal be undertaken on land directly under the control of their own organisation.

Issues

7        DoC wish to upgrade the campsite at Port William.  They have established that the land is owned by the Southland District Council for scenic reserve purposes.  The land was transferred from the estate of Isabel Baker to the Stewart Island County Council for scenic reserve purposes in 1959.

8        DoC have requested that the land at Port William that is owned by the Southland District Council and is designated Scenic Reserve be transferred to DoC.  The original thought was that the land be transferred and added to the Rakiura National Park, however for various reasons DoC are proposing a transfer to DOC as scenic reserve.

9        All work proposed by DoC would be undertaken to the required legal standards.  The site has historic values and these would be discussed and addressed appropriately with Iwi and Heritage NZ prior to any work taking place.

10      The retention and management of this land as a scenic reserve is not required by Council given its size of 2.02 ha, its location on Stewart Island away from Oban and apart for some portions of legal road is surrounded by DOC land being the Rakiura National Park. See attached plan.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

11      Legal advice is that the transfer can occur subject to Council obtaining approval from the estate of the benefactor.  Notification of consent for the transfer has been received from “Perpetual Guardian” acting for the benefactor.

12      Subject to all approvals being obtained by both sides, Council and DoC, then Council will complete a transfer of the land to her Majesty the Queen for the purposes of a scenic reserve. There will, however, be a restriction on any future transfer.

Community Views

13      The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board at its meeting on 9 April 2018 recommended to Council that the transfer to DoC for a Scenic Reserve proceed.

Costs and Funding

14      The proposal would be to gift the land to DoC for nil value. There will be some legal costs associated with a standard transfer document.

Policy Implications

15      The land is effectively being managed as DoC estate now and further development of the recreational potential of the site is consistent with the current use and designation of scenic reserve.  No negative or conflicting policy implications have been identified.

Analysis

Options Considered

16      The options are to transfer the land to DoC or not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Transfer land to DoC

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Improved recreation facilities will able to be developed by DoC and so enhance the user experience in the Port William area.

·        DoC will be responsible for all development and operational costs.

•    Council will lose control of this property.

 

Option 2 – Do not transfer the land.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Council will remain responsible for the land.

·        Development of the campsite will not occur.

·        Council will retain the ongoing ownership liabilities for this site.

Assessment of Significance

17      This decision is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

18      Option 1 to transfer land to DoC.

Next Steps

19      Complete transfer.


 

 

Attachments

a             Map of Port William Scenic Reserve

b             Request from DOC to transfer land at Port William to them.    

 


Council

18 June 2018

 


Council

18 June 2018

 

 


Council

18 June 2018

 

Representation Review Submissions and Consideration

Record No:             R/18/6/12829

Author:                      Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of the report is for the Hearings Panel to receive the submissions on the 2018 Representation Review Initial Proposal, hear from the oral submitters and consider all submissions and provide recommendations to Council as to whether it should confirm or alter the Initial Proposal as its Final Proposal.

Executive Summary

2        At its meeting on 20 April 2018 Council adopted its Initial Proposal on the Representation Review.  The Initial Proposal set out in accordance with sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) the Council’s proposal for representation arrangements for elections of the council and community boards.  The resolutions from that report are included in the background section of this paper.  Council also endorsed the Community Governance Reference Document which was made available to the public for information purposes. 

3        Public notice was given of the Initial Proposal inviting submissions on the Initial Proposal on 26 and 28 April 2019.  Submissions closed on Wednesday 6 June 2018 at 5pm.  153 submissions on the Initial Proposal were received.  Of those over 30 requested to be heard.

4        Council established a Hearings Panel comprising the full Council and members of the elected representative working group to hear submissions and make recommendations to Council.  Council will adopt its Final Proposal on 11 July 2018.

5        Section 19N of the LEA requires the Council to consider all submissions received and make amendments to its proposal as it thinks fit.

6        Following the Council decision on 11 July Section 19N also requires Council to give public notice of its final proposal which must include any amendments made; the reasons for the amendments and any rejection of submissions and the right of the public to appeal or object to the Final Proposal.

 

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

a)            Receives the report titled “Representation Review Submissions and Consideration” dated 12 June 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)           Receives all submissions on the 2018 Representation Review Initial Proposal, hears the oral submitters and considers all submissions.

 

e)            Recommends to Council whether it should confirm and adopt the Initial Proposal as its Final Proposal or amend the Initial Proposal and issue a Final Proposal accordingly.

 

Background

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

8        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.

9        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; 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. 

10      As well as a 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.

11      The LEA details criteria that must be satisfied when a 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.  Each of these are summarised below. 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. 

12      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.

13      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. 

14      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.

15      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. 

16      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.

17      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.  

18      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. 

19      Non-compliance with the +/- 10% rule is permitted by section 19V(3) where it is necessary for the effective representation of island or isolated communities of interest.

20      In addition to the legislative criteria outlined in the paragraphs above, 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      In order to provide a greater context, and additional related information, Council undertook a wider community governance review project and also produced a Community Governance Reference Document. The document was not being consulted on but rather provided background information on the process to date together with draft indicative terms of reference and ‘way of working’ for the proposed governance structure.

23      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.

24      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. 

25      Accordingly, based on the above, on 20 April 2018 Council adopted the following Initial Proposal:

f)             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.

 

g)            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.

 

Issues

26      In hearing and considering the submissions the Hearings Panel must take into account the statutory requirements as summarised in paragraphs 9 to 24 of this report upon which the Council based its Initial Proposal.

27      In addition, as noted in paragraph six, Council is required to show that it has considered all submissions by providing reasons for the acceptance or rejection of submission points. 

28      The Hearings Panel during its consideration should provide a clear set of recommendations to council and the reasons for those (including any amendments) or, as noted above the rejection of submissions.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

29      The legal and statutory requirements of the LEA are set out in the report.

Community Views

30      The purpose of the report is to receive and hear the community views. 

Costs and Funding

31      Costs for the Representation Review process have been provided for within existing budgets.

Policy Implications

32      Impacts of the proposed changes are outlined in the community governance reference document attached to a report on 20 April 2018.

Analysis

Options Considered

33      Council must meet its statutory obligations to conduct a representation review as outlined in the report. Council can either adopt the Initial Proposal (Option 1) or Amend the Initial Proposal (Option 2) to reflect matters raised through the submissions.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Adopt the Initial Proposal

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 – Amend Initial Proposal

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Meets the statutory requirements

·        Council would be able to show that it has actively considered and taken account of submissions received.

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

·        None identified.

 

Assessment of Significance

34      The level of significance is determined as significant as it is through this process that the Council determines its representation model for the following six year period.

35      The engagement and consultation process followed to date reflect the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Government Act 2002. 

Next Steps

36      Council will consider the Hearings panel recommendations on 11 July 2018 and adopt its Final Proposal.  Public notification will be given of the decision.

37      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             Schedule of oral submitters and submissions

b             All submissions received to the 2018 Representation Review Initial Proposal    

 


Council

18 June 2018

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 June 2018

 

Appointments to the Milford Community Trust

Record No:             R/18/6/12799

Author:                      Simon Moran, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek approval from the Council to appoint Cr Ebel Kremer as an interim Independent Chair of the Milford Community Trust for a period of 18 months and the appointment of Jason Steele as a Trustee.

Executive Summary

2        The report provides some background to the Trust the need for the appointments and the reason why the appointment of the Chair is for a shorter period of time than provided for in the Trust Deed. It recommends the appointment of a Chair and Trustee.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Appointments to the Milford Community Trust” dated 12 June 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)           Appoints Cr Ebel Kremer as the Chair of the Milford Community Trust for a period of 18 months ending 31 December 2019.

 

e)            Appoints Jason Steele as a Trustee to the Milford Community Trust.

 

f)             Records its thanks to Mike Schuck for the time he has been involved with the Milford Community Trust as a Trustee and independent Chair.

 

g)           Records its thanks to Mike McConachie for his time as a Trustee on the Milford Community Trust.

 

 


 

Background

3        The Milford Community Trust was established in 2007 by the Southland District Council and the Department of Conservation with the assistance of Environment Southland for the purposes of providing leadership and governance for the Milford community.

4        The objectives of the Trust are:

(a)   To manage and carry out services and undertake leadership, planning and advocacy for the general benefit of the Milford community so as to ensure as far as possible that the infrastructure of the community and its sense of identity, viability and wellbeing are maintained and enhanced.

(b)   To liaise with and communicate with all individuals, organisations, groups and other parties with interests in the Milford community for all purposes which are beneficial to the community.

(c)    To represent the interests of the Milford community to ensure that the natural environments and outstanding values of the Milford Sound area are safeguarded and protected for all residents and visitors to the area.

(d)   To monitor and maintain an overview of all activities and services provided within the Milford community.

(e)    To consider and report on all matters either referred to and/or delegated to it from time to time by the Department of Conservation and the Southland District Council and on any matter of interest or concern to the Milford community.

(f)    To access, use or invest funds and enter into arrangements, contracts and other agreements upon such securities or in such manner and upon such terms and conditions that the Trustees deem suitable for the purpose of furthering the objects and purposes of the Trust.

(g)    To carry out such other lawful activities which are incidental or conducive to attaining the objects and purposes of the Trust.

5        In accordance with the Trust Deed the Independent Chair and Trustees are appointed for a four year term by the Council after considering the recommendation of the appointments panel. The panel is made up of the representatives from Southland District Council, Environment Southland, and the Department of Conservation.

6        On the 9th of May Council received an email from Mike Schuck, the current Independent Chair of the Milford Community Trust (the Trust), in which he stated that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment to that position at the expiry of his term at the end of June 2018. Mike has been part of the Trust since its inception in 2007 and the Chair since 2010.

7        Also at the end of June two other Trustees terms will expire – Mike McConachie and Jason Steele. A call for nominations for Trustees was advertised which closed on the 25th May. Two nominations were received although one has since been withdrawn, the remaining nomination is for Jason Steele. The Trust Deed specifically states in Clause 6(e) that a Trustee may hold office on more than one occasion.

Issues

Future direction

8        In May 2017 the Trust held a meeting to discuss strategic issues with one of the key matters being about whether it was clear what its purpose was now that 10 years have passed. That matter is still relevant, and perhaps even more so, now that Fire and Emergency New Zealand have assumed responsibility for the Milford Emergency Response Team Leader role.

9        The current representation and community governance reviews make this an opportune time to explore the options for the future leadership and governance for the Milford community. It is therefore recommended that Council appoint a Chair for an 18 month period to enable those discussions to be had and a direction finalised. If the Trust continues with a redefined purpose then a decision about how it is to be chaired can be made at that time. 

10      It is suggested that Council appoints a chair from within the current Trust structure for this interim period. With Cr Kremer already an ex officio member as the local Ward councillor it would be expedient to appoint him as the interim chair so that there is continuity for the existing discussions.

Continued Vacancy

11      Two Trustee positions become vacant at the end of June. Following the withdrawal of one of the applications, and assuming the re-appointment of Mr Steele, there will still be one Trustee vacancy. Given the situation outlined above regarding discussions about the future of the Trust it would be reasonable at this stage to proceed with the current Trustees and leave seeking further nominations until the direction of the Trust is clear.

12      The Trust will be asked to consider this situation at its next meeting on the 25th of June.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13      The Trust Deed sets out the Trustee positions, who may qualify for appointment to the Trust, and the process for their appointment.

14      As part of that process there is a Trustee Appointments Recommendation Panel made up of the chief executives of the Southland District Council and Environment Southland, the Department of Conservation’s Southland Conservator (now the Director of Operations under the new structure) and the Milford Community Representative Trustee. The recommendation of that group is to make the appointments as stated in this report.

Community Views

15      As stated above the Trust Deed sets out the process and it does not require community input.

Costs and Funding

16      The appointment of the Trustees will not alter existing costs and funding for the Trust or Council.

Policy Implications

17      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

18      At a basic level the options are straight forward – they are that Council either makes the appointments or it does not.

 

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Appoint the Trustees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The Trust has continuity.

·        The Chair does not need to be brought up to speed due to having previously been the ex officio Trustee.

·        None

 

Option 2 – Do not appoint the Trustees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None

·        There is a delay in having leadership for the Trust at a time when they are wanting to consider their future strategy.

 

Assessment of Significance

19      The decision sought from Council does not trigger any of the significance criteria.

Recommended Option

20      Option 1 is recommended.

Next Steps

21      Advise Cr Kremer and Jason Steele that they have been appointed by Council to their respective roles.

 

Attachments

a             Milford Community Trust Deed    

 


Council

18 June 2018