Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Community and Policy Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

1pm

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street, Invercargill

 

Community and Policy Committee Agenda

OPEN

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Keast

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager - Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 

 

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

 

 


 

Terms of Reference – Community and Policy Committee

 

The Community and Policy Committee is responsible for:

·                 Assessing and providing advice to Council on:

-      Key strategic issues affecting the District and Council;

-      Community development issues affecting the District and Council;

-      The service needs of the District’s communities and how these needs might best be met;

-      Resource allocation and prioritisation processes and decisions.

·                 Developing and recommending strategies, plans and policies to the Council that advance the Council’s vision and goals, and comply with the purpose of the Local Government Act.

·                 Monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of strategies, plans and policies.

·                 Developing and approving submissions to government, local authorities and other organisations.

·                 Advocating Council’s position on particular policy issues to other organisations, as appropriate.

·                 Considering recommendations from Council’s Subcommittees and make decisions where it has authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

 

The Community and Policy Committee is also responsible for community partnerships and engagement.  This includes:

·                 Monitoring the progress, implementation and effectiveness work undertaken by Venture Southland in line with the Venture Southland Heads of Agreement and specific Service Level Agreement between Southland District Council and Venture Southland.

·                 Allocations of grants, loans, scholarships and bursaries in accordance with Southland District Council policy. 

·                 International relations. 

·                 Developing and overseeing the implementation of Council’s community engagement and consultation policies and processes. 

 

The Community and Policy Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers:

 

(a)            Approving all submissions made by Southland District Council to other councils, central government and other bodies.

 

(b)           To approve scholarships, bursaries, grants and loans within Council policy and annual budgets. 

 

(c)            Monitor the performance of Venture Southland in the delivery against its Business Plan and Council’s letter of expectation. 

 

The Community and Policy Committee has authority to consider and make recommendations to Council regarding strategies, policies and plans.


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 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 Minutes                                                                                                                               4

Reports for Resolution

7.1         Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group - Terms of Reference                                                                                                                                                                                       9

Reports for Recommendation

8.1         Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw                                                  13

Reports

9.1         Community Futures - Research and Analysis Work Programme Update                      59

9.2         Policy, Bylaw and Delegations Manual review                                                                            105

9.3         Venture Southland fourth quarter report 2017/2018                                                             107   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       145

C10.1    Organisational Service Delivery - Community Led Development Approach            145  


 

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

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member 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 committee 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 Minutes

6.1         Meeting minutes of Community and Policy Committee, 26 July 2018


 

Community and Policy Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Community and Policy Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 1pm.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Julie Keast

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager - Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Communications Manager

Louise Pagan

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 


1             Apologies

 

There were apologies received from Councillor’s Paterson and Baird.

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Frazer  and resolved:

That the Community and Policy Committee accept the apologies.

 

 

2             Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

 

4             Public Forum

 

There was no public forum.

 

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

 

6             Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That the minutes of Community and Policy Committee meeting, held on 9 May 2018 be confirmed as a true and correct record of that meeting.

 

Reports

 

 

8.1

Southland District - Shaping Positive Community Futures - Stage 2 - Where are we heading?

Record No: R/18/5/10470

 

Group Manager Community and Futures, Rex Capil was in attendance for this item.

 

Mark Cox (BERL) addressed the meeting introducing the second in a series of reports on Southland District to inform shaping positive community futures for the district.

 

Mr Cox explained the series as a whole is concerned with answering separate broad questions the Council needs to ask about social and economic conditions in the District and its communities.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Perham  and resolved:

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Southland District - Shaping Positive Community Futures - Stage 2 - Where are we heading?” dated 4 July 2018.

 

b)           Endorses the report titled “Southland District - Shaping Positive Community Futures - Stage 2 - Where are we heading?” dated 4 July 2018.

 

c)            Considers the results of the Southland District Stage 2 Where are we heading? BERL Report – May 2018 and provides feedback.

 

 

8.2

Venture Southland third quarter report 2017-18

Record No: R/18/5/11321

 

1          Venture Southland Group Manager, Business and Strategy, Steve Canny and Group Manager, Events, Tourism and Community, Bobbi Brown were in attendance for this item.

Mr Canny advised the report provides an update on the key objectives, projects and performance measures for Venture Southland for the 2017/18 third quarter.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Venture Southland third quarter report 2017-18” dated 12 June 2018.

 

Reports for Resolution

 

 

7.1

BERL Helping to Shape Positive Community Futures - Project 3 Where do we actually want to be?

Record No: R/18/5/10473

 

Group Manager Community and Futures, Rex Capil was in attendance for this item.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Perham, seconded Cr Kremer 

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “BERL Helping to Shape Positive Community Futures - Project 3 Where do we actually want to be?” dated 5 July 2018.

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

 

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

 

d)           Endorse engaging BERL to complete “BERL Helping to Shape Positive Community Futures - Project 3 Where do we actually want to be?”

 

e)            Note that this Project 3 Where do we actually want to be? is the final piece of work in the three staged project titled “How BERL can help to shape Positive Community Futures.”

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 2.27pm                       CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Community and Policy Committee HELD ON THURSDAY, 26 JULY 2018

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 


Community and Policy Committee

5 September 2018

 

Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group - Terms of Reference

Record No:             R/18/8/19257

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 to amend the Terms of Reference for the Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group (the working group) to reflect the next stage of the Community Governance Project.

Executive Summary

2        In July 2018 the Council adopted its final proposal on the Representation Review.  The working group was established to provide feedback and inform points for consideration, the development of issues and options and governance requirements and assist in the community engagement process.  The working group provided a strong political voice in delivering the Representation Review project and process to communities throughout the District.

3        In addition, the non-councillor members of the working group were appointed to the Hearings Panel (that comprised the Council) to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Council on the Representation Review.

4        The next stage of the Community Governance Project is to implement the outcome of the Representation Review and provide a new way of working to support the new governance structure.  The support of the new governance structure is critical to the success of it.  Therefore it is considered that the working group has a crucial role to play in assisting with this.

5        This report provides updated terms of reference for the working group to acknowledge the changing role as the Community Governance Project progresses.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)        Receives the report titled “Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group - Terms of Reference” dated 26 August 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)        Endorses the continuation of the Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group to progress the implementation of the Community Governance Project

 

e)        Approves the updated Terms of Reference of the Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group as noted in paragraphs 10 and 11.

 

f)         Reconfirms the membership of the Community Governance Elected Representative Working Group to be:

         Mayor Gary Tong

         Cr Julie Keast

         Cr Brian Dillon

         Cr Ebel Kremer

         Andre Bekhuis

         Brian McGrath

         Pam Naylor

         Pam Yorke

 


 

Background

6        The working group was a vital part of the consideration of the Representation Review.  Members attended the community conversations and briefings for elected members, provided feedback and informed points for consideration, the development of issues and options.  In addition, the non-councillor members were appointed to the Hearings Panel that heard and considered the submissions received.

7        As Council moves into the next phase of the Community Governance Project of implementing the Representation Review structure and focussing on a new way of working to support the new structure it is considered that the working group will have a crucial role to support the implementation. 

8        Throughout the Community Governance Project Council identified and developed a set of Guiding Principles which provided a framework from which it developed the Representation Review.  The 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 – reduce the moving parts, tailored and targeted delegations to meet the purpose and the organisation structure to reflect the governance structure.  These principles continue to inform and guide the development of the new way of working.

Issues

9        If the Committee agrees that it would be useful for the working group to continue meeting and play a role in the implementation of the new structure then new terms of reference need to be adopted. These are set out below:

10      The role of the working group will be to focus, comment and support the processes identified in the Community Governance Reference Document that was endorsed by Council.  The document set out a new way of working for Community boards.  Matters the working group will consider include the introduction of new standing orders, role of members, code of conduct, induction and training, reporting, reporting to the community, the relationship with Council and the protocols relating to local groups operating in their local community. 

11      The working group may decide to invite other members to discuss particular matters as it sees fit.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12      The working group is not a committee or subcommittee and is therefore not subject to the Local Government Act 2002 or LGOIMA.  It has no decision-making authority.

Community Views

13      Not applicable.

Costs and Funding

14      Costs for the Representation Review are provided for in the 2018/19 Annual Plan.  

Policy Implications

15      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

16      There are two options – either for the working group to continue for the implementation phase or not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 –  Endorse the continuation of the working group

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Supports a successful implementation of the representation review and community governance project

·        Enables elected members views and feedback to be included and factored into the new way of working. 

·        None identified

 

Option 2 –  Working Group does not continue

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Less meetings to attend for elected members 

·        The introduction of the new structure may not be as smooth.

 

Assessment of Significance

17      Low significance.

Recommended Option

18      Option 1 is the recommended option.

Next Steps

19      If the continuation of the working group is supported then it a meeting will be arranged.  It is envisaged that several meetings will be held before the end of 2018 and into 2019.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

  


Community and Policy Committee

5 September 2018

 

Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw

Record No:             R/18/6/13225

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is for the Community and Policy Committee to consider the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy (the draft Policy) and the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw (the draft Bylaw). This report seeks feedback from the Committee.

2.       It is proposed that the Committee recommend to Council that it endorse the draft Policy and draft Bylaw for public consultation.

Executive Summary

3.       The Policy and Bylaw were adopted on 12 December 2012. They are now due for review.

4.       To help identify aspects of the current Policy and Bylaw that need to be revised, staff asked for feedback from internal and external stakeholders. The draft Policy and Bylaw include a number of changes and incorporate the feedback received. The draft Policy and Bylaw are included with this report as Attachments A and B.

5.       Some of the key changes incorporated into the draft Policy are:

·            streamlining the application and allocation process

·            changes to who allocates the levy

·            discontinuing the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

·            allowing applications and allocations for salary and wages

·            altering the allocation process by establishing categories for applications, and guidelines for the proportion of levy funds that the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) could give to each category

·            allowing multi-year funding to service loans for projects such as capital works projects

·            specifying that some levy funding should be allocated to a reserve to ensure Council can meet its multi-year funding commitments.

 

6.       Only minor amendments are proposed to the draft Bylaw, which include:

·            removing that Council will collect levies on its website

·            outlining that levies will be collected in a collection box on the Main Wharf in Oban.

·            removing that Council will detail on signage, the agents appointed to collect levies on Council’s behalf

·            detailing the infringement fee that has been set by way of regulation.

 

7.       Staff seek feedback from the Committee on the draft Policy and Bylaw. The two main options presented in the report relate to whether the Subcommittee or the Community and Policy Committee should allocate funding to applicants.

8.       If the Committee recommend that Council endorses the draft Policy and Bylaw for consultation, they will be presented to Council on 19 September with the recommendation that they are put out for consultation.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw” dated 27 August 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)           Considers the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw and provides feedback.

 

e)            Endorses the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy with Section 10A (which retains the current Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee and adds a member to that Subcommittee to represent iwi).

 

f)             Endorses the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw.

 

g)           Recommends to Council that it release the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy for public consultation.

 

h)           Recommends to Council that it release the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw for public consultation.

 

i)             Notes that changes to the current delegations of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee will be required if the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy is adopted.

 


 

Background

The Act

9.       Although Stewart Island/Rakiura has a small resident population, it is a destination for a large number of short-term visitors. This creates a unique funding challenge for Council. In recognition of this, Parliament adopted the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Act 2012 (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism for Council to set and collect levies and obtain revenue from passengers travelling to Stewart Island/Rakiura, in order to better provide services, facilities, and amenities for those persons while they are on the Island.

10.     The Act establishes who is a visitor in relation to collecting the levy, it gives Council the right to make a bylaw to prescribe the rate of levies that may be imposed on or in respect of visitors, and it outlines information about infringements.

11.     The Act also outlines that levies collected under the Act and revenue collected by an approved operator must be used for 1 or more of the following purposes:

·            funding, wholly or in part, activities used by visitors or any class of excluded visitor:

·            funding, wholly or in part, activities on the Island for the benefit of visitors or any class of excluded visitor:

·            mitigating the adverse effects of visitors or excluded visitors on the environment of the Island

Council’s current Policy and Bylaw

12.     Following the adoption of the Act, Council adopted a Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy (the current Policy) and a Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw (the current Bylaw) in December 2012. The current Policy and Bylaw became operative and levies and revenue started being collected, in October 2013.

13.     The current Policy contains practical information about how the visitor levy operates (see Attachment C). It outlines who has to pay levies and revenue, and how a person can prove they are exempt.

14.     Revenue is collected from visitors on behalf of Southland District Council by Approved Operators (Stewart Island Flights, Stewart Island Experience and ISS Mckay) and levies are collected in a collection box from visitors arriving on the Island as freedom travellers.

15.     Currently, Venture Southland administer the fund, with a TAG providing recommendations, strategic insight and technical expertise to the Subcommittee regarding funding applications.  

16.     The Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee, as a subcommittee of Council, is disestablished at the end of each triennium and needs to be re-established by the new Council at the beginning of each triennium. This Subcommittee currently meet annually to allocate funding. To be considered for funding, applications have to be for the purposes outlined in the Act, and priority is given to applications for activities or projects that can demonstrate the widest public benefit.

 

17.     The current Bylaw outlines the levy amount that is imposed ($5), how it is collected, and the relevant offences and penalties. The infringement fee for each infringement offence has been set by way of a regulation made under the Act, and is $250. The current Bylaw is included with this report as Attachment D.

Financial information

18.     The current Bylaw and Policy came into effect in October 2013. The table below shows information on the funds that have been collected since that time.

Year ended

$ (GST excl)

No of visitors

No who travelled on a cruise ship

%

No who travelled with an approved operator

%

No of others (aka freedom travellers)

%

June 14

(9 months)

113,567

26,120

2,981

11%

22,946

88%

194

1%

June 2015

133,251

30,648

2,083

7%

28,335

92%

230

1%

June 2016

158,511

36,457

2,492

7%

33,872

93%

94

-

June 2017

159,372

36,656

2,187

6%

34,302

93.5%

167

0.5%

June 2018

193,143

44,423

6,839

15%

37,490

85%

94

-

Total

757,844

174,304

16,582

9.5%

156,945

90%

779

0.5%

 

19.     Over this period funds paid have amounted to $710,659. These funds have been paid to support the tourist experience on the Island. Analysis into where funds have been allocated, and for what purpose, is as follows:

 

$ Infrastructure

$ Museum Development

$ Wi-Fi

$ Environment

$ Visitor Information

$ Total

% Share

Local Community Groups

83,000

72,500

5,249

28,582

13,997

203,328

29%

Council

507,331

-

-

-

-

507,331

71%

Total

590,331

72,500

5,249

28,582

13,997

710,659

100%

% Share

83%

10%

1%

4%

2%

100%

 

 

The review process to date

20.     Although the current Bylaw is not legally required to be reviewed by any set time, recent legal advice has indicated it would be good practice to begin a review of the current Bylaw, as a reasonable period of time has elapsed since it was adopted. The Policy also states that it will be reviewed within 6 years of adoption, which is December this year.

21.     To help identify aspects of the current Policy and Bylaw that should be revised, staff undertook an initial round of preliminary consultation and obtained feedback from internal and external stakeholders (staff members, members of the Stewart Island/Rakiura community and stakeholders involved with the Levy). Staff used the feedback received to help develop the draft Policy and Bylaw.

22.     A second round of preliminary consultation involved providing copies of the draft Policy and Bylaw to interested parties/stakeholders and to people who have applied to receive Levy Funding in the past, and seeking their feedback. Three responses were received and these have been considered by staff.

23.     Staff have discussed aspects of the draft Policy with elected representatives who have indicated support for some of the key changes outlined in the draft Policy, such as having allocation categories as a guide, being able to commit to giving funds in future allocation rounds, and having a reserve.

24.     In regard to who should allocate levy funds, some elected representatives have questioned whether the Subcommittee should be continued or whether the Committee should have this responsibility, with input from the approved operators and local iwi.

Issues

Proposed key changes

Streamlining the application and allocation process

25.     Stakeholders expressed views that the application and allocation process needs to be more streamlined and that better communication is required. On this basis staff have included a number of minor changes in the draft Policy to promote a more efficient and transparent process.

26.     The draft Policy states that the application process, currently administered through Venture Southland, will be administered by Council. Staff have included in the draft Policy more ability for a staff member or contractor to communicate with an applicant around any minor issue with the application. In the proposed changes, an applicant can also request to be heard at the allocation meeting.

            

27.     Dates and timeframes have been included to ensure the fund is administrated in an efficient way, and to better manage expectations. It is now stated:

·            when advertisements will be placed, seeking applications

·            when applications will close

·            when payments will be made

·            when applicants will be notified whether or not their application was successful.

Allocating levy funds

28.     Feedback and consideration suggests there are two options for the draft Policy.

29.     Option 1 (the recommended Option) is that the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee allocates funds.

30.     Feedback that is in support of the Subcommittee continuing to allocate funds is:

·            having more independence

·            having local input

·            having tangata whenua or the Department of Conservation as representatives on the Subcommittee.

31.     Staff have considered the preliminary feedback received, and recommend having a member to represent iwi on the Subcommittee.

32.     Option 2 is that the Community and Policy Committee should allocate funds.

33.     Some feedback questioned the need for the Subcommittee and suggested that the Community and Policy Committee make allocations with involvement from the approved operators and iwi. The feedback did not consider whether the approved operators and iwi would have voting rights at the allocations meeting.

34.     Currently the Community and Policy Committee allocate a number of grants such as the Community Initiatives Fund, so it could be seen as being more consistent if allocations are made by the Committee.

35.     Staff have included two versions of section 10 (Section 10A and Section 10B) in the draft Policy. Option 1 is outlined in Section 10A, and Option 2 is outlined in Section 10B.

36.     The advantages and disadvantages of both options are set out in the ‘Analysis of Options’ section below.

Discontinuing TAG

37.     The preliminary consultation feedback received was that TAG considering the applications and providing advice, is a confusing step that makes the allocation process less transparent. It was also raised that the relationship between TAG and the Subcommittee was unclear. Feedback was received that TAG may not actually be adding value to the process, and whether it was necessary. It was outlined that the Subcommittee often doesn’t follow the recommendations made by TAG, and that it was felt that this demonstrated the lack of need for TAG. Concerns were also raised about frequent conflict of interests that arise in TAG.

38.     Taking stakeholder feedback and feedback received at the Committee workshop into account, staff have not included TAG in the draft Policy. If TAG is removed, Council’s ‘Terms of Reference/Delegations for Committee and Subcommittees’ will need to be updated to remove a reference to TAG.

39.     In the draft Policy, a staff member or contractor will support the allocation process, and will provide information around eligibility and strategic fit against the criteria. 

Allowing allocations for salary/wage

40.     A large amount of feedback was received from external stakeholders that applications for salary/wages should be eligible for levy funding. It was felt that an inconsistent approach to salary/wages is currently being applied. For example, it was outlined that salary/wages are being allocated funding if those costs are part of the operational costs of completing a wider project, but if an applicant applies for funding solely to cover a salary/wage, then the application is being declined. It was also outlined that the purpose of the levy is to better provide for visitors while they are on the Island, and that allocating funds to salary/wage can greatly enhance the visitor experience.

41.     In response to stakeholder feedback, to ensure consistent decisions are made, and to ensure alignment with the purpose of the Act, it has been specifically stated in the draft Policy that applications can be made to cover salary/wages. This change also takes into account that historically applications have been made requesting funding for applications relating to salary/wage.

Establishing categories for applications, and giving an indication of the proportion of funds that could be given to each category

42.     Through the preliminary consultation process, it was identified that some stakeholders have strong views on where levy funds should be allocated. Stakeholders thought funds should be allocate to a wide range of projects/events, and some stakeholders thought there shouldn’t be too much (or any) funding allocated towards infrastructure, such as wharfing.

43.     The draft Policy states that applications will be categorised and the policy gives guidance on the percentage of the available funds that could be allocated to each category. Feedback received from elected representatives was that there should still be discretion on where funds are allocated.

44.     The categories and percentages have been developed to take into account how to best provide services, facilities, and amenities for visitors while they are on the Island. The categories and percentages introduce greater transparency, better management of expectations and a strategic approach to allocating funds. This approach is to help ensure that sufficient funding is given to areas where there is currently a need to provide for visitors. 

45.     The categories and the percentages have been developed after considering the applications that have previously been made, how funds have been allocated in the past, and after completing analysis on how funds may need to be allocated in the future.

46.     As is outlined in the ‘legal and statutory requirements’ section below, to align with the delegation currently given to the Subcommittee, any strategic approach is determined by the Subcommittee.

Multi-year funding, and having a reserve

47.     Feedback received through the preliminary consultation process has highlighted that there are efficiencies that can be gained through making changes to the current Policy, in relation to how levy funds are allocated. Currently when levy funding is being used to pay for large infrastructure projects such as the Ulva Island wharf replacements, annual allocations are made and funding is built up slowly over time until there is a sufficient amount to complete the project. Accumulating funds in this way is not always effective or efficient.

48.     The draft Policy takes into account the feedback received by allowing multi-year funding commitments. This allows commitments to service loans drawn to cover capital works projects. This change would allow organisations to operate more effectively, as they would have a commitment to receive funding for a specified period of time, and to plan and operate accordingly.

49.     If multi-year funding is allowed, consideration is given to keeping some money in reserve. The purpose of having a reserve would be so it could be used to cover commitments that have been made, if the situation arises where there is less funding available for allocation. This could come about if there were less visitors to the Island due to an event such as a global financial crisis, or if there was either a local or international event (such as a natural disaster or a terrorism incident), that affected the number of people travelling to the Island.

50.     Analysis has indicated that if there was a year with low visitor numbers and $50,000 had been kept in reserve, there would be sufficient funding available to meet commitments that had been made to cover loans. The analysis undertaken has been based on estimations of the upper level of commitment that is likely to have been made, at any one time.

51.     The draft Policy outlines that a Ten Year Funding Plan will be developed (by either the Subcommittee or Committee) as part of each Long Term Plan cycle. This Plan will provide forecasting around future revenue streams and also decisions to be made on what proportion of funds should be allocated towards multi-year commitments.

Changes to the draft Bylaw

52.     A number of minor changes are being proposed to the draft Bylaw.

53.     Staff have proposed removing that Council will collect levies on its website, as this cannot currently be done and won’t be available in the near future.

54.     Staff have also included a change that the visitor levy can be paid at a collection box on the main wharf in Oban, as this box is currently where most levy payments from freedom travellers are being received.

55.     Staff have also removed that Council will detail on signage at major points of entry to the Island, the agents appointed to collect the visitor levy on Council’s behalf. This change is proposed as Council does not currently have any agents acting for it. The draft bylaw would still allow agents of Council to collect the levy if Council wanted to pursue that method of collection. 

56.     In May 2014, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy - Infringement Fee and Form) Regulations 2014 were made, which set an infringement fee of $250 for an infringement offence under the Act. A proposed change in the draft Bylaw, is including the amount of the infringement fee.

Things that were considered where no change is proposed

The amount of levy/revenue collected

57.     Quite strong feedback was received from Island residents that the amount of levy imposed and revenue collected should stay at five dollars per person. There were perceived concerns that any increase in the amount may contribute towards making the Island an unaffordable destination. There was some feedback from external stakeholders that analysis on the amount of levy imposed and revenue collected should be considered as part of the revenue process.

58.     Staff have undertaken analysis on other visitor levies, landing fees and similar set charges, particularly in New Zealand and Australia. The five dollars levied on passengers and visitors to Stewart Island/Rakiura is not out of line with what is being imposed elsewhere, but it is on the lower end of the scale.

59.     In the draft Policy staff have not proposed any changes to the amount of levy imposed and revenue collected.

60.     It is important to consider that an increase in the amount of levy and revenue collected from visitors/passengers would result in more funding being available each year to provide for visitors to the Island. The Committee could consider at this time if it has a desire to increase the amount collected from visitors/passengers. The current Policy outlines that when an increase is considered, public consultation will occur via the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process, and any increase would not take effect until 1 October the following year. So if there is support for increasing the amount of levy/revenue imposed, Council would have to abide by this clause of the current Policy.

61.     In relation to the amount of levy imposed and revenue collected, it is important to be mindful of the impact that other visitor levies and/or taxes will have on visitors/passengers travelling to Stewart Island Rakiura. The Government has proposed that tourists arriving in New Zealand could be charged up to $35 to enter the country under a new International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy.

The way levies and revenue are collected

62.     There was a general consensus that the collection of the levy and revenue from approved operators was running reasonably smoothly. It was identified that some freedom travellers and visitors on chartered vessels are not paying the visitor levy, and this is supported by the information presented in paragraph 18 above, showing that the amount of levy collected annually from the collection box, has been decreasing. The approved operators have communicated that they find it difficult to identify who is exempt.

63.     The draft Policy does not propose altering the way levies and revenue are collected. Staff will approach chartered vessel operators and ask them to remind their passengers that they are required to pay the levy. Staff will also work with approved operators to try and ensure they can effectively identify which passengers are required to pay revenue.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

64.     Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Act 2012 provides that Council may make bylaws in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) to prescribe:

·            the rates of levies that may be imposed on or in respect of ‘visitors’, and

·            the means by which those levies are to be collected.

         

65.     It is proposed that Council will undertake consultation on the draft Policy and Bylaw in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure outlined in section 83 and 87 of the LGA. This will involve staff preparing and Council adopting a formal Statement of Proposal, having a consultation period of not less than one month, and allowing people to present their views to Council in a manner that enables spoken interaction, such as by having a hearing.

66.     As has been mentioned above, if Council does adopt changes to who allocates levy funding or it removes the TAG, changes will need to be made to update the ‘Terms of Reference/Delegations for Committee and Subcommittees’.

67.     An important legal consideration is that if Committee support disestablishing the Subcommittee, Council would have to negotiate a variation to its contract with two of the approved operators, as under current contractual commitments, the approved operators have the right to nominate a representative to the Allocations Committee. Council staff would have to obtain this agreement promptly, as there would be no point in putting a draft policy out for consultation that couldn’t be actioned. In Council’s contract with the approved operators it states that either Council or an approved operator can terminate the contract by providing at least six months’ notice of termination, but that termination shall not take effect during the peak months of October to April.

68.     Currently, in addition to being able to make decisions regarding funding applications, the Subcommittee has delegated authority to determine strategic outcomes for the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Fund. On this basis, unless changes are made to the Subcommittee’s delegations, it will be necessary for the Subcommittee to consider having allocation categories and percentages. The Subcommittee has given its feedback on the draft Policy and support in part that guidelines for allocation categories be made, ensuring discretion to allocate remained with the Subcommittee.

69.     The Subcommittee also has delegated authority to set policy in relation to the collection and enforcement of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy. The Subcommittee has given its feedback on the draft Policy and support the collection and enforcement methods outlined.

Community Views

70.     As has been outlined above, input has been sought from internal stakeholders and there has been two rounds of preliminary consultation undertaken with external stakeholders, to help guide the direction for changes in the draft Policy and Bylaw. A number of those suggestions have been incorporated in the drafts presented to the Committee. 

71.     Council will be able to further ascertain community views on the draft Policy and Bylaw when it undertakes formal consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure.

72.     There is a large amount of community interest (particularly on Stewart Island/Rakiura) in how the visitor levy operates and how funding is allocated. Staff anticipate that a reasonable amount of feedback will be received through the consultation process, and that the media may also be interested in this issue.

Costs and Funding

73.     There would only be minor costs associated with progressing the draft Policy and Bylaw through to the consultation process, including the costs associated with staff time and advertising. These costs would be met within current budgets.

Policy Implications

74.     As is outlined above, the draft Policy contains some significant changes to the governance, administration and allocation of the Stewart Island/Rakiura visitor levy. These include the addition of funding allocation categories and allowing for future allocation commitments.

75.     Staff have identified some other implications that may occur as a result of the changes outlined in the draft Policy. These include changes to who (or what organisations) applies for funding and that small community projects may get a larger proportion of funding than they have historically.

Analysis

Options Considered

·                 Option 1 – That the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee allocating funding (10A)

·                 Option 2 – That the Community and Policy Committee allocate funding (10B)

•        Option 3 –Retain the current Policy and the current Bylaw.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Recommend to Council that it adopt the draft Policy with Section 10A, and the draft Bylaw, for public consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

Advantages of Subcommittee allocating funds

·          It is likely Island residents in particular will support retaining the Subcommittee as it has a number of members who are familiar with the Island and perceived as more likely to be more aware of visitor requirements than members of the Committee.

·          Having a smaller group decide how levy funding is allocated, may be easier/more practical.

·          It may be easier to retain the Subcommittee as varying contracts with approved operators would require both parties to agree to the variation – which may be difficult to achieve.

General advantages

·          Incorporates tikanga Maori into the allocation process.

·          Less conflicts of interest with the removal of TAG.

·          Less confusing/simpler with the removal of TAG

 

 

·          A clearer, more transparent allocation process that the current Policy. This will help to manage expectations around how funds will be allocated.

·          A clear timeline is set around application and allocation dates.

·          Ensures there is a consistent approach to salary and wages.

·          More clear who is eligible for funding.

·          The draft Policy was developed considering the applications that have been made, how funds have been allocated in the past, and how funds may need to be allocated in the future.

·          The draft Policy introduces a strategic approach to allocating funds. This will help ensure that sufficient funding is given to areas where there is currently a need to provide for visitors. 

·          Levy funding could be used more efficiently and effectively than under the current Policy.

·          Having a reserve is financially prudent.

·          The draft Policy and Bylaw have been updated to reflect the current day, such as including the infringement fee set through regulations etc.

Disadvantages of Subcommittee allocating funds

·        The Subcommittee may not be required as allocations could be made by the Committee. Having a Subcommittee may be making the process more complex than it needs to be.

·        Conflicts of interest may arise as members of the Subcommittee have close connections to the Island.

·        Creates slightly more administrative burden than if the Committee allocated funds.

·        Having the Subcommittee allocate funding is not consistent with how other community grants are currently made.

General disadvantages of the draft Policy

·        There is more risk associated with giving multi-year commitments, rather than the current practice of just allocating funds in the present allocation round.

·        Changes proposed to the current Policy, may not be supported by people in the District.

 

 

Option 2 – Recommend to Council that it adopt the draft Policy with Section 10B, and the draft Bylaw, for public consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

Advantages of Committee allocating funds

·        The Committee allocating funding might make the process simpler.

·        There may be slightly less administrative burden if the Committee allocates funds.

·        Having Committee allocate funding is consistent with how other community grants are currently made.

 

 

General advantages

·          Incorporates tikanga Maori into the allocation process.

·          Removing TAG will assist in reducing conflicts of interest.

·          Less confusing/simpler with the removal of TAG

·          A clearer, more transparent allocation process that the current Policy. This will help to manage expectations around how funds will be allocated.

·          A clear timeline is set around application and allocation dates.

·          Ensures there is a consistent approach to salary and wages.

·          More clear who is eligible for funding.

·          The draft Policy was developed considering the applications that have been made, how funds have been allocated in the past, and how funds may need to be allocated in the future.

·          The draft Policy introduces a strategic approach to allocating funds. This will help ensure that sufficient funding is given to areas where there is currently a need to provide for visitors. 

·          Levy funding could be used more efficiently and effectively than under the current Policy.

·          Having a reserve is financially prudent.

·          The draft Policy and Bylaw have been updated to reflect the current day, such as including the infringement fee set through regulations etc.

Disadvantages of Committee allocating funds

·        It is likely Island residents in particular will support retaining the Subcommittee so there is more local insight being given when funds are allocated.

·        Conflicts of interest would arise when the Committee was allocating funds to applications made by Council.

 

·        Discontinuing the Subcommittee and the approved operators not having voting rights, may not be supported by approved operators.

·        This option would require getting agreement from approved operators to vary their contract with Council, which may not be supported.

·        Having a larger group decide how levy funding is allocated, may be harder/less practical.

·        The approved operators may not be willing to attend the allocation meeting if they do not have voting rights.

·        The Subcommittee allows approved operators the opportunity to have a say in how the levy funding is allocated. This was done in part to compensate them for their efforts in collecting revenue from passengers (which can be an administrative burden and can impose costs on the approved operators).

General disadvantages of the draft Policy

·        Changes proposed to the current Policy, may not be supported by people in the District.

·        There is more risk associated with giving multi-year commitments, rather than the current practice of just allocating funds that have already been collected.

 

 

Option 3 – Recommend to Council that it retain the current Policy and the current Bylaw

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The current Policy and Bylaw have been adopted for nearly 6 years, so they are known by Council staff and Island residents.

·        Only committing to allocate funds that have already been collected, is more risk adverse.

·        The current process around fund allocation is simpler.

·        It is likely Island residents in particular will support retaining the Subcommittee.

·        Local insight is provided when allocations are made.

·        The Subcommittee is currently able to come to a decision on how to allocate funding (the current dynamic is working).

·        It would eliminate the risks associated with the Subcommittee not approving the strategic approach outlined, and not being able to vary contracts with the approved operators.

·        This is in line with some community views obtained through the pre-consultation process.

·        No clear time frame is set around application and allocation dates.

·        The TAG and Subcommittee relationship is confusing and not very transparent.

·        Conflicts are likely to occur, both in TAG and in the Subcommittee.

·        Having a Subcommittee and TAG may create more administrative burden than is necessary.

·        The current Policy does not allow the levy and revenue collected to be used as effectively and efficiently by Council as it could.

·        There are inconsistencies regarding allocating funds to salary and wages.

·        It is not always clear what is eligible for funding.

·        Does not incorporate tikanga Maori into the allocation process.

 

 

 

Assessment of Significance

76.     It has been identified that this matter is not significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the LGA. However, as has been identified above, on Stewart Island/Rakiura there is a reasonable amount of interest in the visitor levy.

Recommended Option

77.     Staff recommend that the Committee proceed with Option 1 – and have the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Allocations Subcommittee allocate levy funding. This would mean that the Committee recommend to Council that it adopt the draft Policy with Section 10A, and the draft Bylaw, for public consultation.

Next Steps

78.     If the Committee endorses Option 1, staff will make any recommended changes and undertake any other necessary steps, and present the draft Policy and Bylaw to Council at its meeting 19 September. Staff would recommend to Council that the draft documents be adopted for consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure. It is proposed that the consultation process will take place 27 September to 9 November, thus avoiding Stewart Island/Rakiura’s peak season and aiming for maximum community engagement.

79.     Staff currently have legal advisors reviewing the draft Policy and Bylaw, so if changes are recommended through that process, they will be presented to Council in September.

80.     If the Committee proceed with Option 2, staff will liaise with approved operators to see if an agreement can be reached on a variation to the approved operator contract.

81.     If the Committee proceed with Option 3, staff will also make any recommended changes and undertake any other necessary steps, and present the draft Policy and Bylaw to Council at its meeting 19 September.

 

Attachments

a             Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy

b             Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw

c             Final Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy

d            Final Southland District Council Stewart Island/ Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw 2012    

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 


 


 


 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 


 

 


Community and Policy Committee

5 September 2018

 

Community Futures - Research and Analysis Work Programme Update

Record No:             R/18/7/18174

Author:                      Michelle Stevenson, Strategy and Policy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Committee on the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme and to provide project plans for each of the identified work streams.

Executive Summary

2        The Community and Policy Committee at its 9 May 2018 meeting endorsed the establishment of an ELT project team to lead the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme.

3        This endorsement follows an approach mandated by Council for staff to undertake big picture research and analysis that will inform the future work of Council as part of the LTP 2021-31.

4        The Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme is included in Councils Executive Leadership Team Business Plan, and identified as one of six prioritised strategic projects.

5        The work programme and project plans completed at this stage in the schedule include:

·        socio-demographic projects – BERL

·        climate change and implications for Southland District Council (SDC)

·        service delivery framework – district vs. local levels of service

·        rating affordability modelling and scenario planning and implications for SDC

·        future infrastructure and asset renewal strategy

·        Land and Water Plan implications for SDC

·        community facility functional hierarchy framework

·        community partnership, community assistance and funding alignment approach

·        technological change impact on communities and implications for SDC

6        Each of these work streams is important to inform decision making around potential impacts organisation and district wide, and to inform the development of the LTP 2021-31, and associated activity management plans. 

7        It is recommended however, that the work stream around future infrastructure and asset renewal strategy not be included in this programme of works as a stand-alone project.  Council staff have identified that this would likely involve a duplication of ISO 55000, (the current International Standard for asset management) and the New Zealand Asset Management Support (NAMS) Optimised Decision-Making Guidelines.  The strategy for asset renewals will be identified and updated through each of the activity management plans to inform the LTP 2021-31 process, and so is not necessary to replicate through this programme of work.

8        This report provides an overall work plan to ensure that the work stream is prioritised, allocated appropriate resource and that projects are delivered in a sequential and logical manner. The attached calendar identifies the projects in sequential order.  

9        The Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme is being coordinated by the Strategy and Policy Team and is a council wide initiative of key strategic projects and how they integrate into forming advice and understanding for the LTP 2021-31.

 

Recommendation

That the Community and Policy Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Community Futures - Research and Analysis Work Programme Update” dated 26 August 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)           Endorses the advancement of the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme approach.

 

e)            Receives the project plans for the identified work streams to inform the development of the LTP 2021-2031.

 

f)             Supports the approach to not include the future infrastructure and asset renewal strategy as a stand-alone project, and recognises it would be a duplication of ISO 55000, the international standard covering management of assets.

 

g)           Notes the Executive Leadership Team is to continue monitoring the overall work programme and report back to this Committee on its progress at regular intervals.

 

Background

10      The Community and Policy Committee at its 9 May 2018 meeting endorsed the establishment of an ELT project team to lead the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme. This endorsement followed the prior work undertaken by staff around Community Futures 2040 which provided a snapshot of high-level topics to be considered for future research and analysis work.

11      This endorsement follows an approach mandated by Council for staff to undertake big picture research and analysis that will inform the future work of Council as part of the LTP 2021-31. The data gathered, research and analysis undertaken will support and inform Council in its decision making process in the future, and support Activity Managers in activity management planning.

12      One of the three key issues Council consulted on in its LTP 2018-28 was to ‘invest in our community future planning’.  This investment will allow for a greater understanding of the districts changing demographics, socio economic conditions, visitor trends and the emerging impacts of climate change and technological advancement that will lead to more informed decision making in the future.

13      The Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme is part of Councils Executive Leadership Team Business Plan, and identified as one of six prioritised strategic projects. 

Issues

14      The projects identified as priority work streams in the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme, while stand-alone projects, are pieces of a larger puzzle that do not exist in isolation. 

15      This is a complex piece of work and will require flexibility in the development and delivery to ensure the prioritisation method achieves the best results for Council and the district. The completion of the individual projects will inform advice and understanding for the development of the LTP 2021-31, with the agreed milestones included in the LTP 2021-31 project plan as appropriate.

16      The purpose of each project is identified below:

·          socio-demographic project – BERL will undertake three sequential research projects to consider the social and economic conditions in the district and its communities.  Where are we now? Where are we heading? And where do we actually want to be?

this project is underway and has completed two of the research projects, with the third approved by Council to be completed by the end of 2018

·          climate change – to develop a better understanding of the risks and impacts of climate change on the district, and develop a coordinated response to the projected impacts  

·          service delivery framework – determine the most appropriate form, standard and/or level of service required to meet communities needs in the future.  This includes developing an understanding of implications to service provision, costs, revenue and finance approaches

·          rating affordability modelling and implications – to understand income levels in the district communities, and develop affordability measures for communities related to Council delivery of services and activities.  To understand the implications of decisions on rating affordability for the district

·          Land and Water Plan implications – to understand the implications of the Land and Water Plan implementation on the future provision of services to local communities

·          community facility functional hierarchy framework – to understand the cohesive network and hierarchy of community, private and Council owned facilities in Southland district. This will inform Councils future decision making around the ownership, management, governance and funding of existing and planned facilities in the district.

·          community partnership, assistance and funding alignment – to understand the role and implications of Council in community funding, partnering and assistance.  To develop a funding model that supports the future needs of communities and Council in relation to the activities and services provided by Council with in the district

·          technological change impacts on communities and implications for SDC – to better understand the possible impact of technological change on Southland communities, including industries, work and land use patterns, community involvement, engagement and lifestyle choices.     

17      The projects identified above need to be delivered in a logical and sequential manner to ensure that they are developed and delivered with the most appropriate information available.  There are a number of projects that will run concurrently and provide input to other projects as they evolve.

18      It is important to acknowledge that flexibility and deviations from milestones may be necessary, and to identify any implications on the delivery of projects as this may occur.  The ELT Working Group has been established to ensure that this flexibility is considered and will support the Strategy and Policy Team by overseeing the programme delivery.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19      At the point of considering the project plans for each of the projects identified, there are no legal or statutory requirements to consider.

20      As the individual work streams progress, any requirements will be identified as appropriate and bought to the attention of the committee.

21      However, it is important to acknowledge that Council has commissioned and completed work as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan that this work stream is a priority for the upcoming 2021-2031 Long Term Plan processes.  The overall work programme will assist in informing decisions around the LTP 2021-31 – which is a legal and statutory requirement for Council.

Community Views

22      There are a number of projects throughout this work plan that will require community views to be taken into consideration.  While some of these have yet to be identified and undertaken, there has been a considerable amount of community views sought in a number of the work streams to date.

23      The community facilities work has had extensive community research undertaken in 2017 by Venture Southland as part of the letter of expectation, and involved a large number of interviews and discussions with community groups around the use, costs and any issues associated with their local community facilities.  This was not limited to Council facilities, however did exclude recreational facilities.  While a significant amount of community views have been sought in relation to this project, there will likely be further views sought.

24      In relation to the socio-economic projects (BERL), Council has spent 2 years participating in various discussions, conversations and future thinking about the work needed to prepare for community futures, and the work stream to invest in big picture research and analysis was a consultation topic in the LTP 2018-28 Consultation Document.

25      This initial update report to the Committee acknowledges that there is more work be done in this space over the next 12-24 months.

Costs and Funding

26      There may be the need for additional resources, outside of the LTP 2018/19 resource allocation to be considered in relation to the combined work streams identified, depending on the timing of the work to be undertaken.

27      Although some projects have yet to determine the costs that may be incurred, there is an early indicator that both external consultants, and use of existing in-house resource will be required to fulfil the requirements of some of the projects.

28      Project managers have identified at this stage, an additional $52,000 and approximately 600 staff hours may be required to fulfil projects identified in this priority work programme.  These relate specifically to the community facility hierarchy framework and rating affordability projects, and anticipated staff hours towards community funding alignment, technological change impacts, and the community facility hierarchy framework.

29      These indicative costs are calculated on the work programme required, and if necessary would require unbudgeted expenditure and/or reforecasting reports to be submitted to Council for consideration.

Policy Implications

30      There are a number of projects throughout this work plan that may require recommended changes to Council Policy.  Although these have yet to be identified and undertaken, it should be noted as a result of the findings, proposed actions and subsequent decisions there may be implications for current policy and future policy considerations.

31      This initial update report to the Committee acknowledges that there is more work be done in this space over the next 12-24 months.

Analysis

Options Considered

32      The work stream for the Community & Futures – Research and Analysis Programme is an integrated approach to project delivery across the organisation. 

33      Council has had information presented from BERL around the current and projected trends for the district as they relate to population growth and decline, economic prosperity, labour market forces, and how these all relate and may impact on our district communities.

34      There have been significant discussions around the need for further work in relation to climate change, technological changes and the impacts, the implications of rating affordability on communities. Specifically a key question is related to what are the implications of decisions made by Council on rating affordability and sustainability?

35      The district has some aging infrastructure and will need to consider how it prioritises the future renewal, repairs and replacement of this around the district.  There have been discussions around the way in which Council delivers its services, and what levels of service are appropriate across the district.

36      Alongside this, the importance of community leadership, partnering, funding and assistance forms the basis of the on-going work around the future support and assistance to move to a sustainable approach of small Council, big community.

37      There are two options to be considered in this report. 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Progress with the overall work stream as it is identified in the individual project plans

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the approach to undertake ‘big picture’ research and analysis is consistent with the mandate from Council

·        the individual project plans will be undertaken as part of a larger piece of work that integrates their outputs to inform development of the LTP 2021-31

·        the integration of the work stream reinforces the ‘one district’ approach at an operational level

·        there is transparency and coordination of the work streams to ensure greater alignment across Council

·        the work stream provides the platform to work strategically to shape the district Council wants for the future

·        there may be unbudgeted expenditure required to undertake the work stream

·        any delay in prioritised sequential projects may jeopardise the initiation or completion of another project

 

 

Option 2 – Undertake any or all individual projects in isolation from the overall work stream

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        individual projects do not need to consider the timeframes of projects that have no direct impact on their completion

·        timeframes for projects can be managed at a pace that does need to consider other projects and implications for delay or increased timeframes

·        there may be less additional funding or staff resource required towards projects

 

·        the approach to undertake ‘big picture’ research and analysis, as mandated from Council, may be compromised

·        an integrated approach to inform the development of the LTP 2021-31 will not be achieved

·        there is greater risk of less transparency and alignment across Council

·        activity management planning will not be supported in a coordinated approach

 

Assessment of Significance

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

Recommended Option

39      It is recommended that Option 1 be supported, and that the Community and Policy Committee endorse the progression of the overall work stream as it is identified in the individual project plans.

Next Steps

40      If endorsed, the project plan calendar will be discussed with the ELT Working Group to establish a clear prioritisation and sequential approach to the work programme.  It is acknowledged that some of the projects are stand-alone and will inform the development of other work streams.

41      The overall work programme of the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme is being coordinated by the Strategy and Policy Team.  It is a council wide project that will consider key strategic projects and how they integrate into forming advice and understanding for the LTP 2021-31.

42      Any additional work generated by these projects will meet the reforecasting timeframe of March 2019, and can be incorporated into planning at that time.

43      If endorsed, the Community and Policy Team will be provided with regular updates for comment around the overall work programme, and any individual work streams as required.

44      If option 2 is considered, the Strategy and Policy Team will discuss individual prioritised projects with the ELT Working Group.

45      If Council opt to consider option 3, all work currently underway towards the Community Futures – Research and Analysis Work Programme will cease.

Attachments

a             Technological change impact on communities and implications for SDC project plan

b             Community Futures Research and Analysis Work Programme - Socio Demographic Research and Analysis – BERL Project Plan

c             Service delivery framework - district vs. local service provision and LoS SDC project plan

d            Community partnerships, assistance and funding alignment approach SDC project plan

e             Community facility functional hierarchy framework Project Plan

f             Climate Change Building knowledge and resilience project plan

g            Regional Water and Land Plan Implications – project plan

h            Rates Affordability for SDC Project Plan

i              Project Calendar - Community and Futures Research and Analysis Programme 2018    

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Technological Change impact on communities and implications for SDC Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor: Rex Capil

Project Manager: Rex Capil

Project Name: Technological Change impact on communities and implications for SDC

Project Start Date

July 2018

Project Finish Date

December 2018

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

To understand the impact of technological change on communities, industries, work patterns, land use patterns and lifestyle choices.

 

To consider the impact of technological change on community involvement, social cohesion and engagement.

 

To prepare a discussion document based on a desktop review of recent findings and research papers.

 

To provide recommendations for consideration of next phases of work and scope of such required on this topic.

 

To develop an aligned approach with other topics for the Community Futures Research and Analysis Work Programme and consider further analysis work required to satisfy overall Council priorities and direction to inform 2021-2031 LTP.

 

To develop baseline assumptions and standardised approach to assist forecasting and prioritisation for activity managers and future service provision requirements

 

 

 

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

Resource allocation to complete.

Acknowledgement that this subject is real and ‘the future isn’t tomorrow – it’s (all the little decisions we make) today’

 

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

(a)        Desktop review of research and literature

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

·    Technological rating and ranking of technical aspects

·    Assessment of likelihood and impact measurements

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

·   Assumption that initial work will be undertaken in house

·     Assumption that further detailed analysis work will need to be contracted to an external provider with relevant expertise and technical subject matter understanding

2.4     RISKS

·    Analysis not completed on time to inform next steps of CF R&A Work programme

·    Evidence based findings not sufficient to support decisionmaking requirements

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

Completion by December 2018

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

 

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Discussion Document prepared for consideration by Community and Policy Committee meeting

October 2018

 

Rex

Scope next stages of project based on recommendations from C&P Committee

November 2018

 

Michelle, Corporate Performance Lead

Undertake next stages as defined

December 2018

 

Michelle, Corporate Performance Lead

Internal analysis to inform assumptions and issues and options for the CF R&A Work programme

February 2019

 

Michelle, Corporate Performance Lead

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Discussion Document

Research and Analysis

 

August 2018

 

 

Rex

Discussion Document

Preparation and recommendations

 

September 2018

 

 

Rex

Discussion Document

Presented to C&P Committee

 

October 2018

 

 

Rex

Scoping as required

November 2018

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

Commission next stages of work scoped

November 2018

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

Internal analysis to inform assumptions

January 2019

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

Issues and Options paper prepared for endorsement to align with LTP 2021-2031 project plan – for endorsement by C&P Committee

February 2019

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Councillors

 

 

ELT

 

 

Activity Managers

 

 

5.        Work Management Plan

5.1     RESOURCE PLAN

Name

Role

Company/Council

Duration

Hours (Total)

Rex Capil

 

 

 

60

Michelle Stevenson

 

 

 

30

Corporate Performance Lead

 

 

 

30

ELT

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: This resource table is always a work in progress

 

6.        Budget

Task

People Hours

Open ($’000)

Comments

TBD

 

 

TBD – based on recommendations and resolutions of C&P Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Socio Demographic Research and Analysis - BERL Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor: Rex Capil

Project Manager: Rex Capil

Project Name: How BERL can help to shape positive community futures

Project Start Date

July 2017

Project Finish Date

December 2018

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

BERL to undertake three sequential research projects to consider the social and economic conditions in the District and its communities:

Project 1 – Where are we now?

Situational analysis

Trend analysis of social and economic environment

Core industry analysis and relationship to different communities

Project 2 - Where are we heading?

BAU scenario projection of future employment and population

Future industry growth and decline

Actions to support sustainable economic and population growth

Project 3 – Where do we actually want to be?

Shaping the future to enable the vision

Defining SMART actions

Test SMART actions

Integrate SMART actions into the LTP 2021-2031

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

Resource allocation to complete

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

(a)        BERL project proposal

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

·    Specific individual community analysis

·    Specific activity analysis

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

 

2.4     RISKS

·    Analysis not completed on time to inform next steps of CF R&A Work programme

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

Completion by December 2018

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

 

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Project 1

December 2017

December 2017

Rex with BERL

Project 2

May 2018

May 2018

Rex with BERL

Project 3

December 2018

 

Rex with BERL

Internal analysis to inform assumptions and issues and options for the CF R&A Work programme

January 2019

 

Michelle, Corporate Performance Lead

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Project 3

Community and Policy Committee endorsement for Project 3

 

July 2018

 

 

Rex

Project 3

Defining SMART Actions

 

August 2018

 

 

Rex with BERL

Project 3

Testing the SMART Actions

 

October 2018

 

 

Rex with BERL

Project 3

Final draft documentation

 

November 2018

 

 

Rex with BERL

Project 3

Final report presentation to C&P Committee

 

December 2018

 

 

Rex with BERL

Internal analysis to inform assumptions

December 2018

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

Issues and Options paper prepared for endorsement to align with LTP 2021-2031 project plan – for endorsement by C&P Committee

February 2019

 

Michelle/Corporate Performance Lead

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

BERL

Contractor

To complete project

Councillors

 

 

ELT

 

 

Activity Managers

 

 

5.        Budget

Task

Contract Fee

Open ($’000)

Comments

Project 1

$25,000

 

Completed

Project 2

$40,000

 

Completed

Project 3

$80,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

$145,000

 

 

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Service Delivery Framework Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor:  Matt Russell

Project Manager:  Matt Russell

Project Name:  Service Delivery Framework – District vs Local Levels of Service

Project Start Date

August 2018

Project Finish Date

June 2021

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

August 2018

Matt Russell

Project outline completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the Service Delivery Framework project is to review and develop Council’s Levels of Service (LoS) relating to services and assets and to determine the most appropriate form/standard/level of service required to meet community needs in the future.

This project will consider existing levels of service and investigate how levels are determined, what the minimum requirements are and how prescriptive they need to be.

The project will investigate the application of levels of service within the local and district strategic context, considering the implications by activity and service provision within the region.

Investigation into the financial implications and consultation requirements of the review will also be included.

 

 

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

As this is a project that has broad implications throughout the organisation, a Project Delivery Team has been established to complete the review.

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

(a)        Revised and finalised proposed Levels of Service Framework for inclusion in the 2021 LTP.

(b)        The 2021 LTP programme of works reflects the LoS revisions committed to.

(c)        Clear Strategic Framework for each of the Council’s Activities in order to inform subsequently proposed LoS.

(d)        Clear understanding and linkage between proposed LoS and the cost/revenue and finance implications.

(e)        Collective engagement and understanding across the Services and Assets group, ELT and Councillors.

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

·    «type data»

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

·    Assumption that initial work will be undertaken in-house by the Projects Delivery Team

·    Assumption that the Project Delivery Team will utilise additional delivery support as required (i.e. external consultant resource)

2.4     RISKS

·    Analysis not completed on time to inform next steps of the Service Delivery Framework project.

·    Evidence based findings not sufficient to support decision-making requirements.

2.5     KEY PROJECT DEPENDENCIES

Improvement programme development

Depends on completion of Roadmap

ELT endorsement

Depends on completion of Roadmap and Improvement programme

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

Completion by June 2021

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·    production of the Roadmap in a consolidated visual format for review

·    development of the prioritised Asset Management improvement programme

·    ELT review and endorsement of both the Roadmap and the proposed Improvement Programme

·    develop and implement an Open Space Strategy for Community Facilities (not just limited to Parks and Reserves)

·    review and amend LoS associated with each activity within Services and Assets Group

·    consult with the Community on the proposed changes to the LoS Framework

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Roadmap completed

Oct 2018

 

Ian Marshall

Improvement Programme developed

Nov 2018

 

Ian Marshall

ELT endorse Improvement Programme

Dec 2018

 

Matt Russell

Open Space Strategy

Dec 2019

 

Matt Russell

Activity Review

Dec 2020

 

Matt Russell

LTP consultation

June 2021

 

Matt Russell

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Community

Research

Information sharing

SDC Staff

 

Activity managers

ELT

 

Decision

 

 

 

 

5.        Work Management Plan

5.1     RESOURCE PLAN

Name

Role

Company/Council

Duration

Hours Per Week

Matt Russell

Project Sponsor

SDC

 

 

Project Delivery team

 

SDC

 

 

ELT

 

SDC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: This resource table is always a work in progress

 

6.        Budget

Task

People Hours

Open ($’000)

Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Community assistance and funding approach Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor:  Rex Capil

Project Manager:  Michelle Stevenson

Project Name:  Community partnerships, assistance and funding alignment approach

Project Start Date

March 2018

Project Finish Date

June 2019

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

August 2018

Michelle Stevenson

Project outline completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project is to review and develop Council’s approach to Council managed funding schemes and associated funding support to community organisations.

The project will investigate alternate methods to the current system, and provide an alternative option to the way in which Council administers community funding and funding assistance.

The review will include investigation into the role of Community Boards and community funding, and the role of Council as decision makers for community funding assistance

 

Council staff and the Chair of the Community & Policy Committee have undertaken a tour of neighbouring Councils and discussed with TLA staff the funding models that they have in place. 

The feedback has indicated a wide range of community funding and approaches being utilised by our immediate neighbours, and provides some valuable insights into the methodology being used and why.

Some of these learnings will be taken into consideration in the discussions and forming of a funding approach and model that could suit Southland District communities and Council into the future.

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

SDC staff resources are continued to be made available to complete the project

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

 

(a)        All Council managed community funding and funding assistance given by Southland District Council

(b)        Community Initiatives fund and all other Council grants

(c)        Investigation into Council funding for Community Boards

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

 

·    Funding assistance not originating or managed by Council

·    Partnership funding with central government for large projects or roles (TIF, PGF funds etc)

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

·    Council’s funding and funding support is not the sole funds a group receives and if any funds were to be reduced or removed leaves the group without funds in total

·    The current funding model is no longer the most efficient way to proceed and a review is required

·    The Council is open to hearing an alternative model for Council community funding and funding support

2.4     RISKS

·    Council making more changes within communities could be seen in a negative light

·    Council determines that the current level of funding is no longer required and currently funded groups are without funds they may rely on annually.

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

To be completed by June 2019 – 1 July 2019 implementation

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·    investigate an alternative approach to Council’s funding and contracting for service community organisations

·    develop a funding model that reflects Council’s funding and funding support

·    present funding model to Council for adoption

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Issues and options paper for ELT consideration

February 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

Present findings report to Community & Policy Committee

April 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

Develop funding and funding support model for adoption by Council

June 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Complete research with other TLA’s

August 2018

 

Michelle Stevenson

Draft funding model to key staff for comment – activity manager, governance manager, group manager community futures minimum

October 2018

 

Michelle Stevenson

ELT consideration and feedback incorporated

February 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

Prepare report for Community & Policy Committee

April 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

Incorporate feedback from Committee into draft

May 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

Prepare final report and present model to Council for adoption

June 2019

 

Michelle Stevenson

 

 

 

 

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Neighbouring TLA’s

Research

Information sharing

SDC staff

Contributors

Activity Manager/ sounding boards

Councillors

 

Decision

 

 

 

 

5.        Budget

Task

People Hours

Open ($’000)

Comments

Complete research with TLA’s

80

2,000

Project team of Cr, activity manager, governance manager and project lead visited surrounding TLA’s

Project manager

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

160

2,000

In-house project completion

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Community Facility Functional Hierarchy Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor:  Rex Capil

Project Manager:  Simon  Moran

Project Name:  Community Facility Future Provision Strategy

Project Start Date

1/7/18

Project Finish Date

28/2/2019

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

«Type Date»

«Author»

«Comments»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

To prepare an issues and options paper which will inform the development of a Community Facility Future Provision Strategy incorporating facility planning protocols and guidelines for the District (to include purpose, criteria for why, what, where, management structure options, ownership options, Health and Safety obligations, Council’s role and responsibility) to be developed and delivered from 2021 and beyond.

 

Community facilities are defined as the following:

·    Public and private facilities that are available for use and hire by the general public

·    Recreational facilities including sports grounds, pools, open spaces

 

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

Any open space policy decisions that may be taken prior to the delivery of this project.

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

(a)        Identification of all community use facilities by type and location regardless of whether publicly or privately owned.

(b)        Assessment of legislative requirements associated with facilities on public land/reserves

(c)        Assessment of levels of use

(d)        Use of previous Stewart Island and District facilities project information

(e)        Analysis of the H&S obligations in relation to facility types

(f)        Identification of criteria for determining a facilities functional hierarchy

(g)        Identification of ownership and management options

(h)        Analysis of  Council’s role and responsibility in relation to each facility

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

·    Assessment of Council’s funding role

·    Recommendations regulating to the future provision of specific facilities and/or facility types

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

·    As appropriate future work will address those issues that are out of scope

·    Not all facilities will be widely known about therefore it is likely a small portion of facilities will not be identified.

2.4     RISKS

·    This work is only a snapshot in time based on reasonably available information

2.5     KEY PROJECT DEPENDENCIES

Activity

Depends On

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

July 2018 – February 2019

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·    «Deliverables»

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Completed facilities inventory & analysis

20/12/18

 

Simon/Kevin/Consultant

Report to Council

28/2/19

 

Simon/Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Complete a facilities inventory & analysis

20/12/18

 

Consultant

Write the Issues & Options paper for Council

28/2/19

 

Simon/Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Michelle Stevenson

Staff

Part of the wider project

Kevin McNaught

Staff

Facilities activity manager and part of the wider project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.        Work Management Plan

5.1     RESOURCE PLAN

Name

Role

Company/Council

Duration

Hours Per Week

Part 1 - Consultant

Research

Consultant

7.5

40

Staff

Oversight and report preparation

Council

7.5

Average = 5

 

 

 

 

 

Part 2 – Further work by Strategy & Policy

Identifying the implications of all the projects for Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: This resource table is always a work in progress

 

6.        Budget

Task

People Hours

Open ($’000)

Comments

Research

300

$50,000

Consultant

Oversight of the project/consultant 

20

 

Simon/Kevin

Write and deliver issues and options paper

20

 

Simon/Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

340

$50,000

 

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Climate Change: Building Knowledge and Resilience Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor: Bruce Halligan

Project Manager: Rebecca Blyth

Project Name: Climate Change: Building Knowledge and Resilience

Project Start Date

July 2017

Project Finish Date

December 2018

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

Climate change is likely to impact both council and the community through sea level rise, inundation, erosion, storm surges, flooding, temperature changes and rainfall changes. The extent of this impact in the Southland context is not well understood and therefore Council’s planning documents do not adequately address how those impacts could be managed.

The overall objectives for the Climate Change Project are:

1.   To develop a better understanding of the risks and impacts of climate change, and

2.   To develop a co-ordinated response to the impacts of climate change

3.   To better align with Regional Policy Statement direction which directs a precautionary approach towards managing the effects of climate change and sea level rise.

 

The Climate Change Project can be broken into three (not necessarily consequential) phases:

1.   Building knowledge - Information gathering / developing our understanding of risks and impacts

2.   Building resilience – working with communities to develop a plan for responding to the risks and impacts

3.   Mitigation – reduce our own, and support our communities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions

 

This project plan addresses phase one ‘building knowledge’ only.

 

 

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

1.   Funding for continued technical work – aspects of this work have been budgeted for and collaboration at a regional level has ensured efficient use of staff time and funding, however there will be a need for specialist advice in a Southland District Context.

2.   Regional Working Group – a regional working group at a staff level has been progressing this work stream since March 2018, a decision as to whether this approach continues or not is yet to be made at a Senior Management and Governance level.

3.   Timeframes for the completion of advice to feed into the Long Term Plan 2021 preparation cycle.

4.   Continued allocation of staff time to lead or contribute to this project.  The magnitude of staff time required to continue progressing this project has not yet been assessed and will impact on the ability for the project to be completed within timeframes.

 

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

Those components of climate change shown in orange in Figure 1 above, are the matters intended to be included in phase one of the Climate Change Project. Therefore the focus of this first stage will be on understanding the impacts of climate change on the delivery of Council infrastructure and services, as well as understanding the risks for communities along the coast.

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

There are a number of other agencies doing work in the climate change space. The intention of this project is not to replicate any of this work, but it is useful to note how this work could fit into our wider understanding of climate change. This will be particularly useful when entering phase 2 of the project which is to address how we respond to the impacts of climate change. Therefore, outlined below are the components of climate change which are outside the scope for Phase One (shown in blue) and some examples of the other work that is being done to better understand those elements of climate change.

Component of Climate Change out of scope for Phase 1

Alternative information source / why it is being excluded from scope

Mitigation

When considering mitigation options it is important to understand the context for NZ and what our emissions are made up of. The 2017 PcE ‘Stepping Stones’ report states 49% come from agriculture, 18% from transport, 15% from industry, 5% each from electricity and waste, and 8% from ‘other’ sources. This is quite different from other countries where electricity and transport are the largest contributors.

There is work being done in each of these spaces by industry groups, and the Productivity Commission is also looking into how we transition to a low emissions economy. An issues paper was released in August 2017 and submissions on this closed October 2017. https://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/3254?stage=2

The recent Central Government elections are also likely to contribute to what work might be done in the field of climate change mitigation.

 

Local work

Venture Southland is in the initial stages of a Carbon Reduction project which will look at establishing a baseline for carbon emissions for the region and tie in with other work programmes such as the wood burning initiative to reduce these emissions.

District wide – Community & Business Impacts

Much like the mitigation options, there are a number of industry groups considering what the impacts for their businesses might be.

The Deep South National Science Challenge, ‘Impacts and Implications’ workstream is also looking at the cascade of effects on transport links, businesses and local and national economies.

District wide and Coastal – Environmental Impacts

There are a number of environmental impacts to be considered and DOC have prepared some reports looking at the potential impacts of climate change including a 2013 report “Potential effects of climate change on New Zealand’s terrestrial biodiversity and policy recommendations for mitigation, adaptation and research” and a 2014 report “Adapting to a changing climate: a proposed framework for the conservation of terrestrial native biodiversity in New Zealand”

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sap257.pdf

The Deep South National Science Challenge also has a workstream looking at the impacts and implications of climate change, including the environmental impacts.

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

Timeframes

This work will be based on a 100 year timeframe, recognising that climate change is a long term challenge that we face, and the solutions could affect investments which have long expected lives.

Projections

The Ministry for the Environment has released Climate Change Projections for New Zealand based on simulations undertaken for the 2013 IPCC 5th Assessment. These projections were released in 2016, and look out to 2120. The projections use four scenarios, known as representative concentration pathways (RCPs). The best case scenario is referred to as RCP2.6, and the worst case is RCP8.5. Given these projections have been released by central government they will be used in the reports prepared as part of this project. It is acknowledged that as more information becomes available, these scenarios could change, however reports developed now will need to be based on information currently available.

2.4     RISKS

Risk

Likelihood

How it will be managed

Negative community response – i.e. to lines on a map and implications for private property values

Medium

Development of a robust engagement plan that allows communities to be part of process to understand the impacts and subsequent processes around what responses might be.

The use of scenarios to understand impacts, rather than producing maps with fixed hazard lines.

Lack of political support (potentially related to risk above around community response) leading to a risk that no action is taken

Medium

Communication of already known impacts of climate change at a national level and risks of doing nothing.

Community develops expectations / assumptions around what Council will do in response to impacts

Medium

Development of a robust engagement plan that provides clarity around the two stages of the project and the communities’ role in shaping the potential responses.

Uncertainty around scenarios for climate change

Medium

Using a variety of scenarios based on the widely recognised, International Panel for Climate Change science, which acknowledges the different levels of mitigation that could be taken.

 

 

 

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

Completion by December 2018

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·    A report outlining the potential impacts of climate change as they relate to the community generally and council services, in particular including anticipated changes in return periods for key natural hazard events, changes in predicted rainfall volumes and temperature, and anticipated sea level rise based on IPCC scenarios;

·    A joint governance workshop between all councils to outline the implications of the potential impacts of climate change and work through the next steps for analysis and research.

·    A report (with associated mapping) translating the complex models and predictions presented in the first technical report into a format that is understandable by Southlands communities, and the completion of location and impact specific projects to build on the information in the first report.

·    A report analysing the information from the science report and community engagement, identifying key Council infrastructure and communities that may be vulnerable / at risk;

·    A plan for engaging with the community around responding to the impacts of climate change to inform Phase 2 of the overall Climate Change work programme.

 

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Joint Council working group set up for Phase 1 – Building Knowledge

December 2017

December 2017

Initially SDC – transitioned to ES

Climate Change Impacts Report

June 2018

August 2018

Gavin McCullagh - ES

Councillor Workshop in findings of Report

July 2018

July 2018

Rebecca Blyth - SDC

Joint councils Communication and Engagement Plan

August 2018

TBC

Rebecca Blyth – SDC with Louise Pagan SDC

Identification of joint regional project next steps

August 2018

September 2018 (TBC)

ES with TA’s

Completion of further impact and location specific work / projects

TBC

TBC

ES with TA’s

Staff Report - Internal analysis to understand risks and impacts

January 2019

TBC

Rebecca Blyth – with key staff SDC

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Develop Project Plan for phase 1 – building knowledge

December 2017

 

Draft completed December 2017

Courtney Ellison - SDC

 

Develop Brief for Regional Climate Change Impacts report

December 2017

 

December 2017

Courtney Ellison - SDC

 

Develop engagement plan for regional project

·    Key communication messages

·    Approach to community engagement around building mutual understanding of impacts of Climate Change

February 2018

 

Draft completed August 2018

Rebecca Blyth – SDC with Louise Pagan SDC and other councils.

 

Engage consultant to prepare Climate Change Impacts report (Refer to project brief)

February – June 2018

 

August 2018

ES – with joint working group

 

Review and workshop findings of climate change report with working group and elected representatives.

July – November 2018

TBC – November 2018

ES with joint working group

 Community engagement as per engagement plan developed earlier

December 2018 – on going

TBC

SDC

 

Agree and commission further impact and location specific work / projects

August - ongoing

TBC

ES with joint working group

Analysis of science report and implications for council infrastructure and communities, including consideration of community engagement.

September - ongoing

TBC

SDC or in conjunction with joint working group

Preparation of report outlining risks and impacts with a proposed engagement with community and key stakeholders process.

TBC – acknowledge need to coordinate with LTP project plan.

 

Rebecca Blyth – SDC in conjunction with key internal staff and joint working group.

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Southland District Council

·    Councillors

·    Community Boards

·    CDAs

·    Resource Management

·    Services and Assets

·    Community Futures

·    GIS

Internal key staff (strategic and operational)

 

Governance

 

 

Partner

(CB’s and CDA’s – inform and consultation)

Te Ao Marama Inc (Eva Hendriks)

Iwi

Partner

Environment Southland (Gavin McCullagh)

External key staff

Partner

Invercargill City Council (Liz Devery)

External key staff

Partner

Gore District Council (Ian Davidson-Watts)

External key staff

Partner

Emergency Management Southland (Angus McKay)

Specialist knowledge

Consultation to identify what existing information they hold that could contribute to understanding the impacts of climate change.

 

Rate payers and residents

 

Engagement for two purposes:

·    To understand what the community knows of climate change and its impacts – i.e. what are they already experiencing

·    To discuss and build a common understanding of the science around climate change and potential impacts

5.        Budget

Task

Contract Fee

Open ($’000)

Comments

Climate Change Impacts Report

SDC Share

$

 

Completed

 

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

$

 

 

 


Community and Policy Committee

05 September 2018

 

Water and Land Regional Plan Implications Project Plan

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor: Matt Russell

Project Manager: Ian Evans

Project Name: Water and Land Regional Plan Implications

Project Start Date

July 2017

Project Finish Date

July 2020

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project plan is to outline at a high level the timeframes associated with the development and completion of the proposed Land and Water Regional Plan (pWLRP). 

The objective of undertaking a project plan for this planning process is to provide an opportunity schedule work flow across council projects.  This is necessary as the final form of the Regional Plan will have associated implications not only for our asset management and design, but also the ongoing funding of these assets by the community.

The Regional Plan will also have implications for how business and industry operate within Southland and it is important for council to understand the implications of this for the community it plans for.

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

1.   Decision to be involved in the appeal process of the pWLRP – jointly with ICC and GDC.

2.   Directions from the Court regarding case management – have resulted in a significantly different process for dealing with appeals being established.  This will significantly expand the timeframe and resource involved in the appeal process from SDC’s perspective.

3.   Environment Court Decisions on the policy framework, underlying science and Section 32 Analysis – these are proposed to be dealt with first and will determine the framework that the rules / regulation will be considered within.

4.   Any mediation undertaken prior to reaching Environment Court Hearing on the Rule framework – may focus the appeal points and result in the need to increase or alternatively decrease the level of resourcing required for this project.

5.   Once the Plan has been finalised Council will need to allocate additional resource to understand and plan for the resulting impacts on its assets and communities.

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

The pWLRP RMA process – involving mediation, preparation of expert evidence, attendance at planning meetings, pre hearing mediation and hearings.

The consideration of the impacts of changes in the policy and rule framework affecting council provided services.

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

Consideration of the impacts of the pWLRP on other resource users or wider community aspirations with regard to use and development of land and water..

 

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

Timeframes

This project is subject to externally imposed timeframes by the Environment Court.  These is little ability to influence these timeframes.

Outcomes

The Council is actively involved along with a number of other parties in working towards balanced outcomes that address their concerns.  However the final decision on these matters will be made by the Court and those decisions are subject to appeal to the High Court on points of law only. 

These processes can result in unexpected or unplanned for outcomes.

 

2.4     RISKS

See above

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

Completion by July 2020

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

1.  Evidence and attendance as directed by the Environment Court

2.  Analysis of decisions on the management and provision of Council assets including the practical impact on engineering design and levels of service.  Consideration of funding implications as a result of any changes in engineering design requirements or levels of service.

 

 

 

 

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Hearing into Policy Framework

March 2019

 

Joint councils – managed by counsel

Decisions on Policy Framework

Estimated

October 2019

 

 

Any appeals on Policy Framework decisions – to the High Court would need to be settled prior to any work on the Rule Framework

Unknown

 

 

Mediation on Rule Framework (dependent on above).

2020

 

Joint councils – managed by counsel

Hearing on Rule Framework

Mid 2020

 

As above

Decisions on Rule Framework

 

 

 

Any appeals on the Rule Framework decisions – to the High Court.

 

 

 

Completed Regional Plan – enabling analysis of the implications to SDC asset management and funding.

Ongoing from December 2019

 

Ian Evans – with specialist support

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

As above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Southland District Council

·    Councillors

·    Resource Management

·    Services and Assets

·    Community Futures

Internal key staff (strategic and operational)

 

Governance

 

Partner

 

Other councils joined with our appeal (ICC & GDC)

Part of joint appeal

Partner

Anderson Lloyd Lawyers – Michael Garbett

Contractor

Counsel to TA’s including SDC

Ratepayers and residents

Inform and advise

Inform and advise

Stantec

Contractor

Technical and planning input for joint TA’s.

5.        Budget

Task

Contract Fee

Open ($’000)

Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                              


Rates Affordability

 

1.        Project Outline

1.1     PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Leader/Sponsor:  Steve Ruru

Project Manager:  Anne Robson

Project Name:  Rates Affordability

Project Start Date

«Start Date»

Project Finish Date

31 December 2019

 

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version

Date

Author(s)

Comments

1

7 August 2018

Anne Robson

Preliminary project scope subject to detailed work analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2     PURPOSE / OBJECTIVES

To further progress Councils understanding of how much rates (possibly ES as well as SDC) form part of Ratepayers household income based on the 2016 census. 

 

1.3     KEY DECISIONS IMPACTING THIS PROJECT

Council will use the information gathered to inform its rate setting process. 

2.        Project Scope

2.1     IN SCOPE

This defines the project boundaries to facilitate effective management of deliverables on time and to agreed/approved cost.  The scope outlined in any previous document should be confirmed here or updated as necessary.  List all items that are included in the scope of this project. 

(a)        Obtain details of household income

(b)        Compare current Council rates charged to household income

(c)        Discussion of the findings with Elected Members

2.2     OUT OF SCOPE

List identified items that will not be delivered as part of this project.  This is most important as it specifies items which will not be undertaken as part of this project.  This assists in managing/avoiding scope creep.  The importance of individual out of scope items should be mentioned.  Such items may pose significant risks to the project if they are not done at all by others.  This may create risks for the project which need to be recognised and managed.  

·    Making any changes to budgets or asset plans as a result of the information received.

·    Updating any IT system data fields to enable this research work to be repeated

·    Development of any additional reports to further understand Councils current rating levels

·    Development of any KPI’s or rating constraints as a result of the data presented.

2.3     ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

·    That other than obtaining data from Statistics NZ all work on this research will be completed internally.

·    The latest census data is not available till March 2019 and then phased as to the release of what data so the data may be older.

 

2.4     RISKS

·    That the relevant staff resourcing will not be available when required due to other work, vacancies etc.

·    That Stats NZ will not be able to provide the necessary information in the format required

2.5     KEY PROJECT DEPENDENCIES

Activity

Depends On

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

3.        Projects Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones

PROJECT TIMELINE

3.1     TIMEFRAME

To December 2019

 

3.2     KEY DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

·    Information regarding the household income of Southland District Residents in the manner yet to be defined (eg: Ward, town, sector) compared to the average rates charged on the same basis.

·    A report to Elected Members outlining the findings for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-2024.

3.3     KEY MILESTONES

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Scope out project specifics

 

 

Anne/Finance Team

Obtain rating units in mesh blocks

 

 

Shelley/Adrian

Obtain Household income in mesh blocks

 

 

Finance/Statistics NZ

Prepare report on findings

June 2019

 

Anne/Finance team

 

 

 

 

3.4     TASK

Forecast

Due Date

Actual Date

Responsibility

Scope the proposed approach to this piece of research

 

 

Anne/Finance team

Discuss the proposed approach with the CEO and potentially Council

 

 

Anne/Finance team

Update the scope to include the amended detail discussed

 

 

Anne

Prepare and discuss the information required with GIS

 

 

Anne/Shelley/Adrian

Prepare and discuss the information required with Statistics NZ

 

 

Anne/Finance Team

Review the information received

 

 

Anne/Finance Team

Prepare a draft report of the information received

 

 

Anne/Finance team

Discussion of the draft report with the CEO

 

 

Anne/Finance Team

Discussion of the draft report with Council

June 2019

 

Anne/Finance team

Gather any further information, make necessary amendments to the report

 

 

Anne/Finance team

Present final report to Council

Sept/Oct 2019

 

Anne/Finance team

4.        Stakeholder Management

4.1     STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder

Nature of Relationships

Nature of Involvement

Steve Ruru

Project Sponsor

Discussion and review

Elected Members

Receivers of information

Receive information and question/decide way forward

GIS Staff (Adrian)

Data informant

Provide rating units in mesh blocks

 

5.        Work Management Plan

5.1     RESOURCE PLAN

Name

Role

Company/Council

Duration

Hours Per Week

Anne Robson

CFO

 

 

 

Shelley Dela Llana

Accountant

 

 

 

Adrian Buddle

GIS

 

 

 

Finance team

 

 

 

 

Note: This resource table is always a work in progress

 

6.        Budget

Task

People Hours

Open ($’000)

Comments

Statistics NZ

 

$2,000

When last completed cost $400.  Building in contingency