Extraordinary Council

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Extraordinary Council held in the Council Chamber, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Tuesday, 23 October 2018 at 10.01am – 12.10pm, 1.00pm  - 2.21pm, 2.31pm – 2.46pm, 2.50pm – 2.58pm

 

present

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Paul Duffy

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

APOLOGIES

Councillor Brian Dillon

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

Group Manger – Services and Assets

Matt Russell

Group Manager – Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Group Manager – Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

Governance and Democracy Manager

Clare Sullivan

Communications Manager

Louise Pagan

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 


Extraordinary Council

23 October 2018

 

1             Apologies

 

There were apologies from Councillor Dillon.

 

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved:

That Council accept the apology.

 

 

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

 

1.         Ruth Shaw representing Fiordland Sewerage Options addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Shaw’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 1.

 

2.         Alistair Paton – McDonald addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mr Paton McDonald’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 2.

 

3.         Dave Kelly addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.

 

4.         Lawton Weber addressed the meeting via telephone from Te Anau in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block. 

 

5.         Irene Barnes addressed the meeting via telephone from Te Anau in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Barnes’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 3.

 

6.         Shirley Mouat a member of the Te Anau Wastewater Project Discharge Committee addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Mouat’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 4.

 

7.         Cameron McDonald addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.

 

8.         Allan Youldon via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mr Youldon’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 5.

 

9.         Peter Hampton via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mr Hampton’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 6.

 

10.      Murray Hagen via telephone via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mr Hagen’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 7.

 

11.      Jenny Burgess via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Burgess’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 8.

 

12.      Debbie Gamble via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Gamble’s notes are attached to the minutes as appendix 9.

 

13.      Des Cooper via telephone from Te Anau addressed the meeting in relation to item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.

 

14.      Ruth Shaw read out a note from Christine Pounsford regarding item 6.1 Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block.  A copy of Mrs Pounsford’s notes are attached as appendix 10.

 

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.10pm and reconvened at 1pm.

 

Mayor Tong, Councillors Baird, Douglas, Duffy, Ford, Frazer, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson, Paterson and Perham were present when the meeting reconvened.

 

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

 

Reports - Operational Matters

 

 

6.1

Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block

Record No: R/18/10/23197

 

Group Manager, Services and Assets – Matt Russell, Strategic Manager Water and Waste – Ian Evans, Management Accountant – Susan McNamara, Community Partnership Leader – Simon Moran and Stantec Consultants Roger Oakley and Sue Bennett were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Russell advised that the purpose of the report is to seek a final decision from Council, following consideration of the recommendations from the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee at its meeting on 12 October 2018, Finance and Audit and Services and Assets Committees on 17 October 2018, on a wastewater discharge method at the Kepler Block based on an updated and peer reviewed business case.

 

The meeting progressed with various questions and answer with officers and the consultants.

 

Moved Councillor Kremer, seconded Councillor Harpur, the following motion:

 

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block” dated 15 October 2018.

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

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

i)            The options outlined in the business case are the reasonably practicable options available.

ii)          It does not require further information, further identification of community views, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

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

i)            The purpose of local government as defined in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and in particular the need to meet the needs of its communities in the most cost-effective manner now and into the future

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

iii)         The need to be conscious of the financial impact that this project will have on Councils current system of rating levels and overall financial position

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

v)           The previous Council decision (Item 8.8 16 November 2016) that it is unacceptable for Council to not have a consented discharge for the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme.

e)         Notes that the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee has recommended that Council proceed with Option 3 but in doing so it also determined that its decision is outside of section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

f)          Notes the requirement for Council to manage its financial arrangements in a prudent manner and make effective provision for the funding of all of its activities in a way that is financially affordable and sustainable for its communities which suggests that it should adopt the most cost effective option.

g)         Notes that the capital costs of the four options outlined in the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme – Kepler Block business case have increased since the last business case was presented in December 2017 and that the cost of the different options now range between $17.6M (Option 1 – Centre Pivot Irrigation) and $22.2M (Option 3 – Slow Rate Drip Irrigation).

h)         Notes that Council has received notification that it will receive, subject to finalisation of appropriate contract conditions, a contribution of $5M from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund towards the cost of implementing the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme and that this allocation is not conditional on a particular discharge method.

i)          Notes that the financial analysis included at section 5.3 of the business case suggests that rates are at or nearing what is recognised as an affordability threshold for a number of communities in the Southland district and that as a result Council should be cautious about pursuing options which increase rates above other viable options

j)          Notes the importance of completing construction of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project upgrade before 30 November 2020 and that the timeframes within which this work must be completed are now tight.

New k)   Approves the updated final business case and determines that it wishes to proceed with the implementation of Option 3 – subsurface drip irrigation as the discharge method.

 

New l)    Determines, in accordance with section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 that option 3 represents a cost effective way of providing good quality infrastructure given:

·                That for a solution to be effective it needs to meet the needs of the community in a manner that is seen as appropriate by the community itself and in this regard notes that it has received strong submissions from members of the Te Anau and Manapouri community expressing a strong preference for the discharge method to be by way of sub-surface drip irrigation.

·                The potential for the environment surrounding the Kepler block to continue to change in the future as the Te Anau Manapouri Airport, and surrounding area, continues to develop both in terms of its level of usage and as further development occurs over time

·                The desirability of ensuring that the risk of adverse environmental effects are minimised to the greatest extent possible.

 

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.  Councillors Duffy, Keast and Macpherson requested that their dissenting votes be recorded.

 

Moved Councillor Perham, seconded Councillor Ford the following motion:

 

That Council agree that any funding for this project is funded through district wide rates.

 

The motion was put and declared LOST.

 

 

 

 

 

Moved Councillor Douglas, seconded Councillor Kremer the following motion.

That Council:

New m)    Agree that a targeted rated be levied on the Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater ratepayers to fund Option 3 up to a maximum of $1.5million and this be funded by way of a 30 year loan.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.21pm and reconvened at 2.31pm.

Mayor Tong, Councillors Baird, Douglas, Duffy, Ford, Frazer, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson, Paterson and Perham were present when the meeting reconvened.

 

Moved Baird, seconded Councillor Macpherson the following motion:

That Council

New m)    Agree that a targeted rated be levied on the Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater ratepayers to fund Option 3 of $2.1 million and this be funded by way of a 30 year loan.

The motion was put declared LOST.

 

The motion moved by Councillor Douglas and seconded by Councillor Kremer was put and declared CARRIED with Councillor Paterson abstaining from voting.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.46pm and reconvened at 2.50pm.

Mayor Tong, Councillors Baird, Douglas, Duffy, Ford, Frazer, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson, Paterson and Perham were present when the meeting reconvened.

 

Recommendations l to o of the officers report were not put by the meeting.  These were replaced with the motion moved below:

Moved Councillor Kremer, seconded Councillor Baird the motion:

That Council:

n)          Determines in accordance with Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that its decision to approve Option 3 is inconsistent with the 2018 Long Term Plan given that:

i)                 Subsurface drip irrigation is not the preferred method of discharge identified in the 2018 Long Term Plan

ii)               Projected costs of the project at $22.2 million are significantly higher than the budgeted cost of $14.7 million

iii)             The $5 million of revenue projected to be received from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund was not included as projected revenue

iv)             The provision of grant revenue for the wastewater activity is not provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

v)               The decision to fund up to $1.5 million of the cost of option 3 from Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater users is not provided for within the Revenue and Financing Policy

o)          Determines that it is making this decision due to the strong preference of the Te Anau and Manapouri communities for a subsurface drip irrigation discharge method

p)          Determines that as a result of making this decision it will be updating the 2019/20 Annual Plan budgets and 2021 Long Term Plan financials to recognise the changes in the financial costs,  revenue, the subsurface drip irrigation discharge method and the funding of a portion of the cost from the Te Anau and Manapouri waste water users.

q)          Notes that there are a number of risks associated with being able to progress the implementation of option 3, including obtaining the necessary resource consents within the required timeframes and therefore sees it as appropriate that it asks the chief executive to report back to Council with an outline of the project oversight and control structures, including the role and terms of reference for the Te Anau Wastewater Disposal Project Committee, that should be put in place to effectively manage this project through to completion.

r)           Determines that Council should retain centre pivot irrigation as a ‘fall back’ option, given its previous decision that it should always retain a consented discharge method, and to that end asks the chief executive to report back on how this objective might best be achieved in parallel with the work being advanced on implementation of option 3 – subsurface drip irrigation.  

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

 

 

Final Resolutions

That the Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Business Case - Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Method - Kepler Block” dated 15 October 2018.

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

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

i)           The options outlined in the business case are the reasonably practicable options available.

ii)          It does not require further information, further identification of community views, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

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

i)           The purpose of local government as defined in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and in particular the need to meet the needs of its communities in the most cost-effective manner now and into the future

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

iii)         The need to be conscious of the financial impact that this project will have on Councils current system of rating levels and overall financial position

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

v)          The previous Council decision (Item 8.8 16 November 2016) that it is unacceptable for Council to not have a consented discharge for the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme.

e)        Notes that the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee has recommended that Council proceed with Option 3 but in doing so it also determined that its decision is outside of section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

f)         Notes the requirement for Council to manage its financial arrangements in a prudent manner and make effective provision for the funding of all of its activities in a way that is financially affordable and sustainable for its communities which suggests that it should adopt the most cost effective option.

g)        Notes that the capital costs of the four options outlined in the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme – Kepler Block business case have increased since the last business case was presented in December 2017 and that the cost of the different options now range between $17.6M (Option 1 – Centre Pivot Irrigation) and $22.2M (Option 3 – Slow Rate Drip Irrigation).

h)        Notes that Council has received notification that it will receive, subject to finalisation of appropriate contract conditions, a contribution of $5M from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund towards the cost of implementing the Te Anau Wastewater Scheme and that this allocation is not conditional on a particular discharge method.

i)          Notes that the financial analysis included at section 5.3 of the business case suggests that rates are at or nearing what is recognised as an affordability threshold for a number of communities in the Southland district and that as a result Council should be cautious about pursuing options which increase rates above other viable options

j)          Notes the importance of completing construction of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project upgrade before 30 November 2020 and that the timeframes within which this work must be completed are now tight.

k)          Approves the updated final business case and determines that it wishes to proceed with the implementation of Option 3 – subsurface drip irrigation as the discharge method.

l)           Determines, in accordance with section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 that option 3 represents a cost effective way of providing good quality infrastructure given:

·                That for a solution to be effective it needs to meet the needs of the community in a manner that is seen as appropriate by the community itself and in this regard notes that it has received strong submissions from members of the Te Anau and Manapouri community expressing a strong preference for the discharge method to be by way of sub-surface drip irrigation.

·                The potential for the environment surrounding the Kepler block to continue to change in the future as the Te Anau Manapouri Airport, and surrounding area, continues to develop both in terms of its level of usage and as further development occurs over time

·                The desirability of ensuring that the risk of adverse environmental effects are minimised to the greatest extent possible.

 

m)        Agree that a targeted rated be levied on the Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater ratepayers to fund Option 3 up to a maximum of $1.5million and this be funded by way of a 30 year loan.

 

n)          Determines in accordance with Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that its decision to approve Option 3 is inconsistent with the 2018 Long Term Plan given that:

i)               Subsurface drip irrigation is not the preferred method of discharge identified in the 2018 Long Term Plan

ii)             Projected costs of the project at $22.2 million are significantly higher than the budgeted cost of $14.7 million

iii)           The $5 million of revenue projected to be received from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund was not included as projected revenue

iv)           The provision of grant revenue for the wastewater activity is not provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

v)             The decision to fund up to $1.5 million of the cost of option 3 from Te Anau and Manapouri wastewater users is not provided for within the Revenue and Financing Policy

o)          Determines that it is making this decision due to the strong preference of the Te Anau and Manapouri communities for a subsurface drip irrigation discharge method

p)          Determines that as a result of making this decision it will be updating the 2019/20 Annual Plan budgets and 2021 Long Term Plan financials to recognise the changes in the financial costs, revenue, the subsurface drip irrigation discharge method and the funding of a portion of the cost from the Te Anau and Manapouri waste water users.

q)          Notes that there are a number of risks associated with being able to progress the implementation of option 3, including obtaining the necessary resource consents within the required timeframes and therefore sees it as appropriate that it asks the chief executive to report back to Council with an outline of the project oversight and control structures, including the role and terms of reference for the Te Anau Wastewater Disposal Project Committee, that should be put in place to effectively manage this project through to completion.

r)           Determines that Council should retain centre pivot irrigation as a ‘fall back’ option, given its previous decision that it should always retain a consented discharge method, and to that end asks the chief executive to report back on how this objective might best be achieved in parallel with the work being advanced on implementation of option 3 – subsurface drip irrigation.

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 2.58pm.                      CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Council HELD ON TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2018.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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


 

APPENDIX 1

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 


 

APPENDIX 2

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

APPENDIX 3

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

APPENDIX 4

 

 

APPENDIX 5

 

 

 


 

 

APPENDIX 6

 

 

 


 

 


 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 

 


 

APPENDIX 7

 

 


 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

APPENDIX 8


 

 


 

 

APPENDIX 9

 

 

APPENDIX 10