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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 7 February 2019

9am

Council Chamber
15 Forth Street, Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Paul Duffy

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                5

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                5

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             5

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         5

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        5

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                                             5

Reports - Policy and Strategy

7.1         Debt Recovery Policy - for adoption                                                                                                       7

7.2         Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw, for adoption                               31

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Stewart Island/Rakiura Service Sustainability Review                                                              71

8.2         Blackmount Community Centre - Transfer Ownership to the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc                                                                                                                                                 97

8.3         Monthly Financial Report - December 2018                                                                                  107

8.4         Bridge Report January 2019                                                                                                                   125

8.5         Delegations under the Building Act 2004                                                                                       167

8.6         New Street Names in Te Anau and Curio Bay                                                                                177

Reports - Governance

9.1         Risk Management Framework Project                                                                                             183

9.2         Minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018    219

9.3         Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018 221

9.4         Minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 15 November 2017                                                                                                                                        223

9.5         Minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 6 December 2017                                                                                                                                           225

9.6         Minutes of the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board Meeting dated 23 October 2018                                                                                                                                                                                  227

9.7         Minutes of the Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 4 October 2018             229

9.8         Minutes of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board Meeting dated 1 November 2018                                                                                                                                                                       231

9.9         Minutes of the Wallacetown Community Board Meeting dated 25 October 2018 233

9.10       Minutes of the Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018          235

9.11       Minutes of the Dipton Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 August 2018                                                                                                                                                     237

9.12       Minutes of the Gorge Road and Districts Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 June 2018                                                                                                                   239

9.13       Minutes of the Tokanui Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 23 July 2018                                                                                                                                                       241   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       243

C10.1    Public Excluded Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018                                                                                                                                                   243

C10.2    Public Excluded Minutes of the Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018                                                                                                                                                                       243  

 


Council

07 February 2019

 

1             Apologies

 

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

 

2             Leave of absence

 

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

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

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

 

4             Public Forum

 

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

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes

6.1             Meeting minutes of Council, 18 December 2018


Council

7 February 2019

 

Debt Recovery Policy - for adoption

Record No:             R/18/12/28744

Author:                      Sheree Marrah, Finance Manager

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        This report presents the draft Debt Recovery Policy (the draft Policy) for adoption by Council. The draft Policy is included with this report as Attachment A. The Debt Recovery Policy will be made publicly available once adopted.

Executive Summary

2        To assist with collection of Council debt it is desirable that Council establish a policy which outlines the approaches for recovery of Council debt.  Council has not previously had a formal policy, however many of the recommendations in the policy have been informally applied.

3        The objective of this policy is to ensure that overdue debts are collected promptly, efficiently and consistently.

4        This policy is not required to be consulted on, therefore no formal public opinions have been sought in developing this policy, however the Policy will be made publicly available once adopted.

5        The draft Policy was reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Finance and Audit Committee at their meeting on 14 December 2018.

6        Staff are requesting the Council adopts the draft Policy, which is included with the report as Attachment A.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Debt Recovery Policy - for adoption” dated 30 January 2019.

 

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)           Adopts the Debt Recovery Policy (Attachment A), incorporating any changes agreed at this meeting.

 


 

Background

7        Council currently has no formal policy or process outlining the requirements for collection of Council debts.  Historically, staff have applied various approaches to collection of debt, however it has never been formally documented from a Council wide perspective.

8        The objective of this policy is to provide guidance to staff as to the approach to be taken for debt collection, to ensure that debts are collected promptly, efficiently and consistently.

9        This policy will inform the public of Council’s approach to debt, as Council is committed to providing an equitable and transparent approach where debt is owed to Council. 

10      In preparing this draft Policy (Attachment A) staff documented the current approach, identified areas for improvement and streamlined the approach across the various debt types where possible.  Staff also checked relevant legislation and consulted with Council’s legal advisors as required.  These matters are discussed further below. 

11      It is important to note that in this draft Policy there is a number of references to recovery agencies, however staff note that in the future this activity may be undertaken by Council staff.

12      In addition to the draft Debt Recovery Policy, Council staff have also established a draft Debt Recovery Guidance document, which is an internal policy established to provide guidance to Council staff in relation to the recovery of debt.   

13      Council debt types and the primary recovery approaches available are as follows:

 

Legal collection methods

Other collection methods

Rates (including water rates)

Payment from Mortgagee, sale of property under a rating sale, sale of property as abandoned land (Local Government (Rating) Act 2002)

Payment arrangements

Debt recovery agency

SIESA electricity charges

Disconnection of supply (Electricity Industry Act 2010)

Short term payment arrangements

Debt recovery agency

Other revenue – including resource management fees, building consent fees, hall hire fees, airport landing fees, interim wheelie bin charges, rental income from community housing, property licences, food licences, animal registration fees, infringements

Varies depending on relevant legislation and associated revenue

Short term payment arrangements

Debt recovery agency

 

14      The draft Debt Recovery Policy is attached.  Below is a summary of the key points of this policy.

Rates and Water Rates (including metered water)

15      Collection of rates and water rates are governed by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. 
No formal collection action is taken in relation to current year’s rates because in accordance with the legislation they are not technically overdue until 1 July of the following year. 

16      Staff have developed this draft Policy on the basis that Council will use all remedies available to it to recover rates debt in accordance with the legislation which allows for recovery of arrears from mortgagee, seeking judgement from the Court, rating sale/lease or abandoned land sale/lease.

17      In relation to water rates, historically Council have collected these in a manner similar to other sundry debt, however given that they are actually rates, they should be collected in accordance with the legislation.  Additionally Council is proposing to include restriction of water supply as a tool for recovery of arrears.  This draft Policy has therefore been developed to seek to collect water rates consistent with other rates as well as restricting supply.

Sundry Debts

18      For the purpose of this draft policy, sundry debts are all other debts excluding rates, water rates and SIESA electricity tariffs.  The guidelines for write-offs (discussed in detail below), are particularly relevant to these revenue streams.

19      It is important to note that for some sundry debt types, such as infringements and dangerous/insanitary buildings, legislation exists which governs the collection of outstanding debt, and therefore these are noted as exceptions to this policy. 

SIESA

20      The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board have given staff the direction that they wanted a stronger stance taken in relation to electricity arrears and instructed staff to issue disconnection notices if payment is not received within 60 days of due date.  Staff have formalised this request by incorporating this requirement into this policy.  Recent issuance of disconnection notices has resulted in full payment in the majority of cases, and a few mutually acceptable short term payment arrangements.

 

Issues

Set off

21      Often Council has instances where a debtor has a credit balance (ie over payment) in one revenue area and arrears in another (ie rates arrears and overpaid building consent fees).  Currently these transactions are considered separately and the building consent fees would be refunded to the customer. 

22      Set off proposes that where a person makes an overpayment to Council or is due a refund, and that same person also owes money to Council, Council may recover arrears by way of setting off the overpayment against the arrears.

23      The policy has been drafted to allow set off of overpayments, refunds and creditor payments against all outstanding debt types where these are not restricted by contractual agreement or legislation and are agreed to in writing.

Application of interest charges/penalties

Rates

24      In accordance with section 57 and 58 of Local Government Rating Act (“the Act”), Council can apply penalties to rates that are not paid by the due date. An annual resolution is made in June by Council, establishing the penalties and this policy will reflect any changes made by this resolution.

Water rates (metred water only)

25      Council currently does not impose any penalties on water rates.

26      Consistent with rates as noted above, in accordance with section 57 and 58 of the Act, Council can apply penalties to water rates that are not paid by the due date.  An annual resolution is made in June by Council, establishing both the due dates and the penalties.  Council will be asked to consider including penalties on water rates as part of this resolution in June, in line with penalties charged on other rates.

SIESA electricity tariffs

27      Council is not proposing to apply any penalty or interest charges on SIESA electricity tariffs. 

28      The primary collection method for SIESA electricity charges is the enforced disconnection after 60 days.  The application of interest or penalties may not entice people to pay earlier and they may still end up being disconnected.

Other debt

29      Council currently does not apply any penalty or interest charges on other debt, however Council terms and conditions do provide for interest of 2.5% above Council’s bank’s unsecured overdraft rate.

30      The policy has been drafted to continue to not apply penalty or interest charges to other debt due to the current inability to automatically apply this, however this will be reviewed periodically.

Restriction of supply

Water rates (metred water only)

31      Currently Council does not use restriction of supply as a method of encouraging payment for water arrears.  The draft policy includes the potential use of water restrictions as a tool for encouraging payment of arrears.

32      Section 193 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 69S of the Health Act 1956 allows Council to restrict a customer's water supply in certain circumstances (including non-payment of use charges) and limits around the level of restriction (ie continue to provide an adequate supply of drinking water).

33      Council recently updated its Water Supply Bylaw in 2017 and this notes, failure to pay the appropriate charges by the due date, is a breach of conditions of supply (section 5.1(d)(i)).  Additionally it notes Council’s right to reduce the flow rate of water to the customer after a defect notice has been served (section 5.1.2).  In restricting supply, consideration would need to be given to when a restriction cannot be applied (children under 5, elderly, residents with health concerns, stock etc).  Currently it is the Strategic Manager of Water and Waste who has delegated authority to approve a restriction.

34      It is also important to note that to physically restrict supply, Council will be required to install restrictors on each individual property’s supply and this comes at a cost to Council for both parts and labour. 

35      Before implementing water restrictions as a tool for enforcing payment of arrears, Council staff need to develop the appropriate processes and terms and conditions and notify the customers accordingly.  Consideration should also be given to the minimum level of arrears required before a restriction is put in place (giving consideration to the cost associated with installation and removal of restrictors).

SIESA electricity tariff

36      The disconnection process occurs 60 days from the end of the month associated with the invoice.  The Electricity Authority advises that disconnection typically happens 48 days after a bill has been issued, so the proposed 60 days is slightly more lenient.  The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board are in support of this approach.  Council must issue a disconnection notice at least 7 days before the disconnection takes place in accordance with our terms and conditions of supply.

37      Staff have implemented this approach over the last 10 months and it has assisted with more efficient collection of outstanding electricity charges.

38      Council must be aware that disconnection of medically dependent consumers is prohibited in accordance with the Electrical Authority guidelines.

 Other debt

39      Council currently does not restrict supply of services to customers where they have outstanding debt. 

40      Council sought legal guidance in relation to which Council services it could restrict supply to customers with outstanding arrears.  This advice has indicated that Council could take a stronger stance than it currently does.  Staff will continue to work on this and bring back to the Finance and Audit Committee its findings and recommended approach before implementing.

41      The policy has been drafted to include restriction of services to customers with outstanding arrears where it is not restricted by legislation.

Collection via demand on mortgagee

Rates and Water rates (including metered water)

42      Where an owner defaults in paying rates or water rates on a property with a mortgage, Council can recover the arrears from the first mortgagee in accordance with Section 62(1) of the Act. 

43      As this is a collection tool prescribed by legislation this policy reflects the use of this in all instances possible.  Historically this process has resulted in the full recovery of rates arrears and associated penalties in nearly 100% of all requests.  Historically Council has not sought payment of water arrears from mortgagees, however this will take place going forward.

44      A minimum of three months’ notice is required to be issued before formal demand for payment can be requested.  Formal demand for payment cannot be requested until at least 1 November for arrears at 30 June of the same year.

Collection via rating sale or lease

Rates and Water rates (including metered water)

45      Where Council or a recovery agency have no success in recovering the rates or water rates arrears on properties without mortgage, then legal action can commence, the final step, of which, is a rating sale or lease, in accordance with section 67(1) Act. 

46      As this is a collection tool prescribed by legislation Council staff believe that it should be progressed in all instances possible, without having to seek approval from Council.  Where judgement does not result in payment of arrears, staff will notify Council, for their information only, via a confidential report for information, of the intention to progress to rating sale.

47      Staff anticipate that this process will result in a significant recovery of rates and water rates arrears, penalties and costs, however the level of recovery is dependent on the age of the arrears, how quickly they have been progressed and the value and condition of the property in question.

48      The first steps in the legal process are to lodge a statement of claim, followed by seeking judgement from the Court for rates and water rate arrears.  Where judgement does not result in payment of arrears, staff will notify Council via a confidential report, of the intention to progress to rating sale.  Please note - this process could take approximately two years, in accordance with legislative timeframes set in the Act.  

Collection via abandoned land sale or lease

Rates and Water rates (including metered water)

49      This policy is written to seek declaration of land as abandoned where, in accordance with section 77(1) of the Act, Council or a recovery agency have no success in locating a property owner and no rates or water rates payments have been received for at least three years, Council can have the land declared as abandoned. Alternatively, property owners may give written notice to Council that they intend to abandon the property.

50      Staff will inform Council via a confidential report, of the properties they are intending to pursue declaration as abandoned land.

51      Over the past two years, Council have sought declaration of abandoned land for up to 20 properties per annum in relation to rates arrears.  Typically Council sell abandoned land rather than leasing. 

Write off of bad debts

Rates and Water rates (including metered water)

52      Under legislation, rates are attached to a property, therefore where a rating sale or abandoned land sale occurs, and the full recovery of the arrears is not achieved, the outstanding rates can remain with the property.  To date, Council have written off the outstanding rates after sale to enable the new property owner to commence with a clean slate.

53      In accordance with section 65(1) of the Act, Council is limited to a period of 6 years that it can commence legal proceedings to seek repayment of rates and water rates arrears.  However, if the legal proceedings continue to rating sale, full recovery of arrears from the sale proceeds can occur.  As such, Council staff are not writing off debt until repayment is completed. 

54      This policy recommends that Council continue with the current approach of writing off arrears after rating sale or abandoned land sale has taken place.

SIESA electricity tariffs

55      This policy proposes that SIESA debts will only be written off when all reasonable attempts to recover outstanding amounts have been made or the cost of recovery is likely to equal or exceed the amount to be recovered. In some instances the cost (in both staff time and lodgement fees) doesn’t justify proceeding to a collection agency.

56      Unless it is a debt associated with a vulnerable customer, Council has the ability to disconnect supply where a customer does not pay their account, however long outstanding arrears typically arise where a customer has discontinued their supply, moved away from the island and are unable to be located.  As a relatively transient/seasonal community this often occurs.  These debts are typically forwarded to a recovery agency for collection and remain against that debtor until paid.

57      All write-offs will be reported to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board on a six monthly basis and will include the amount written off, description of the invoice and reason for write-off.

Other debt

58      Debts will only be written off when all reasonable attempts to recover outstanding amounts have been made or the costs of recovery are likely to equal or exceed the amount to be recovered. 
In some instances the cost (in both staff time and lodgement fees) doesn’t justify proceeding to a collection agency.  Staff are proposing in the draft debt recovery guidelines that all debt under $50 and more than 120 days past due be written off without progressing to external collection agencies. 

59      The draft policy has been prepared to actively write off debt for all revenue streams when it is considered uncollectable or the costs of recovery are likely to equal or exceed the amount to be recovered.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

60      As this policy covers the majority of revenue streams across Council, there is a significant amount of inter-related legislation that may be relevant.  Section 101 of the Local Government Act requires Council to manages its finances prudently and provide for current and future interests of the community.  Section 103 of the Act also requires Council to have a revenue and financing policy which must outline the income sources to offset expenditure.  It is critical that ratepayers and service users pay towards the services.

61      Council staff have engaged Simpson Grierson to provide guidance over key issues in relation to the compilation of this policy and the associated recommendations.  Simpson’s Grierson’s advice has been incorporated into this draft policy and report.

Community Views

62      Council staff have not specifically sought community views, however we believe that the public will be in support of the intent of the policy and the actions in order to ensure that Council arrears are collected in a prompt, efficient and consistent manner, given that the overarching impact of overdue debt falls on those who pay their accounts as required.

63      Once the draft Debt Recovery Policy has been approved by Council, it will be made available to the public for their information on Council’s website alongside Council’s various other policies.

Costs and Funding

64      There is no specific cost with the establishment of this policy, however, the final policy will affect Council’s approach to outstanding debt, and may result in additional interest/penalties being charged to customers and ratepayers and/or increased provisions and write-off of doubtful debts.  It is expected that it will assist in reducing the level of long standing arrears.

Policy/Risk Implications

65      Council staff have considered this draft Policy in conjunction with other Council policies as outlined in section seven of the draft Debt Recovery Policy. 

66      The main risk associated with this policy is that Council may not collect arrears in accordance with the relevant legislation/policy, particularly the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.  In order to mitigate this risk, Council staff engage independent experts/lawyers to assist with recovery of significant arrears.

67      Additionally Council are exposed to risk if they do not collect arrears in accordance with other relevant legislation as outlined throughout this report.  This risk has been mitigated by having Simpson Grierson provide legal guidance on key areas of the policy and seeking further guidance as necessary as we implement this policy.

68      Additional risks include:

·        Reputational risk - taking a strong position on recovery of arrears, or making an error in our recovery process.

·        Potential financial risk – inability to recover some debt.

·        Legal risk – if we do something contrary to legislation we could be challenged in court or fined.

Staff consider these additional risks are not significant, and can be managed on a case-by-case basis.  With the implementation of the policy and support from experienced professionals as required, these risks should be mitigated.   

Analysis

Options Considered

69      Council could choose to:

·                 Option 1:   Adopt the draft Policy (as attached to this report); or

·                 Option 2:   Amend the Debt Recovery Policy. 

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Adopt the draft Policy

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The draft Policy considers the various Council revenue streams and debt recovery approaches and is good practice in the local government sector to have Council’s approaches documented in a policy.

·        Provides Council staff, ratepayers, and customers with information on its approach to debt collection and the options available to address outstanding debt.

·        There may be some delay in implementing/actioning the approaches outlined in the policy.

 

Option 2 – Amend the Debt Recovery Policy

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No advantages have been identified.

·        If the Council would like to significantly amend the draft Policy (ie more than minor wording changes), it will delay the adoption of this policy to a later date.

 

Assessment of Significance

70      This policy is not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement policy because this policy will not have a large impact on or consequence to the whole District, or people affected by or interested in this matter.  As a consequence community feedback is not being sought on this policy.

71      However although consultation is not being undertaken, Council is still required to give consideration to the views and preferences of people likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, as required by Local Government Act 2002 section 78(1).

72      Upon reflecting on Council’s level of arrears at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018, approximately 10% of Council’s revenue is outstanding at balance date, of which approximately 50% relates to rates.  This figure includes a portion which are current debt and are anticipated to be paid within 30 days of balance date.

73      What this illustrates is that the majority of Council’s ratepayers/customers actually pay their debts as and when they fall due and therefore this draft Policy will not affect or impact a significant portion of the community.  Council consider that the majority of the population who are compliant with paying their debt will be in support of Council taking a proactive approach and formalising its approach to collecting arrears.

74      Additionally a large proportion of this policy, primarily in relation to rates and water rates, is based on legislative requirements and therefore community views have no ability to influence these aspects of the policy.

Recommended Option

75      It is recommended that Council proceed with Option 1 and adopt the draft Policy.

Next Steps

76      If Council adopts the draft Policy, it will be made available to the public on Council’s website or at any Council office upon request.

 

 

Attachments

a             DRAFT Debt Recovery Policy    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw, for adoption

Record No:             R/19/1/299

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 to present the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw for adoption.

Executive Summary

2        Council has completed the special consultative procedure on the draft policy and bylaw. Submissions were accepted between 4 October and 9 November 2018 and hearings were held for those people who wished to speak, on 29 and 30 November 2018.

3        On 18 December 2018 Council deliberated on how it wanted to proceed. Staff have updated the draft policy and bylaw to incorporate the decisions Council made at that meeting. Some other minor changes are also being suggested, and this report provides information about those minor changes.

4        Staff are requesting that Council now proceed and adopt the draft policy and bylaw.

5        It is recommended that the draft policy and bylaw come into effect on 1 July 2019, to allow Council staff time to prepare for and implement the proposed changes. This would mean that visitor levy applications/allocations in 2019, would be in accordance with the existing (current) policy and the new policy would be in effect for 2020. 

6        Under Section 4 of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Act 2012 (the Empowering Act) a levy is a sum of money collected from visitors arriving as freedom travellers, and revenue is money collected on behalf of Council by approved operators. For this report, to ensure clarity, both types of money collected (levy and revenue) will be referred to as ‘levy’.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy and Bylaw, for adoption” dated 25 January 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

d)        Notes that on 25 September 2018, Council determined, pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the problem of funding and providing services, facilities, and amenities for passengers travelling to Stewart Island/Rakiura while they are on the Island.

 

e)        Determines prior to making the bylaw, pursuant to section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw 2019 is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

 

f)         Determines prior to making the bylaw, pursuant to section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw 2019 does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 

g)        Notes that on 18 December 2018 Council endorsed keeping the amount of the levy at $5 until such time as the strategic review of service delivery on Stewart Island/Rakiura has taken place and determines an appropriate quantum for the levy.

 

h)        Endorses the following changes that have been made to the draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy since Council met on 18 December 2019 –

 

•      changing names used to ‘Real Journeys Limited’ and ‘Stewart Island Experience’

 

•      correcting that the Rakiura Maori Lands Trust is governed by ‘seven’ Trustees instead of six

•      including that people can also send in their application form, for exemption from the levy, to contactcs@southlanddc.govt.nz

•      clarifying that ‘the chair of the Community and Policy Committee’ is a member and is the chair of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Allocation Levy Subcommittee

 

•      including that elected members on the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Allocation Levy Subcommittee ‘must act in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct at all times’

•      including that ‘Council’s Standing Orders also apply’ to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Allocation Levy Subcommittee

•      including that ‘if the councillor for Stewart Island/Rakiura is also the chair of the Community and Policy or the Finance and Audit Committee, then an additional councillor will be appointed to the subcommittee, by Council’

•      removing that ‘payments will be made around 20 June each year unless a prior agreement has been made for Council to hold the funds’

•      having an appendix with guidance on appointing representatives to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Allocation Levy Subcommittee (the approved operator, iwi and Stewart Island/Rakiura representatives)

•      changes to improve clarity and to ensure the document aligns with Council’s Style Guide

i)          Adopts the amended Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy.

 

j)          Resolves that the amended Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy will come into effect and supersede the existing Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy on 1 July 2019.

 

k)        Adopts the amended Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw.

 

l)          Resolves that the amended Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw will come into effect and supersede the existing Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw 2012 on 1 July 2019.

 

m)       Ensures that in accordance with Section 157 of the Local Government Act 2002, public notice be given of the making of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw, advising:

 

•         that the bylaw will come into force on 1 July 2019

•         that copies of the bylaw may be inspected, without fee, at all Council offices

•        that copies of the bylaw can be obtained upon payment of a reasonable charge.

 


 

Background

7        Council currently has a Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy (the current policy) and a Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw (the current bylaw).

8        Council sets and collects levies and obtains revenue from people who visit Stewart Island/Rakiura through the current policy, the current bylaw, and through contractual agreements.

9        The current policy and bylaw became operative, and the levy started being collected, in October 2013. The levy collected is currently $5 per person. Particular people are not required to pay the levy such as Stewart Island/Rakiura residents and ratepayers, and people visiting who are under 18 years.

10      As is required under the Empowering Act and the current bylaw, levies collected have been used to fund activities used by or for the benefit of visitors, and to mitigate the adverse effects of visitors on the island.

11      Staff undertook 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) on this matter, which helped develop the draft policy and bylaw.

12      On 25 September 2018 Council endorsed a statement of proposal, which included the draft policy and draft bylaw, for public consultation. Council consulted on the draft policy and bylaw from 4 October 2018 to 9 November 2018. There were 121 submissions on the draft policy and bylaw, and nearly two thirds of the submissions were from submitters who live on Stewart Island/Rakiura. Council heard those submitters who wished to speak to their submission at a Council meeting held on 29 and 30 November 2018. A full summary of the submissions received was provided in the report to Council on 29 November 2018.

13      On 18 December 2018, Council deliberated on the draft policy and bylaw and made a number of decisions. A key point that Council deliberated on, but decided not to change during this review process, is the amount of the visitor levy. Council resolved to keep the amount of the levy at $5 until such time as the strategic review of service delivery on Stewart Island/Rakiura has taken place and determines an appropriate quantum for the levy.

Issues

14      This report presents the draft policy and bylaw for adoption. The draft policy and bylaw include the changes that were endorsed by Council on 18 December 2018, and also the changes that have been in the draft policy and bylaw from earlier in the review process.

Changes to the draft policy

15      Key changes to the current policy, that have been endorsed by Council, include:

•      Council or a contractor administering the application/allocation process

•      not having a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and having a staff member/contractor giving advice to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Allocation Levy Subcommittee (the subcommittee)

•      adding three members to the subcommittee, namely:

the chair of the Finance and Audit Committee

a member from Stewart Island/Rakiura community, and

a member to represent iwi

•      having categories and guidelines for allocating levy funds (although the subcommittee will still have complete discretion on how funds are allocated)

•      allowing applications for salary and wages

•      allowing the subcommittee to commit to multi-year funding

•      requiring a ten year funding plan to be completed as part of each three year Long Term Plan cycle

16      The small amendments that have been made to the draft policy since it was last presented to Council in December 2018, are:

•      changing names used to ‘Real Journeys Limited’ and ‘Stewart Island Experience’ (in its submission, Real Journeys Limited clarified names and informed us that a company we had referred to, Stewart Island Experience Limited, no longer exists)

•      correcting that the Rakiura Maori Lands Trust is governed by ‘seven’ Trustees instead of six (this error was raised by a submitter)

•      including that people can also send in their application form, for exemption from the levy, to contactcs@southlanddc.govt.nz

•      making it clear that it is ‘the chair of the Community and Policy Committee’ who is a member and the chair of the subcommittee. This is to align the draft policy with Council’s Terms of Reference and Delegations. The current policy describes this member as being an ‘independent councillor’ although, in practice, it has been the chair of the Community and Policy Committee who has held this position

•      including that elected members on the subcommittee ‘must act in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct at all times’

•      including that ‘Council’s Standing Orders apply’ to the subcommittee

•      including that ‘if the councillor for Stewart Island/Rakiura is also the chair of the Community and Policy or the Finance and Audit Committee, then an additional councillor will be appointed to the subcommittee, by Council’

•      removing that ‘payments will be made around 20 June each year unless a prior agreement has been made for Council to hold the funds’, as this provision does not align with the invoicing system Council uses to make payments to successful applicants

•      having an appendix with guidance on appointing representatives to the subcommittee (specifically the approved operator, iwi and Stewart Island/Rakiura representatives)

•      minor changes to improve clarity and to ensure the document aligns with Council’s Style Guide.

Changes to the draft Bylaw

17      Changes to the current bylaw, that have been endorsed by Council, 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

•      amending definitions in the ‘interpretation’ section

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

18      Other than minor editing, staff have not made any other changes to the draft bylaw since it was last presented to Council.

Implementation

19      Staff propose that the draft policy and bylaw come into effect on 1 July 2019. There would not be enough time for staff to implement the revised policy before the next levy application round if it came into effect at this time. Applications for visitor levy funding are sought in March each year, and Council staff need time to prepare for the application and allocation process. For administrative ease, it is proposed that the date the bylaw comes into effect is kept consistent with the policy (so they both come into effect on 1 July 2019).

20      If the draft policy comes into effect on 1 July 2019, the levy application and allocation process this year would be undertaken in accordance with the current policy (not the revised one). This means, for example, that TAG will still advise the current subcommittee, and there would not be categories, guidelines, multi-year funding, or allocations for salary/wages.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

The Empowering Act

21      The Empowering Act provides that Council may make bylaws in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (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.

22      The Empowering Act identifies that the levy is a source of funding under section 103 of the LGA.

Consultation

23      Council has undertaken consultation on the draft policy and bylaw in accordance with the special consultative procedure outlined in section 83 and 86 of the LGA. The proposal was made widely available and people were encouraged to give their feedback.

24      Under section 78 of the LGA, Council must consider to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in the matter.

25      If Council want to make significant changes to the draft policy and bylaw, away from the options that were outlined in the statement of proposal and outside of feedback that was given by submitters, Council will be required to re-consult on the draft policy and bylaw.

LGA financial requirements

26      Under the LGA Council is required to manage its finances prudently and in accordance with sound business practice. It is also required to make adequate provision for meeting its forecast expenditure requirements. As the levy is a source of ‘funding’ under the LGA, it is subject to the normal LGA financial management provisions.

Contractual obligations

27      The approved operators are only required to collect revenue through their contractual commitments with Council. Under the contract they have the option to terminate the contract by giving six months’ notice of termination. Termination cannot take place during the peak months of October to April (inclusive).

Delegations

28      Changes will need to be made to update Council’s ‘Terms of Reference/Delegations’ to reflect the removal of the TAG group and the additional members on the subcommittee. The delegation changes will be made either as part of the update that occurs after elections, or as a separate report to Council seeking the change.

Determinations

29      Council was required, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. The problem is that the island hosts many short term visitors but has a small permanent population. The Empowering Act enables Council to collect a levy from passengers travelling to Stewart Island/Rakiura to provide services, facilities, and amenities for those people while they are on the island. Council determined a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem on 25 September 2018.

30      Council is also required to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, before it is made. Council made this determination on 25 September 2018 regarding the draft bylaw, but as amendments have been made, it is appropriate to make the determination again. The draft bylaw has been prepared and structured for ease of reference and interpretation. The draft bylaw is consistent with the Empowering Act, and the process prescribed in the LGA is being followed.

31      Council is also required (before making the bylaw) to determine whether the draft bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which grants certain civil and political rights to people in New Zealand. Again, this determination was made by Council on 25 September 2018 but as amendments have been made, it is appropriate to make the determination again. The provisions of the proposed Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw do not unreasonably interfere with any of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. While the draft bylaw requires visitors to Stewart Island to pay a levy, this power has been mandated by virtue of the Empowering Act, which has already been reviewed by the Attorney-General for any inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. The objectives of the levy are to provide services for visitors and mitigate the environmental impacts of tourism. These objectives support the rights of residents and represent value for those who will be paying the levy.

Community Views

32      Council has undertaken a thorough consultation process on this matter. The community views captured through the preliminary and formal consultation processes have been provided to Councillors in previous Council/committee reports. All reports are available for Councillors on the ‘hub’, and they can be accessed on Council’s website.

33      Submitters generally supported the removal of TAG and they were in favour of having the subcommittee (and people with local knowledge) allocate levy funds. There was also support for levy funding being allocated towards infrastructure, however there were mixed views on whether levy funds should be allocated to operational costs.

34      Feedback from submitters also suggested that there could be preferable sources of funding to the visitor levy, to provide for visitors. There was general support for being able to commit to provide multi-year funding to applicants.

Costs and Funding

35      Costs associated with staff time, advertising, travel and legal advice have been met within current budgets. 

Policy Implications

36      If Council adopts the policy and bylaw, there are policy implications for:

•      future applicants to the levy

•      Council, including TAG members and the subcommittee, and

•      visitors to Stewart Island/Rakiura.

The minor changes proposed to the levy application process may make it easier for future applicants to apply for funding. For example, applicants may be more certain about what is eligible for funding and have the opportunity to correct minor errors in their application. Future applicants would also be able to make applications for operational costs, and for multi-year funding.

The TAG would be disestablished, and there would be three additional members on the subcommittee. A staff member or contractor would provide the subcommittee with advice, and the subcommittee would have guidelines on how funding could be allocated.

Collectively, the proposed changes (such allowing allocations for operational costs) should better provide for visitors to Stewart Island/Rakiura.

Analysis

Options Considered

37      There are two options considered in this report:

•      option 1: proceed and adopt the draft policy and bylaw

•      option 2: propose a different way forward

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Proceed and adopt the draft policy and bylaw

Advantages

Disadvantages

·     Council has a good understanding of community views on this matter

·     incorporates community views

·     establishes a clear timeline for application and allocation dates

·     the definition sections align with legislation

·     the exemption card provisions align with current practice

·     clarifies who is eligible for funding (such as applications for salary/wage)

·     less confusing and fewer conflicts of interest with the removal of TAG

·     an iwi representative on the committee means tikanga Maori will be part of the allocation process, and it aligns with Council being in a partnership with local iwi

·     the subcommittee would have more local knowledge

·     the categories/guidelines would introduce a strategic approach to allocating funds and create a more transparent process

·     multi-year funding would allow applicants to request funds to service loans drawn, enabling the funds to be used more effectively

·     the accountability requirements are tighter

·     would complete a review of the policy and bylaw.

·        some community views did not support the proposed changes

·        the allocation process (with allowing multi-year funding) would be more complex than the current process

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

·        there is a small risk that approved operators may elect to terminate their contract with Council, which would mean alternative collection methods would have to be established

·        with the subcommittee allocating funds, there is not a direct application of Council strategy

·        keeping the levy at $5 may limit strategic planning to provide for visitors. 

 

 

 

 

Option 2 – Propose a different way forward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give clarity on Council’s preferred approach. 

·        if Council wants to make significant changes to the draft policy and bylaw, it would be required to re-consult

·        this option would not be consistent with previous decisions made regarding the visitor levy and Council may be perceived as undervaluing the process undertaken.

 

Assessment of Significance

38      The decisions Council is making in regard to this report have been assessed as being of lower significance in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the Local Government Act.

Recommended Option

39      Staff recommend that Council proceed with option 1 and adopt the draft policy and bylaw.

Next Steps

40      If Council proceeds and adopts the draft policy and bylaw, staff would give public notice of the making of the policy and bylaw. Staff would also send letters to people who submitted on the statement of proposal, informing them of the final outcome.

41      The current (existing) policy would be used for the 2019 levy application/allocation round, and the new policy and bylaw would come into effect on 1 July 2019. At that time, staff would ensure the revised policy and bylaw are put up on Council’s website. In 2020, the new policy would govern the levy allocation/application process.

42      The strategic review of service delivery on Stewart Island/Rakiura is likely to take about one year to complete. When it is completed, staff will present information to Council on the funds required to provide for visitors to Stewart Island/Rakiura, and discuss what the visitor levy should be. If Council then decides to review the policy and bylaw, staff would have to engage with stakeholders, and undertake consultation on a proposed draft policy and bylaw in accordance with the special consultative procedure. Council would also be required to consult on any increase in the levy amount, via the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan.

43      The draft policy states that the policy and bylaw will be reviewed within six years of adoption, so if Council adopt the draft policy and bylaw at this meeting, at the latest, a review will be due by February 2025.

44      It is important to note staff are currently undertaking a review of Council’s community assistance and funding alignment, and grants from the Stewart Island/Rakiura visitor levy fund will be considered as part of that review.

Attachments

a             Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw

b             Draft Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy 

c             Current Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Bylaw 2012

d            Current Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Policy     


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Stewart Island/Rakiura Service Sustainability Review

Record No:             R/18/12/28512

Author:                      Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek Council approval of the terms of reference and unbudgeted expenditure for completion of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Service Sustainability Review.

Executive Summary

2        At its meeting on 5 September 2018, Council considered and approved a report requesting unbudgeted expenditure, to be funded from the district operations reserve, to allow for urgent maintenance repairs to the Ulva Island and Millers Beach jetties.

3        In approving the request Council asked staff to develop terms of reference for a proposed service sustainability review. The request reflected an underlying concern about the need to better understand the financial and service sustainability issues associated with delivering services to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community.

4        It was originally intended that the review would be focussed purely on the delivery of Council services. Council subsequently made a decision at its 18 December 2018 meeting, however, to retain the current level of the visitor levy at $5 until the service sustainability review process can be completed and provide information that would assist with determining what might be an appropriate level for the visitor levy moving forward. As a result the scope of the review has been widened to include consideration of visitor related services that are provided by community groups and other non-Council related entities.

5        Terms of reference for the project, as originally conceived, were developed and endorsed by the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board at its meeting on 10 December. Comment has not been sought from the community board about the changes made to the terms of reference to reflect the 18 December 2018 Council decision.

6        This report seeks Council approval for the terms of reference and the unbudgeted expenditure required to enable the project to proceed.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Stewart Island/Rakiura Service Sustainability Review” dated 23 January 2019.

 

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)           Approve the terms of reference for the Stewart Island/Raikura Service Sustainability Review.

 

e)            Approve unbudgeted expenditure of up to $50,000, to be funded from the district operations reserve, to enable a suitable contractor to be employed to assist with completion of the review.

 

f)             Notes that the terms of reference have been amended from the version presented to the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board on 10 December 2018 to reflect the decision made by Council at its 18 December meeting to ask that the review also be used to inform decisions about what might constitute an appropriate quantum for the visitor levy in the future.

 

 


 

Background

7        At its meeting on 5 September 2018, Council considered and approved a report requesting that unbudgeted expenditure to be funded from the district operations reserve, be approved to allow for urgent maintenance repairs to the Ulva Island and Millers Beach jetties.

8        The Council report followed on from an earlier decision of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board to decline to fund the maintenance works from their local reserves.  This decision, and the lack of a structured funding plan to ensure that all jetties are able to be operated and maintained to an appropriate standard is indicative of a number of local activity funding challenges that exist on the Island. There is for example, work currently being progressed to review the Stewart Island Electrical Supply Authority activity. This follows on from concerns being raised over a number of years about the cost of supplying electricity on the Island.

9        Given the broad range of funding issues that appear to exist, Council asked that staff develop terms of reference for a proposed review of the service sustainability challenges that might exist in relation to the delivery of Council activities (services) to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community.

10      During 2018 Council completed a review of the Stewart Island Visitor Levy policy and bylaw. As part of this process it consulted on a proposal to increase the levy from $5 to $15.

11      At its meeting on 18 December 2018 Council made a decision to retain the levy at its current level of $5 until the service sustainability review has been completed. This decision reflected the need to be able to outline a clear expenditure need to be funded from any increase in the levy. It is also important to recognise that the visitor levy is only one of a number of funding sources available to Council and hence all of the communities funding needs, whether they be generated by Council or other agencies/community groups should be met from the full range of funding tools available and not rely unduly on the visitor levy.

12      The decision made by Council at its 18 December meeting means that the terms of reference for the service sustainability review should be widened to include an assessment of non-Council delivered services that support visitors to the Island which may seek a level of assistance from the visitor levy. 

Issues

13      The proposed terms of reference for the service sustainability review are attached (Attachment A) for Council consideration and approval.

14      The terms of reference have been changed since the version (Attachment B) that was considered by and endorsed by the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board at its 10 December 2018 meeting to reflect the need to recognise the likely level of demand from non-Council groups for funding from the visitor levy. The changes made are not seen as being of such significance that they need to be referred back to the community board for further input at this stage.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15      Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 contains provisions which require that local authorities review the cost effectiveness of the service delivery methods that they use for delivering service at least once every six years.

16      Section 17A(4) requires that any such review should “…consider options for the governance, funding and delivery of infrastructure services…”. Hence, the requirement is for the review process to be comprehensive and consider internal as well as external governance, management and service delivery arrangements.

17      While the section 17A provisions do not explicitly require the completion of a review that is as broad as that proposed for the Stewart Island/Rakiura Service Sustainability Review they are of relevance given that parts of the review could be seen as meeting this legislative requirement for services delivered to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community.

18      Under the Local Government Act 2002 local authorities are required to identify, in their long term plan, their expenditure needs and how those needs are to be met from the range of funding tools at their disposal.

19      The visitor levy is identified, under section 6 of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Act 2012, as being a source of revenue under section 103 of the Local Government Act 2002.

20      These provisions mean that it is important that Council’s adopted long term plan identify the level of expenditure needed to support visitor related services to be delivered to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community that are to be funded via the levy, whether these be delivered by Council or another organisation. Council currently meets this requirement by including projections related to the level of visitor levy expected to be collected.

Community Views

21      The community expects Council to set realistic levels of service so that agreed services can be delivered in a financially sustainable and affordable way. At present adequate provision is not being made within the long term plan to deliver the agreed levels of service. The funding being set aside for the funding of water structures is a good example of an area in which there is a known funding gap. It is important that these gaps are identified so that an informed decision on the levels of service to be delivered and how they are to be funded can be made in consultation with the community.

22      The views of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board have been sought in developing the original terms of reference for the project. The board were supportive of the review subject to the costs being funded by the district.

Costs and Funding

23      Completion of the review will require significant input from staff, which is currently not allowed for in current work programmes. As a result there will need to be some reprioritisation of work to ensure that the project can be supported in an appropriate manner.

24      Staff are also of the view that there is merit in employing an external resource to lead the review process. This will bring a level of independence and ensure that the review can be completed in a timely manner.

25      Depending on the review findings there may also be merit in using an external contractor to assist with the community engagement process. This is a decision that should be made once we have the outputs from the review.

26      At this stage staff have not sought proposals for leading the review process and/or any subsequent community engagement process. This will be done once the terms of reference have been approved.

27      As a result it is difficult to provide an accurate indication of the likely cost of the exercise. Staff propose, however, that unbudgeted expenditure of up to $50,000 be approved for the project. It is possible that this may be able to be funded through MBIE community planning funding but this will need to be discussed with MBIE once the scope of the work is clear. In the interim it is recommended that Council approve an allocation of funding from the district operating reserve. 

Policy Implications

28      Council has specified its current levels of service and performance measures in its 2018 Long Term Plan and associated Activity Management Plans.

Non-Council Services

29      As noted the terms of reference have been broadened to include the level of demand for funding that might exist for non-Council delivered services. To date approximately 30% of the visitor levy funds have been allocated to local community groups.

30      It is envisaged that the assessment of the likely level of demand from these groups would be assessed through discussions with the known ‘major’ groups that delivery visitor related services. This would include, for example, Stewart Island Promotions and the museum society. A judgement would then be made about the likely level of visitor levy funding that might be made available to other groups.

31      The outputs from this work, when combined with the information gathered in relation to Council activities/services can then be used to develop a model outlining the likely level of demand for visitor related services and the extent to which these might be funded from the visitor levy as distinct from other available funding sources.

Analysis

Options Considered

32      The options considered are for Council to approve the proposed terms of reference as currently drafted (option 1), approve the scope to focus only on Council delivered activities and services (option 2) or not proceed with the review (option 3). Option 2 is consistent with the terms of reference that were presented to the community board.

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve the terms of reference

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Will enable Council and the community to develop a clear understanding of the challenges associated with delivering services to Stewart Island/Rakiura.

·        The outputs from the review will support improved long term decision making and ensure that the desired levels of service can be delivered in a sustainable manner.

·        The outputs from the review can be used to inform development of the 2021 LTP and a future review of the visitor levy quantum.

·        Is consistent with community planning work completed in 2017. Will allow the review to proceed in a manner that takes account of the community board views.

·        Completion of the project will require a reprioritisation of existing work programmes and the allocation of unbudgeted expenditure.

·        The views of the community board have not been sought on the amendments made to broaden the review to include demand for visitor levy funding from community groups.

 

Option 2 – Amend terms of reference to focus only on Council services

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Will enable Council and the community to develop a clear understanding of the challenges associated with delivering Council services to Stewart Island/Rakiura.

·        The outputs from the review will support improved long term decision making and ensure that the desired levels of service can be delivered in a sustainable manner.

·        The outputs from the review can be used to inform development of the 2021 LTP and a future review of the visitor levy quantum.

·        Is consistent with community planning work completed in 2017.

·        Is consistent with the terms of reference presented to the community board and as such will allow the review to proceed in a manner that takes account of the community board views.

·        Completion of the project will require a reprioritisation of existing work programmes and the allocation of unbudgeted expenditure.

 

 

Option 3 – Not proceed with project

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Costs of completing the review will be avoided.

·        Responsibility for managing the risks and costs associated with the delivery of local services will remain with the community board and district services with Council. This will require stronger prioritisation of available resources which should be reflected in the relevant levels of service. 

·        Will mean that there is continued uncertainty about the sustainability of Council services delivered to the Stewart Island community.

·        If Council does not proceed with the review then there will be a lack of information about the extent of the challenges faced and how they might best be addressed.

·        Challenges will not be able to be addressed as part of the 2021 LTP.

Assessment of Significance

33      In this report Council is being asked to endorse the terms of reference for the proposed service sustainability review.

34      While the decision to initiate the review reflects a number of concerns that Council has about the long term sustainability of the services delivered to Stewart Island, an issue which is clearly of some significance to this community, a decision to initiate the review is not in itself seen as being significant. The decisions that Council makes once it has the information from the review, particularly if it proposes a number of changes to either service levels and/or funding sources/levels could, however, meet the significant threshold.

Recommended Option

35      It is recommended that Council adopt option 1 and approve the terms of reference and the allocation of unbudgeted expenditure of $50,000 to enable the review to be progressed. This option is consistent with the decisions that it has previously made to ask for terms of reference to be drafted and for it include the likely level of demand for visitor levy funding in the future.

36      It is noted that the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board have not had the opportunity to provide comment on the changes made to the terms of reference as a result of the decision made by Council at its 18 December meeting.

Next Steps

37      Staff will proceed with the review including seeking to engage a suitable external consultant to assist with it.

 

Attachments

a             Terms of Reference - updated January 2019

b             Terms of Reference - original version    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

7 February 2019

 

Blackmount Community Centre - Transfer Ownership to the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc

Record No:             R/19/1/298

Author:                      Theresa Cavanagh, Property Advisor

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek Council approval to transfer ownership of the Blackmount Community Centre from Council to the Blackmount Community Pool Society Incorporated as per the Society’s request.

Executive Summary

2        In 2015, at the request of the Blackmount community, Council purchased the former Blackmount School from the Crown to be used as a local community centre.  The reason for the request from the community was twofold.  To retain the facility for the benefit of the community, and for the community to retain its financial interest both in the school building and significant community pool on the site.

3        In 2017, Council received a letter from the Blackmount Community Pool Society (who operate the swimming pool and community centre) requesting that the title to the property be transferred to them as representatives of the local community.

4        The possibility of community ownership had been raised when Council acquired the property as the Blackmount community had raised $60,000 of the total purchase price of $90,000.

5        Council is required to consider the request.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Blackmount Community Centre - Transfer Ownership to the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc” dated 22 January 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Resolves to transfer the Blackmount Community Centre property, being Lots 1 & 2 DP 3117 held in RT 672165, to the Blackmount Community Pool Society Incorporated for $1.

 

e)            That the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to enter into an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with the Blackmount Community Pool Society Incorporated on the condition the property cannot be transferred without a first right of refusal for Council including the winding up of the Society.

 


 

Background

6        On 1 September 2015, Council purchased Blackmount School from the Crown pursuant to Sections 20 & 50 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) for the purpose of a Community Centre.  The purchase included the land (Lots 1 & 2 DP 3117), school building, playground, swimming pool and former public hall building (which has subsequently been sold for removal).

7        The purchase price was $90,000 and the funds were sourced by:

-     $30,000 from SDC (Waiau Aparima reserves)

-     $10,300 from community equity in the property

-     $10,000 from local fundraising

-     $20,000 from Community Trust South

-     $15,000 from lotteries

-     $4,700 from Tuatapere Lions.

 

8        It must be noted that the community funded 66% of the purchase price through fundraising and grants which they applied for.

9        In the report to Council on 10 December 2014, it was mentioned that a subsequent transfer of ownership to the local community may occur given they had raised a significant amount of the purchase price locally.  It was also commented that this would be subject to a separate report to Council should a transfer be requested by the community.

10      In 2017, Council received a letter from the Blackmount Community Pool Society (who operate the swimming pool and community centre) requesting that the title to the property be transferred to them as representatives of the local community, as they consider themselves to be financially secure and in a good position to have the assets transferred.  Part of the delays in getting this report to Council have been seeking both the 2017 and 2018 Annual Reports of the Society to confirm their financial position.  The Society is aware that this report for transfer of ownership is going to Council.

Issues

11      There are no issues identified at this point given the strong community support for retaining these existing facilities.

12      Through the Sale and Purchase Agreement it is advised that Council seek a first right of refusal should the Society be considering either transferring the property or winding up the Society.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13      Section 42 of the PWA governs the disposal of land no longer required for public work.  This states that the local authority may dispose of land by way of a private treaty provided the rights of the former owner have been considered.  Council’s Chief Executive under his statutory authority of the PWA 1981 has determined that offer back to the former owners is exempted.

14      As a result of the Chief Executive’s determination, Council can now consider the request from the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc.

Community Views

15      See attached letter from the Blackmount Community Pool Society Incorporated which is the entity that operates the swimming pool and community centre.  It is considered that this Society is a reasonable representation of the Blackmount community.

Costs and Funding

16      There will be standard legal costs to effect the transfer but this will be funded from the Blackmount Community Centre funds held by Council. 

17      If the transfer is approved by Council, this facility will then be considered a non-Council Community Centre and as such will continue to collect the Community Centre rate and the funds will be transferred to them, as happens with many others in this situation.

Policy Implications

18      None identified at this stage.

Analysis

Options Considered

19      The options are to approve the request or decline it.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve the request of the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the community through a formal society to own and manage an asset they have made significant contributions towards both financially and physically.

·        None identified for Council.

 

Option 2 – Decline the request of the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No advantage to Council in retaining the asset when a local community through a formal society is willing to own and operate the Community Centre and Pool.

·        Council may invoke a negative reaction from the Blackmount community by retaining ownership of assets that they have actively funded and taken pride in.

 

 

Assessment of Significance

20      Not considered significant.

Recommended Option

21      Option 1 – Approve the request of the Blackmount Community Pool Society Incorporated

Next Steps

22      Notify the Pool Society of the decision and complete transfer.

 

Attachments

a             Request for transfer of ownership from the Blackmount Community Pool Society Inc

b             Blackmount Community Centre Photos    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Monthly Financial Report - December 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/906

Author:                      Kate Westenra, Graduate Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Summary

1.   The purpose of this report is to provide Finance and Audit with an overview and to provide financial information around the results of our operations within our nine groups of activities, the Financial Position, and the statement of Cash Flows.

2.   This report summaries Council financial results for the six months to 31 December 2018.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Monthly Financial Report - December 2018” dated 30 January 2019.

 

Attachments

a             Monthly Council Financial Report - December 2018    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Bridge Report January 2019

Record No:             R/19/1/973

Author:                      Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek approval to formally recognise the closure of the listed bridges due to safety concerns and obtain support to proceed with the recommended actions listed for each structure.

Executive Summary

2        This report covers the actions required on six bridges as part of the ongoing management strategy of the bridging stock. These bridges have reached the end of their useful lives and require action as the risks they pose to Council are too great if no further action is taken.

3        The bridges and actions required are:

·    Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge – carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond. It is also recommended to improve the alternative route via Oakland Road as outlined in the WSP-Opus report.

·    Welsh Road East Bridge – resolve for staff to pursue the divestment of the asset. However, if this is not achievable due to land status (esplanade strip) then support that the bridge be permanently removed.

·    Channel Road Bridge - Council to officially recognise the bridge closure. Resolve for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and integrating its replacement into the 2021-31 LTP.

·    Evans Road - Council to officially recognise the bridge closure and remove the existing structure following community engagement.

·    Benmore Bridge – Council to officially recognise the closure of the bridge. Resolve for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing and removing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond. 

·    Mararoa Bridge – Council to officially recognise the bridge is closed to heavy vehicles and agree to replace and divest the bridge to landowners.

4        The report seeks formal approval from the Council to proceed with the above actions.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Bridge Report January 2019” dated 30 January 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Agree for staff to proceed with actions for each bridge as detailed below:

·      Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge – carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond.

·      Carry out the required improvement improvements outlined in the WSP-Opus report for option 2 (Oakland road route).

·      Welsh Road East Bridge – pursue the divestment of the bridge asset to adjacent landowners however if this is not achievable due to land status along the stream (esplanade strip) then support that the bridge be permanently removed.

·      Channel Road Bridge - Council to officially recognise the bridge closure for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and integrating its replacement into the 2021-31 LTP.  

·      Evans Road - Council to officially recognise the bridge closure and remove the existing structure following appropriate community engagement.

·      Benmore Road Bridge – Council to support closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond.

·      Mararoa Road Bridge – officially recognise that the bridge is restricted to heavy vehicle use. Agree that subject to suitable tenders being received the bridge be replaced and divest bridge.

e)            Ask staff to initiate the appropriate actions, including any public notifications, to implement the required notification of the bridge closures.

 

 

Background

5        Council has an aging bridge stock of which a number of structures are at the end of their useful lives. Out of the 1,084 bridges, 92 bridges are posted and a further six bridges are currently closed.

6        This report seeks to address the six bridges that are currently closed.

7        The proposed actions associated with each are discussed further in the report following the ‘analysis of options’ section.

Issues

8        With current budget availability, Council cannot afford to continue replacing and maintaining all structures due to the sheer number and the cost involved. This has resulted in the development of the bridge replacement/rationalisation programme for 2018-21 Long Term Plan period.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9        Under the Local Government Act 2002 Council has authority to dispose of assets unless expressly provided otherwise in the Act.

Community Views

10      Some consultation has been carried out with land owners including a full public meeting with respect to Benmore Road Bridge.

11      Further community engagement is required and the respective Ward Councillors will be contacted to help determine the extent of community engagement required for each bridge.

12      It is anticipated that the SDC bridge stock will be a critical consultation topic through the 2021-31 LTP process.

Costs and Funding

13      The recommended actions and work recommended will be funded from the current LTP budget and the appropriate NZ Transport Agency work category with 51% of these costs anticipated to be funded by NZTA.

14      If staff recommendations are not be accepted additional funding will be required to achieve the planned programme presented to the Services and Assets Committee on 17 October 2018 or alternatively the programme reprioritised to complete the works within current budgets.

Policy Implications

15      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

16      The bridge matrix tool was utilised as a first swipe mechanism to determine the outcome for each of the structures; this includes replacement, replace and divest, replace and divest with third party contribution and complete removal of structures. Further validation is then undertaken to confirm.

17      The options considered for each bridge are as follows:

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Replace Structure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Existing level of service remains

·        Supports Council’s strategic outcomes.

·        Ongoing liability including inspections, maintenance and future replacements

·        Funding the replacement.

 

Option 2 – Replace and Divest Structure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Existing level of service remains at the time of divesting

·        Removes long term liability to Council including future inspections, maintenance and replacements.

·        Cost associated with funding the initial replacement.

 

Option 3 – Replace and Divest Structure with third party contribution

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Existing level of service remains at the time of divesting

·        Removes liability long term to Council including future inspections, maintenance and replacements

·        Reduce Council’s investment in the initial replacement.

·        Council’s contribution to funding of the initial replacement.

 

Option 4 – Remove Structure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Decrease the number of structures around the network resulting in a more sustainable bridge stock

·        Reduces the required investment including bridge maintenance and inspections

·        Reduced exposure to Council on high risk assets.

·        Reduced level of service for affected parties.

 

Discussion

Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge

18      Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge spans 33m and is a timber structure with steel beams and was posted at 50% of class 1 prior to closure.

19      It was closed in November 2017 due to concerns with the structural integrity of the bridge.  Significant concerns were raised around the condition of the piles. Other components of the bridge such as pier caps and deck were considered at or very close to the end of their useful lives so maintenance or structural upgrade were not considered as an economical option.

20      A replacement option was designed and tendered however due to the overall state of the bridging network along with alternative routes available, it is considered long term more sustainable to close the bridge and invest in improvements along the proposed alternative route (Oakland Road). See WSP-Opus report for further detail.

21      The shortest available detour (one side of bridge to other) is via Oakland and Carnie Roads and is 9.1km. However, it is evident that this route is not the most appropriate route for larger loads. Other detours of varying lengths are available.

Welsh Road East Bridge

22      Welsh Road East Bridge spans 13m and is a timber structure. The bridge was posted at 10% of class 1 prior to closure in May 2018.  Significant concerns were raised by our structural engineer with rotten timbers beams and deck.

23      When the bridge was assessed in its entirety it was found that most components of the bridge such as piles and pier caps were considered at or very close to the end of their useful lives so maintenance or structural upgrade are not considered as an economical option.

24      The bridge enters a paddock on an unformed section of road and under the Bridge Matrix it is recommend to replace and divest the structure due to no alternative formed detour being available. However, in this instance due to the land use and proximity to Egerton Road it may be considered more appropriate to remove the bridge.

25      From consultation with landowners they would prefer to see the bridge divested rather than removed. As such, if the esplanade status allows for divestment this is recommended, if not removal is recommended.

 

Channel Road Bridge

26      Channel Road Bridge spans 34m and is a timber structure. It was posted at 60% of class 1 prior to closure in late December 2018 due to the condition of the piles. However, on closer inspection other components such as the beams and deck were also considered to be very close to the end of their useful lives.

27      Based on the Bridge Matrix it is recommended to replace the bridge. However, this bridge is not one of the 18 bridges identified as part of the reprioritised bridge list presented to Services and Assets Committee on 17 October 2018.

28      An option for consideration is the replacement of the bridge on Sharks Tooth Road (alternative route but currently posted at 80%) due to the lower replacement cost of this bridge. Based on the Bridge Matrix if Channel Road bridge was replaced Sharks Tooth Rod Bridge would not be replaced.

29      From initial investigation the Channel Road Bridge provides a key access for a local dairy farmer who owns property on either side of the structure and the shortest available detour (one side of the bride to other) is just over 15km.

30      As a result of all consideration it is the staff recommendation that Council officially recognise the bridge closure on Channel Road and for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing and removing the structure with the intention to replace the structure as part of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Evans Road Bridge

31      Evans Road Bridge spans 11m and is a timber structure with steel beams. It was closed in late December 2018 due to concerns with the structural integrity raised by our structural engineer as part of the current round of inspections (6 yearly). The bridge was not posted at the time of the closure.

32      Due to the overall condition of the structure it is not considered economical to carry out maintenance or structural upgrade.

33      The shortest available route is via Piercy Road (9.6km) and based on the Bridge Matrix it is recommended not to replace the structure. On that basis it is recommend that Council officially recognise the bridge closure for the remainder of the LTP period and potentially beyond pending the 2021-31 LTP engagement process.

34      It should also be noted that there is a secondary bridge located 175m up the road from the closed bridge. If it is agreed to proceed with the staff recommendation then this bridge would also be closed once it reached the end of its useful life.

Benmore Road Bridge

35      Benmore Road Bridge spans 112m and is a timber structure including timber and steel beams and was posted at 30% of class 1 prior to closure.

36      It was closed in November 2018 due to significant concerns with the condition of the deck. However on closer inspection it was found that most components of the bridge are reaching the end of their useful lives and as such maintenance or structural upgrade is not considered economical.

37      Physical barriers have been installed to control access over there is clear evidence by wheel marks that these are not being adhered to.

38      As the value of the bridge will be well in excess of $1M a full business case would be required to justify funding and replacement from NZTA. Due to the use and proximity of alternative access initial indications are that funding assistance would not be available.

39      A public meeting was held in Dipton on 15 January 2019 outlining the challenges Council faces with its bridge asset and the reason for the closure of Benmore Road Bridge.

40      Understandably there was strong community desire to retain the bridge. It was requested that before the bridge be removed that a report be circulate to the community from Council’s structural engineers outlining the condition and remaining useful life of the various components.

41      Due to the current condition of the bridge deck and risk posed to Council by the lack of adherence to the restriction, it is recommended that bridge remain closed while this report is circulated and throughout the remainder of the current 2018-28 LTP period with further consultation through the 2021-31 LTP.

Mararoa Road Bridge

42      The Mararoa Road Bridge spans 69m and is a timber structure. The bridge was posted at 50% Class 1 prior to closure to heavy vehicles in July 2018. A significant concern was raised around the condition of the pier caps and cross bracing. However, following further inspection it was found that most components had reached the end of their useful life.

43      Based on the Bridge Matrix and with no alternative legal routes it is recommend to replace and divest the asset. The bridge is in the current bridge programme for replacement and as such has been put out to market.

44      Adjacent landowners have been consulted in regard to this option along with the local Councillor.

45      The outcome and recommendation from the tender will be reported to the Services and Assets Committee for approval.

Assessment of Significance

46      Based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and given that the decisions made are in line with the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan budget expectations, it is believed that the decision made based on this recommendation is not significant.

47      Nor does the disposal of these bridge assets trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as the policy considers strategic assets (roading/bridge network) as a whole.

Recommended Option

48      Based on the above options and discussions to date, the following actions are recommended for each bridge:

·    Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge – carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond. It is also recommended to improve the alternative route via Oakland Road as outlined in the WSP-Opus report.

·    Welsh Road East Bridge – resolve for staff to pursue the divestment of the asset. However, if this is not achievable due to land status (esplanade strip) then support that the bridge be permanently removed.

·    Channel Road Bridge - Council to officially recognise the bridge closer. Resolve for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and integrating its replacement into the 2021-31 LTP.

·    Evans Road - Council to officially recognise the bridge closure and remove the existing structure following community engagement.

·    Benmore Bridge – Council to officially recognise the closer of the bridge. Resolve for staff to carry out community engagement with the purpose of closing and removing the structure for the remainder of the current LTP period and potentially beyond. 

·    Mararoa Bridge – Council to officially recognise the bridge is closed to heavy vehicles and agree to replace and divest bridge to landowners.

Next Steps

49      To implement the recommendations discussed in the report.

 

Attachments

a             Mataura Island Titiroa Bridge 1281.001

b             Memorandum from Opus - Mataura Island Titiroa Detour Assessment

c             Welsh Road East Bridge 2654.001

d            Channel Road Bridge 2563.001

e             Evans Road Bridge 1583.001

f             Benmore Road Bridge 2895.001

g            Mararoa Road Bridge 3582.001    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

07 February 2019

 


 


 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Delegations under the Building Act 2004

Record No:             R/19/1/1130

Author:                      Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval of updated delegations under the Building Act 2004, to reflect current staff structure and position titles within the Environmental Services Group.

2        This is part of the process of preparation for the upcoming external audit of the Council’s Building Solutions team by International Accreditation New Zealand (hereafter IANZ), which is occurring from 19th to 22nd February 2019.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Delegations under the Building Act 2004” dated 30 January 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Approves the delegations under the Building Act 2004 to staff as specified in the attachment in Appendix 1.

 

Background

3        Every council is required to be reaccredited at two-yearly intervals in order to be able to continue to operate as a Building Consent Authority under section 212 of the Building Act 2004.

4        Southland District Council’s Building Solutions team’s IANZ reaccreditation audit is scheduled for 19-22 February 2019 inclusive. An internal project team has been working for over six months to seek to position Council positively for this audit process. As part of the preparation for this audit, Council approval is sought to an updated schedule of delegations which reflects current position titles and operational processes, please refer to Appendix 1 for this schedule.

5        It is an important part of the IANZ audit process that Council can clearly demonstrate that it is exercising all its relevant Building Act statutory functions in accordance with appropriate delegations; and that the delegations schedule is current and reflects current departmental structure and processes.

6        It is common for councils to delegate various functions under the Building Act 2004 (and other regulatory legislation) to staff, in order to provide for the timely and efficient execution of its statutory roles and consent processing.

7        Obviously however, a council can only delegate to staff within the extent of the jurisdiction to do so provided under the relevant statute. Many statutes specifically exclude the delegation of certain statutory functions; or if some functions are to be delegated, these are unable to be legally delegated beyond Chief Executive level.

8        The Building Act is one such statute , and care has been taken in preparing the proposed schedule of delegations attached as Appendix 1 to ensure that no delegations have been included that are explicitly excluded from being delegated by statute. For instance, when a council is exercising its powers to take immediate action in relation to addressing dangerous or insanitary building functions under the Act, the Act requires (section 129) that the relevant warrant be signed by the Chief Executive.

9        For most of the Council’s functions under the Building Act 2004, Council’s Quality Manager for IANZ purposes is the Group Manager of Environmental Services (GMES), and this is reflected in the schedule in Appendix 1. This is hence reflected in the fairly broad delegation to the GMES, with further delegations reflecting the respective staff and their respective functions in the building control processes.

10      It is important to note that this updated schedule largely does not represent any significant shift from current processes in terms of how building consents are processed and authority exercised by staff, but rather is an update of titles and terminology.

11      However, the exception to this is a recent (October 2018) arrangement which was made to provide for Solutions Group Limited, a Christchurch based building consultancy, to process some building consents under contract. Solutions Group performs similar functions for approximately a dozen councils throughout New Zealand. The reasons for this arrangement are:

·    to seek to ensure a timely building consent processing service is maintained for our customers, which meets statutory timeframes and key performance indicators

·    to ensure that staff are not processing building consents beyond their competency levels. During 2018, several long-serving staff with higher levels of assessed technical competency have moved on, and while they have been replaced, there is currently reduced capacity to process consents at the higher levels of design complexity

·    to ease pressures on building consent processing staff.

12      Solutions Group performs the processing functions for selected consents in the Southland District referred to them via the Team Leader of Building Solutions. Council retains the issuing function and the Building Consent Authority function which has not been delegated, and the ultimate responsibility for the issued building consent.

13      Therefore this arrangement is also reflected in the proposed delegations, and associated departmental structure arrangements. Section 213 of the Building Act 2004 provides for such aspects of the process to occur under contract; and with significant resourcing pressures in the sector, many councils are outsourcing aspects of their Building Act 2004 functions around the country.

14      Ultimately, it is Council’s prerogative as to what functions it chooses to delegate to staff under the Building Act 2004. However, it is suggested that the delegations as outlined are important to ensure an efficient operation of Council’s building consent processing functions, and the schedule in Appendix 1 reflects the departmental practices occurring and the relevant position titles.

15      Having suitable delegations to staff is considered to be consistent with the Southland Regional Development Strategy Ease of Doing Business workstream in terms of keeping an important and highly time-sensitive statutory process moving, while also ensuring appropriate robustness in the process.

 

Issues

16      This report seeks to ensure that formal delegations under the Building Act 2004 remain robust and reflect current practice and position titles.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

17      It is imperative that the Council ensures that all delegations instruments remain current and robust, to mitigate potential legal liability from a staff member exercising a function under legislation such as the Building Act 2004 which they did not have the appropriate delegated authority for.

Community Views

18      There is no legislative requirement for community consultation in relation to these delegations. However, ensuring appropriate delegated authority under the Building Act 2004 assists with the provision of a prompt service to the community and customers.

Costs and Funding

19      There are no additional cost implications from the approval of these updated delegations. Appropriate statutory delegations mitigate the potential for unnecessary costs for customers from processes becoming excessively lengthy or complex.

Policy Implications

20      There are no specific policy considerations. However, at a broad level, as mentioned above these delegations assist in delivery of the Southland Regional Development Strategy (SoRDS) in relation to the ease of doing business.

Analysis

Options Considered

21      Options considered are to either retain existing delegations or to update these delegations as recommended via Appendix 1.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Retain existing Building Act delegations, don’t update

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None identified

·        Would expose Council to potential liability

·        Delegations instrument would not reflect current departmental structure, processes and position titles

·        Could create risk in the IANZ audit process

 

Option 2 – Update Building Act delegations as recommended

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Ensures the Council’s Building Act delegations reflect departmental structure, processes and position titles

·        Mitigates risk for IANZ audit process

·        Facilitates ease of doing business for customers

·        None identified

 

Assessment of Significance

22      The updating of Council’s Building Act delegations is not considered significant in terms of section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002. The determination of appropriate delegations for staff is a routine administrative matter.

Recommended Option

23      Option 2- updating of Building Act delegations as per Appendix 1 – is recommended

Next Steps

24      If these delegations are approved, they will be included in the Council’s delegations manual and made available to IANZ for the audit process.

 

Attachments

a             Proposed update Building Act 2004 Delegations    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

7 February 2019

 

New Street Names in Te Anau and Curio Bay

Record No:             R/19/1/1309

Author:                      Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To consider a request to name the streets within the Murchison Villas Retirement Home Complex and new subdivision in Curio Bay.

Executive Summary

2        This report covers the request for four new street names. Three in Te Anau and a one in Curio Bay.

3        The request for those in Te Anau where received from Sarah Greaney, Director of Murchison Villas Limited, to name the streets within the Murchison Villas retirement housing development.

4        Currently, the streets have no legal names and therefore cannot officially be assigned individual house numbers. The proposal is to name the streets Villa Drive, Davenport Place and Johnstone Court which will overcome this issue.

5        The street name in Curio Bay is part of the Porpoise Bay Ltd development for a road which has been vested to Council. The proposed name is Ara Pahu.

6        The suggested names have to be approved by Council before it can be legalised.  Council’s guidelines for road names include the following:

•        Name duplications are to be avoided.

•        Similar sounding or spellings are to be avoided to reduce confusion.

7        In terms of the names suggested, the only issue is the proposed road name of Villa Drive due to its similarity to Village Place which is also situated in Te Anau.

8        This can create a higher risk in emergency situations in particular, the two names get mixed up and responders could attend the wrong location in the first instance. As a result an alternative has been recommended by council officers from the current list of Te Anau Community Board approved street names.

9        The Te Anau Community Board were advised of the Council staff position regarding Villa Drive but opposed the staff recommendation to substitute Villa Drive with Moore Place. The Community Board elected to continue to support the original name of ‘Villa Drive’.

10      Based on Councils policy the staff recommendation is still to adopt the street names of Davenport Place and Johnstone Court and substitute Villa Drive with Moore Place along with Ara Pahu in Curio Bay.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “New Street Names in Te Anau and Curio Bay” dated 28 January 2019.

 

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)           Approve the naming of the streets in the Murchison Villas Retirement Home Complex in Te Anau as follows:

 

·        Davenport Place

·        Johnstone Court

·        Moore Place

 

e)            Approve the naming of the street in Porpoise Bay subdivision in Curio Bay as Ara Pahu

 


 

Background

11      A request has been received from Sarah Greaney, Director of Murchison Villas Limited, requesting naming of three street in the Murchison Villas retirement housing development at
28 Pop Andrew Drive. The request has been attached along with additional correspondence on the proposed names.

12      The streets within the development are not intended to be vested to Council and maintenance will be the responsibility of the body corporate.

13      The names proposed are Villa Drive, Davenport Place and Johnstone Court

Issues

14      Due to the expected number of dwellings on the property they will not be able to be assigned a separate house numbers for the volume of houses based on the current address and by assigning street names, this will overcome this issue.

15      In terms of the names suggested, the only issue is the proposed road name of Villa Drive due to its similarity to Village Place which is also situated in Te Anau.

16      This creates a higher risk of providing/confusing the names under emergency situations which as an example could result in first responders attending to the wrong location in the first instance.

17      The options to cover this are discussed further under the options section of the report.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

18      Council has a requirement to comply with the LINZ / Geographic Board guidelines for naming

Community Views

19      The Te Anau Community Board were advised of the Council staff position regarding Villa Drive but opposed the staff recommendation to substitute Villa Drive with Moore Place. The Community Board elected to continue to support the original name of ‘Villa Drive’.

20      No additional community views have been requested or required at this point in time.

21      For Ara Pahu no community views have been sort however clarification was sought from LINZ and no issues of concern were raised.

Costs and Funding

22      The road signs are to be supplied, installed and maintained by the developer for Murchison Villas and for the Porpoise Bay subdivision the initial sign will be supplied by the developer after which point Council takes over responsibility.

Policy Implications

23      The suggested name has to be approved by Council before it can be legalised.  Council’s guidelines for road names are as follows:

•        Name duplications are to be avoided.

•        Similar sounding or spellings are to be avoided to reduce confusion.

•        Names are to be easily spelt and readily pronounced.

•        Long (no more than 25 characters maximum) names are to be avoided.

24      Three out of the Four proposed names meet the policy requirements, however as noted previously in the report Villa Drive is very similar in sound to Village Place which already exists in Te Anau.

25      As a result an alternative name has been suggest under the options section

Analysis

Options Considered

26      The three main options have been considered below. These are to not support the proposed names, support the proposed names or to support some of the names with amendments

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Not Support

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None.

·        Cannot supply individual house numbers.

·        Makes it more difficult for emergency services to locate required dwellings.

Option 2 – Support proposed road names

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Streets can be assigned individual names and house numbers.

·        Makes it easier for the likes of emergency services to locate the correct dwelling.

·        Greater risk that Villa Place will be rejected.

·        Increase the risk that the process for street naming will have to be worked through again.

Option 3 – Support with amendments

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Reduces the risk of having to work through the street naming process again.

·        Streets can be assigned individual names and house numbers.

·        Makes it easier for the likes of emergency services to locate the correct dwelling.

·        None.

 

27       The suggested alternatives proposed as a substitute for Villa Drive are:

·    Moore Place - John Moore was the first resident doctor in Te Anau.  He served on the Te Anau Town Council and was the Ward Councillor on the Wallace County Council

·    Dome Place - Named after Dome Island

·    Stuart Place - Named after the Mountain

Assessment of Significance

28      Not considered significant.

Recommended Option

29      That three out of the four road names be formally approved and to substitute Villa Drive with Moore Place due to Villa Drive being too similar in nature to Village Place which already exists in Te Anau.

Next Steps

30      Notify the respective developers and relevant organisations

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

  


Council

7 February 2019

 

Risk Management Framework Project

Record No:             R/18/12/28526

Author:                      Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Risk Management Framework (RMF) project and seek Council’s adoption of the Risk Management Framework 2018 document and associated next steps.

Executive Summary

2        Council has been working towards the development of a Risk Management Framework since early 2017.

3        This has involved developing a project brief, refining a project scope and engaging Structured Conversations Ltd to facilitate the process for the framework development.

4        Structured Conversations Ltd has facilitated two workshop sessions involving elected representatives and staff. This process has culminated in the development of the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document which is attached to this report.

5        The Finance and Audit Committee at its 14 December 2018 meeting endorsed the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 and resolved to recommend to Council that it adopt the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document as attached.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Risk Management Framework Project” dated 30 January 2019.

 

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)           Adopts the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document.

 

e)            Notes staff will work with the Finance and Audit Committee to progress the transition from the current Quarterly Risk Update approach to confirm and embed the requirements for implementing the Risk Management Framework 2018 – specifically with regard to :

-      Strategic risk

-      Corporate risk

-      Operational risk

-      Risk  monitoring

-      Risk reporting

-      Risk categories

-      Risk thresholds

-      Risk tolerance

-      Risk prioritisation

-      Risk acceptance and escalation

-      Risk treatments and controls

-      Risk management policy review

 

 


 

Background

6        The Finance and Audit Committee at the 15 March 2017 meeting resolved that a Risk Management Review project be established to develop a project scope and terms of reference to be considered at the June 2017 Finance and Audit Committee meeting.

7        As a result of this the project scope and terms of reference for the Southland District Council Risk Management Review project was endorsed by the Finance and Audit Committee at the 7 June 2017 meeting.

8        The intervening period saw the project scope be further developed and Structured Conversations Ltd was engaged, on a preferred supplier basis, to undertake the Risk Management Framework project.

9        At its 18 April 2018 meeting, Council resolved to approve unbudgeted expenditure to be allocated to complete the project by engaging Structured Conversations Ltd.

10      Structured Conversations Ltd has facilitated two workshops – on 16 August 2018 being an agenda setting workshop and 9-10 October being an opportunity to provide input in to the development of the RMF. The Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document is the result of this process.

11      The Finance and Audit Committee at its 14 December 2018 meeting endorsed the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 and resolved to recommend to Council that it adopt the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document as attached.

Issues

12      To ensure the success of the implementation of the RMF and embedding it into Council operations, it is important that elected representatives, stakeholders and staff are involved and supportive to ensure the objective of assisting Council to better understand and manage risk is achieved.

13      The current Risk Management Policy is overdue for review and it has been identified that the policy should be reviewed once the RMF project has been undertaken.

14      It is appropriate for the review of the policy to align with the work related to the RMF project, and staff have been preparing for the policy review and alignment to the RMF project process accordingly.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15      There are no specific legal or statutory requirements identified with regards to the development and adoption of the RMF.

Community Views

16      Community views have not been sought in relation to the RMF project as it relates to organisation wide operational practices. It can be expected that the community would expect Council to operate in accordance with recognised good practice standards.

Costs and Funding

17      The RMF project has been completed as an additional project following Council’s approval for unbudgeted expenditure being allocated to complete the development of the RMF.

18      In terms of implementation of the RMF, it is not anticipated that there will be a need to incur any unbudgeted or extraordinary expenditure unless there are specific risk issues identified which require more specialist assessment.

Policy Implications

19      The RMF project has reinforced the need to review the Risk Management Policy which has been identified as being overdue for review.

20      The RMF document supports the approach of reviewing the Risk Management Policy once the RMF is adopted.

21      The current Southland District Council Risk Management Policy was approved and became effective from 29 October 2014.

22      Policy staff have identified the need to review the Risk Management Policy and align it to the RMF document.  This will be completed as the next step in this risk management project development process.

23      It is anticipated the draft Risk Management Policy review will be completed for Council consideration by June 2019.

Analysis

Options Considered

24      Council is requested to consider two options.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 –Council to adopt the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        supports the process and investment to date in the project and allows the project implementation next steps to be advanced.

·        reinforces the findings of the workshops and project development.

·        provides clarity and an understanding of the significance of risk management to the organisation – for elected representatives and staff alike.

·        will allow policy staff to continue with the preparatory work required for the review of the Risk Management Policy which is recognised as being overdue.

·        will mean the RMF project will need to be reassessed and redeveloped under a new project brief.

·        will require further resource allocation and time to deliver a redeveloped RMF project.

Option 2 – Council not adopt the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        there are no advantages.

·        further delay puts at risk current risk management practice and associated operational requirements.

·        is inconsistent with the work completed to date and does not reflect the findings from the workshops facilitated as part of the process to date.

·        creates confusion and a lack of cohesion for a project which has received endorsement and buy in from elected representatives and staff to date.

 

Assessment of Significance

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

Recommended Option

26      It is recommended that Council adopt the Southland District Council Risk Management Framework 2018 document.

Next Steps

27      Staff will follow up and will work with the Finance and Audit Committee to progress the transition from the current Quarterly Risk Update approach to confirm and embed the requirements for implementing the Risk Management Framework 2018 – specifically with regard to defining and confirming understanding of:

-        Strategic risk

-        Corporate risk

-        Operational risk

-        Risk  monitoring

-        Risk reporting

-        Risk categories

-        Risk thresholds

-        Risk tolerance

-        Risk prioritisation

-        Risk acceptance and escalation

-        Risk treatments and controls

-        Risk management policy review

28      It is intended this work will be undertaken in February and March 2019 with the Finance and Audit Committee to support the implementation rollout following this being completed.

 

Attachments

a             Risk Management Framework November 2018    

 


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

07 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/793

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee meeting held 17 October 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Finance and Audit Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/794

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Services and Assets Committee meeting held 17 October 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 15 November 2017

Record No:             R/19/1/802

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee meeting held 15 November 2017 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 15 November 2017 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 6 December 2017

Record No:             R/19/1/801

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee meeting held 6 December 2017 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Project Subcommittee Meeting dated 6 December 2017 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board Meeting dated 23 October 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/800

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board meeting held 23 October 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Edendale-Wyndham Community Board Meeting dated 23 October 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 4 October 2018

Record No:             R/18/12/28538

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Otautau Community Board meeting held 4 October 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Otautau Community Board Meeting dated 4 October 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board Meeting dated 1 November 2018

Record No:             R/18/12/28820

Author:                      Kirsten Hicks, Committee Advisor/Customer Support Partner

Approved by:         Kirsten Hicks, Committee Advisor/Customer Support Partner

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board meeting held 1 November 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board Meeting dated 1 November 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Wallacetown Community Board Meeting dated 25 October 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/647

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Wallacetown Community Board meeting held 25 October 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Wallacetown Community Board Meeting dated 25 October 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018

Record No:             R/18/12/28200

Author:                      Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Winton Community Board meeting held 5 November 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Dipton Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 August 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/797

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Dipton Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held 22 August 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Dipton Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 August 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Gorge Road and Districts Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 June 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/796

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Gorge Road and Districts Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held 22 June 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Gorge Road and Districts Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 22 June 2018 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

7 February 2019

 

Minutes of the Tokanui Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 23 July 2018

Record No:             R/19/1/798

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Tokanui Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held 23 July 2018 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Tokanui Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 23 July 2018 (separately enclosed)

   

 


Council

07 February 2019

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

C10.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018

C10.2 Public Excluded Minutes of the Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Public Excluded Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 17 October 2018

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Public Excluded Minutes of the Winton Community Board Meeting dated 5 November 2018

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

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