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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 4 March 2020

9am

Council Chamber
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Ebel Kremer

 

Councillors

Don Byars

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Christine Menzies

 

 

Karyn Owen

 

 

Margie Ruddenklau

 

 

Rob Scott

 

 

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

04 March 2020

 

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         Speed Limits Bylaw - Deliberations and Adoption Report                                                        7

7.2         Combined Local Alcohol Policy                                                                                                            301

7.3         Draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw - Consultation                                 313

7.4         Submission on National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity                      345

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Details on the Financial and Reserve Contribution Fund                                                     359

8.2         Monthly Financial Report - January 2020                                                                                       369

8.3         Unbudgeted Expenditure - Lumsden Watermain Replacement                                       387

Reports - Governance

9.1         Local Governance Statement 2019 - 2022 Triennium                                                              393

9.2         Predator Free Rakiura - Project Update                                                                                          433   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       435

C10.1    Otago/Southland Three Waters Investigation: Information for Councils

 


Council

04 March 2020

 

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, 27 February 2020


Council

4 March 2020

 

Speed Limits Bylaw - Deliberations and Adoption Report

Record No:             R/20/1/1349

Author:                      Carrie Adams, Intermediate Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide information and to present options to Council, so that it can make decisions on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw (the draft bylaw), and to present the draft bylaw for adoption.

Executive Summary

2        Council has completed the special consultative procedure on the draft bylaw. On 21 August 2019 Council endorsed a statement of proposal (see Attachment A), which included the draft bylaw, for public consultation. On 18 December 2019, councillors were given a copy of the 75 written submissions that were received on the proposal, and councillors heard those submitters who wished to speak.

3        Staff have made minor changes to the draft bylaw to incorporate some of the feedback received through the consultation process.

4        In this report, staff have presented and discussed three potential options on how Council could proceed.

•   Option 1 – That Council proceed and make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft bylaw, and adopt the draft bylaw

•   Option 2 – That Council make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft bylaw, but defer adoption of the draft bylaw until Council’s next scheduled meeting, in order to incorporate changes into the draft bylaw

•   Option 3 – That Council propose a different way forward.

5        This report is seeking a decision from Council to choose its preferred approach, and adopt the draft bylaw.

6        It is recommended that the draft bylaw come into effect on 20 April 2020, to allow Council staff time to prepare for and implement the proposed changes. 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Speed Limits Bylaw - Deliberations and Adoption Report” dated 26 February 2020.

 

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 21 August 2019 Council determined, pursuant to sections 155(1)&(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing speed limits in the District, that the draft Speed Limits Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 

e)            Determines prior to making the bylaw, pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing speed limits in the District.

 

f)             Determines prior to making the bylaw, pursuant to section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the draft Speed Limits Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

 

g)           Determines prior to making the bylaw, pursuant to section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the draft Speed Limits Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 

h)           Considers the feedback received on the draft Speed Limits Bylaw.

 

i)             Considers and endorses one of the following options:

 

i.     Option 1 – That Council proceed and make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft Speed Limits Bylaw, and adopt the draft bylaw.

ii.    Option 2 – That Council make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft Speed Limits Bylaw, but defers adoption of the draft bylaw until Council’s next scheduled meeting, in order to incorporate Council’s decisions into the draft bylaw.

 

iii.   Option 3 – That Council propose a different way forward.

 

j)             Agrees If Council wishes to make decisions now on the issues identified for the draft Speed Limits Bylaw, endorses the following options:

 

I.     That Council endorse a speed limit of 60km/h to Smith Road, and 80km/h for sections of Lochiel Bridge Road and Lochiel Branxholme Road.

 

II.    Request staff prepare a separate report for consideration by the Services and Assets Committee at its 6 May 2020 meeting.  The report would provide details about what a pro-active audit on road safety around the District’s schools would entail, as well as possible interim measures.

 

III.   Request staff prepare a report that presents the proposal to reduce Stewart Island’s speed limit for consideration as part of Stewart Island long term planning to the Stewart Island Rakiura Community Board for feedback at its 6 April 2020 meeting.

 

IV.  That Council endorses the proposed reduction to 60km/h for these roads:

Lower Hollyford Road

Borland Road

Centre Hill Road

Lake Monowai Road

Mavora Lakes Road

Lillburn Valley Road

Mt Nicholas Road

Lower Hollyford Road

 

k)            Agree If Council wishes to adopt the Speed Limits Bylaw now, endorses the following changes that have been made to the draft bylaw following public consultation:

 

·    changing the speed limit on Te Anau Terrace Road  from 50km/h to 30km/h

 

·    changing the speed limit on Upukerora Road, Te Anau, from 80km/h to 60km/h

 

·    modifying the speed limit change location between 50km/h and 70km/h on Main Street, Otautau

 

·    modifying the speed limit change location between 100km/h and 60km/h on South Hillend Dipton Road, Dipton

 

·    modifying the speed limit change location between 50km/h and 100km/h on Moore Road, Winton

 

·    minor wording changes to improve clarity and to ensure the document aligns with Council’s style guide.

 

l)             Adopts the amended Speed Limits Bylaw.

 

m)          Resolves that the amended Speed Limits Bylaw will come into effect and supersede the existing Speed Limits Bylaw 2015 on 20 April 2020.

 

n)           Ensures that in accordance with Section 157 of the Local Government Act 2002, public notice be given of the making of the Speed Limits Bylaw, advising:

 

•      that the bylaw will come into force on 20 April 2020

 

•      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.

o)           Acknowledges that the Local Government Act 2002 states that the Speed Limits Bylaw will be reviewed within five years of being made.

 

 

Background

7        The current Speed Limits Bylaw was made in 2015 as per the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA’) (Attachment B).  It came in to force on 3 June 2015 and is now due for review.

8        Staff undertook preliminary consultation and obtained feedback from internal and external stakeholders, including affected community boards, community development area subcommittees and ward councillors, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Te Ao Marama Incorporated on this matter, which helped develop the draft bylaw.

9        On 21 August 2019 Council endorsed a statement of proposal, which included the draft bylaw, for public consultation. Council consulted on the draft policy and bylaw from 29 August to 10 October and 19 November to 3 December 2019. There were 75 submissions on the draft bylaw. Council heard those submitters who wished to speak to their submission at a Council meeting held on 18 December 2019. A full summary of the submissions received was provided in the report to Council on 18 December 2019.

Issues

Deliberations

10      In this report, three options have been presented on how Council could elect to proceed. The advantages and disadvantages of these options are discussed on page 8 of this report.

11      For the first option, Council could proceed and make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft bylaw and adopt the draft bylaw.

12      A separate issues and options paper has been produced, which is included with this report as Attachment C. This paper clearly outlines the main issues that has arisen in relation to the draft bylaw. For each issue, background information is given, there is a summary of community views, a discussion of the issue, and options are presented.

13      Council’s second option is to make a decision now on the issues identified for the draft bylaw but defer adoption of the draft bylaw until Council’s next meeting, in order to incorporate Council’s decisions into the draft bylaw.

14      The third option is for Council to propose a different way forward, noting that this would likely involve a delay in adoption and implementation of the draft bylaw.

Adoption

15      This report presents the draft bylaw for adoption. The draft bylaw includes changes that have been in the draft bylaw from earlier in the review process as well as some minor changes that have arisen as a result of the consultation process.

16      Changes from the current bylaw are listed in tables in the statement of proposal that went out for public consultation (Attachment A).

17      Four main themes that arose in the submissions are discussed in the attached issues and options paper (Attachment C), along with the different options available to Council.

18      Staff support the minor changes to the draft bylaw as a result of the consultation process that are listed below in Table One:

Table One – Minor changes to the draft Speed Limits Bylaw as a result of consultation

Road

Change

Te Anau Terrace Road, Te Anau

reduce from 50km/h to 30km/h within park, due to marina, BBQ, playground

Upukerora Road, Te Anau

reduce from 80km/h to 60km/h due to cycle path

Main Street, Otautau

different speed limit change point location (50km/h <-> 70km/h)

South Hillend Dipton Road, Dipton

different speed limit change point location (100km/h <-> 60km/h)

Moore Road, Winton

move the 50km/h to 100km/h change point due to the Winton walkway

19      The draft bylaw that incorporates these changes is at Attachment D to this report. 

20      In addition to the topics in the issues and options paper, there are some non-speed limit mechanisms that will be investigated and implemented as a result of the consultation process that sit outside Council’s speed limits bylaw. These include:

•      Manapouri and Curio Bay – painted on road speed limit markings in areas where there are several changes to speed limits within a small area

•      Turbine Drive, Monowai –additional signage, judder bars.

Implementation

21      Staff propose that the draft bylaw come into effect on 20 April 2020. This is to allow time for new speed limit signs to be made and installed. If Council chooses to endorse option two or three, this date will be moved forward accordingly. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

Consultation

22      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.

23      Under section 78 of the LGA, Council must, when making a decision on how to proceed, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter. There is not a requirement to please all of the submitters, but Council must take into account the views that have been expressed.

24      If Council endorses significant changes to the draft 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 bylaw.

Determinations

25      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. It is incumbent on Council, as a road controlling authority, to set speed limits in accordance with NZTA rules and guides by making a bylaw.  Accordingly, a bylaw is the best way for Council to fulfil this obligation. Council determined a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem on 21 August 2019.

26      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 21 August 2019 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 and the process prescribed in the LGA is being followed.

27      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 21 August 2019 but as amendments have been made, it is appropriate to make the determination again. The provisions of the proposed Speed Limits Bylaw do not unreasonably interfere with any of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The objective of the draft bylaw is to maintain and promote safety on the District’s roading network through the setting of speed limits. This objective supports the rights of residents and represents value for road users in the District.

Enforcement of Bylaw

28      As with the current bylaw, enforcement of the draft bylaw would be undertaken by Police.

Community Views

29      The community views captured through the formal consultation process on the draft bylaw were outlined in the issues section of the report that went to Council on 18 December 2019. The full booklet of the feedback received through the formal consultation process was also included as an attachment to that report.

30      In general, the submissions received were supportive of the proposed speed limit changes. The largest number of responses in the District agreeing or disagreeing, related to the changes proposed to Centre Hill Road, Mavora Lakes Road, Mt Nicholas Road and Sandy Brown Road.

31      There was almost unanimous support for the changes proposed to Colac Bay Road and Colac Foreshore Road, to reduce the current speed of 70 km/h to 50 km/h.

32      There was general endorsement of lowering the speed limits in the Waihopai Toetoe Ward. There were also comments regarding the suite of tools available to enhance road safety in addition to speed limits in this ward and others. These include road maintenance and upgrading, ‘painted on’ road markings to indicate speed limit changes, community education and adequate policing. There was feedback that the recent sealing of the Southern Scenic Route in this ward has helped to prevent accidents.

33      Some respondents were concerned that the proposed speed limit reductions will have a disproportionate effect on residents and that the proposed changes focus on visitors rather than residents.

34      All Council and committee reports are available for councillors on the ‘hub’, and they can be accessed on Council’s website.

Costs and Funding

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

Policy Implications

36      Improved safety and consistency of speed limits throughout the roading network will benefit the District.  Council is required, as a road controlling authority, to align its roading network with NZTA strategies.  Consistency between roads administered by NZTA and Council will assist road users and police to follow and enforce speed limits.   

37      Collectively, the proposed changes should better provide for road safety in the District.

Analysis

Options Considered

38      The following reasonably practicable options have been identified:

•      Option 1 – that Council proceed and make decisions now on the issues identified for the draft bylaw, and adopt the draft bylaw.

•      Option 2that Council make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft bylaw, but defer adoption of the draft bylaw until Council’s next scheduled meeting, in order to incorporate Council’s decisions into the draft bylaw.

•      Option 3 – that Council propose a different way forward.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – proceed and make decisions on the issues identified for the draft bylaw, and adopt the draft bylaw

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Council has captured a lot of community views on the draft bylaw and is in an informed position

·        Council will be closer to completing a review of the current bylaw (which is in line with review time-period stated in the current bylaw and the LGA bylaw review timeframes)

·        incorporates community views.

·        some community views did not support the proposed changes

·        does not allow for further changes to the draft bylaw

Option 2 – make decisions now on all the issues identified for the draft bylaw, but defer adoption of the draft bylaw until Council’s next scheduled meeting, in order to incorporate Council’s decisions into the draft bylaw

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        allows for minor changes to be made to draft bylaw prior to adoption

·        Council has captured a lot of community views on the draft bylaw and is in an informed position

·        incorporates community views

·        the public may have an expectation that the draft bylaw is adopted now

·        will delay the intended 20 April 2020 implementation of the draft bylaw

 

Option 3 – Propose a different way forward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give clarity on Council’s preferred approach.

·        this option could give Council time to consider and reflect

·        would allow Council to re-consult if that is its preferred approach

·        will delay implementation of the draft bylaw

·        the public will have an expectation that a decision will be reached on the draft bylaw now

·        this option may give the appearance that Council should have done more analysis before adopting a proposal

·        it may appear Council is reluctant to make a decision on this matter

 

Assessment of Significance

39      The decisions Council is making in regard to this report have been assessed as not being significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommended Option

40      It is recommended that Council proceed with Option 1 and make decisions now on the issues identified for the draft bylaw, and adopt the draft bylaw.

Next Steps

41      If Council proceeds with Option 1, and makes decisions on the issues for the draft bylaw and adopts the draft bylaw, staff would give public notice of the making of the bylaw. Staff would also send letters to people who submitted on the statement of proposal, informing them of the final outcome.

42      If Council proceeds with Option 2, a draft bylaw will be presented to Council for adoption at its 22 April 2020 meeting. After this meeting, staff would give public notice of the making of the bylaw. Staff would also send letters to people who submitted on the statement of proposal, informing them of the final outcome.

43      If Council proceeds with Option 3, staff will outline next steps in line with the approach taken.

 

Attachments

a             SOP Draft Speed Limits Bylaw

b             SDC Speed Limits Bylaw 2015

c             Key Issues and Options - Speed Limits Bylaw

d            Draft Speed Limits Bylaw    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

04 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

4 March 2020

 

Combined Local Alcohol Policy

Record No:             R/20/2/3703

Author:                      Jane Edwards, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to request that Council resolves to bring the combined Local Alcohol Policy (the LAP) into force with an operative date of 31 March 2020 in conjunction with Invercargill City Council (ICC).

2        The LAP is included as attachment A.

Executive Summary

3        The LAP enables local authorities to address local issues associated with the sale and supply of alcohol.

4        In collaboration with ICC, Council reviewed the LAP to confirm that the policy is still relevant for licensing in the territorial boundaries of the two councils.

5        The Joint Local Alcohol Policy Committee (the joint committee), with representatives from both councils, was established in order to manage and oversee the review and adoption of the policy. Delegated authority was given to the joint committee to act on Council’s behalf during this process.

6        Nine submissions were received during the consultation period for the draft LAP, with the joint committee holding hearings in August 2019. 

7        After deliberating, the joint committee endorsed a provisional LAP which was publically notified for appeal from 4 November to 6 December 2019.

8        No appeals were lodged with the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority and subsequently the LAP was adopted automatically by both councils on 6 December 2019.

9        The LAP has now come back to the two councils to make operative in accordance with section 90 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the act).

10      The operative date proposed for both councils is 31 March 2020.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Combined Local Alcohol Policy” dated 25 February 2020.

 

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 bring the Combined Local Alcohol Policy into force with an operative date of 31 March 2020.

 

Background

11      Section 75 of the act states that territorial authorities may adopt a local alcohol policy. The act allows two or more territorial authorities to adopt a single policy for their districts (section 76).

12      Council adopted the previous combined LAP with ICC and Gore District Council (GDC) in May 2016. The three councils were regarded as a single territorial authority with a single district for the purposes of producing a LAP under the act.

13      Subsequent to GDC’s decision to remove itself from the joint review process, Council, at its meeting on 18 December 2018, chose to continue, resolving to join with ICC to re-establish a joint committee in order to review the LAP and confirm that the policy was still relevant for licensing in the territorial boundaries of the councils.

14      In delegating its functions and powers to the joint committee at its meeting 10 April 2019, Council gave the joint committee the power of decision throughout the remaining life cycle of the LAP until its final adoption.

15      On 5 June 2019, the joint committee endorsed a statement of proposal, which included the draft policy, for public consultation.

16      From 1 July to 5 August 2019 the joint committee consulted on the draft policy in accordance with the special consultative procedure outlined in the Local Government Act 2002.

17      Nine submissions were received on the draft policy with four wishing to be heard in support of their submission at hearings held on 28 August 2019.

18      The joint committee reconvened to deliberate on 26 September 2019 and endorsed a provisional LAP which was publically notified for appeal from 4 November to 6 December 2019.

19      No appeals were lodged and the combined LAP was adopted automatically on 6 December 2019.

Issues

20      Overall, the provisions proposed in the draft policy were supported by submitters and comment was made in support of keeping the ‘status quo’ as the previous LAP, adopted in 2016, has for the most part, been viewed as functioning well.

21      However, feedback was also received via written and oral submissions, that the draft LAP put out for consultation was not restrictive enough and did not do enough to minimise or prevent further alcohol harm in the community.

22      The joint committee considered all submissions when deliberating and resolved to maintain the proposals put forward in the draft LAP. The committee endorsed:

×     the provisions for sensitive premises proposed in the draft policy

×     the trading hours proposed in the draft policy (with an amendment to separate trading hours)

×     the discretionary conditions proposed in the draft policy

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

23      Council has complied with all legal and statutory requirements when reviewing, consulting and adopting the combined LAP.

24      In forming the joint committee, Council delegated all of its functions under part 2, sub part 2 of the act to the joint committee, with the exception of the discretion afforded under section 88 and section 90. Section 88 gives the ability to discontinue with the LAP at any time and section 90 gives the power to bring the combined LAP into force.

Community Views

25      Community views have been obtained using the special consultative procedure required in section 79 of the Local Government Act 2012.

Costs and Funding

26      Costs associated with notifying the adoption of the LAP are shared between both councils and will be met within current budgets.

Policy Implications

27      There are no changes to the licensing of premises for the sale and supply of alcohol.

Analysis

Options Considered

28      Council has two options on how it could proceed:

•     option 1 – Council resolves to bring the LAP into force (with an operative date of 31 March 2020)

•     option 2 – Council utilises the discretion afforded under section 88 of the act and does not bring the LAP into force.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Council resolves to bring the LAP into force (with an operative date of 31 March 2020)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      the consistent approach between councils, facilitated by the combined LAP, is beneficial for all alcohol licence applicants and is promoted by the Southland Regional Development Strategy

·      facilitates inter-council co-operation and support which is beneficial for growth, experience and understanding of the issues for both councils, the District Licensing Committee members and staff.

·      is consistent with the previous approach taken by Council

·    the LAP results in more monitoring and reporting. As it is not compulsory, it could be considered as a further administrative process to be undertaken (there is a cost associated with the time staff spend on this)

 

Option 2 – Council utilises the discretion afforded under section 88 of the act and does not bring the LAP into force

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    may give greater clarity on whether Council assesses a LAP as the best way of minimising alcohol related harm in the district

·    if Council chooses to discontinue the joint process and apply a LAP to the district alone, having only one council involved may enable greater focus, without compromise, on issues in the Southland District

·    this will contribute to greater inconsistency in approach across Southland, which may make it harder for alcohol licence applicants and agencies and is less consistent with the Southland Regional Development Strategy

·    this would mean Council was changing its approach (from when the previous LAP was developed and adopted, and from its resolution on 18 Dec 2018)

·    a change in approach may be confusing to the public

·    this may hinder inter-Council co-operation and support

·        Council would incur all costs involved if it chose to undertake a further review

 

Assessment of Significance

29      The decision Council is being asked to make in this report has been assessed as not significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

30      Staff recommend option 1 – that Council resolves to bring the LAP into force on 31 March 2020 in conjunction with Invercargill City Council.

Next Steps

31      If Council resolves to make the LAP operational, it will take effect and become enforceable on 31 March 2020.

32      ICC will be asked to resolve the same operative date at its full council meeting on 3 March 2020.

33              Regulation 19 of the act requires that the councils give notice of the adoption of LAP, and Council and ICC staff will publically notify the adoption by advertising in the Advocate, Express, Southland Times and Otago Daily Times.

 

Attachments

a             Operative Combined Local Alcohol Policy 2019    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

4 March 2020

 

Draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw - Consultation

Record No:             R/20/2/3781

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present a draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw (the ‘draft bylaw’), with an associated statement of proposal, for Council to endorse for public consultation.

Executive Summary

2        The Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 (the current bylaw) contains rules about keeping animals such as pigs, horses, poultry, cats and cattle, and about animal noise. This bylaw does not have any rules about dogs. Rules about dogs are in Council’s Dog Control Bylaw. The bylaw aims to protect the public from nuisance and to ensure public health and safety. The current bylaw is included with this report as Attachment A.

3        The current bylaw was adopted by Council on 30 June 2010 and is due to be reviewed by 30 June 2020. In 2012, Council adopted a dispensation to the bylaw for the urban zone Ohai, which allows residents who live in that zone to keep animals not otherwise permitted by the current bylaw. The dispensation is included as Attachment B.

4        Council staff have undertaken community engagement to help inform the content of the draft bylaw. Feedback identified that the currently bylaw is working quite well, and that no significant changes to the bylaw are necessary/appropriate.

5        A statement of proposal, including the draft bylaw, is included with this report as Attachment C. The draft bylaw is reasonably similar to the current bylaw. The style and structure of the bylaw has been updated, and a slightly different permit system is proposed. Other small changes are discussed in the body of this report. It is also proposed to revoke the dispensation for Ohai so there are consistent rules across the District that are easy to understand.

6        On 12 February, staff obtained feedback from the Regulatory and Consents Committee on the draft bylaw and the dispensation for Ohai. The committee recommend that Council endorse the draft bylaw for public consultation. The committee also gave feedback that it supported revoking the formal dispensation for Ohai, and having a permit system used across the District.

7        If Council endorses the draft bylaw and releases the statement of proposal for consultation, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure from 12 March to 13 April 2020.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw - Consultation” dated 25 February 2020.

 

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)           Determines pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing nuisance and health and safety problems associated with keeping animals in the District.

 

e)            Determines pursuant to section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

 

f)             Determines pursuant to section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 

g)           Endorses the draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw.

 

h)           Releases the draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw statement of proposal for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002, from 12 March to 13 April 2020.

 

Background

The current bylaw

8        The current bylaw contains rules about cats and various animals, such as pigs, horses, poultry and cattle. Provisions in the bylaw include where animals can be kept, how they can be kept, how many are permitted, and provisions relating to animal noise. The bylaw does not have any rules about dogs (these are in Council’s Dog Control Bylaw).

9        The current bylaw was adopted by Council on 30 June 2010 and is due to be reviewed by 30 June 2020.

10      Council’s animal control officers are not proactively monitoring for compliance and acting on observed non-compliance. When a complaint is received, animal control officers will discuss the issue with the person keeping the animal, and agree to a course of action. A follow-up letter is sent outlining any agreement. If necessary, further action may be taken including writing a written warning, or charging for time.

11      The current bylaw states that people can keep animals not otherwise permitted by the bylaw if they seek a consent from Council under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The bylaw also states that Council can, in any particular case or cases, by resolution, dispense with rules in the bylaw. In recent years, Council has been granting dispensations to individuals to allow them to keep animals not permitted by the bylaw. People apply for a dispensation, and if the applicant’s neighbours give their consent and an animal control officer believes it is appropriate, a dispensation is given under delegated authority held by the chief executive or the group manager of Environmental Services.

Requests made by particular communities for dispensation/changes to the bylaw

12      Since the current bylaw has been in force, three communities have formally requested changes for their area.

13      In 2012, the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee (CDA) requested that a dispensation be made to allow farm animals to be kept in the urban zone in Ohai. On 27 June 2012, Council adopted a formal dispensation for Ohai that allows people in the Ohai urban zone to keep farm animals (such as horses, cattle etc) if:

·    the animals are confined to the property

·    the owner/occupier has given approval for the animals to be kept

·    the animals don’t damage neighbouring fences or property.

14      In 2015, both the Nightcaps and Riversdale CDAs also formally requested that Council make changes to the current bylaw. Nightcaps requested a tightening of the bylaw for its urban zone, limiting the types of animals permitted and placing a restriction on the number of sheep. Riversdale requested to amend the bylaw so it would better reflect the expectation of the community. Council decided not to amend the bylaw in response to these requests due to it being inefficient to review bylaws before their review timeframes, and given the commitments and full work programme already set.

Engagement

15      Council staff have sought feedback on the current bylaw from a variety of sources. Internal feedback has been sought, and staff have sought feedback from external stakeholders through:

·    Facebook posts

·    letters/emails to external stakeholders, including to vets, various animal-related clubs (such as pony clubs, poultry clubs etc) and to agencies such as Te Ao Marama, Federated Farmers, and Public Health South

·    e-mails to community board members

·    face-to-face conversations with people in towns throughout the District.


 

16      A summary of the feedback received, is outlined below.

Topic

Summary of Feedback received

Bees

General support for having/encouraging bees in the District.

Cats

People reported problems with cats in the District, particularly with stray cats. There was support for and against neutering, registering, microchipping, and limiting the number of cats people can keep.

Meat processing

The larger proportion of feedback was that meat processing was not a problem in the District, and that provisions were not required. Others thought it should only be allowed in rural areas, on larger properties, and that clean up and having a person with appropriate skill were important.

Permit system

Generally people supported a permit system allowing people to keep animals not permitted by the bylaw.

Pigs

There was a general consensus that there shouldn’t be pigs in urban areas.

Poultry/birds

There was mixed feedback as to whether poultry should be allowed in urban areas. Some people said they didn’t want roosters in towns. Internal feedback was that roosters do cause some problems.

Freedom of choice/ degree of regulation

People were keen to apply their own common sense, and to not have overly prescriptive rules unless they are necessary.

 

Issues

The draft bylaw

17      Staff are seeking Council to endorse the draft bylaw and to release the associated statement of proposal for public consultation.

18      The draft bylaw contains some general rules that aim to prevent nuisance, health and safety issues, the polluting of water ways, and animal related noise. Specific sections in the bylaw also provide:

·    rules outlining animals that aren’t permitted in urban zones

·    rules about keeping poultry in urban zones

·    rules about keeping animals in industrial zones

·    rules about pigs

·    provisions about placing limits on the number of cats

·    provisions about placing limits on keeping bees

·    information about buildings for animals

·    how to get a permit

·    dispensing power

·    information about enforcement

·    information about penalties.

 

19      Aside from the changes proposed below, the draft bylaw is reasonably similar to the current bylaw.

Current Bylaw

Proposed Change

Reason

In some sections, it is not clear where the rules apply (for example, which zone)

To have sections outlining the general rules that apply to everyone, the rules for urban zones, the rules for industrial zones, and other specific rules

Clarity, readability

There is a section on animal related noise. There is no general rules section

To include a general rules section that states it is an offence to keep animals in a way that causes nuisance, health and safety issues, the polluting of water ways, or animal related noise

To clearly identify the rules that apply to everyone. Clarity, readability

The current bylaw refers to obsolete provisions in an outdated District Plan. It also states that to keep animals outside the bylaw, people have to get a consent under the RMA. The current bylaw gives Council the authority to grant dispensations

A permit system is proposed for people who want to keep an animal that is not permitted by the bylaw

The proposed permit system is similar to the dispensation system currently being used, which has been working well. Compared to getting a consent under the RMA, a permit system has a simpler application process, is less expensive for applicants and is not subject to appeals

Refers to urban and industrial areas in the District Plan, but gives no practical guidance on which towns have the zones, or how to view them

To include an appendix that lists the towns that have an urban zone, and to state in the definitions section where industrial zones are. The draft bylaw also includes some guidance on how to find the relevant parts of the District Plan

 

 

 

For ease of use. Staff are not proposing to include all of the relevant maps with the bylaw, as these maps may change before the bylaw is due to be reviewed

Does not include any rules about killing animals or processing meat

Making it an offence to kill animals or process meat in a way that is, or is likely to become, a nuisance, dangerous, offensive or injurious to health

To try and prevent nuisance and health and safety issues

The current bylaw applies to all areas in the District, but a formal dispensation has been granted for the Ohai urban zone

Not including different rules for Ohai in the draft bylaw

To create consistency across the District. Staff believe the bylaw would become too complex and confusing if different rules were introduced for different towns. The permit system allows people to keep animals not permitted by the bylaw

Does not permit horses or other beast of burden, cattle, goats, deer or ostriches in the urban zone

Including a specific list of animals and removing the term ‘beast of burden’. There is a change that llamas, emus, swans, chamois and thar would now be prohibited in urban areas

To try and prevent nuisance and health and safety issues

 

Cats

20      In the engagement undertaken by staff, feedback was received that cats are causing some nuisance and health and safety concerns in the District. The draft bylaw does not propose any new rules about cats as it seems most of the cat problems relate to stray cats. The problems would not be resolved by introducing rules about cats into the draft bylaw (as people do not ‘keep’ stray cats). The draft bylaw does allow Council to act (by requesting the problem be remedied/by imposing a limit on numbers/by imposing fines) if a person is keeping cats and the cats are causing nuisance or health problems.

21      If Council view it as a priority, it could request staff to collaborate/co-ordinate with other agencies/the community to further investigate cat populations in the District. Any information obtained could be used to inform amendments to the bylaw. Council can decide to review a bylaw at any time.

Dispensations

22      If Council adopts the draft bylaw, it is proposed that existing individual dispensations will be regarded as permits under the proposed bylaw. Only a small number of individual dispensations have been granted.

23      If Council does not want to have a dispensation for the Ohai urban zone, as staff recommend, the formal dispensation will have to be revoked. If this is to take place, prior to the dispensation being revoked, staff would work with Ohai residents to identify the best way to transition to the permit system. Staff believe it may be appropriate to re-issue permits for these residents under the proposed bylaw, at no cost to the resident; provided there is compliance with conditions in the current Ohai dispensation.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

Making a bylaw

24      Under section 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA), Council has the specific bylaw making power to regulate the keeping of animals, poultry and bees. Under section 145, bylaws can only be made for one of the following purposes:

·    to protect the public from nuisance

·    to protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety

·    to minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

25      On this basis, in relation to keeping animals, Council does not have the power to include rules in the bylaw relating to animal welfare or to protect wildlife. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 establishes obligations in relation to caring for animals, and providing appropriate treatment for injured/sick animals. The focus of the current and draft bylaws is to protect the public from nuisance and to ensure peoples’ health and safety.

26      It is proposed to consult on the draft bylaw using the Special Consultative Procedure outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the LGA. Staff believe this consultation method is appropriate (in relation to the LGA and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy) as:

·    people are very interested in the animals they can keep

·    there are a lot of people impacted by this bylaw

·    Ohai residents may be interested if the formal dispensation is discontinued, and

·    people have strong views on the specific rules they would like for their community – three CDAs requested changes to the current bylaw.

27      The Special Consultative Procedure requires that Council adopts a formal statement of proposal, has a consultation period of not less than one month, and allows people to present their views to Council in a manner that enables spoken interaction, such as by having a hearing.


 

28      It is proposed that Council will make the statement of proposal as widely available as is reasonably practicable (in accordance with section 83 of the LGA), and encourage people to give feedback, by:

·    placing an advertisement in the Advocate

·    placing posters in Council offices/libraries

·    promoting the consultation on Council’s Facebook page

·    having the statement of proposal accessible on Council’s website and in all of its offices

·    encouraging community boards to make a submission through the community leadership reports that go to each community board.

Determinations

Most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem

29      Council must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem or issue. Across New Zealand, bylaws are the most typical method used by territorial authorities to address nuisance and health and safety problems associated with keeping animals. Staff are aware of one Council that does not have a bylaw, and instead relies on its District Plan and the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to control the keeping of animals. Staff believe it is appropriate to have the proposed smaller-scale rules on keeping animals in a bylaw, and that the District Plan is the more appropriate tool to manage larger scale, more enduring practices relating to animals, such as intensive farming. If people want to keep animals not permitted in a bylaw, it is also much easier to have a simple permit process under a bylaw than obtaining a resource consent to operate outside of the District Plan.

Most appropriate form of bylaw

30      Council is also required to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw before it makes its decision. The draft bylaw has been drafted so that is easy to read and to use. Staff believe the draft bylaw is only creating necessary rules, and that it is not overly restrictive/prescriptive. The provisions in the bylaw allow Council to take action when nuisance and health and safety issues do arise. The bylaw has been made in recognition that many towns in the District are quite rural in nature.

Bill of Rights

31      Council is required to determine whether the draft bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the BoR Act), which grants certain civil and political rights to people in New Zealand. In accordance with section 5 of the BoR Act, ‘the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’.

32      In section 146 of the LGA there is a specific provision that allows local authorities to make bylaws on keeping animals, poultry and bees. Such a bylaw can only be made to prevent nuisance and ensure peoples’ health and safety (s145). The LGA has been reviewed by the Attorney-General for any inconsistency with the BoR Act. On this basis, the Attorney-General has already assessed that any limits imposed on keeping animals to prevent nuisance and health in safety issues, are reasonable limits. Therefore staff believe the provisions of the draft bylaw do not unreasonably interfere with any of the rights in the BoR Act.

Community Views

33      Staff have already engaged with the community about keeping animals and the current bylaw. A summary of the feedback received is given in paragraph 16. Council is aware there has been a preference to have specific rules for specific communities - three CDAs have made formal requests to amend the current bylaw.

34      Staff will capture further community views through the formal consultation on the draft bylaw. During the last review process for this bylaw (in 2010), Council received one submission on the bylaw.

Costs and Funding

35      There will only be minor costs associated with reviewing the bylaw, including the costs associated with staff time and advertising. The draft bylaw does not propose any significant changes to operational practice within the environmental health team. Costs associated with reviewing and applying the draft bylaw will be met within existing budgets.

36      It is proposed that people will have to pay a nominal amount when they apply for a permit to keep an animal that would not otherwise be permitted by the draft bylaw. The fee will cover the cost of staff processing permits.

Policy Implications

37      As has been outlined above, the draft bylaw proposes small changes to the current bylaw, including:

·    to how people get approval to keep animals not permitted by the bylaw

·    making it an offence to kill animals or process meat in a way that is, or is likely to become, a nuisance, dangerous, offensive or injurious to health

·    not allowing people to keep llamas, emus, swans, chamois and thar on private land in an urban zone.

38      It is also proposed to remove the formal dispensation for people in the Ohai urban zone.

39      In regards to enforcing the provisions in the draft bylaw, staff are proposing to continue dealing with issues as complaints are received. This means that the current approach of not proactively monitoring the bylaw for compliance, will continue.

40      Council has a vision of ‘one community, offering endless opportunities’. On this basis, staff have been careful not to be too restrictive, and to allow, where appropriate, people to have the opportunity to keep the animals and enjoy the lifestyle they want.

41      The draft bylaw is reasonably consistent with, but not the same as, the bylaws adopted by Invercargill City Council (ICC) and Gore District Council (GDC).

42      ICC places no limit on the livestock and the number of housed poultry that than can be kept in urban areas, but the bylaw is drafted so limits can be imposed when necessary. ICC has more prescriptive rules around killing animals and processing meat.

43      As is proposed in the draft bylaw, GDC animal control bylaw does not allow people to keep livestock in town without a permit, and it places a cap on the number of poultry that can be kept in urban areas. In contrast, GDC does permit horses and it places restrictions on the number of beehives permitted on urban properties (maximum of one). GDC’s bylaw also has rules about pet rodents.

Analysis

Options Considered

44      Staff have identified two practical options for how the Council could proceed:

·    Option 1 – that Council endorse the draft bylaw (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure

·    Option 2 - that Council retain the status quo (with any desired amendments). This option would also require a consultation process to be undertaken.

Option 1 – endorse the draft bylaw for consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        easy to read and to use

·        proposes a simple permit system

·        does not refer to the outdated District Plan, so brings the bylaw up-to-date

·        gives more clarity on where urban and industrial zones are

·        helps ensure people do not keep animals in a way that causes nuisance and health and safety issues

·        is in line with some community views as the draft bylaw sets rules to prevent nuisance and health and safety issues, without being overly prescriptive.

·        allows Council to take action when necessary

·        reasonably similar to the bylaws adopted by ICC and GDC, which makes it easier for people to know and apply the rules.

·        people may know the current dispensation system and take time to adjust to the new permit system

·        a more prescriptive bylaw may better prevent nuisance and health and safety issues

·        there may be support for having different rules for different communities

·        may not be supported by some people in the District.

 


 

Option 2 – retain the status quo (the current bylaw)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        people may be familiar with the current bylaw, and know how the dispensation system works

·        helps ensure people do not keep animals in a way that causes nuisance and health and safety issues

·        is in line with some community views as the draft bylaw sets rules to prevent nuisance and health and safety issues, without being overly prescriptive.

·        allows Council to take action when necessary

·        reasonably similar to the bylaws adopted by ICC and GDC, which makes it easier for people to know and apply the rules.

·        not very easy to read or use

·        refers to the outdated District Plan

·        does not help clarify where there are urban and industrial zones

·        a more prescriptive bylaw may better prevent nuisance and health and safety issues

·        there may be support for having different rules for different communities

·        may not be supported by some people in the District.

 

Assessment of Significance

45      It has been identified that the decisions made in this report are not significant in relation to the LGA and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

46      Council has to assess the significance of all the issues it considers. This includes assessing the extent people are likely to be affected or interested in the matter. During the later stages of reviewing this bylaw, such as when the decision is made to adopt the final bylaw, the degree of importance of this matter may reach the threshold of being a significant decision.

Recommended Option

It is recommend that Council proceed with Option 1 and endorse the draft bylaw (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure.

Next Steps

Staff propose the following steps to complete the review of this bylaw.

Date

aCTIVITY

12 March to 13 April 2020

Formal consultation period

7 May 2020

Report to Council presenting submissions and undertaking hearings

20 May 2020

Report to Council to present the bylaw for deliberation and adoption.

47      If Council endorses retaining the current bylaw, staff will make any desired amendments to the documents and present a draft bylaw to Council, to be endorsed for consultation.

 

Attachments

a             The Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010

b             The Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 - Dispensation for Ohai

c             Statement of proposal - Draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


Council

04 March 2020

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

4 March 2020

 

Submission on National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

Record No:             R/20/2/3822

Author:                      Rebecca Blyth, Senior Resource Planner - Policy, Resource Management

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To present the draft Council submission on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for endorsement.

Executive Summary

2        A draft submission prepared by staff is attached to this report for consideration and endorsement.  Submissions on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity close on 14 March 2020. 

3        The submission supports the intent of the proposed policy statement in principle but highlights the practical and financial challenges that the Council face in attempting to comply with the timeframes and milestones to be established.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Submission on National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity” dated 20 February 2020.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Endorses the Submission on behalf of Southland District Council with any minor amendment arising from discussion at this meeting of Council.

 

Background

4        Improving the national policy framework for managing and protecting indigenous biodiversity has been part of successive government’s goals for the last 20 years.  This is in response to the continued loss of native plants and animals in New Zealand, some of which are now extinct or considered to be threatened with extinction.

5        However, it has been difficult for all the different parties and stakeholders to reach consensus on how to intervene to address what is happening.  Various policy proposals have been drafted and failed to reach support across all key stakeholders over the years.

6        In 2017 the Minister for the Environment established the Biodiversity Collaborative Group (BCG) to develop a national level policy for indigenous biodiversity.  This was a stakeholder led group with a wide ranging membership tasked with the preparation of a draft policy and recommendations to the government.  This was completed in October 2018.

7        The Ministry for the Environment and Department of Conservation continued to work on the proposed policy which was released for public comment in late November 2019.  Submission close on this policy statement on 14 March 2020.

Issues

8        The Proposed Policy Statement presents a number of matters that will have significant implications for the manner in which Council allocates resources and connects with its community.  The current role that Council has within maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is significantly widened and there will be greater accountability expected with regard to achieving the outcomes set out in the national policy.

9        The Council submission is attached to this report which provides more detail with regard to the specific implications of each part of the proposed National Policy Statement(NPSIB).  However in summary:

Submission – Key Themes

·    Southland District Council considers that it is disproportionately impacted by the NPSIB.

All New Zealander’s benefit from Southland’s indigenous biodiversity and yet all the costs of identifying and maintaining this indigenous biodiversity is borne by the 15,800 rate payers of the District Council, who also pay regional rates. 

 

·    The NPSIB is heavily reliant on regulatory intervention to achieve protection, maintenance AND restoration and enhancement.  This is a costly and often adversarial approach.  If local authorities had even a portion of the total funding that implementation will cost is that best invested in a regulatory framework – What could be achieved if this funding was invested into relationship building and existing areas identified as priorities for restoration and enhancement?

 

·    The costs outlined in the draft Section 32 analysis[1] do not accurately capture and level of impact that this national direction will have on Southland District.  Given the preliminary analysis undertaken by Council staff it has been concluded that Southland District Council will be unable to achieve compliance with the milestones and timeframes in the NPSIB.

 

·    The NPSIB requires an assessment of all land within a territorial authority boundary, irrespective of ownership.  Approximately 60% of land within the District is under the management of the Department of Conservation.  Southland District Council supports option 3 in the discussion document[2], and further requests that assessments of crown land are funded by the Crown.

 

·    Even with the removal of public conservation land from the total land area required to be assessed by Territorial Authorities, Southland District Council will require significant external support in terms of funding, resources, expertise and guidance to achieve the identification and mapping of SNA’s.  (Further analysis of the implications of part 3.8 NPSIB is provided below). 

 

·    Southland District Council will require significant external support in terms of funding, resource, expertise and guidance to achieve the additional requirements around managing all other indigenous biodiversity, monitoring and restoration.

 

·    The impact of the requirements of the NPSIB needs to be considered alongside all other national direction currently being developed or recently established.  The Local Government resource management planning sector is expected to deliver on a number of matters across a similar timespan as the NSPIB, all require additional capacity and capability.  This will have a significant impact on the sector and its ability to implement the NPSIB.

 

·    There are competing priorities for Southland District Council’s resources including significant infrastructure investment in the next 10-30 years, all to be funded from the same source of funding.  Not everything will be able to be funded from the current sources of funding.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

10      It is likely that given the level of cross sector support from key stakeholders involved in the development of the proposed NPSIB it will progress through to being gazetted (made law) by the government prior to elections.  It is therefore a question of when, not if, the legal and statutory requirements become established.

11      Council has set timeframes under the proposed NPSIB to meet stated milestones with regard to the identification of significant natural areas and a regulatory framework within the District Plan to protect and manage these sites and activities within them.

12      Council will need to proactively consider the manner in which it wishes to meet these requirements.

13      With regard to making a submission, there is no legal requirement to make a submission.  Council staff have prepared a submission in an attempt to continue to advise government on the practical implications of the proposed policy.  It is likely that Council will need to establish a dialogue with government after the NPSIB is gazetted around the level of support that will be necessary to achieve the required timeframes and milestones.  Staff consider that by making a submission on the proposed NPSIB this establishes an awareness by government of the key matters that will need resolution for Southland District Council. 

14      It is also hoped that by making a submission the Council is able to influence the requirement to assess all land for the presence of SNAs and the associated monitoring costs of that.  We are requesting that public conversation and crown land not be subject to the same requirements or that the assessment of that land is funded by the public body i.e. DOC, or LINZ.

Community Views

15      Consultation on the NPSIB has not been actively promoted by the government, they have utilised a ‘soft release’ approach.  Given the policy was prepared initially by key stakeholders it is expected that those stakeholders have also communicated directly with their community.

16      There has been very little public comment or enquiry as far as staff are aware.  There is still potential for the existence of the NPSIB and its requirements on Council to come as a surprise to the local rural community.  It will be important for Council to have some key messages ready in preparation for beginning a conversation locally.

17      It is likely that there will be concerns within our local rural community as to what this will mean for day to day activities and any future plans for development they may have.

Costs and Funding

18      The preparation of the submission and analysis of the policy has been undertaken by council staff, supported by the Regional Planning Working Group. 

19      The cost implications of the NPSIB once gazetted are significant and will require consideration through the preparation of the next Long Term Plan.  It is anticipated that the funding of these requirements will be a matter that will need specific consultation through that process.  Staff have been working together to ensure that these will be incorporated into that process. 

Policy Implications

20      The policy implications of the NPSIB are significant.  The District Plan will be required to be reviewed to achieve realignment with the national policy direction.  The level of intervention currently established through the District Plan will be reviewed and extended at both a regulatory and non-regulatory level.  This constitutes a significant shift in the policy approach previously taken by the Council.

Analysis

Options Considered

21      This report is to seek endorsement of the draft submission on the proposed NPSIB.  Therefore there are two options available to council.


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Do not submit on the NPSIB

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Reduces staff time involved in this work stream.

·        The key themes of council position are not made clear to government, which inhibits the council’s ability to influence the final policy.

·        Lost potential of building the case for significant external support to achieve the milestones expected by the NPSIB.

 

Option 2 – Submission made on the NPSIB

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The key themes of council position are made clear to government

·        Utilises an opportunity to influence the final policy.

·        Raises the governments’ awareness of likely level of external support the council will need to achieve the milestones and timeframes within the NPSIB.

·        Staff time is invested in finalising and lodging the submission.

 

Assessment of Significance

22      This report requests the endorsement of a draft submission on the proposed NPSIB.  A decision to endorse the submission to be submitted is not considered to be significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.  However, the subsequent consideration of the implications of the national policy will be significant and will be required to be addressed through the Long Term Plan process.

Recommended Option

23      It is recommended that Option 2 is selected.  The Council is requested to endorse the draft submission, with any minor amendments arising from discussion at the meeting.  This will authorise staff to make the submission on the Council’s behalf.

Next Steps

24      Council staff will complete the submission and ensure it is made by the closing date of 14 March 2020.

25      Ongoing work is being undertaken with regard to the implications of the NPSIB and will be the subject of future reports, workshops and discussions.

 

Attachments

a             Council submission on NPSIB March 2020    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council

4 March 2020

 

Details on the Financial and Reserve Contribution Fund

Record No:             R/20/2/3734

Author:                      Shelley Dela Llana, Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide a breakdown of the financial and reserve contribution fund, outlining what the fund is made up of and any conditions or commentary around the funds remaining and what they can be used on. This report also follows previous requests by the Edendale-Wyndham Community Board about providing an update on contributions from Fonterra.

2        It will also seek to get the Council’s support for the partial use of the fund towards the purchase of reserve land at Curio Bay.

Executive Summary

3        This report has previously been presented to the Community and Strategy Committee and is being brought to Council to seek confirmation.

4        The financial and reserve contribution fund is made up of financial contributions collected under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and collected via the Southland District Plan (principally from Fonterra) with interest allocated to the reserve annually.

5        Two key issues discussed in the report include:

-     what to do with funds previously allocated for the Edendale hall and school layby project that have been since cancelled

-     background to the request from Council to look at funding options for the purchase of reserve land at Curio Bay

6        A third issue, looking at changes to the process of allocation of monies remaining in this fund, will be discussed in a separate report in this meeting agenda.

7        At the 30 June 2019, the reserve had $619,704. $402,173 of this was remaining contributions from Fonterra of which $400,095 has been allocated. The balance of $217,531 is related to interest earned on the reserve over the years.

8        As part of issuing resource consents to Fonterra or its namesakes in the past, Council and Fonterra had a number of discussions and/or noted in the resource consent correspondence potential uses of the fund or guidance on the manner in which some would be allocated. This is noted further in the report.

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Details on the Financial and Reserve Contribution Fund ” dated 25 February 2020.

 

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 the discussions and comments sent to or had with Fonterra as part of the resource consent approval process on the potential use of financial contributions paid by them or the process that would enter into around any allocation

 

e)            Supports the proposed  funding of the purchase of land for a reserve at Curio Bay from the financial and reserve contribution reserve up to $319,800, noting that other sources of funding are still being investigated

 

f)             Seek feedback from Fonterra representatives and the Waihopai Toetoe Community Board as to their support of the use of Fonterra financial contributions to fund the land at Curio Bay for a public reserve before Council makes the final decision on how the Financial and Reserve contribution reserve is to be allocated.

 

g)           Requests that Cr Keast, Cr Duffy, Group Manager of Environmental Services and the Team Leader of Resource Management meet with Fonterra representatives.

 

Background

9        As part of the grant funding review being undertaken, Council’s financial team have undertaken a review of the monies received and granted to date. As part of this process, Council staff have identified any correspondence with contributors that further identified the use of the contributions received or the ways in which Council would be looking to distribute the monies.

10      Staff have subsequently identified that a number of the resource consents issued with Fonterra and its namesakes, noted or made comment about how each would be spent in the correspondence sent to them on issuing of the consent or, in one case, as a result of the appeal of the financial contribution charged.


 

11      As at 30 June 2019, the fund had a total reserve of $619,704. A breakdown of this reserve indicates the following:

Analysis of Financial & Reserve Contribution Reserve

$

Unallocated Fonterra contributions

$2,078

Fonterra funds allocated to the building of a new Edendale hall, since returned due to the decision not to proceed with the hall

$198,750

Fonterra funds allocated for the Edendale School layby project

$100,436

Fonterra funds allocated for the Edendale water supply scheme

$100,909

 

$402,173

Interest earned

$217,531

Total

$619,704

 


 

12      The table below provides further analyses and outlines the six financial contributions that have been received from Fonterra or its equivalent namesakes since 1997 totalling $894,018 (GST excl). The table details the amount spent to date, the funds remaining as well as any relevant correspondence identified regarding the use of the funds.

Year

Contribution excl GST

Amount Spent

Amount Remaining

Discussions/Consent letter comments relating to amounts remaining

1997

$2,933

$2,933

-

 

1998

$171,907

$171,907

-

 

1999

$15,333

$13,255

$2,078

Nothing identified.

2002

$225,000

$155,000

$70,000

Discussion that $90k for district wide activities and $135k for use in the Edendale/Wyndham area. The remaining $70k was for the Edendale hall upgrade that has been cancelled.

2003

$277,500

$148,750

$128,750

Letter where the committee declined to resolve how the money was to be allocated however noted that prior to any allocation consultation by Council staff would occur with the Edendale and Wyndham Community Boards.

2008

$201,345

-

$201,345

Letter identifying $100,436 to Edendale School for the school layby project and $100,909 for the purposes of a community water supply scheme.

 

$894,018

$491,845

$402,173

 

 

13      Council is legally bound by the conditions it imposed as part of the resource consent. The narrations above were not part of the conditions but were included in the correspondence with Fonterra either:

-     advising of the consent; or

-     the appeal to the consent by Fonterra; or

-     in correspondence by the Resource Consent Hearing committee at times about the potential use of funds

14      Staff recognise that although Council is not bound by these discussions, they recognise the value Council places on the relationship with Fonterra. Accordingly staff have included a recommendation in the report suggesting a general discussion be had with Fonterra advising of the potential use of funds and seeking feedback from them before Council makes a final decision.

15      The interest that has been earned on the reserve has no restrictions attached to it. However this does not stop the Council from establishing some criteria around its future use.

16      For background, Attachment One includes a schedule of the monies allocated to date.

17      In 2002 the manager of resource planning at the time presented a report to the Policy Committee. This report outlined the background to the $225,000 financial contribution charged and the reasons why the Resource Planning committee identified specific projects the money was to be used on as part of the consent correspondence. It drew the committee’s attention to Section C and D of the District Plan over the purpose and use of the funds, which is detailed in the legal and statutory section below. The report also noted the legal cases that were occurring at the time and the potential cost and delay in the decision making process should it have gone to the Environment Court. It then went on to outline the projects that had been agreed for the $225,000 and the company’s strong desire to see a substantial amount of its contribution targeted towards the Edendale and Wyndham areas.

18      On the 11th February this report went up to the Community and Strategy committee, in discussing they requested that staff prepare an additional recommendation to Council outlining who would meet with Fonterra representatives.  Subsequent discussions have resulted in recommendation g, noting the appropriateness of Cr Keast, Cr Duffy, the Group Manager of Environmental Services and the Team Leader of Resource Management meeting with Fonterra representatives.

Issues

19      There are potentially three discussion points/issues that the Council needs to consider and provide direction over:

-     discussion around the current committed funds for the Edendale School layby project of $100,436 and monies remaining from the Edendale hall project cancellation of $198,750

-     the potential application of funds towards the purchase of part lot 300 dp526128 at Curio Bay, further to a resolution of Council

-     the future use of the funds and any application criteria the Council may see as relevant for the granting of funds taking into account correspondence with Fonterra over how the monies would be spent or with whom consultation would occur. A separate report in this meeting agenda has been prepared to discuss this issue further.

20      Additionally monies tagged for the Edendale water supply scheme will be allocated to the appropriate Council reserve for spending on the scheme.

Edendale School layby project and Edendale hall

21      Discussions with Councillor Duffy indicate that this project was in response to safety concerns by the school given its location immediately beside state highway one.

22      Indications are that the layby planned was to enable the dropping off and picking up of school children safely. By all accounts this project was put on hold when NZTA announced the potential re-alignment of the state highway. This realignment has recently been completed.

23      Funds were also set aside for the Edendale hall. Following many years of investigation the decision was made at the Edendale- Wyndham Community Board meeting on the 22 March 2016 not to proceed with the development of the hall.

24      Given that both of these projects have been cancelled, the funds previously committed would now be available for other uses in line with the purpose of collection as noted in the District Plan.

Purchase of reserve land at Curio Bay

25      On the 14 November 2019, Council resolved to “purchase part lot 300 DP 526128 containing 4500 square metres more or less for $319,800 plus gst for a recreation reserve to be funded by way of a district wide loan against the curio bay district reserve”. Additionally it also “request staff to investigate additional funding sources to reduce the amount of the loan such as funding from the Reserve and Development Contributions and that where additional funding is obtained that this is used to reduce the loan”.

26      This property is in the Porpoise Bay/Curio Bay area and has seen significant growth in visitors, with over 100,000 per annum. Council owns or administers the adjacent land to the south and the Curio Bay Reserve including the adjacent camping ground. Regarding the purchase of lot 300, it was stated that it provides a better configuration for future land management overall, especially given the increasing pressure for physical space in this locality.

27      As noted in Schedule 6.22 of the District Plan 2001, subsection 2.6(d);

(a)  The use of the financial contribution shall be for one or more of the following in the Edendale Township, its environs or the District generally;

-     Offsetting additional demands on infrastructure and utility services by Council.

-     Offsetting additional demands on community and recreational facilities.

-     Restoring or enhancing amenity values.

-     Restoring or enhancing open space and landscaping

 

28      As such, the purchase of the land is in line with the use defined in the District Plan.

29      Given this and Council’s earlier resolution to purchase the land, staff are recommending that the Fonterra contributions be used to fund the balance of the property up to $319,800 after the application of any other funding sources currently being investigated.

30      If the Council supports the purchase of the land from this fund, it is proposed to use the balance of Fonterra contributions first, with the use of any interest accrued to make up the difference.


 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

31      Under section 108(2)(a) of the RMA, financial contribution conditions can be imposed subject to section 108(10)which states,

A consent authority must not include a condition in a resource consent requiring a financial contribution unless

(a)  The condition is imposed in accordance with the purposes specified in the plan… and

(b)  The level of the contribution is determined in the manner described in the plan…

32      The District Plan 2001, section 6, schedule 6.22 Edendale Dairy Plant Development Concept Plan, subsection 2.6 para a to d state;

(a)  The Council may impose a financial contribution for developments in the Edendale Dairy Plant Development Concept Plan Area the value of which exceed $500,000

(b)  The financial contribution shall not exceed 0.5% of the value of the development

(c)   The purpose of the imposition of the financial contribution shall be to remedy, mitigate or offset adverse effects arising from, in consequence of, or in association with, any development.

(d)  The use of the financial contribution shall be for one or more of the following in the Edendale Township its environs or the District generally

-     Offsetting additional demands on infrastructure and utility services provided by Council

-     Offsetting additional demands on community and recreational facilities.

-     Restoring or enhancing amenity values

-     Restoring or enhancing open space and landscaping

Community Views

33      The contributions collected are done so under the Resource Management Act. As noted under the legal and statutory requirements section above, the District Plan outlines the criteria under which monies are collected and the reasons for the collections of the monies.

34      Having said this and, keeping in mind the previous correspondence and discussions with Fonterra, it is recommended that Council does liaise with Fonterra and the Waihopai Toetoe Community Board to inform them of the proposed use of funds and seek their feedback before making a final decision on the use of the funds collected from Fonterra.

Costs and Funding

35      There are no costs associated with this report.

36      As noted previously, a separate report on the Council agenda discusses possible criteria around the potential use of any remaining funds.

Policy Implications

37      Discussion around the relevant sections of the District Plan are noted in the legal and statutory section above.

Analysis

Options Considered

38      The options are to either support or not support the funding of the purchase of land for a reserve at Curio Bay from the financial and reserve contribution reserve up to $319,800, noting that other sources of funding are still being investigated.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Support the funding of land to be purchased for a reserve at Curio Bay from the financial and reserve contribution reserve up to $319,800 noting that other sources of funding are still being investigated

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The purchase is in line with the use of the funds identified in the District Plan.

 

·        The funds will not be available for any other purpose the Council may consider desirable.

 

Option 2 – Not support the funding of land to be purchased for a reserve at Curio Bay from the financial and reserve contribution reserve up to $319,800 noting that other sources of funding are still being investigated

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The funds will be available for other projects identified by the Council which are in line with the District Plan uses.

·        Rates funding will be needed to fund the loan repayments for the purchase of the land which will still be purchased.

Assessment of Significance

39      In terms of Council’s significance policy, this issue is not considered significant. Notwithstanding this, Fonterra and the Waihopai Toetoe Community Board do have a specific interest in this matter and as such, it is recommended that Council liaises with them both, informing them of the proposed use of funds and seeking any feedback before making a final decision on the use of the funds collected from Fonterra.

Recommended Option

40      Option 1 – Support the funding of land to be purchased for a reserve at Curio Bay from the financial and reserve contribution reserve up to $319,800 noting that other sources of funding are still being investigated.

Next Steps

41      Councillors and staff to organise a meeting with Fonterra.

42      Finance staff will get a copy of this report included in the next agenda of the Waihopai Toetoe Community Board.

43      Continue to investigate the other funding sources available to fund the purchase of the land.

 

Attachments

a             Allocations paid to date from Financial & Reserve Contribution Fund    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


Council

4 March 2020

 

Monthly Financial Report - January 2020

Record No:             R/20/2/4375

Author:                      Dee Patel, Project Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Summary

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the financial results to date by the nine activity groups of Council, as well as the financial position, and the statement of cash flows.

2.       This report summaries Council financial results for the seven months to 31 January 2020.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Monthly Financial Report - January 2020” dated 24 February 2020.

 

Attachments

a             Monthly Financial Report - January 2020    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 

Monthly Financial Report

January 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                         

 


Council

04 March 2020

 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary. 3

A.    Council Monthly Summary. 5

1.    Income. 5

2.    Expenditure. 6

3.    Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) 8

B.    Council Summary Report 10

C.    Statement of Comprehensive Income. 11

D.    Statement of Financial Position. 12

F.     Statement of Cash Flows. 13

 

 

 

                                                                    

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                           


Council

04 March 2020

 

Executive Summary

1.   This Monthly Financial Report summarises Council’s financial results for the seven months to
31 January 2020.

2.   The Monthly Financial Report Summary consolidates the business units within each of Council’s Groups of Activities.

3.   The Monthly Financial Report includes:

·      Year to Date (YTD) Actuals, which are the actual costs incurred,

·      Year to Date (YTD) Projection, which is based on the full year projection and is a combination of the Annual Plan and carry forwards,

·      Year to Date (YTD) Budget, which is based on the full year Annual Plan budget with adjustments for phasing of budgets,

·      Full Year (FY) Budget, which is the Annual Plan budget figures,

·      Full Year (FY) Projection, which is the Annual Plan Budget figures plus the carry forward, and forecast adjustments.

4.   Phasing of budgets occurs in the first two months of the financial year, at forecasting and when one-off costs have actually occurred. This should reduce the number of variance explanations due to timing.

5.   Where phasing of budgets has not occurred, one twelfth of annual budgeted cost is used to calculate the monthly budget.

6.   Southland District Council summary reports use a materiality threshold to measure, monitor and report on financial performance and position of the Council.  The materiality threshold adopted by Council, together with annual budget for 2019/2020 is variances more or less than 10% of the original adopted budget and greater than $10,000 in value.

7.   Report Contents:

A.  Council Monthly Summary

B.  Council Summary Report - Income and Expenditure and Commentary

C.  Statement of Comprehensive Income

D.  Statement of Financial Position and Movement Commentary

E.  Statement of Cash Flows.


 

Abbreviation Explanation

Abbreviation

Description

AP

Annual Plan

CAPEX

Capital Expenditure

ELT

Executive Leadership Team

FYB

Full Year Budget

GDC

Gore District Council

GIS

Geographic Information System

GMSE

GeoMedia Smart Client

GST

Goods and Services Tax

ICC

Invercargill City Council

LED

Light Emitting Diode

LTP

Long Term Plan

ME

Month End

NZTA

New Zealand Transport Authority

SDC

Southland District Council

SIESA

Stewart Island Electricity Supply Authority

YE

Year End

YTD

Year To Date

YTD Variance

Comparison of actual results compared to YTD budget

$M

Millions of dollars

 


 

A.   Council Monthly Summary

1.      Income

Operating Income is $761K (1%) under projection for YTD ($55.3M actual vs $56M projected).

 

Overall, revenue is generally on track with projection. Roading and Footpaths is under projection by $601,198 (4%) due to the timing of works occurred, therefore NZTA income is $733K under projection as well as Transit recoveries $89K under projection.


 

2.      Expenditure

Operating Expenditure is $2.8M (5%) under projection for the YTD ($55.9M actual vs $58.7M projection).

Community Services operating expenditure is $420,741 (6%) under YTD projection.

·    Cemeteries is $78,533 (39%) under projection, whilst most budgets are under spent within this activity the largest items are interment costs at $28,000, however maintenance is also underspent due to the time of the year and the prolonged wet period.

·    Community Centres is $73,821 (16%) under projection. This is spread across the majority of the halls and is due to the non-Council owned halls who have not uplifted their rates.

·    Council Facilities is $48,253 (3%) under projection due to maintenance for the Invercargill office, this is due to impending decisions that will be made by Council on the future of the building.  The maintenance for the Te Anau office is also under projection as Council is yet to invoice for work completed that will bring the expenditure back in line.

·    Grants and Donations is $37,183 (4%) under projection, many of the grants are paid out at the beginning of the year and then the others in February in the next year, so there are always variances in the YTD.

·    Library Service is $100,164 (10%) under projection, related to staff vacancies, additionally a number of budget lines that need to be phased to later in the year (Online Databases, Internet Expenses).

·    SIESA is $78,318 (7%) under projection.  Management fees and fuel charges projection were increased during the October forecasting round and actuals have come in lower than projected. Depreciation charges are also lower than projection as a number of capital works have not been undertaken in prior years.      

 

 

District Leadership operating expenditure is $1,944,112 (9%) under YTD projection, this is mainly due to:

®  Communications and Engagements is $91,817 (15%) under projected spend due to the timing of project work undertaken.

®  Information Management being $262,156 (15%) under projected spend due to a reduction in staff due to staff vacancies ($150K). We are projecting to be under projection at year end, additionally the funding of the Go Get project is also under projected by $100K. This will be phased and we are on track to be on projection by year end.

®  Milford Opportunities Project being $455,202 (98%) under projected spend. We are currently working through the contract with the consultant team to undertake the work.  This will mean an intensive first six months of work so there will be significant expenditure before the end of the 2019/2020 financial year.

®  Council and Councillors is $60,942 (9%) under projected spend. This will be fully spent as the year progresses as we have increased remuneration for both Councillors and community board members.

®  Strategy and Communication is $201,528 (7%) under projected spend. The expenditure in this activity is a direct charge through from the activities discussed elsewhere in this report. The activities that contribute to this are financial services, people and capability, property and spatial services, knowledge management, communications and engagement, engineering administration and engineering consultants.

Roading and Footpaths operating expenditure is $391,424 (2%) under YTD projection, with the main contributor being:

®  Roading –Administration is $200,397 (39%) under projection, of which $133K relates to higher level recoverable work. This is due to the timing of billing between Contractors and SDC.

®  Roading – District Wide is $153,536 (1%) under projection due to timing of sealed road maintenance works ($210K) particular around stabilisation and digout works due to wetter weather conditions.

3.      Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)

Capital Expenditure is $7.4M (35%) under projection year to date ($13.8M actual vs $21.3M projection).

Solid Waste is $27,590 (100%) over projection due to the additional wheelie bins that have been supplied this year.

Community Services is $135,905 (16%) under projection due to:

·    Library Service being $48,936 (33%) under projection which has been caused mainly book releases over the pre-Christmas period.

 

·    Public Conveniences $84,379 (19%) under projection due to the projects continuing at Monkey Island, Clifden Bridge and Waikawa from the previous financial year. Council have received the final archaeological assessment for the Monkey Island project. We are now in a position to apply to Heritage New Zealand for approval to continue with this project. There is a 20 working day on processing these applications so we are on track to complete the work by the end of the financial year.

District Leadership is $249,698 (25%) under YTD projection. Information Management is $257,714 (28%) under projection due to how the original budget was phased compared to the timing of expenditure.  Work is ongoing on major capital items like the Core System Review project (GoGet Electronic Building Processing, RM8 and Pathway Integration) and Infrastructure Upgrade project (End User Hardware).

Roading and Footpaths is $1,522,354 (18%) under YTD projection.

®  Roading - District Wide is $1,162,228 (15%) under projection with sealed road resurfacing being ($402K) under projected spend. This activity is very weather dependent. Sealed road levels of services is also $147K under projected spend due to timing of finalising land legislation of the alternative coast route project. Traffic services is renewal is $128K under projected spend. This is largely due to pavement marking which has slowed right up during January. Minor improvement works is $383K under projected spend due to the delays with the seal widening project along Fortrose Otara.

®  Streetworks is $258,152 (47%) under projection which is made up of various community projects that are behind project schedule, these have been forecasted to be completed by 30 June.

Wastewater is $4,297,064 (51%) under YTD projection, this is largely due to the delay in construction associated with the Te Anau wastewater project consenting and the regional desludging work. Whilst the desludging work is likely to be recovered this financial year, Te Anau wastewater delays are unlikely to be recovered. This will be further forecasted through the February re-forecasting round with limited work expected to be undertaken on the disposal field and membrane filtrations process.

Water Supply is $1,153,244 (71%) under projection, due to Otautau water renewal works have commenced in January, we are projected for works to be completed under projection, Te Anau water main renewal work will start in March and we are also expecting to complete the works under projection which has been forecasted for in February.

 


 

B.      Council Summary Report                                                                                    

Activities reporting under Groups listed:

Community Services

District Leadership

Regulatory Services

Community Assistance

Representation and Advocacy

Building Control

Parks and Reserves

Community Development

Resource Management

Cemeteries

District Support

Animal Control

Community Facilities

Corporate Support

Environmental Health

Community Groups

Forestry

 

Library Services

 

 

Public Toilets

 

 

Airports

 

 

Electricity Supply

 

 


 

C.      Statement of Comprehensive Income

Note:  The presentation of the statement of comprehensive income aligns with Council’s annual report. The annual report is based on national approved accounting standards. These standards require us to eliminate internal transactions. Council is also required to report by activities. A number of Council functions relate to a number of activities, eg, finance. To share these costs, an internal transaction is generated between the finance business unit and the activity business units. Within the annual report, Council also prepare Activity Funding Impact Statements. These statements are prepared under the Financial Reporting and Prudence Regulations 2014. This regulation requires internal charges and overheads recovered be disclosed separately. The Council summary report is a summary of what these Activity Funding Impact Statements will disclose for income and expenditure at year end.

The result of this is that the revenue and expenditure in the Comprehensive Income Statement does not reconcile to the total income and total expenditure reported in the Council summary report on page 13 due to the elimination of the internal transactions. However, the net surplus/deficit (as per the Council summary report) matches the total comprehensive income (as per the Statement of Comprehensive Income). 

 


 

D.   Statement of Financial Position

Council’s financial position as at 31 January 2020 is detailed below.  The balance sheet below only includes Southland District Council and SIESA financials. This means that the balance sheet for 30 June 2019 differs from the published annual report which includes Venture Southland financials.

F.        Statement of Cash Flows


 

Cash and Cash Equivalents and Other Financial Assets

1.   At 31 January 2020, Council had $9M invested in three term deposits ranging from one to three month maturities as follows:

At 31 January 2020, SIESA had $1.57M invested in five term deposits as follows:

2.   Funds on Call at 31 January 2020:

Council’s Investment and Liability Policy states that Council can invest no more than $10M with one bank. Investments and Funds on Call, comply with the SDC Investment Policy.


Council

4 March 2020

 

Unbudgeted Expenditure - Lumsden Watermain Replacement

Record No:             R/20/2/4811

Author:                      Joe Findley, Projects Manager

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek unbudgeted expenditure for the replacement of a section of water main within the Lumsden-Balfour water scheme.

Executive Summary

2        This report provides context regarding a proposal to replace a section of 150mm asbestos watermain which is the main water supply pipe for the Lumsden Township. The existing watermain has experienced three major breaks between November 2019 and February 2020, due in most part to poor ground conditions and poor pipe condition.

3        The proposed replacement is to construct a 410 meter 150mm HDPE pipeline, and associated fittings along a new alignment through private land. The landowner is in agreement with the proposal and a price for the works has been provided by Downer Ltd, Council 3 Waters Contractor.

4        To undertake this works, the report seeks approval from Council for unbudgeted expenditure for a total amount of $115,000.00 excluding GST.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Unbudgeted Expenditure - Lumsden Watermain Replacement” dated 26 February 2020.

 

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 total unbudgeted expenditure of $115,000.00 excluding GST to construct 410 meters of 150mm diameter HDPE watermain on the Lumsden-Balfour water supply scheme.

 

e)            Approves the total unbudgeted expenditure amount of $115,000.00 excluding GST to be funded by a 30 year loan, from the district water supply rate.

 

Background

5        The Lumsden-Balfour water supply scheme was constructed throughout the 1970’s. It is one of Council’s largest water supply schemes in terms of volume and provides potable water to the Lumsden and Balfour townships and a large rural area surround the Balfour region.

6        The rising main for the scheme is a 200mm pipe which runs from the Lintley Road water treatment plant, along the east side of the Lumsden township then through private land to the main reservoir. There is a 150mm asbestos main which branches off this rising main to feed the town of Lumsden which was constructed in 1979. Further development was completed in 2007 with the installation of break pressure tanks to add further storage for the town, when the restricted supply was replaced with full mains supply.

Issues

7        The section of 150mm asbestos main that runs between the rising main and break pressure tanks, was installed along a paper road through a gully, next to a creek. The pipe was never properly bedded and was laid upon a rotten rock base. Further, most of the area has over time transformed into a willow grove which is water logged and inhibitive to access with machinery.

8        The absence of bedding material and the swampy ground conditions have caused the pipe condition to deteriorate faster than under best practice installation conditions. During the month of November 2019, this line experienced two significant bursts just outside of the willow grove area which resulted in a loss of water supply to Lumsden. The pipe burst again in early February delivering a similar result.

9        Following the two November repairs, Downer Ltd, Council’s 3 Waters Contractor, requested a site visit with Council representatives to discuss the significant risks posed by the poor condition of the line. It was highlighted to Council staff that the line was in a very bad condition and at risk of further bursts and that if the line were to burst within the willow grove that we may have significant difficulty locating where the burst was.

10      Given that the pipeline is the only feed for the Lumsden Township it is assessed as being a critical piece of infrastructure. If it were to burst in a location that was inaccessible or difficult to locate due to the wet nature of the area, an emergency over ground main may have to be installed to keep water up to the town while the burst was located and repaired. Such a scenario would likely come at a high financial cost to Council.

11      Given the above, the proposed replacement is to construct a 410 meter 150mm HDPE pipeline, and associated fittings along a new alignment in the private land portion. The landowner is in agreement with the proposal and a price for the works has been provided by Downer Ltd, Council 3 Waters Contractor.

12      The existing pipeline alignment is through a mix of private land and unformed road reserve (Paper Road). Given the unsuitability of the existing alignment to construct a replacement pipeline, Council staff met with the landowner to discuss a new alignment within his property. The landowner is satisfied with the proposed alignment and a landowner agreement is being drafted for both Council and the Landowner to sign regarding the assets which are currently and are proposed to be on his property.

13      To undertake this works, the report seeks approval from Council for unbudgeted expenditure for a total amount of $115,000.00 excluding GST.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

14      This project is being undertaken in accordance with the statutory processes and to fulfil Council’s statutory obligations set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

15      A landowner agreement is being drafted following verbal approval from the landowner to install the pipe through a new alignment through his land.

 

Community Views

16      While it was envisaged that the project be included as an Annual Plan staff submission for 2020/2021, the break which occurred in February has prompted this report for unbudgeted expenditure. Subsequently, no community consultation has occurred due to the required urgency of the work.

Costs and Funding

17      Following the site visit with Downer Ltd, Council staff requested a price from Downer to undertake the replacement works of 410m of 150mm HDPE watermain and associated fittings. The price submitted by Downer Ltd for the works is $103,901.00 excluding GST. A total budget amount of $115,000.00 is requested to cover any contingent sums which may be required as the project progresses.

18      It is proposed the total unbudgeted project amount of $115,000.00 excluding GST is funded via loan from the district wastewater rate.

19      There is no current budget available within the current 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, and this report seeks approval from Council for the total unbudgeted expenditure amount of $115,000.00 excluding GST to replace the 410m section of watermain.

20      Wastewater capital work in the Long Term Plan is primarily funded by a 30 year loan repaid through the district wastewater rate. It is proposed that this pipe replacement is funded in the same manner.

21      Funding the $115,000 through a 30 year loan, results in an additional rates required of $7,128 (excluding GST) per annum in 2019/2020 to 2021/2022. This is an additional $0.88 (excluding GST) per rating unit or 0.23% of the water supply rate for 2019-2020 set at $386.36 (excluding GST). This is an additional $1.01 per rating unit including GST.

 

Policy Implications

22      There is no current project outlined within Council’s current 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, and this reports seeks unbudgeted expenditure approval from Council to undertake this activity.

Analysis

Options Considered

23      The following three options have been considered, and are as outlined below.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Construct new 410 meter150mm diameter HDPE pipeline including all required valves and link-ins.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Increased confidence in the robustness of the new line

·        No disruptions to the water supply for the Lumsden Township and subsequent reduced risk of non-compliance with Public Health requirements for the continual supply of potable water to dwellings

·        Replacement of an ageing asset in poor condition

·        Unbudgeted expenditure required to the value of $115,000.00

 


 

Option 2 – Add project to construct new 410 meter150mm diameter HDPE pipeline including all required valves and link-ins as a staff submission to the annual plan for 2020/2021

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Offset of costs in the short term

·        No requirement for unbudgeted expenditure

·        Continued high risk of mains bursts resulting in interuptions to water supply for Lumsden

·        Risk of contamination of water supply if burst occurs within water logged willow grove, with ground water entering water pipe

·        Possible case for Downer to seek to recover costs of continued and frequent repair

 

Option 3 – Do Nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No requirement for unbudgeted expenditure

·        Continued high risk of mains bursts resulting in interuptions to water supply for Lumsden

·        Risk of contamination of water supply if burst occurs within water logged willow grove, with ground water entering water pipe

·        Possible case for Downer to seek to recover costs of continued and frequent repair

 

Assessment of Significance

24      This project is not deemed of significance as per Council’s current significance policy.

Recommended Option

25      It is recommended that Option 1 of this report, to construct new 410 meter 150mm diameter HDPE pipeline including all required valves and link-ins, is undertaken.

Next Steps

26      If Council is to approve the unbudgeted expenditure of $115,000.00 excluding GST, it is recommended to award the works to Downer Ltd.

27      Downer Ltd have a minor capex agreement with Council to undertake works under $50,000.00 on a direct engagement basis, as part of their current 3 Water contract. The rates that Downer Ltd submitted for this project have been compared to other rates received for similar projects which were open tendered within the past three months. The Downer rates would be regarded as competitive on the open market and given the urgency of this project based on the possible risks, it would be recommended to proceed with price that Downer Ltd submitted.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

  


Council

4 March 2020

 

Local Governance Statement 2019 - 2022 Triennium

Record No:             R/20/2/4157

Author:                      Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of the report is to present to Council for adoption the Local Governance Statement for Southland District Council for the 2019 – 2022 triennium.

Executive Summary

2        Section 40 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to make publicly available a Local Governance Statement providing up to date information about the governance structure and management of Council.

3        The document contains information about the governance structure and management of Council to assist in enabling the public and interested parties to participate in local government and representation matters.

4        The statement is required to be prepared and made publicly available within six months following the triennial local authority elections.

5        Council’s Local Governance Statement has been reviewed and updated for the 2019 – 2022 triennium and is now presented to Council for adoption.  

 

Recommendation

That  Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Local Governance Statement 2019 - 2022 Triennium” dated 26 February 2020.

 

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, pursuant to Section 40 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Governance Statement for the 2019 – 2022 triennium as attached to this report.

 

e)            Agrees to make the Local Governance Statement publicly available as required by the Local Government Act 2002.

 

f)             Delegates to the chief executive officer the authority to update the Local Governance Statement as necessary and appropriate during the 2019 – 2022 triennium to ensure it is current and accurate.  

 

Background

6        Council is required to observe and maintain certain governance principles.  Among other things, these require Council to ensure that the role of democratic governance of the community and the expected conduct of elected members is clear and understood by elected members and the community and ensure that the governance structures and processes are effective, open and transparent.

7        As part of fulfilling these principles Council is required to prepare and publish a Local Governance Statement.   

Issues

8        Councils have been preparing Local Governance Statements since 2003 and is required to update it every three years following the triennial elections. The information contained in the attached statement brings together in one document information held by Council in a variety of sources.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9        As noted earlier this is a statutory requirement under section 40 (2) of the Local Government Act 2002.  This statement will be placed on Council’s website and make copies available at Council offices/libraries.  This will fulfil the requirements of the act. 

Community Views

10      No specific community views were sought in preparing the Local Governance Statement.  The statement provides information to the public as to how they can connect and engage with Council.

Costs and Funding

11      The costs associated with the production of the Local Governance Statement have been met from budgets. 

Policy Implications

12      There are no policy implications associated with the preparation of the Local Governance Statement.  If changes are made to any of the governance arrangements referred to in the statement, the statement can be updated accordingly to reflect the changes.  

Analysis

Options Considered

13      The options considered are either to prepare and adopt or not prepare and adopt the Local Governance Statement for the 2019 – 2022 triennium.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Prepare and adopt the Local Governance Statement

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        fulfils the statutory requirements in the Local Government Act 2002

·        demonstrates good governance and management practice

·        supports community participation in local governance and local government activity

·        no disadvantages

 

Option 2 – Not prepare and adopt the Local Governance Statement

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        no advantages

·        does not fulfil the statutory requirements in the Local Government Act 2002

·        does not demonstrate good governance and management practice

·        does not support community participation in local governance and local government activity

 

Assessment of Significance

14      The Local Governance Statement preparation and adoption is not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

Recommended Option

15      Prepare and adopt the Local Governance Statement as attached.

Next Steps

16      If Council adopts the Statement it will be made publicly available. 

 

Attachments

a             Local Governance Statement 2019-2022    

 


Council

04 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

4 March 2020

 

Predator Free Rakiura - Project Update

Record No:             R/20/2/4833

Author:                      Scott Dickson, Graduate Planner

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update about the Predator Free Rakiura (PFR) project.

Executive Summary

2        The Predator Free Rakiura Leadership Group (PFR LG) was created in 2014 as an inter-agency initiative to progress the goal of achieving and maintaining predator free status for Stewart Island/Rakiura.

3        Council has been a participant in the PFR project since the establishment of the project in 2014.  The formalisation of future direction and relationships via a Memorandum of Understanding was viewed by the PFR LG as a key component of moving forward.  All agencies represented on the PFR LG signed a Memorandum of Understanding in July 2019.

4        In 2017 an application was prepared to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for $100,000 excluding GST of funding for the creation of a Project Manager position for PFR.  The application was successful, and Bridget Carter, a Rakiura resident and experienced environmental manager, was appointed to this role in mid-2018, with Southland District Council acting as her employer.

5        Bridget Carter, on behalf of the PFR LG, seeks to provide Council with a project update.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Predator Free Rakiura - Project Update” dated 26 February 2020.

 

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.

 

 


 

Background

6        The following agencies are represented on the leadership group:

Community representatives (2)

Stewart Island/Rakiura aquaculture and fishing interests

Awarua Runanga

Oraka Aparima Runanga

Waihopai Runanga

Hokonui Runanga

Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu

Rakiura Maori Lands Trust

Rakiura Titi Islands administering body

Rakiura Titi Committee

Department of Conservation

Environment Southland

Real Journeys

New Zealand Deerstalkers Association

Southland District Council

7        Strong inter-agency collaboration has developed in the PFR LG. There is valuable representation and commitment from Runanga towards the outcomes sought by the project. Council is represented by the group manager environmental services, Fran Mikulicic, and resource management planner, Scott Dickson, as alternate.

8        The project has received, and continues to receive, very strong technical and leadership support from DOC throughout. Paul Norris from Real Journeys is the current chair of the PFR LG and brings his wealth of sector and community knowledge to this role.

9        Previous consultation processes undertaken on Rakiura have demonstrated strong community support for progressing predator free and biodiversity enhancement opportunities as a key component of securing the environmental, cultural and socio-economic future of the community.

10      The PFR LG will continue to progress the project going forward, and consider it appropriate to provide a project update to the Southland District Councillors at this time.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

   

 


Council

04 March 2020

 

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 Otago/Southland Three Waters Investigation: Information for Councils

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

Otago/Southland Three Waters Investigation: Information for Councils

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.

 

    s



[1] Pg 182-187 NPSIB Section 32 Evaluation and CBA October 2019

[2] Pg 81-83 Discussion document on a proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, MfE, November 2019