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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 21 October 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

 

Interim Chief Executive

Ross McNeil

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

21 October 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         Draft Significance and Engagement Policy - Consultation                                                       7

7.2         Draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions - Consultation                  45

7.3         Draft Procurement Policy - Consultation                                                                                       119

7.4         Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and Rating Review                                                       149

7.5         Integrated management under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management                                                                                                                                                   259

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Request for unbudgeted expenditure approval for the concrete footpath installation on Main Road Oban, from Department of Conservation to Dundee Street.             281

8.2         Unbudgeted Expenditure - Don Street Dark Fibre Connection                                        289

8.3         Projects from 2019/2020 to be carried forward into the 2020/2021 financial year 297

8.4         Approval of Scope for Preparation of Community Housing Business Case and Unbudgeted Expenditure for the Project.                                                                                     311

8.5         Monthly Financial Report - August 2020                                                                                        329

8.6         Management Report                                                                                                                                   345

Reports - Governance

9.1         Schedule of Meetings for 2021 up to 8 October 2022                                                              361   

Public Excluded

Nil

 

 


Council

21 October 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 12noon at least one clear day 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, 29 September 2020


Council

21 October 2020

 

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy - Consultation

Record No:             R/20/9/51165

Author:                      Carrie Adams, Intermediate Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present the draft Significance and Engagement Policy (the ‘draft policy), for Council to endorse for public consultation.

Executive Summary

2        The Significance and Engagement Policy enables Council and its communities to identify the degree of significance attached to particular matters, and it provides clarity about how and when communities will be engaged.  The current policy is included with this report as Attachment A.

3        Only minor changes have been made to the draft policy, which is included with this report as Attachment B.

4        Feedback regarding the draft policy was received from the Community & Strategy Committee (the committee) at its 9 September 2020 meeting.  This report discusses the points that were raised and the options as to how to Council could proceed.  

5        If approved, it is intended that the draft policy will be consulted on in accordance with s.82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).  This will be done via a process which will be run concurrently with the consultation for a number of Council policies from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Significance and Engagement Policy - Consultation” dated 14 October 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 that the following strategic assets be listed in the draft Significance and Engagement Policy:

·     roading and bridge network as a whole 

·     Around the Mountain Cycle Trail as a whole 

·     water treatment plants and reticulation networks as a whole

·     township wastewater treatment plants and reticulation networks as a whole

·     township stormwater reticulation networks as a whole

·     portfolio of District reserves (parks/reserves)

·     Stewart Island Electricity Supply Authority.

 

e)            Endorses one of the following options:

I.       Option 1 – endorses and releases the draft Significance and Engagement Policy for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

II.      Option 2 – that Council delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

 

 

Background

6        The current Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted in 2017 as per the requirements of the LGA.  The policy is reviewed every three years in the lead up to the release of the Long Term Plan (LTP).  

7        The LGA provides a degree of flexibility on how and when councils consult on a range of matters outlined in the LGA. A significance and engagement policy is the partner to that flexibility, in that the policy must advise the public of a council’s ‘house rules’ – that is how a council will utilise the flexibility.

8        Part of the policy involves determining the significance attached to particular matters. Significance is a continuum – ranging from the day to day matters with a low impact, right up to those matters with a very high level of impact and significance.  How Council assesses significance, and how it determines what matters are significant, is important because it will drive how Council makes decisions, and what analysis, written records and engagement is required by Council.

9        The policy also provides guidance to staff and the community on how and when community views will be sought. When Council takes steps to identify the views and preferences held by people in the community, this will often be through an engagement process. Engagement is a wider concept than consultation. Consultation is just one of a suite of tools for engaging with the community.

Issues

Strategic assets

10      Under s.76AA of the LGA, a significance and engagement policy is required to list the assets considered by a council to be strategic assets

11      The definition of a strategic asset in the LGA requires that it be something that is needed for the delivery of an outcome that Council considers important for the wellbeing of the community (s.5(1) LGA).  Council has some discretion to determine what it considers its strategic assets.  Review of this policy is an opportunity to assess the current list and decide whether it would like to add, or remove, items.

12      The list of strategic assets in the draft policy currently includes:

•      roading and bridge network as a whole

•      Around the Mountain Cycle Trail network as a whole

•      water treatment plants and reticulation networks as a whole

•      township wastewater treatment plants and reticulation networks as a whole

•      township stormwater reticulation networks as a whole

•      portfolio of District reserves (parks/reserves) as a whole

•      Stewart Island Electricity Supply Authority

•      Te Anau Airport at Manapouri

•      community housing as a whole.

13      The effect of an asset being identified as strategic, is that a decision to transfer the ownership or control of these assets must be explicitly provided for in Council’s LTP (LGA s.97(1)(b)).  The proposal for the decision to transfer ownership or control of the strategic asset must also be explicitly included in the LTP consultation document (LGA s.97(2)(b)). 

14      The implication of this is that whilst it ensures that community engagement is sought along with other LTP related issues, there may be a cost and delay involved in ensuring that such decision making is aligned with the LTP process, or the cost of an LTP amendment.     

15      The wording ‘as a whole’ has been included in the description of a strategic asset in the draft policy.  This language permits the opportune purchase, replacement, sale or other dealings with components of a strategic asset, outside of the LTP process.  Where a strategic asset is a network or has many components, decisions can be made on individual components within the network.    

16      If an asset is not considered strategic, any proposal to transfer ownership would be assessed for significance, using the draft policy.  If such a proposal met the threshold for high significance, engagement at the higher end of the spectrum identified in the draft policy would be necessary.  This includes the requirement to seek community views.  The robust nature of the draft policy ensures that relevant factors are considered when assessing an issue for significance, and that consequently, appropriate community engagement tools are then utilised.    

Consideration of assets

17      The purpose of the tables below are to provide information for Council, in order to determine whether an asset should be identified as a strategic asset in the draft policy.

TABLE 1: ROADING AND BRIDGE NETWORK AS A WHOLE

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

It was raised at the committee meeting that this asset is particularly important due to the District’s geographic disparity and the reliance of primary sector on the roading/bridge network.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Signals Council’s understanding of the importance of the roading/bridge network to the District’s wellbeing.

If transfer of the asset were contemplated, Council would be required to plan and engage with the community through the LTP process.  

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

None identified; it is unlikely that Council would contemplate transfer of ownership or control of this network as a whole. 

Staff recommendation

Remain as strategic asset.

 

TABLE 2: AROUND THE MOUNTAIN CYCLE TRAIL NETWORK AS A WHOLE

Currently a strategic asset?

No

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

The committee provided feedback that it would like this asset to be included as a strategic asset, so staff have made this minor change.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Shows Council’s commitment to delivery of the Around the Mountain Cycle Trail.  

If transfer of the asset were contemplated, Council would be required to plan and engage with the community through the LTP process.  

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

If transfer of this asset was contemplated, Council is bound by the timing of the LTP process, or the additional cost of pursuing an LTP amendment. 

Staff recommendation

List as a strategic asset.

 

TABLE 3: THREE WATERS NETWORKS:

WATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND RETICULATION NETWORKS AS A WHOLE
TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND RETICULATION NETWORKS AS A WHOLE
TOWNSHIP STORMWATER RETICULATION NETWORKS AS A WHOLE

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of these networks as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of these networks must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

Commonly included as strategic assets by other councils.

Changes to service delivery of Three Waters services in the future may involve transfer of control or ownership of these assets.  If transfer of ownership or control of any of these networks as a whole were contemplated through the Three Waters review, it is considered that legislation would be enacted by Parliament to enable this process.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Signals Council’s understanding of the importance of provision of Three Waters services to the District’s wellbeing.

If transfer of the asset were contemplated, Council would be required to plan, and engage with the community through the LTP process.  

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

None identified.

Staff recommendation

Remain as strategic asset. 

 

TABLE 4: PORTFOLIO OF DISTRICT RESERVES (PARKS/RESERVES) AS A WHOLE

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

There are five District reserves, 151 local reserves and 40 playgrounds in the District.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Signals Council’s understanding of the importance of parks and reserves to the District’s wellbeing.

If transfer of the asset were contemplated, Council would be required to plan, and engage with the community through the LTP process.  

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

None identified; it is unlikely that Council would contemplate transfer of ownership or control of this network as a whole.

Staff recommendation

Remain as strategic asset.

 

TABLE 5: STEWART ISLAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AUTHORITY

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

It is anticipated that the 2021-31 LTP will consider the need to review the management, funding and delivery of this activity. 

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Delivery of electricity to Stewart Island is important to the island’s wellbeing.

If transfer of the asset were contemplated, Council would be required to plan, and engage with the community through the LTP process.

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

If alternative energy sources/arrangements are contemplated that involve transfer of this asset, there may be cost implications involved with ensuring that the timing aligns with the LTP process, or an LTP amendment.

Staff recommendation

Remain as strategic asset.

 

TABLE 6: COMMUNITY HOUSING AS A WHOLE

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

Current inclusion in the policy may be due to a restrictive interpretation of the LGA definition of strategic asset which includes, “any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy” (s.5(1)).  As Council does not have a social policy under which it is obligated to provide affordable housing, it does not have a responsibility to provide housing under this definition. 

It is therefore open to Council to identify whether it considers the community housing activity as a strategic asset.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Provides historical consistency.

Signals that Council views community housing as essential to the delivery of an outcome it considers important. 

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

Council has requested a business case outlining the future of the provision of community housing.  Council should consider whether the obligation to provide for the transfer of ownership or control of this asset as a whole in the LTP may be an impediment to its effective management.  

If proposals are contemplated that involve transfer of this asset, there may be cost implications involved with ensuring that the timing aligns with the LTP process, or an LTP amendment.   

Staff recommendation

Remove from list of strategic assets.  Given the additional obligation to anticipate the transfer or control of a strategic asset as a whole explicitly in its LTP, Council should be cautious when considering whether the designation of ‘strategic’ is warranted and provides for the best management of this asset. 

 

TABLE 7: TE ANAU AIRPORT AT MANAPOURI

Currently a strategic asset?

Yes

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

The LGA requires that councils must list any equity securities that it holds in an airport company as a strategic asset (s.5(1)).

The Te Anau Airport at Manapouri does not fall into this category, therefore it is open to Council to consider whether it would like to list it as a strategic asset.  

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

Shows Council’s commitment to delivery of an airport service for Fiordland.

Provides historical consistency.

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

If proposals are contemplated that involved transfer of this asset, there may be cost implications involved with ensuring that the timing aligns with the LTP process, or an LTP amendment.

Staff recommendation

Remove from list of strategic assets.  Given the additional obligation to anticipate the transfer or control of a strategic asset as a whole explicitly in its LTP, Council should be cautious when considering whether the designation of ‘strategic’ is warranted and provides for the best management of this asset.       

 

TABLE 8: STEWART ISLAND JETTIES

Currently a strategic asset?

No. 

Effect of being a strategic asset

Ownership or control of network as a whole may not be transferred without explicit provision in LTP.

Proposal for a decision to transfer ownership or control of the network must be included in the LTP consultation document.

Additional considerations relevant to this asset

It was discussed by the committee whether it would be appropriate to identify Stewart Island jetties as a strategic asset.

The Stewart Island jetties form only one part of the water facilities activity in the District.  This activity also includes 10 boat ramps, two retaining walls, a navigation aid, swimming pontoon and viewing platform.  It would be inconsistent to identify one part of this activity as a strategic.

Advantages of inclusion as strategic asset

It would indicate that Council views the jetties as important to the delivery of an outcome that Council considers key to the wellbeing of the community. 

Disadvantages of identification as strategic asset

It would be inconsistent to identify part of this activity as a strategic asset, and exclude other jetties, boat ramps, etc. in the District.

If proposals are contemplated that involved transfer of this asset, there may be cost implications involved with ensuring that the timing aligns with the LTP process, or an LTP amendment.

Staff recommendation

Do not include in the list of strategic assets. Whilst it is unlikely that Council would contemplate transfer of ownership or control of Stewart Island jetties as a whole, it is inconsistent to treat some of the District’s water facilities as strategic assets, and not others.

Given the additional obligation to anticipate the transfer or control of a strategic asset explicitly in its LTP, Council should be cautious when considering whether the designation of ‘strategic’ is warranted and provides for the best management of this asset.  

 

Proposed changes

18      The proposed changes to the current policy are minor and include:

•      clarification of the factors used to assess the significance of an issue

•      revision of engagement with iwi/Māori provisions

•      terminology and legislative references updates

•      removal of reference to community development area subcommittees

•      formatting of the engagement spectrum approach table to make it more user friendly.

19      Changes as an outcome of discussion at the Community and Strategy Committee meeting on 9 September are listed in the following table:

TABLE 8: MINOR CHANGES PROPOSED AS A RESULT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AND STRATEGY COMMITTEE

Section of draft policy

Draft policy presented to the committee on 9 September 2020

Proposed change as a result of feedback from the committee

Part 3, page 2

“the financial and non-financial costs and implications of the issue, decision or proposal, having regard to the capacity of Council to performs its role.

“the financial and non-financial costs and implications of the issue, decision or proposal on Council’s capability and capacity having regard to the capacity of Council to performs its role.”

Part 3, page 3

“When determining the significance of a matter that could have a high level of significance, it is recommended that Council staff discuss the importance of the matter with our iwi partners.”

“When determining the significance of a matter that could have a high level of significance, it is recommended that Council staff will discuss the importance of the matter with our iwi partners.”

page 6

It is important that Council does not use a homogenous approach

It is important that Council does not use a ‘one size fits all’ approach

 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

20      Under s.76AA of the LGA, a significance and engagement policy is required to outline:

•      Council’s general approach to determining significance

•      any criteria or procedures that are to be used by Council in assessing extent to which matters are significant or may have significant consequences

•      how Council will respond to community preferences about engagement, including the form of consultation that may be desirable

•      how Council will engage with communities on other matters.

21      As discussed above, significance and engagement policies also must list the assets considered by councils to be strategic assets.

22      Section 79 of the LGA enables Council to exercise its discretion about how to comply with certain decision-making requirements in ss.77 and 78 of the LGA, in proportion to the significance of the matter or decision. The requirements include:

•      the degree to which Council identifies and assesses options in respect of each decision or matter (including the identification of costs and benefits)

•      the extent and detail of any information to be considered

•      the extent and nature of any written record to be kept of the decision.

23      How a council assesses the significance of a matter can be challenged. The courts may (and in the past have) overturned council decisions for non-compliance with a council’s own policy. In the event a council wanted to make a decision that would be contrary to its significance and engagement policy, it may do so, provided it follows a process set out in s.80 of the LGA.

Community Views

24      It is proposed that Council will undertake consultation on the draft policy in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

25      Council will make the draft policy and relevant information publicly available (in accordance with s.82A of the LGA), and encourage people to give feedback on Council’s ‘make it stick’ platform, by:

•      placing an advertisement in the Ensign and Southland Express

•      promoting the consultation on Council’s Facebook page

•      having the draft policy accessible on Council’s website and at all of its offices

•      encouraging community boards to make a submission.

26      It is proposed that this consultation process be run parallel to other Council policies: the Revenue and Finance Policy, Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy, the Procurement Policy and the Policy on Development and Financial Contributions

27     The consultation process proposed will allow Council to consider community views regarding this policy.

Costs and Funding

28      There will only be minor costs associated with progressing the draft policy through the consultation process, including the costs associated with staff time and advertising. These costs will be met within current budgets.

Policy Implications

29      If adopted, it is likely that Council will reach similar conclusions on the level of significance of particular matters, and that community engagement will occur with similar frequency and in similar form, to what is done currently.

Analysis

Options Considered

30      There are two options for consideration in this report:

•      option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

•      option 2 - that Council delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy for consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        enables Council to capture community views on the draft policy

·        the draft policy has been updated

·        achieves legislative compliance.

·        no known disadvantages.

 

Option 2 – that Council propose a different way forward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give further clarity on councillors’ views regarding the policy.

·        will be difficult to complete review of the policy prior to 2021-31 LTP consultation.

 

Assessment of Significance

31      It has been identified that this matter is of lower significance in relation to the current Significance and Engagement Policy.  No major changes are proposed to the current policy. 

Recommended Option

32      It is recommended that Council proceed with option 1 and endorse the draft policy (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

Next Steps

33      If Council endorses the draft policy, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with s.82 of the LGA from 4 November to 4 December 2020. It is intended that the written submissions received will be presented to Council in early 2021.

34      If, after undertaking consultation, Council proceeds to adopt the draft policy, it will come into effect soon after adoption, in 2021.

35      If Council proposes a different way forward, staff will outline next steps in line with the approach taken.

 

Attachments

a             Current Significance and Engagement Policy

b             DRAFT Significance and Engagement Policy for Council 21 October 2020    

 


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 2020

 

Draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions - Consultation

Record No:             R/20/9/51775

Author:                      Carrie Adams, Intermediate Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present the draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions (the draft policy), for Council to endorse for consultation.

Executive Summary

2        Council has a combined policy that outlines the approach to both development and financial contributions. The current policy is included with this report as Attachment A.

3        Development contributions (DCs) are established under the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) and are a capital charge on development to recover a fair, equitable and proportionate share of the capital costs that development imposes on network/community infrastructure.  Financial contributions (FCs) are established under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) and are a capital charge for works undertaken to mitigate the environmental effects of subdivision, land use and development.

4        The draft policy is included with this report as Attachment B.  The draft policy is consistent with the current policy in that it puts the collection of DCs into remission on the basis that Council wants to encourage growth. The FC part of the policy is operative.

5        Only minor changes have been made to the draft policy. Data on projected population growth in the District has been updated to give a more accurate view of the likely growth. Minor changes have also been made to update legislation and dates. Schedules one and two have also been updated. These schedules outline the projects being undertaken over the period for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-31 that have a demand related component.

6        If Council endorses the draft policy and releases it for consultation, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with s.82 of the LGA from 8am on 4 November 2020 to 5pm on 4 December 2020.

7        If Council endorses the draft policy and releases it for consultation, it is recommended Council make a delegation to the chief executive, giving the chief executive the authority to approve minor amendments to the schedules in the draft policy, before the commencement of the public consultation period.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions - Consultation” dated 15 October 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)           Agrees to consider the draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions.

 

e)            Agrees to endorse and releases the draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions for consultation, in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, from 4 November 2020 to 4 December 2020.

 

f)             Agrees to delegate to the chief executive the authority to approve minor amendments to the schedules in the draft policy, before commencement of the public consultation period.

 

 

Background

8        Council currently has a combined policy on development and financial contributions.  For the 2015-25 LTP and the 2018-28 LTP, the DCs part of the policy was put into remission, so no DCs are currently being collected. Council agreed that not collecting DCs was appropriate as encouraging development in the District would result in benefits for the broader community. Council also recognised that when new developments occur, these often contribute significantly to ongoing community wellbeing and also contribute financially on an ongoing basis through rates.

9        If operative, in its current state, the Development and Financial Contributions Policy would allow DCs to be taken for water supply, wastewater and community facilities.  The FCs in the policy, which are collected through resource consents under the District Plan, currently apply in the District, and are taken for roading and reserves.

10      DCs and FCs have not been a significant revenue stream for Council. Approximately $57,000 of FCs have been collected since the current policy was adopted in 2018. While contributions do have the potential to be a useful funding source for some specific projects, the ability to realise that revenue is dependent on the economic cycle and trends in development and also what demand-related capital expenditure is carried out. 

11      It should also be noted that any DCs and FCs collected, which are not used for the specified purposes for which they were collected, must be returned within 10 years. For FCs, this only includes FCs collected under the provisions of the current District Plan. Under the previous District Plan, not all FCs included a time limit for return.

Issues

Having the DC part of the policy in remission

Requirement for growth

12      Section 197AB(a) of the LGA requires that DCs only be assessed for demand related expenditure.  As such, DCs should only be assessed where there is projected growth that is likely to increase demand for services/activities and where capital expenditure is planned to meet this additional demand. As was discussed at the LTP workshop held 24-25 August 2020, there is some population growth predicted in parts of the District over the period of the 2021-31 LTP, which may justify imposing DCs.

13      In order to justify imposing DCs, activity managers would also need to be planning capital expenditure related to growth.  This is the only type of expenditure that can be considered in the assessment of DCs (all operational costs, maintenance and overheads etc are excluded). As was outlined at the Council workshop in August, there are two projects planned that will have capital expenditure relating to growth, discussed in more detail below. 

Further legislative requirements

14      Council must also consider s.101(3)(a) of the LGA, when it determines the sources for expenditure requirements. This section states that funding needs to meet expenditure requirements, must be met from sources that Council determines to be appropriate, following a consideration of a number of matters. These factors include who is benefiting, and when the benefits are expected to occur. Council also must consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.

15      Council’s consideration of these matters, as it relates to the funding of capital expenditure, is outlined in the Revenue and Financing Policy.  The analysis contained in the Revenue and Financing Policy is also applicable to this policy.

Incorporating feedback from the 24-25 August 2020 LTP workshop

16      At the LTP workshop in August, councillors discussed that DCs may discourage new development and consequently impede or act as a barrier to new economic development. This was viewed as contrary to Council’s aspirations for encouraging growth. Councillors recognised that when new developments occur, these often contribute significantly to ongoing community wellbeing and also contribute financially on an ongoing basis through rates.  On this basis, councillors were keen to continue with the current approach of having the DC part of the policy in remission.

Changes included in the draft policy

17      Only minor changes have been made to the draft policy. Population projection data has been updated to try and give a current view on the likelihood of growth in the District. Minor changes have also been made to update legislation and dates.

18      Staff have also included in the schedules to the draft policy the projects being undertaken in the LTP 2021-31 that have a demand related component. Currently two demand related projects have been identified, the Te Anau wastewater and Riverton cemetery projects.  It is possible that additional projects and updated figures may be identified prior to the draft policy being released for consultation.  If Council endorses the draft policy as a whole now, staff would have to come back to Council again to amend the schedules.  To address this, staff recommend a delegation be made to the chief executive, to approve minor changes to the schedules, prior to the public consultation period.   

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19      Section 102 of the LGA requires that Council have a policy on DCs or FCs.

20      Section 106 of the LGA sets out the requirements of the policy. Sections 197-211 and Schedule 13 cover the application and calculation methodology related to contributions.

21      When developing a financial and development contributions policy, Council must consider a number of principles that are outlined in the LGA.  Section 197AB(a) outlines that DCs should only be required if developments will create or have created the need for Council to provide new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity.

22      Council must also consider the principle in s.197AB(c) of the LGA, which outlines that cost allocations used to establish DCs should be determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who created the need for those assets.

23      Council may review its position on contributions at any time, but is required do so no more than three years from the date on which it adopts an LTP. The policy therefore must be reviewed by June 2021.  The reason that review of this policy is occurring now, is so that decisions made as outcomes of the review process can inform the LTP 2021-31.

24      There is no legislative requirement for this policy to be included in the LTP.  The policy is required to be released for public consultation in compliance with s.82 of the LGA. 

Community Views

25      It is proposed that Council will undertake consultation on the draft policy in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

26      Council will make the draft policy and relevant information publicly available (in accordance with s.82A of the LGA), and encourage people to give feedback on Council’s ‘make it stick’ platform, by:

·            placing an advertisement in the Ensign and Southland Express

·            promoting the consultation on Council’s Facebook page

·            having the draft policy accessible on Council’s website and at all of its offices

·            encouraging community boards to make a submission.

27      It is proposed that this consultation process be run parallel to other Council policies: the Revenue and Finance Policy, the Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy, the Procurement Policy and the Significance and Engagement Policy

28     The consultation process proposed will allow Council to consider community views regarding this policy.

Costs and Funding

29     As the draft policy has the same approach to both DCs and FC as the current policy, the funding obtained through FCs is likely to be similar to what is currently collected. The revenue collected will be dependent on the economic cycle and trends in development.

30      There will only be minor costs associated with progressing the draft policy through the consultation process, including the costs associated with staff time and advertising. These costs will be met within current budgets.

Policy Implications

31     The draft policy would continue to have DCs in remission.  This means that if the draft policy is adopted, DCs will not be assessed when development takes place.

32     Continuing to have the DC part of the policy in remission would mean that the costs associated with demand are borne by ratepayers (and by those who have paid previous DCs).  However, Council has taken an approach that encourages development in Southland District, recognising that this will benefit the community as a whole.

Analysis

Options Considered

33      There are two options for consideration in this report:

·        option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

·        option 2 - that Council delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy for consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        captures community views on the draft policy

·        the draft policy has been updated

·        achieves legislative compliance

·        may encourage growth and development in Southland District, which would have wide public benefit.

·        by having the DC part of the policy in remission, it may frustrate some developers who have already paid DCs

·        Council may miss assessing DCs on a development

·        rate payers may not like bearing the cost of demand related expenditure.

 

Option 2 – that Council propose a different way forward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give further clarity on councillors’ views regarding the policy.

·        will be difficult to complete review of the policy prior to 2021-31 LTP consultation.

 

Assessment of Significance

34      It has been identified that this matter is of lower significance in relation to the Significance and Engagement Policy.  No major changes are proposed to the current policy.

Recommended Option

35      It is recommended that Council proceed with option 1 and endorse the draft policy (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with s.82 of the LGA.

Next Steps

36      If Council endorses the draft policy, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with s.82 of the LGA from 4 November to 4 December 2020. It is intended that the written submissions received will be presented to Council in early 2021.

37      If, after undertaking consultation, Council endorses the proposed changes in the draft policy, Council would then adopt the policy with it to come into effect soon after adoption, in 2021.

38      If Council proposes a different way forward, staff will outline next steps in line with the approach taken.

 

Attachments

a             Current Policy on Development and Financial Contributions

b             Draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions for Council 21 October 2020    

 


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 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

21 October 2020

 

Draft Procurement Policy - Consultation

Record No:             R/20/9/52878

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        This report recommends Council endorse a draft Procurement Policy (the draft policy) for public consultation.

Executive Summary

2        The current Procurement Policy was adopted in 2010 and is due for review.

3        Procurement includes all aspects of acquiring and delivering goods, services and works.

4        Staff have developed a draft policy that outlines a set of procurement policy objectives, and includes policy statements on how Council will achieve those objectives. The draft policy is included as Attachment A. The draft policy will be applied when any good, service or asset is actively being sought from a supplier.

5        The draft policy differs from the current policy as it only contains high level policy information, not the operational steps that staff must take to procure. Changes have also been made so the draft policy is more practical, and aligns to the Government Procurement Rules that came into effect in 2019.

6        To sit alongside the policy, staff have been developing a procurement manual that will include the practical steps that staff will have to go through to procure. Staff will ensure the manual implements the policy approach outlined in the final Procurement Policy. When it is complete, the manual will be presented to the Finance and Assurance Committee for endorsement.

7        The Finance and Assurance Committee (the committee) considered the draft policy at its 11 September 2020 meeting. This report outlines feedback received from the committee. The committee recommended Council release the draft policy for public consultation.

8        If approved, it is intended that the draft policy will be consulted on in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA). This will be done via a process which will be run concurrently with the consultation for a number of Council policies from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Procurement Policy - Consultation ” dated 14 October 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.

 

a)            Endorses one of the following options:

I.             Option 1 – endorses and releases the draft Procurement Policy for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, from 4 November to 4 December 2020, or

II.            Option 2 – delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

 

 

Background

The current policy

9        The current Procurement Policy was adopted in 2010, and is overdue for review. It is included with this report as Attachment B. The current policy needs to be reviewed for a number of reasons, including:

·            procurement ‘best practice’ has changed since 2010, and new best-practice guidelines have been developed

·            the cost of goods and services has changed, and the financial thresholds in the current policy are no longer appropriate/practical for Council

·            the requirement in the current policy to seek quotes from three suppliers is not always practical or appropriate for staff

·            the nature of relationships between councils and suppliers has changed since the current policy was developed.

10      At the end of 2019, Deloitte completed a review of Council’s procure to pay process. The review stated that Council’s current policy is in line with good practice as well as guidance for public entities, and that it provides sufficient framework for decision making around the type of procurement process and decision making required. On a measurement scale, it was outlined that the policy puts adequate controls in place.

The review process to date

11      Council has taken the opportunity over the last two years to review and revise procurement practices across the business. Other work being undertaken in the procurement space is the use of CAMMs, contract management changes, and development of a contract management policy. As a thorough review of procurement processes have been undertaken, it has taken staff time to complete the review of the policy and manual.

12      The current policy includes both policy information and information on the practical steps that staff must undertake when they procure. Early in the review process, staff thought it was appropriate to separate the policy and operational parts of procurement. This was to ensure Council documents contain the right information and are being used consistently across Council. Policies outline Council’s high-level position, are binding, and it is anticipated that a policy will be reasonably enduring. Manuals focus on the technical implementation and operational steps of a process, which may be subject to more regular changes and improvements.

13      The policy has been informed by the best practice guidelines of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Government Procurement Rules, and the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

14      When Deloitte undertook the procure to pay review, it also reviewed a version of the draft manual and recommended changes. Staff have largely incorporated the suggested changes. The last of the changes will be considered/incorporated as the manual reaches the stage of being a final draft.

Engagement

15      Staff have sought feedback from both internal and external stakeholders. The services and assets, finance, and strategy and policy teams have been involved in developing the draft procurement documents.

16      Staff have also provided a selection of suppliers with a copy of the draft policy, and have sought feedback from suppliers and Te Ao Marama. Staff only received a response from two suppliers, who were supportive of the policy approach proposed. At the time of writing this report, no response had been received from Te Ao Marama. 

Feedback from the Finance and Assurance Committee

17      On 11 September 2020, the Finance and Assurance Committee considered the draft policy. The committee gave feedback on two main aspects of the draft policy. The committee were interested in how staff would try and achieve public value. For example, members of the committee were interested in how staff would allow local suppliers to be prioritised and chosen in appropriate circumstances. At the meeting, staff outlined that procurement forms would be produced and approved by managers early in the procurement process, and the forms would detail how Council will decide who will be awarded particular contracts. The committee were also interested in how the policy would be monitored and reviewed, to ensure that Council was achieving the objectives outlined in the draft policy. A staff response to this feedback, is given in the ‘policy review and implementation’ section below.

18      A key recommendation from the Finance and Assurance Committee was that Council release the draft Procurement Policy for public consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

Issues

The draft policy

19      The draft policy and manual establish a decision-making framework for procurement that aims to achieve a number of objectives. The draft policy has a series of high-level policy statements on how Council will achieve those objectives. The policy statements are:

·            procurement will be in accordance with legal process/legislation

·            procurement will be consistent across Council

·            Council will foster relationships with suppliers

·            Council will make procurement decisions based on achieving public value

·            there will be a sound business approach to procurement

·            risk will be managed appropriately

·            procurement decisions will be made in accordance with delegated authority.

20      The policy outlines that to achieve public value, Council will consider (in addition to quality and whole-of-life costs) other outcomes that can be generated from procurement activities. These outcomes can be social, environmental, cultural or economic, and include costs and benefits to the District. The policy enables staff to identify evaluation criteria (such as supporting local suppliers, achieving environmental outcomes etc) and make procurement decisions based on those criteria.

21      The current policy also has a similar policy approach, as it outlines that Council will try and achieve broader social outcomes. The draft policy does not propose a significant change to this policy approach.

22      Compared to the current policy, the draft policy places more emphasis on undertaking appropriate procurement planning, keeping good records of procurement processes, and having good relationships with suppliers. The draft policy also places more emphasis on identifying and managing risk appropriately, through the procurement process.

The draft manual

23      A draft manual is also being produced and contains a series of steps that staff must complete before they procure. The steps include identifying exactly what needs to be purchased and who potential stakeholders/suppliers are, identifying a procurement method, and completing documentation for all purchases valued above a certain value.

24      As the procurement manual is an operational document, it will not be put out for formal public consultation. When it is completed, staff will request that the Finance and Assurance Committee endorse the draft manual. This is appropriate as the Finance and Assurance Committee has the delegated authority to ensure Council is complying with laws and best practice guidelines, and to ensure that Council is embedded a culture that is committed to probity and ethical behaviour.

25      Due to the operational nature of the procurement manual, the final version will be adopted by the executive leadership team. 

Delegations

26      The procurement manual does not contain any delegations, it refers to the delegations manual. Some minor changes to the delegations manual will be required when the procurement manual is implemented, to ensure appropriate delegations/authorities are in place.

Policy implementation and review

27      The policy approach set by Council will be implemented by staff undertaking the steps outlined in the procurement manual.

28      The manual places a number of requirements on staff, including to use standard procurement methods, to assess the risk of procurement, and to complete procurement documents. The procurement documents require staff to provide detail about a procurement process, including how Council will decide who is awarded the contract. This is where staff specify the aspects of ‘public value’ that will be prioritised, such as using local suppliers. The procurement documents will be approved by managers in accordance with the delegations manual, to ensure staff are effectively implementing the policy and following the manual. 

29      When the policy and manual are in effect, staff will be informed about the new approach, and training will be provided. Particular roles within Council will receive more in-depth training and support. It is being considered whether minimum training standards for staff are appropriate. In some areas of Council, there will be specialist procurement roles to help ensure consistent procurement. 

30      Staff are aware procurement within Council will need to be evaluated, to ensure that Council is achieving its policy objectives. It has been discussed whether a group within Council should be tasked with reviewing a set number of procurements on an annual basis, when the contracts are finished. The review would involve establishing evaluation criteria and liaising with staff to assess whether Council has been effectively implementing the procurement policy. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

31      The OAG and the Government Procurement Rules outline that councils should have their own procurement policy and processes in place, that are tailored to their operating environment.

32      The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) (section 14) details principles relating to local authorities. The principles most relevant to Council’s procurement activity are that:

(a)  a local authority should

i.    conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner

ii.   give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner

(f)   a local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices

(g)   a local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets

(h)   in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into account

i.   the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities

ii.  the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment

iii. the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.

The draft policy reflects these principles as they relate to Council’s procurement activity.

33      Other legislation that is relevant to procurement is:

·            Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

·            Commerce Act 1986

·            Construction Contracts Act 2002

·            Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017

·            Fair Trading Act 1986

·            Goods and Services Tax Act 1985

·            Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

·            Land Transport Act 1998

·            Land Transport Management Act 2003

·            Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

·            Local Government Act 2002

·            Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

·            Official Information Act 1982

·            Privacy Act 1993

·            Public Audit Act 2001

·            Public Finance Act 1989

·            Public Records Act 2005

·            Public Works Act 1981

·            Resource Management Act 1991

·            Withholding Tax Regulations.

34      Best practice guidelines are an important part of Council procurement activity. Government’s procurement policy framework, consisting of principles, a charter, rules and good practice guidance sets the government’s expectations for how government agencies should approach procurement activities. The draft policy is informed by this framework, but it is noted that Council is not bound by the rules. Other government entities, such as government departments and ministries, are bound by the Government Procurement Rules. The OAG also provides guidance on procurement that is designed for use by any public entity. Again, the draft policy has been informed by this guidance. 

35      When Deloitte undertook the procure to pay review, the draft manual was reviewed against the government procurement rules. Staff are working on incorporating the recommended changes.

36      If Council endorses and releases the draft policy for consultation, staff are proposing that the draft policy will be consulted on in accordance with section 82 of the LGA. These sections require that those who wish to have their views considered should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to do so. In this case, staff consider it appropriate to have a formal consultation period of one month, where people are encouraged to provide a written submission. This process would not include holding hearings.

Community Views

37      Staff have sought internal feedback on the draft policy and manual, and feedback has been sought from key suppliers, community boards and Te Ao Marama. Only a small amount of positive feedback has been received from suppliers to date.

38      If Council endorses the draft policy and releases it for public consultation at this meeting, staff will make the draft policy and relevant information publicly available (in accordance with sections 82 of the LGA), and encourage people to give feedback on Council’s ‘make it stick’ platform, by:

·            placing a piece in ‘First Word’

·            placing an advertisement in the Ensign and Southland Express

·            promoting the consultation on Council’s Facebook page

·            having the draft policy accessible on Council’s website and at all of its offices

·            encouraging community boards to make a submission.

39      It is proposed that this consultation process be run parallel to other Council policies. 

40      The consultation process proposed will allow Council to consider further community views regarding this policy.

Costs and Funding

41     To put the draft policy out for consultation and to undertake the steps required to progress a draft policy through to adoption, there will be costs associated with staff time and advertising. These costs will be met within current budgets.

42     As an indication of the amount Council spends on procurement, in the year ended 30 June 2019, Council spent $24.994m on ‘activity capital expenditure’ (including vested assets) and $41.319m on operational expenditure (excluding employee benefit expenses, depreciation and amortisation and finance costs). As Council spends a significant amount of public money, it is seeking to ensure all procurement is undertaken and managed in a way consistent with legislation, good practice and a sound business approach.

Policy Implications

43      As has been indicated above, the current policy includes high level policy statements and the procedural steps necessary to undertake procurement. The draft policy differs from the current policy, as the draft just includes high-level policy information. On this basis, the current and draft policies will be used quite differently.

44      If adopted in its current state, the draft policy sets an expectation that staff will undertake thorough procurement planning, keeping good records of procurement processes, and identify and manage risk appropriately. The extra time staff will have to spend on these tasks has not been formally quantified – but staff consider the tasks are necessary, to meet best-practice standards.

Analysis

Options Considered

45      There are two options for consideration in this report:

·        option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy (with any desired amendments) for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA

·        option 2 - that Council delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy for consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the draft policy proposes a sound approach to procurement, that aligns to legislation and recommended procurement practice

·        public consultation provides opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to have their say

·        a small amount of feedback has been received in support of the draft policy.

·        may not reflect councillor and community views on the draft policy.

 

Option 2 – that Council propose a different way forward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give further clarity on councillors’ views regarding the policy

·        may better reflect community views.

·        any proposed amendments to the draft policy, must comply with legislation and align with recommended procurement practice.

 

Assessment of Significance

46      Staff do not believe the decision to endorse the draft policy for consultation meets the threshold of being a significant decision (in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and the LGA).

47      The current and draft policies have similar objectives in relation to achieving broad social outcomes through procurement, so there isn’t a substantial change in this policy approach. Because this similar approach is proposed, people may be less interested in and affected by the draft policy, and the draft policy may not achieve different outcomes in relation to the four community ‘wellbeings’.

48      Council is aware, that it spends public money and that its procurement activities have an impact on the local and domestic economy. For this reason, staff are aware the recommendations proposed in this report are still important. If Council decides to adopt a procurement policy, that decision is likely to have a higher level of significance, due to the more final nature of the policy at that time.

Recommended Option

49      Staff propose that Council endorse the draft policy for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA.

Next Steps

50      If Council endorse option 1, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with section 82 of the LGA from 4 November to 4 December 2020. It is intended that the written submissions received will be presented to Council in early 2021.

51      If, after undertaking consultation, Council endorses the proposed changes in the draft policy, Council would then adopt the policy with it to come into effect soon after adoption, in 2021.

52      If Council endorse option 2, staff would action the request of the committee.

 

Attachments

a             Draft Procurement Policy

b             Current Procurement Policy    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 2020

 

Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and Rating Review

Record No:             R/20/10/61172

Author:                      Nicole Taylor, Finance Development Co-ordinator

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                 Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present the draft Revenue and Financing Policy (the draft policy) and associated rating policies, to Council to endorse for consultation.

Executive summary

2        The draft Revenue and Financing Policy sets out the ways Council intends to pay for the operating and capital expenditure of each activity that Council provides and why. The policy provides the framework for how Council will fund its activities and how it will set rates as part of the Long Term Plan 2031 (effective from 1 July 2021).

3        The draft policy is included with the report as Attachment A.

4        The draft policy will also be presented to the Finance and Assurance Committee on 20 October 2020. Staff are seeking the committee’s endorsement of the policy and a recommendation that Council release the draft policy and rating review for public consultation. Given the limited timeframe between meetings, staff will verbally advise Council of the committee’s feedback and decisions on the policy at its meeting on 21 October 2020. 

5        The review of the draft policy and associated rating review is being carried out ahead of the Long Term Plan 2031 (LTP) in order to provide an early opportunity for community input and, to allow Council to model the impact on rates as part of the budgeting process before the LTP consultation document is prepared. Any changes however won’t come into effect until 1 July 2021.

6        This approach is being taken because Council is proposing changes to how the local activities that community boards oversee could be funded, which has a flow-on effect for the budget and rate setting stages of the LTP 2031.

7        Early endorsement of the proposed approach will provide greater certainty around how Council intends to fund its activities when the LTP 2031 is released for consultation. This will reduce the number of issues that the community might be expected to provide feedback on as well as the complexity of the process.

8        From a content point of view, a number of changes have been made to the structure of the policy to strengthen the relationship between the policy decisions and the related legislative considerations which inform the policy (such as the assessment of benefit, rationale for funding and modifications of the benefit assessment affecting the funding choices). An assessment of private/public funding splits for each activity has also been included.

9        In addition, the detailed activity funding analysis related to the consideration of Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been incorporated into the policy itself. Previously this was provided as a separate supporting document.

10      From a policy perspective, there are no substantive or material changes proposed to how the activities are funded compared to the current policy (included in Attachment D).

11      The large proportion of changes stem from the process to review Council’s approach to rating, originating from the change to Council’s community board representation arrangements resulting from the 2018 representation review. As such the changes largely relate to rating approaches for selected activities for which community boards have responsibility for.

12      These changes involve moving the funding of some local activities from a targeted rate to the general rate and changing the basis on which some targeted rates are set. In some instances the mix of funding is also changing between the various funding sources.

13      If approved, it is intended that the draft policy and associated rating changes will be consulted on via a process which will be run concurrently with the consultation for a number of other Council policies from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Revenue and Financing Policy and Rating Review” dated 15 October 2020.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Agrees to consider the draft Revenue and Financing Policy and rating review.

 

e)            Agrees to endorse one of the following options:

 

i)          Option 1 – endorses and releases the draft Revenue and Financing Policy and associated rating review for consultation in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the Local Government Act 2002, from 4 November to 4 December 2020, or

ii)        Option 2 – that Council delay consultation and propose a different way forward.

 

f)             Agrees that if Council endorses Option1 - delegates authority to the Chief Executive to approve minor amendments to the draft policy before the commencement of the public consultation period.

 

 


 

Background

14      The draft Revenue and Financing Policy sets out the ways Council intends to pay for the operating and capital expenditure of each of the activities that Council provides, and why. It is the first step in the rate-setting process as it identifies the activities that will be funded by rates.

15      The current Revenue and Financing Policy was adopted in 2018 in conjunction with the LTP 2018-2028. It is included in this report as Attachment D.

16      The policy is intended to be set at a relatively high level and provides the overall framework and guidelines for how Council will fund its activities and, as a result, how it will set rates and fees as part of the Long Term Plan 2031 (effective from 1 July 2021).

17      Council is required to review the policy every three years.

18      From a policy perspective, there are no substantive or material changes proposed to how the activities are funded compared to the current policy. This is largely because the policy uses ranges rather than specific amounts to describe the funding source for each activity. These ranges provide Council with a fair amount of flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and as such, staff consider that they remain valid leading into the LTP 2031.

19      However Council has been undertaking a review of how it rates for certain activities and this review has necessitated a number of changes to the policy relating to rating approaches for selected activities for which community boards have responsibility for (linked to the changes bought in with the 2018 representation review).

20      In addition, staff are proposing a number of changes to the structure of the policy to strengthen the relationship between the policy decisions and the related legislative considerations which inform the policy (such as the assessment of benefit, rationale for funding and modifications of the benefit assessment affecting the funding choices).

The review process to date

21      Over the past nine months, aspects of the Revenue and Financing Policy and rating policies have been discussed at various Council and community board workshops. These workshops have provided an opportunity for Council to discuss how it currently rates for certain activities, taking into account the funding principles contained within section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

22      Overall it appears that Council is relatively comfortable with the current rating approach, but these workshops have identified a desire to adjust the way Council funds the activities provided by community boards following on from the changes to community board boundaries in 2018. These activities include costs related to parks, litter bins, playgrounds, cemeteries, footpaths, streetlights, streetscapes, halls, stormwater, water facilities, airports and local representation.

23      A series of workshops were held with community boards through March – June 2020 to consider in more detail who benefits from the local activities that boards provide, who should pay for these activities and how Council might charge for them.

24      This feedback was presented to Council along with an analysis of different options for how these activities could be funded taking into account the feedback from boards and an analysis of the impact that any changes would have on rates.

25      Council then identified a series of funding preferences for these activities which was discussed further with community boards at workshops in August – September 2020 with subsequent feedback incorporated into the rating policy changes being proposed in this report.

26      In addition, in July 2020 Council considered a report on the Southland district rates affordability assessment which identified that while rates are affordable at the community (aggregate) level, there are distributional rate affordability issues, particularly in urban areas with low income levels and a high proportion of fixed rates.

27      The information in the rates affordability assessment provides context to assist elected members with considering the impact of the proposed policy and rating review on current and future community wellbeing (Local Government Act 101(3)(b)). This is particularly relevant given that judgements about affordability and fairness of rating is a matter for the subjective policy judgement of elected members.

 

Issues

28      Council has nine community boards that have been delegated responsibility for aspects of Council activities delivered in their respective local areas. These local activities (shown in the pictures below) make up around 7% ($4.2 million) of Council’s total rate ($56.7 million) in 2020/2021.

29      At the moment, most of the rate funding for these activities comes from properties within certain rating boundaries. These boundaries (shown in the following map) align with the eight previous community boards (yellow shading), nineteen community development areas (green shading) and four ward boundaries.

30      One of the key issues with Council’s current approach is the variation in who is paying for these activities across the district. The changes that are being proposed aim to address these inconsistencies between who is paying for certain activities in different parts of the district and, differences in how (and where) differentials are applied to these rates. They differences include:

·      some targeted rates for these activities are only charged on properties in township areas

·      some targeted rates cover large rural areas

·      some targeted rates use commercial, urban and rural differentials (based on rating land use categories) to charge some groups more or less than others, and

·      some township areas receive funding for selected activities from the ward rate and others do not.

31      Feedback provided at the workshops suggests there is a need to address these, particularly given that based on the assessment of benefits undertaken by Council and community boards, there is very little difference to justify such a variable rating approach.

An overview of the proposed changes

32      The key changes proposed, either as part of the draft policy or proposed approach to rating are detailed below.

33      The Council should also note that financial information detailed is based on 2020/2021 Annual Plan budget figures. This approach ensures that the comparison between the different rating options can be shown without the impact of any changes to the rate amounts complicating the analysis. Staff are currently in the process of preparing budgets and programmes for the LTP 2031 which will result in changes to the rate amounts shown.

How local activities are funded

34      Eight activity areas in the policy have been identified as requiring a change in how their activity is funded either due to a change in the proposed funding source from a targeted rate to the general rate or a change in how this rate is set.

Local representation

35      The proposal is for local representation costs for all community boards (as part of the representation and advocacy activity) to be funded across all properties in the district through the general rate rather than as part of a local rate targeted to individual community board areas. Using the current budgets this would equate to $17 per property compared to retaining the current rating approach where properties would pay between $11-$53, depending on their rating area. This change is being proposed because local community board representation now covers all people/properties in the district and therefore provides benefits for all properties within the district.

Cemeteries

36      The proposal is for cemeteries costs to be funded across all properties in the district through the general rate rather than as part of a local rate over the community board area. Using the current budgets this would equate to $5 per property compared to retaining the current rating approach where properties would pay between $0-$96, depending on their rating area. This change is being proposed given that there is a relatively consistent level of service that is provided, particularly in relation to the operation and maintenance approach for cemeteries throughout the district. Council also acknowledges that residents are also likely to travel to cemeteries in different parts of the district to pay respects to family and friends rather than just the cemeteries in their local area.

Open Spaces

37      The proposal is for litter bins (as part of the open spaces activity) to be funded across all properties in the District through the general rate rather than as part of a local rate over the community board. Using the current budgets this would equate to $17 per property compared to retaining the current rating approach where properties would pay between $0-$121 depending on their rating area. The change is being prosed given that litter bins are used by everyone who is travelling throughout the district including visitors, tourists, local residents and rural people who live outside of township areas.


 

Stormwater

38      The proposal is for stormwater to be funded through a separate targeted set district wide rate with a differential for “serviced” areas (that pay a full charge) and “unserviced” areas (that pay a quarter charge) to reflect that everyone gets a benefit from stormwater (including rural people when they visit township area), with those living in urban areas serviced by stormwater receiving a higher benefit. The serviced and unserviced areas are defined by mapped rating boundaries (included in Attachment C). Using the current budgets this would equate to $46 per property in serviced areas and $12 per property in rural areas compared to retaining the current rating approach where properties would pay between $0-$108 depending on their rating area. The change is being proposed given that the nature of the benefit provided by stormwater is similar across the district and individual communities have less discretion about how this activity can be operated or to what level with increasing environmental and compliance standards being set.

Community Board Rate (to fund open spaces, footpaths/streetlights)

39      The proposal is for the establishment of new targeted community board rates to fund the remaining activities that the board provides including footpaths and a portion of the open spaces activity related to local parks, playgrounds, and streetscapes and water facilities.

40      The new community board rates would also replace the existing targeted ward rates and are proposed to align with the representation boundaries. All properties within these boundaries will pay the rate. A differential would be used to reflect different levels of benefit/use as follows:

·      “urban” properties within the defined rating area would pay a full charge

·      “semi-urban” properties within the defined rating area would pay a half charge

·      “rural” areas outside the urban and semi-urban areas would pay a quarter charge.

41      The approach proposed reflects that more urban properties have easier access and therefore a higher benefit. The urban, semi-urban and rural areas would be defined by mapped boundaries (included in Attachment C). Urban areas would consist of townships with all or a majority of community board activities that are provided at scale and with larger populations. Semi-urban would consist of townships with most of the activities provided but at a small scale with smaller populations and rural areas would consist of areas with very few local infrastructure/services, if any.

42      The amount that properties in each community board area pays would differ depending on the facilities and infrastructure in the area and levels of service to be provided. Using the current budgets this would result in the following rates for each community board:

·       Ardlussa (urban: $116; semi-urban N/A; rural $29)

·       Fiordland (urban: $206; semi-urban N/A; rural $52)

·       Northern  (urban: $224; semi-urban $112; rural $56)

·       Oraka Aparima (urban: $215; semi-urban $107; rural $54)

·       Oreti (urban: $145; semi-urban $72; rural $36)

·       Stewart Island/Rakiura ($231)

·       Tuatapere Te Waewae (urban: $196; semi-urban $9; rural $46)

·       Waihopai Toetoe (urban: $196; semi-urban $9; rural $46)

·       Wallace Takitimu (urban: $217; semi-urban $109; rural $54)

43      Table in the Attachment B shows these changes for each community board area.

44      Council had a preference for this approach because it:

·       addresses inconsistencies in how activities are funded across the District where possible

·       simplifies the approach to rating and funding

·       reflects Council’s new representation structures

·       reflects the legislative requirements of Section 101(3) of the LGA including considering who benefits, when the benefits occur, who creates the need for the expenditure and the costs and benefits of funding separately.

Stewart Island/Rakiura Sustainability Review – funding of jetties and electricity supply

45      As part of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Service sustainability study presented to Council in February 2020, Council resolved to give specific consideration to the issues and options that might exist in relation to the delivery of services to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community as it progresses its review of the Revenue and Financing Policy for the LTP 2031 and give specific consideration to options for the funding of the jetties activity as part of the policy.

46      The report identified that Council faces a number of service sustainability challenges in providing and funding the delivery of services, particularly local activities, to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community. The report identified that as part of the review of the policy Council should have regard to the options available for the funding of each of its activities, including considering the relative merits of a mix of District and local funding for each activity including jetties and SIESA.

47      The report suggested that the review of the policy should specifically consider the distribution of benefits for locally funded activities and the extent to which activities such as jetties might have a broader public good through, for example, the provision of access.

48      More detail on this is detailed in Attachment E.

49      As a result of this, Council is proposing a revised funding mix based on the assessment of benefit and public good (noting that the activity is currently fully funded by fees). The table outlines the broad funding bands that will apply to the activity, with the specific contributions to be determined as part of the LTP 2031 once expenditure has been confirmed.

Proposed funding source

Current funding

Proposed funding

Applied to

Local targeted rate

0%

0-10%

Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board ratepayers

Fees and charges

100%

60%-70%

Commercial wharf/jetty users

Grants and subsidies

None fixed

0-20%

Visitor levy (subject to discussions) or from other sources

General rate

0%

0-30%

Ratepayers in Southland District

50      In addition, Council is also considering amending the funding approach for Stewart Island Electricity Supply (SIESA) which provides electricity on the island. The majority of the funding for this activity currently comes from charges to consumers.

51      Council is considering introducing a separate targeted rate with differentials on properties in the electricity supply distribution area to collect a portion of the cost (in addition to fixed and variable consumption charges billed to consumers). Council would set the rate on a differential basis depending on whether the rating unit is either connected (full charge) or able to be connected and not connected to the electricity supply network (half charge).

52      While staff are satisfied that the proposed electricity availability charge is able to levied under the Local Government Rating Act, at the time of writing staff are carrying out further investigations as to whether there are any constraints in relevant electricity legislation and regulations that may prevent a rate from being applied. Staff will present any pertinent findings to Council when this report is presented. 

Waste management rate

53      Council currently collects a separate District-wide targeted rate for waste management. This rate is used to fund part of the Solid Waste activity which relates to the operation of transfer stations, greenwaste sites and recycling drop-off centres. It also involves dealing with litter and illegal dumping as well as the waste minimisation activities. Council is proposing to remove the waste management targeted rate, with funding to be taken from the general rate. This is because Council does not believe that there is a need for separate funding, particularly given the public good element of the activity and the similar way that the rate is set in line with the general rate. The change will also help to reduce ratepayer confusion with the rubbish and recycling wheelie bin rates.

Te Anau Airport rate – change not yet considered

54      Subsequent to Council agreeing the changes proposed to the draft policy, staff have received a request from the Fiordland Community Board requesting that Council consider providing general rate funding for capital expenditure and possibly operating expenditure related to the Te Anau Manapouri Airport activity. This request does not include the current loan for the airport development which the board have indicated would continue to be paid solely by those in the Fiordland area. At this stage staff and Council have not had an opportunity to consider this request. However depending on the views of the Council, this proposal may be included in the policy for consultation. Staff will provide further context about this request at the meeting.

Wastewater – changes considered but not progressed

55      As part of the workshops held to discuss the funding for the activities, Council considered the way it funds District wastewater activities in preparation for the LTP 2031. Council’s current funding approach for wastewater is as follows:

i)      A full charge per Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a rating unit (SUIP) for any residence that is connected or able to be connected but not connected,

ii)     A half charge for any non-contiguous vacant land within the boundary which are able to be connected but are not connected, and

iii)    A full charge per pan/urinal for all other property that is connected or able to be connected but not connected

56      Council looked at various options to change the approach including:

•     changing the full charge per pan/urinal (iii) to reduce the impact on properties that have multiple pans (by using a half charge or sliding scale of charges depending on the number of pans)

•     increasing the charge on vacant land from a half charge to a three quarter charge.

57      However, after considering the relevant legislative funding considerations and the assessment of benefit/use of the network, Council is proposing to retain the current approach.

Factors to consider

Legal and statutory requirements

58      Council is required by legislation to adopt and include a Revenue and Financing policy for inclusion in the final adopted LTP, to provide predictability and certainty about sources and levels of funding of Council’s activities.

59      The statutory provisions relating to the review of a Revenue and Financing Policy are detailed in Section 103 and Section 101(3) Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. The LGA requires local authorities to follow a set process for developing a Revenue and Financing policy.

60      The Revenue and Financing Policy (s103) specifies the mix of tools that Council can use to fund activities and the level of funding to be applied from the various sources. This requires a two stage process be followed when making decisions about how activities will be funded (s101(3)).

61      Stage 1 is to determine the funding tools to be used for each activity having regard to the five factors in section 101(3)(a) including:

•      Council’s objectives or community outcomes and how funding supports them (or not)

•      who benefits (community as a whole, parts of the community, individuals)

•      when benefits occur

•      who creates the need for expenditure

•      costs and benefits of funding separately

62      Stage 2 is to consider the impact of the overall allocation of revenue liability developed through stage 1 on community well-being (section 101(3)(b)), including rates affordability.

Community views

63      Staff have sought feedback on the rating review and funding principles from community boards as detailed earlier in the report. This feedback has been used to develop the proposed rating approach and inform the funding tool selection in the draft policy.

64      Staff are also seeking feedback from the Finance and Assurance committee from their meeting to be held 20 October 2020. Given the limited timeframe between meetings, staff will verbally advise Council of the committee’s feedback and decisions on the policy at its meeting on 21 October 2020. 

65      If Council endorses the draft policy and releases it for public consultation at this meeting, staff will make the draft policy and relevant information publicly available (in accordance with sections 82 of the LGA), and encourage people to give feedback on Council’s ‘make it stick’ platform, by:

·            placing a piece in ‘First Word’

·            placing an advertisement in the Ensign and Southland Express

·            promoting the consultation on Council’s Facebook page

·            having the draft policy accessible on Council’s website and at all of its offices

·            encouraging community boards to make a submission.

66      It is proposed that this consultation process be run parallel to other Council policies. 

67      The consultation process proposed will allow Council to consider further community views regarding this policy.

Costs and funding

68      The draft Policy would impact both the selection of funding mechanisms and the quantum to be funded from each tool, for the activities which are proposed to change. The decision made on each issue outlined in report will have a varying impact on how activities are funded and on the rates allocated to ratepayers. Attachment B provides an overview of the impact based on 2020/2021 rates. Attachment F shows the other options that were modelled for consideration.

69      There will only be minor costs associated with progressing the draft policy through the consultation process, including the costs associated with staff time and advertising. These costs will be met within current budgets.

Policy implications

70      As outlined earlier in the report, the draft policy as prepared proposes changes to the funding of selected activities to better reflect the assessment of benefit and need for separate funding following feedback provided by community boards and Council. However, these changes are a relatively minor part of the policy with the majority of the draft policy in line with the current policy.

71      The Revenue and Financing Policy is also binding – rates and other funding applied in the LTP must be set in line with the policy. As a result, the policy uses ranges rather than specific amounts to describe the funding sources. This provides Council with flexibility to respond to changes in funding circumstances and unexpected events within the parameters of the current policy.

72      If adopted, this policy and the related approach to rating would be the basis on which the draft Long Term Plan 2031 (LTP) would be prepared. As such, if there are significant unexpected changes to funding or expenditure levels proposed in the LTP 2031 that would impact the proposed funding mix, there may be a need to further review the policy and proposed rating approach in conjunction with the LTP 2031.

73      Council is also undertaking a review of its approach to investment and borrowing which may also have an impact on the proposed funding methods. However, given the relatively broad funding bands detailed in the policy for each activity, staff consider that most changes will able to be accommodated within the proposed draft policy.

74      The Revenue and Financing Policy supports the direction established in the Financial Strategy, particularly around the ability to generate revenue from the funding sources described in the policy. The Financial Strategy lays the foundations that support prudent financial management over the long-term and provides an element of strategic control, containing limits on specific funding sources such as rates, rate limits and debt.

Analysis

Options considered

75      There are two options for consideration in this report:

·            option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy and associated rating review for consultation in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the LGA

·            option 2 – that Council propose a different way forward.


 

Analysis of options

Option 1 – that Council endorse the draft policy and associated rating review for consultation in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the LGA

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the draft policy reflects the feedback and changes coming out of discussions with community boards

·        the draft policy addresses inconsistencies in the current rating approach for community boards and aligns the approach to the new representation structure

·        the draft policy better reflects the legislative considerations

·        public consultation provides opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to have their say

·        it is a legislative requirement to consult

·        a small amount of feedback has been received in support of the approach proposed in the draft policy.

·        there is a risk that the draft policy and
LTP 2031 may not be aligned if there are material changes to Council’s budgets or funding options that arise between now and when the plan is finalised. However this policy is about how Council intends to spread the
cost of services across the District, and across the different groups of ratepayers and not how much is collected or spent.

 

Option 2 – that Council propose a different way forward.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        would give Council further clarity on the proposed LTP 2031 budgets and funding needs to ensure alignment.

·        may reduce rework.

·        issues in the draft policy and rating review may overshadow LTP 2031 consultation issues.

·        there is little time to make changes to the LTP 2031 if there are changes to the RFP that need to be incorporated. This may put pressure on timeframes.

·        may result in consultation fatigue in the community.

 

Assessment of significance

76      The draft policy is a fundamental policy of Council. It determines how Council will collect revenue and fund activities, services and assets. The draft policy will affect all ratepayers and raises issues of equity and affordability.

77      In relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the decision to endorse the draft policy is likely to have an impact on all ratepayers in the District (if the Policy is then adopted), and there are likely to be people interest in this matter. This decision has less impact on the other factors that Council must consider when assessing significance.

78      The significance of the decisions being made in relation to this report are lessened somewhat at this stage as Council is not adopting a new policy, but putting one out for consultation. Nevertheless, staff still see it as appropriate that Council consider this decision to be significant as they are endorsing the proposed policy.

79      Council has undertaken a thorough review of its Revenue and Financing Policy. In relation to the proposed changes to the draft policy, Council has identified all reasonably practicable options and assessed the options in terms of their advantages, disadvantages, and financial implications.

Recommended option

80      It is recommended that council proceeds with option 1 that Council endorse the draft policy and associated rating review for consultation in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the LGA.

Next steps

81      If Council endorses option 1, staff will undertake a consultation process in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the LGA from 4 November to 4 December 2020.

82      It is intended that the written submissions received will be presented to Council either in December or early 2021 (depending on the level of feedback).

83      If, after undertaking consultation, Council endorses the proposed changes in the draft policy, Council would then adopt the policy with it to come into effect on 1 July 2021.

84      If the Council proposes a different way forward, staff will outline next steps in line with the approach taken.

 

Attachments

a             Attachment A - DRAFT Revenue and Financing Policy 2021-2031

b             Attachment B - Overview of Proposed Local Rate Changes

c             Attachment C - Proposed Rating Boundaries - Community Board rate and Stormwater rate

d            Attachment D - Current Revenue and Financing Policy (2018)

e             Attachment E - an overview of the funding considerations for Stewart Island jetties - consultation

f             Attachment F - Draft Rating Review - Other Options Modelled    

 


Council

21 October 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

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator



Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

Integrated management under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Record No:             R/20/10/60481

Author:                      Olivia Stirling, Graduate Resource Management Planner

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                 Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the implications that the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM 2020) will have on Southland District Council planning documents. This report relates only to the NPS-FM 2020 and has not considered the implications resulting from the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 (Freshwater NES).

Executive Summary

2        The NPS-FM 2020 came into effect on 3 September 2020 to replace the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017) after a period of consultation, and was introduced as part of an Essential Freshwater package.

3        Whilst the NPS-FM 2020 predominantly impacts the regional councils’ resource management documents, there will be implications for the Southland District Plan 2018.

4        The Southland District Plan 2018 will need to be reviewed which will necessitate time, finances, staff resource and public consultation. There is an evident governmental push for integrated management through this legislation, which will impact the relationship between Environment Southland and Southland District Council.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Integrated management under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management ” dated 14 October 2020.

 

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

 

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

 

d)        Agrees to endorse that Southland District Council staff meet regularly with Environment Southland to discuss how the national direction towards further integrating the resource management system might impact the Southland region.

 

e)        Agrees to schedule the review of land use activity and urban development into the 5 year Southland District Plan review programme. Specifically relating to how activities will impact water quality, quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological processes.

 

f)         Notes that increased resource, finance and community engagement will be required for plan review and implementation.

 

g)        Agrees to discuss relevant plan changes and implementation methods with Environment Southland at an early stage to prevent policy duplication and public confusion.

 

h)        Agrees to prioritise resources to enable the review of how the Southland District Council three waters services will be impacted by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and assesses any complications resulting from intensified monitoring and implementation requirements resulting from the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020.

 

Background

5        The principal legislation for water governance in New Zealand is the Resource Management Act 1991. National Policy Statements (NPS) are instruments under sections 45 to 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that identify matters of national significance and provide national direction for local authorities. In 2018, freshwater degradation was identified as one of New Zealand’s leading environmental concerns. The implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 was a central government response to this concern.

6        The Southland Regional Policy Statement 2017 presently outlines Southland District Council’s obligations for water quality. These requirements are reflected through the Southland District Plan 2018 which addresses water quality through stormwater, drinking water and wastewater (three waters), land use activity including earthworks and subdivisions.

7        Given that Environment Southland holds significant knowledge in the freshwater space it would make sense for them to work with Southland District Council to create an integrated approach to implementing the NPS-FM 2020. Southland District Council have had initial discussions with Environment Southland regarding the implementation of the Freshwater NES and the NPS-FM 2020, they have not raised any specific matters at this stage. However, given the very recent nature of the policy release Environment Southland are still grappling with the potential implications themselves. 

8        The fundamental concept of the NPS-FM 2020 is Te Mana o te Wai, which is an integrated management approach that considers the health and well-being of water, the ecosystem and the surrounding land. Integrated water resource management creates an opportunity for collaboration with iwi, gives effect to the Māori holistic view on the environment and is an effective method for managing freshwater outcomes. It is evident that the framework of the resource management system in New Zealand will become further integrated.

9        Three primary objectives are set out in a hierarchal structure in the NPS-FM 2020 which regional and territorial authorities are required to implement to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai: firstly, the holistic wellbeing of freshwater ecosystems, and water bodies, secondly, human needs including drinking water and thirdly, the use of water bodies for the social, cultural and economic needs of communities in the short and long term.

Issues

10      The district plan review process will be complicated as the NPS-FM 2020 has not defined land use activity and urban development. Determining if the scope for land use activity and urban development in the Southland District Plan 2018 has changed through the implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 is, therefore, up to interpretation.

11      The integrated management approach introduced by the NPS-FM 2020, may consequently confuse implementation at a local level as both Southland District Council and Environment Southland will have a role in water quality outcomes. As Southland District Council and Environment Southland resource management documents are both required to be consistent with the NPS-FM 2020, duplication of policy is possible (see table in PowerPoint presentation).

12      The NPS-FM 2020 will create implications for Southland District Council’s reticulated three waters systems through more extensive consenting, reporting and implementation requirements.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13      The NPS-FM 2020 states that every local authority must give effect to the National Policy Statement as soon as reasonably practicable. To meet legislative requirements, water quality outcomes in the Southland District Plan 2018 need to be reviewed and evaluated. This is to ensure that the current policies, objectives and methods relating to land use and urban development give effect to Te Mana o te Wai and biophysical components including water quality, quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological process.

14      Southland District Council will have consultation requirements with tangata whenua and communities for the implementation of the NPS-FM 2020.

Community Views

15      Deep concerns have been expressed in the rural Southland community regarding the impacts of the Essential Freshwater Package including the NES-FM 2020 and the NPS-FM 2020. Although, the community are passionate about good freshwater outcomes, changes to policies, objectives and methods relating to land use activity and urban development can be a sensitive topic where private property is involved.

Costs and Funding

16      Work quantifying the level of investment in resource management policy has been initiated and is part of the discussions around the Long Term Planning for this area.

Policy Implications

17      The NPS-FM 2020 does not define land use and development. There is more scope for Southland District Council to address effects on freshwater quality and surrounding environments resulting from land use and development activities in the Southland District Plan 2018. 

18      As the Southland District Council and Environment Southland resource management documents are both required to be consistent with the NPS-FM 2020, duplication of policy is possible.

Analysis

Options Considered

19      The options considered are to schedule this work against the existing priorities of the resource management policy team alongside or after the landscapes and biodiversity policy work has progressed sufficiently, or to secure additional resources, or to work collaboratively with Environment Southland and draft provisions within planning documents that are consistent across Southland.


 

Option 1 – To schedule this work against the existing priorities of the resource management policy team, alongside or after the landscapes and biodiversity policy work has progressed sufficiently

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Eventually meet legislative requirements and achieve national freshwater outcomes.

·      Prioritisation allows important policy work to be progressed that predominantly impacts Council’s legislative requirements and the needs of the community.

·      Policy staff can focus their time and resource into already established projects to progress them prior to starting work on freshwater legislation.

·      The work will need to be prioritised against landscapes and biodiversity policy work.

·      There will be a period where planning documents may not meet legislative requirements relating to freshwater management.

·        Not meeting national legislative requirements in a timely manner.

·      Could impact the ability to proactively address integrated management.

 

Option 2 – To secure additional resources to undertake the work

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Shows Council’s commitment to freshwater outcomes and integrated management.

·        Meet freshwater legislative requirements and freshwater outcomes.

·        Enable the strengthening of relationships with Environment Southland and the community.

·        Work on the NPS-FM 2020 will be completed in a timely manner.

·        Additional staff resource and finance will be required for the ongoing review and implementation of freshwater outcomes.

 

 


 

Option 3 – Work collaboratively with Environment Southland and to draft provisions within planning documents that are consistent across Southland.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Addressing freshwater outcomes to meet legislative requirements.

·        Collaboratively work with communities and join resources.

·        A proactive approach to give effect to integrated management and recognise the national direction towards an integrated management resource management system, as identified in the Resource Management Act Randerson report.

·        Additional resource may be required.

 

Assessment of Significance

20      As per the recommendations above, this matter is not considered significant in terms of the relevant criteria of the Local Government 2002.

Recommended Option

21      Option 3 – Council supports working collaboratively with Environment Southland and to draft of provisions within planning documents that are consistent across Southland. This option allows integrated management work to be undertaken in a timely manner whilst ensuring that existing policy priorities are maintained.

Next Steps

22      The Essential Freshwater Package requires immediate action from Councils. Staff will provide regular updates as part of the policy reporting cycle on how the review of the NPS-FM 2020 impacts Southland District Council planning documents. Once staff have undertaken further analysis a workshop will be held with elected representatives focusing on options and solutions to the changes ahead.

 

Attachments

a             Discussion Document - Implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion document on the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

Olivia Stirling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Table of Contents

1.   Introduction…………………………………………….….............................2

2.   Background…………………………………………………………………………….2

2.1  The requirement for freshwater national direction………….2

2.2  Water management within New Zealand’s current

institutional arrangements……………………………………………...3

2.3  The national direction for freshwater protection……….......3

2.4  The NPS-FM and the Environment Southland………………….4

2.5  The Southland District Council’s interest in waterways……5

3.   Discussion………………………………………………………………………………5

3.1  The NPS resolving water quality at a national level………….5

3.2  Implications for Environment Southland ………………….…….6

3.3  Implications for the Southland District Council………….…….6

4.   Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….8

5.   Recommendations………………………………………………………………...8

6.   Reference List.………………………………………………………………………10

7.   Appendices……………………………………………………………………………12


 

1.  Introduction

This report prepared for the Southland District Council (SDC), details the implications that the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) 2020 will have on the Southland Regional Council (Environment Southland) and SDC. It draws on the Southland Regional Policy Statement 2017, the Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020, the operative Southland Water Plan 2010 and the Southland District Plan 2018.

Plentiful, clean water is one of New Zealand’s greatest economic assets, is a key part of New Zealand’s environmental identity, and contributes to the livelihood of residents (Dingfelder, 2016). The cultural significance of water in New Zealand is demonstrated by Māori and their belief that water is taonga a treasured possession. As freshwater has national significance, the NPS-FM 2020 is framed to provide direction for local governments on how to manage freshwater (Ministry for the Environment, 2020a). It is a legislative requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), that regional and territorial authorities (city and district councils) give effect to the NPS-FM 2020 through their planning documents. However, the implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 has implications for Environment Southland. The Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 is presently in the formal plan change process and has not been given legal effect to yet in full. The NPS-FM 2020 introduces intensive monitoring and baseline requirements that are not provided for in the Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020, which will delay the plan change process and subsequently affect ratepayers, Southland communities and risk freshwater initiatives that have been implemented to improve the water quality in Southland. As freshwater management has previously primarily been a regional council responsibility, the NPS-FM 2020 has implications for SDC. To meet the legislative requirements the District Plan will need to be reviewed which will necessitate resources and finances as land use activity will have more scope. There is an evident governmental push for integrated management through this legislation, which will impact the relationship between Environment Southland and SDC and will cause duplication of policy and community confusion if plan changes are not discussed at an early stage.

2 Background

2.1 The requirement for freshwater national direction

Agricultural intensification and urban sprawl have contributed to the diminishing quality of water in New Zealand throughout recent decades (Larned et al., 2016). In Southland between 1990 and 1999, the number of dairy cattle rapidly increased from 38,000 to 233,000 (Hamill & McBride, 2003). This has implications for freshwater as nitrate leaching is much greater in dairy pasture than sheep or deer pasture, resulting in polluted groundwater, rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands (Monaghan et al., 2010). Between 2001 and 2016, Southland lost a minimum of 214 wetlands (approximately 1,247 hectares) resulting from climate change and agricultural activity (Belliss, Shepherd, Newsome, & Dymond, 2017). Additionally, monitoring by Environment Southland shows that Southland’s lowland waterways are degrading from intensive agricultural use (Monaghan et al., 2007).

2.2 Water management within New Zealand’s current institutional arrangements

The management of water at a river basin level has been applied internationally to resolve water problems through the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) (Davis & Threlfall, 2006). IWRM recognises the interconnectivity between land use, water use and nature, whilst promoting the management of water through integrated governance systems (Molle, 2008). In 1989, New Zealand used an IWRM method to restructure the water and regulatory governance institutions at a local level to accommodate the boundaries of natural catchments in the local government reforms (Davis & Threlfall, 2006). Environment Southland was one of the 11 regional councils that were created over this period and is structured around four catchments: the Aparima, Oreti, Waiau and Mataura.

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides the legislative framework for councils in New Zealand (Smith & Crawford, 2020). In general terms, the role of district councils is to regulate and control the effects of land use activity on the environment, whereas, the primary role of regional councils is to manage natural and physical resources, public transport and co-ordinate emergency response management (McNeill, 2011).

The institutional arrangement for water governance is complicated in New Zealand as it encompasses multiple governmental agencies and polices (Eppel, 2014). However, the principal legislation for water governance is the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA has a hierarchal structure which is influenced by the Treaty of Waitangi (see Figure A1 for further detail). Under the RMA framework, planning documents in Southland are required to be consistent with Te Tangi a Tauira the Iwi Management Plan 2008, which represents Ngāi Tahu values, the Māori holistic view of the environment and environmental management issues (Environment Southland, 2020a).

2.3  The national direction for freshwater protection

National Policy Statements (NPS) are instruments under sections 45 to 55 of the RMA that identify matters of national significance and provide national direction for local authorities (Resource Management Act, 1991). In 2018, freshwater degradation was identified as one of New Zealand’s leading environmental concerns (Statistics Zealand, 2019). The implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 was a political response to the concern, which came into effect on the 3 September 2020 to replace the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017).

The fundamental concept of the NPS-FM 2020 is Te Mana o te Wai, which is an integrated management approach that considers the health and well-being of water, the ecosystem and the surrounding land (Aho, 2018). The concept refers to the importance of water bodies and recognises restoration, protection and preservation of water in New Zealand. Three primary objectives are set out in a hierarchal structure in the NPS-FM 2020 which regional and territorial authorities are required to implement to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai: firstly, the holistic wellbeing of freshwater ecosystems, and water bodies, secondly, human needs including drinking water and thirdly, the use of water bodies for the social, cultural, economic needs of communities in the short and long term (National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, 2020).

Additionally, Te Mana o te Wai is required to be given effect to through the implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 National Objectives Framework (NOF). The NOF sets out how councils should implement policies, objectives and rules to improve the overall health of waterways and ecosystems (Ministry for the Environment, 2020b). This is done by recognising the highest risks to waterways and ecosystems, identifying bottom line measures and setting monitoring requirements.

2.4  The NPS-FM 2020 and Environment Southland

The Southland Regional Policy Statement 2017 (SRPS), the Operative Regional Water Plan 2010 and the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 are tools that Environment Southland utilise to deliver their responsibilities under the RMA. Both a regional plan and a district plan are required to be consistent with the regional policy statement, as per the RMA hierarchical structure. However, the Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 is presently in the formal Environment Court hearing process to hear from the appellants and has not been given legal effect to yet in full (Environment Southland, 2020b).

The SRPS is already consistent with the requirements of the NPS-FM 2020 (see Table A1 for detail on the specific NPS-FM 2020 SRPS requirements) (Environment Southland, 2018). However, the Regional Water Plan 2010 is outdated and does not provide for intensive agricultural use and land use change (Ministry for the Environment, 2017). Before the NPS-FM 2020 was implemented a Progressive Implementation Programme was adopted by Environment Southland to work with communities to give effect to the regional council legislative requirements under the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017).

Under the NOF Environment Southland is required to identify freshwater management units (FMU) which are regionally recognised water bodies. These FMU’s are required to be monitored against the biophysical components that are identified in the NPS-FM 2020 and contribute to the ecosystem: water quality, water quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological processes. In Southland, there are five catchments that are identified as FMU’s and therefore, are required to meet the nationally consistent bottom lines and objectives (Environment Southland, 2019).

2.5  The Southland District Councils interest in waterways

The SRPS outlines SDC’s obligations for water quality, where SDC are required to manage any adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on water quality. These requirements are reflected through the Southland District Plan 2018 which presently addresses water quality through stormwater, drinking water and wastewater (three waters), land use activity including earthworks and subdivisions, (see Table A2 for references to water quality in the Southland District Plan). Additionally, SDC is required to obtain consents from Environment Southland for discharges at SDC’s wastewater treatment plants.

The responsibility for territorial authorities under the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017) was for the involvement of iwi within freshwater decisions and that tangata whenua values would be reflected through the management of freshwater. However, the role of territorial authorities has increased through the NPS-FM (2020). District plans are required to be consistent with the provisions of the NPS-FM 2020. Additionally, all district plans must include policies, objectives and methods that promote positive environmental effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of land use activity and urban development that compromise the well-being or health of freshwater bodies, ecosystems and the receiving environments.

3. Discussion

3.1 The NPS resolving water quality at a national level

The degrading freshwater in New Zealand demonstrates that the current framework for freshwater protection is not achieving the required environmental outcomes. Despite the increased pollution within the Southland catchments resulting from agricultural and other land use activity, there remains a lack of monitoring of changing land use and its impact on freshwater (Dingfelder, 2016). The national direction for freshwater is essential for regional councils, including Environment Southland to have the institutional backing to ensure the ongoing protection and enhancement of New Zealand’s freshwater resources and eco-systems. The NPS-FM 2020 will have both advantages and disadvantages for implementation at a local level in Southland (see Table A3 for detail).

3.2 Implications for Environment Southland

The Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 has undergone extensive community engagement and has occupied time, finances and resource. The Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 was developed with the primary intention of improving Southland’s water quality, however, it does not meet the legislative requirements and freshwater objectives under the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017) (Environment Southland, 2018). The existing progressive implementation programme that was executed to achieve the regulations under the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017), is the most efficient way of achieving prompt water outcomes in Southland (Environment Southland, 2018). However, now that the requirements of the NPS-FM 2020 need to be efficiently met, Environment Southland resource, time and finances will need to be focused towards amending the proposed plan and reviewing implications for communities to meet the legislative requirements. This places the Southland catchments at further risk of degradation whilst the Southland Water Plan 2010 is still operative and does not achieve freshwater outcomes.

The NOF in the NPS-FM 2020 increases regional councils’ responsibilities (see Table A4 for the comparison between the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017) and the NPS-FM 2020). However, it is unrealistic for Southland to meet nationally consistent bottom lines for their five identified FMU’s (Environment Southland, 2019). Although it is recognised that the well-being and health of waterways and ecosystems are the priority in the NPS-FM 2020 to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, regional councils require community support, time and consultation to implement the increased measures.

3.3 Implications for Southland District Council

The hierarchal RMA structure already ensures integrated sustainable management outcomes and that the management of natural and physical resources is consistent though policy implementation at a local level (Davis & Threlfall, 2006). However, as Te Mana o te Wai is the fundamental concept of the NPS-FM 2020, it is evident that the framework of the resource management system in New Zealand will become further integrated. IWRM creates an opportunity for collaboration with iwi, gives effect to the Māori holistic view on the environment and is an effective method for managing freshwater outcomes.

Territorial authorities’ role in water management outcomes through legislation has not historically been significant. In the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017) the role of territorial authorities was minimal. However, under the NPS-FM 2020 territorial authorities have a responsibility for promoting positive effects on water quality and mitigating adverse water quality effects associated with land use and urban development. Although the role of district and regional councils differ, the integrated management approach introduced by the NPS-FM 2020, may consequently cause confusion at a local level as both SDC and Environment Southland will have a role in water quality outcomes. Therefore, the duplication of policies, objectives and rules between SDC and Environment Southland could occur.

To meet legislative requirements, water quality outcomes in the Southland District Plan 2018 need to be reviewed and evaluated. This is to ensure that the current policies, objectives and methods relating to land use and urban development give effect to Te Mana o te Wai and biophysical components including water quality, quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological process. However, the plan review process will be complicated as the NPS-FM 2020 has not defined land use activity and urban development. Determining if the scope for land use activity and urban development in the Southland District Plan 2018 has changed through the implementation of the NPS-FM 2020 is, therefore, up to interpretation. This review of the Southland District Plan 2018 and subsequent implementation will come as a cost to Southland District ratepayers, as resource and finance will be required. Although, the New Zealand community are passionate about freshwater outcomes, changes to policies, objectives and methods relating to land use activity and urban development will impact the wider community and can be a sensitive topic where private property is involved (Johnson, 1992). Therefore, SDC will have consultation requirements with tangata whenua and communities’ and additional resource will be required for this process.

The NPS-FM 2020 will create implications for SDC’s reticulated three waters systems through more extensive consenting, reporting and implementation requirements. This may have flow on effects for Southland communities that rely on these systems and will result in additional cost for ratepayers if the systems are required to be upgraded and do not meet the new requirements set out in the NPS-FM 2020.

4.  Conclusion

1.    Integrated management is a key component of the NPS-FM 2020. It would be proactive to address how integrated management will affect the relationship between SDC and Environment Southland in the future.

2.    The NPS-FM 2020 does not define land use and development. There is more scope for SDC to address effects on freshwater quality and surrounding environments resulting from land use and development activities in the Southland District Plan 2018.  

3.    The proposed Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 and the Southland Water Plan 2010, not meeting the legislative requirements of the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017), demonstrates, the significance of the freshwater issues and national obligations in Southland. Therefore, if SDC reviews the Southland District Plan 2018 in response to their obligations under the NPS-FM 2020, time, finances, resource and extensive public consultation will be required.

4.    As the Southland District Plan 2018 and the Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 are both required to be consistent with the NPS-FM 2020, duplication of policy is possible.

5.    SDC will have increased implications for obtaining discharge consents for their three waters functions in the future as the NPS-FM 2020 requires more extensive monitoring, enforcing and regulating requirements through the NOF. This will impact reticulated services within communities.

5. Recommendations

It is recommended that Southland District Council:

1.    meet with Environment Southland regularly to discuss the future of integrated management and how the national direction towards further integrating the resource management system might impact the Southland region

2.    review the definition of land use activity and urban development in the Southland District Plan 2018 relating to how activities will impact water quality, quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological processes

3.    note that increased resource, finance and community engagement will be required for plan review and implementation

4.    discuss relevant plan changes and implementation methods with Environment Southland at an early stage to prevent policy duplication and public confusion

5.    review if SDC three waters services will be impacted by the NPS-FM 2020 and assess any complications resulting from intensified monitoring and implementation requirements resulting from the NPS-FM 2020


 

6. Reference List

a)      Aho, L. T. (2018). Te Mana o te Wai: An indigenous perspective on rivers and river management. Special Issue: International Society for River Science, Waikato Symposium 2017: Integrating Multiple Aquatic Values, 35(10), 1615-1621.  https://doi-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/10.1002/rra.3365

b)      Belliss, S., Shepherd, J., Newsome, P., & Dymond, J. (2017). An analysis of wetland loss between 2001/02 and 2015/16 (LC2798).

c)       Davis, M. D., & Threlfall, J. (2006). Integrated Water Resource Management in New Zealand: Legislative Framework and Implementation. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education(135), 86-99.

d)      Dingfelder, J. (2016). New Zealand’s Approach to Integrated Freshwater Management with a Focus on Indigenous Interests Retrieved from Wellington.

e)      Environment Southland. (2019). Environment Southland’s submission on ‘Action for healthy waterways - A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater.’ https://www.es.govt.nz/about-us/news?item=id:27vcalmx51cxbyac7j1v

f)       Environment Southland. (2018). Progressive Implementation Programme. www.waterandland.es.govt.nz

g)      Environment Southland. (2020a). Partnership with iwi. www.es.govt.nz/about-us/about-council/partnership-with-iwi

h)      Environment Southland. (2020b). Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan. https://www.es.govt.nz/about-us/plans-and-strategies/regional-plans/proposed-southland-water-and-land-plan

i)        Eppel, E. (2014). Improving New Zealand water governance challenges and recommendations. Policy Quarterly, 10(3), 66-75.

j)        Hamill, K. D., & McBride, G. B. (2003). River water quality trends and increased dairying in Southland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 32(2), 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2003.9517170

k)      Johnson, R. W. M. (1992). Resource management sustainability and property reights in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 167-185.

l)        Larned, S., Snelder, T., Unwin, M., & McBride, G. (2016). Water quality in New Zealand rivers: current state and trends. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 50(3), 389-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2016.1150309

m)    McNeill, J. (2011). Deciding at the Right Level: Regions, Councils and Legitimacy. Wellington: Dunmore.

n)      Ministry for the Environment. (2017). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Implementation Review. www.mfe.govt.nz

o)      Ministry for the Environment. (2020a). About the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/freshwater-acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statement-freshwater-management

p)      Ministry for the Environment. (2020b). Freshwater action for healthy waterways information for regional councils. www.mfe.govt.nz

q)      Molle, F. (2008). River-basin planning and management: The social life of a concept. Geoforum, 40, 484-494. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.004

r)       Monaghan, R. M., Semadeni-Davies, A., Muirhead, R. W., Elliott, S., & Shankar, U. (2010). Land use and land management risks to water quality in Southland; Report prepared for Environment Southland

s)       Monaghan, R. M., Wilcock, R. J., Smith, L. C., Tikkisetty, B., Thorrold, B. S., & Costall, D. (2007). Linkages between land management activities and water quality in an intensively farmed catchment in southern New Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118(1-4), 211-222.

t)       National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. (2020).    https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/fresh-water/national-policy-statement-freshwater-management-2020

u)      Regional Water Plan for Southland. (2010). No. 2014/09. https://www.es.govt.nz/about-us/plans-and-strategies/regional-plans/regional-water-plan

v)      Resource Management Act, No. 69. (1991). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html

w)    Saunders, W. S. A. (2017). Setting the scene: the role of iwi management plans in natural hazard management. Lower hutt

x)      Smith, J., & Crawford, R. (2020). Local government insights. www.productivity.govt.nz

y)      Southland Regional Policy Statement. (2017). https://www.es.govt.nz/about-us/plans-and-strategies/regional-policy-statement

z)       Stastics New Zealand. (2019). Freshwater quality Kiwis’ biggest environmental concern. https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/freshwater-quality-kiwis-biggest-environmental-concern


 

aa)    

7. Appendices

Figure A1.

Resource Management Act 1991 Hierarchical framework and Iwi involvement (Saunders, 2017, p. 8)

 


 

Table A1.

Comparison between the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the NPS-FM 2020

NPS-FM 2020

Consistency with the Southland Regional Policy Statement 2017

Part 3 Subpart 1 3.2 - Include objectives in the RPS that outlines how the management for freshwater will give effect to Te Mana o te Wai

This is consistent with the SRPS. There are various objectives throughout the SRPS that give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

Part 3 Subpart 1 3.3 - Include long term visions for freshwater in the RPS

This is consistent with the SRPS. The SRPS already set out the sustainable management of freshwater and addresses long term risk management.

Part 3 Subpart 1 3.4 – Actively involve tangata whenua in any decision making through the RPS

This is consistent with the SRPS framework, through the implementation of the Iwi Management Plan, and various objectives, policies and methods throughout the RPS.

Part 3 Subpart 3.5 – Change the RPS to provide for the integrated management of land use effects on freshwater

This is consistent with the SRPS. The SRPS already provides direction for both the district and regional councils for the integrated management of natural and physical resources.

 

Table A2.

Reference to water quality outcomes in the operative Southland District Plan 2018 Reference

Section 2.2 Biodiversity

Reference - development and land use can affect freshwater habitats and indigenous aquatic life.

Section 2.6 Subdivision 

Policy SUB.7 reference to the requirement of water supply, wastewater and stormwater disposal if reticulated service is not provided.

Policy Sub.10 reference to subdividing affecting esplanade mechanisms and the maintenance of water quality and aquatic habitats.

Section 2.13 Water and Surface Activities

Objective WATER.1, Policy WATER.1 and Policy WATER.2, on managing adverse effects of land use, development and subdivisions on water quality and quantity.

Water Non-Regulatory Methods:

Method WATER.1, Method WATER.2 and WATER.3 – Provide education on water conservation measures, promote measures to manage water contamination, collaborate with the relevant agencies to manage land use activity and their effects on the quality of drinking water.

Section 3.1 Rural Zone

Policy RURAL.8 reference to earthworks and water quality.

Section 3.2 Urban Zone

Policy URB.6 reference to stormwater flows and water quality.

Section 3.3 Te Anau Residential Zone B

Policy TRB.1 reference to sewage disposal and impacts on the water.

Section 3.5 Fiordland/ Rakiura Zone

Policy FRZ.5 reference to earthworks and the effects on water quality.

Section 3.6 Eweburn Zone

Objective EWB.1 reference to the maintenance and enhancement of ecological values.

 


 

 

Table A3.

The advantages and disadvantages of the NPS-FM 2020 implementation for the Southland Region

Benefits of the NPS-FM 2020 Implementation

Disadvantages of the NPS-FM 2020 Implementation

Integrated management/ Te Mana o te Wa

-      The implementation of an internationally recognised concept allows New Zealand to manage its waterways effectively.

-      Recognition of the holistic health and well-being of water.

-      Cultural significance

-      Giving effect to a concept with proven benefits.

Increased regional obligations under the National Objectives Framework

-      Additional resourcing required for monitoring and enforcement

-      Added cost to ratepayers for obtaining the top monitoring equipment that is required

-      The effects on the community and the economy as certain activities may not be possible under the national baseline measures. 

-      No transitional period for declining FMU’s is an impossible task.

National protection of freshwater

-      National backing for Southland to implement measures to ensure the ongoing protection of freshwater.

-      Economic benefits through ongoing tourism.

-      Long term environmental outcomes

-      Placing responsibility back on to the community through consenting requirements.

Amending the Southland Water and Land Plan 2020 prior to it becoming operative

-      Community engagement

-      A plan change process is timely, amending  the proposed plan will result in additional delay to the plan becoming operative.

-      Freshwater decline in the meantime, as resource and time is needed to focus on meeting the requirements under the NPS-FM 2020.

Promoting tangata whenua involvment in the SRPS and regional plan(s) and

supporting partnership with iwi.

The timeframe

-      There is no transitional period, therefore, the finances and resources are required immediately. 

-      Added consenting and enforcement requirements.

 


 

Table A4.

Changes to from the amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017 to the NPS-FM as it relates to the National Objectives Framework

The amended 2014 NPS-FM (2017)

NPS-FM 2020

Objective CA1 – Establish freshwater objectives that are nationally consistent and recognise circumstances at a regional and local level.

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.7- 3.11 – Regional Council must, engage with communities and tangata whenua, identify FMU’s and values, set environmental outcomes for each FMU, set limits and targets to achieve environmental outcomes, monitor water bodies and freshwater ecosystems, take action when degradation is evident.

Policy CA1 - Regional Councils to identify freshwater management units (FMU).

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.12 and 3.15 – In order to achieve targets every regional council shall include limits and rules in its regional plan(s), can prepare an action plan or impose conditions on resource consents.

Policy CA2 – Through consultation with communities and tangata whenua, identify and formulate objectives for all FMUs to maintain water quality and assess the minimum acceptable states of the FMU’s.

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.13 – Every regional council shall at a minimum set an appropriate instream concentrations and exceedance criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus.

Policy CA3 – Ensuring the objectives set are above the national bottom lines.

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.14 – Limits on resource may apply to any land use activity at any scale, and can be expressed by input, output, or land-use controls. Every Council must have regard to long term plans, the best information available and freshwater accounting systems.

Policy CA4 – Objectives below bottom lines may only be set for a transitional period.

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.16 and 3.17 – Each regional council must set rules in the regional plan(s) that sets flows and levels for every FMU, and identify take limits, where existing water permits will be reviewed to comply with the flow and levels.

 

Part 3 Subpart 2 3.18- 3.20 – Each regional council, shall monitor to achieve targets and assess trends. Where degradation is detected in an FMU, immediate action is required to halt or reverse degradation.

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

Request for unbudgeted expenditure approval for the concrete footpath installation on Main Road Oban, from Department of Conservation to Dundee Street.

Record No:             R/20/9/53242

Author:                      Brendan Gray, Projects Manager

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        After the construction of the new Rakiura Heritage Centre, the community board agreed with the Museum Trust to reconstruct the existing footpaths adjacent to the Heritage Centre and install kerbing and car parking. This project was approved and is to be delivered under an existing minor works contract 20/13.

2        As an extension to this project the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board now wish to continue the concrete footpath construction along Main Road from outside the of the Department of Conservation office (DOC), up to Dundee Street.

Executive summary

3        This report will outline the project, and further seeks approval from Council to undertake this project outside the annual plan programme of works and approve the unbudgeted expenditure required.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            receives the report titled “Request for unbudgeted expenditure approval for the concrete footpath installation on Main Road Oban, from Department of Conservation to Dundee Street.” dated 7 October 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 project for the additional concrete footpath to be installed on Main Road, Stewart Island/Rakiura from outside the Department of Conservation office up to Dundee Street

 

e)            approves the unbudgeted expenditure of $41,800.00 made up of $31,000 from the successful Stewart Island Visitor Levy application and up to $10,800.00 from Stewart Island general reserves.

 

Background

4        After the construction of the new Rakiura Heritage Centre, the community board agreed with the Museum Trust to reconstruct the existing footpaths adjacent to the Heritage Centre and install kerbing and car parking. This project has been approved and has been awarded under minor works contract 20/13.

5        The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board would now like to continue the concrete footpath on Main Road from outside the DOC office up to Dundee Street. This additional project is outside the annual plan and is over the Community Board financial delegation.

6        This additional footpath project was discussed and agreed at a community board workshop held 9 December 2019.

7        The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board approached a local contractor on Stewart Island and received an estimate quote to complete the additional footpath work. This was estimated at $31,000 and the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board subsequently applied to the SIVL for funding and were awarded $31,000 towards the project.

Issues

8        On discussion with the Southland District Council roading and 3 waters teams, it was determined that the scope of work priced by the local contractor had some elements omitted from the pricing. The original contractor and two other local contractors were given an opportunity to reprice this revised scope of work.

9        The original contractor declined to reprice but two prices were received, at $38,000 and $39,000 by Duncan Earthworks and Excavation and RDR Builders respectively.

10      As the original funding applied for through the Stewart Island Visitor Levy was $31,000, the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board have insufficient funding to complete the project without the addition of $7,000 of funding from Stewart Island general reserves.

11      Although the additional $7,000 would fund the project, it does not allow for any contingency value if for some reason the project encounters unknown issues.

12      A 10% contingency value on top of the quoted price should be allowed which would take the total project costs up to $41,800.

Factors to consider

Legal and statutory requirements

13      None

Community views

14      The community board have committed to upgrading the footpath and parking facilities outside the new Heritage Centre and also to improve the footpath and drainage issues that exist outside the DOC office by raising the footpath. The community are aware of the footpath and drainage issues and support the project.

Costs and funding

15      The Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board wish to accept the quote from Duncan Earthworks and Excavation for $38,000 of which $31,000 would be funded from the successful Stewart Island Visitor Levy application, and $7,000 to be funded from Stewart Island general reserves, with no contingency.

16      Having a nil contingency is not a sensible option therefore it is proposed that an additional 10% be allowed for on top of the quoted value. This would require an additional up to $3,800.00 for any incidental costs meaning the total of Stewart Island general reserves which could be utilised would be up to $10,800.00.

17      The current Stewart Island general reserve balance is $251,181 of which $53,658 is currently committed.

Policy implications

18      None

Analysis

Options considered

19      There are two options which can be considered in this instance. To approve the unbudgeted expenditure to complete the project, or not approve the unbudgeted expenditure to complete the project.

Analysis of options

Option 1 – Approve the additional concrete footpath construction project and the unbudgeted expenditure of up to $41,800.00

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        majority of funding is already approved from the SIVL

·        project has community support

·        project has been scoped and priced

·        enhances visitor experience by making it safe and enjoyable.

·        completes the block of concrete footpath replacement on Main Road.

·        additional project has to be fitted into an existing work program.

 

Option 2 – Do not approve the project or the unbudgeted expenditure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        funding can be returned to the Stewart Island visitor levy and used for other projects.

·        drainage issues will remain outside DOC

·        community will be disappointed

·        only half of the footpath will be concrete and the remainder will be gravel

·        unpleasant for users walking to accommodation providers with suitcases.

 

Assessment of significance

20      This decision has been determined as not significant.

Recommended option

21      The recommendation is to proceed with option 1, to approve the project and unbudgeted expenditure and continue with the project.

Next steps

22      If this report is approved, the project delivery team will award the additional footpath project with a minor works contract to Duncan Earthworks & Excavation who are an approved Southland District Council subcontractor.

 

Attachments

a             Community Board workshop 9 December 2019    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

Unbudgeted Expenditure - Don Street Dark Fibre Connection

Record No:             R/20/10/59516

Author:                      Jock Hale, Business Solutions Manager

Approved by:         Trudie Hurst, Group Manager Customer Delivery

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council for the unbudgeted expenditure required to install a private fibre (dark fibre) network between the new Don Street offices and the Forth Street office.

Executive Summary

2        This request is not for additional funding and there is no impact on rates. This request is to reallocate part of the business solutions networking operational budget to cover the capital cost of installing dark fibre. As per schedule 7 32(1)c of the Local Government 2002, any asset purchase requires approval from Council. While this work could be classified as operational, it was determined by Southland District Council (SDC) finance department to be capital works as it creates an improvement or benefit, and SDC would have sufficient control over the network infrastructure.

3        This report contains several technical terms related to computer networking. An explanation of these terms is provided in the section below called “Technical Terms”. In general terms we can think of a network connection being similar to a water pipe. The diameter of the pipe determines the volume of water that can pass through the pipe and in networking this is referred to as throughput or speed. The length of the pipe determines how much time it takes for water to start flowing after you turn the tap on, and in networking this is referred to as latency or lag.

4        Council have moved their main operations from a single site at 15 Forth Street to now include two new offices in Don Street.

5        The current network connection method between the Don Street sites and Forth Street data centre is Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnels running over standard shared business fibre connection. A VPN tunnel is a technology that allows us to securely connect our offices while using a public network like the internet. The maximum theoretical throughput for this connection is 900 megabits per second (Mbps) but operational speeds are typically 400Mbps with average latency time on these connections of 50 milliseconds (ms). Average latency at Forth Street is 1ms.

6        Don Street users are negatively affected by the high latency when using key software products like our document management system (RM8), Geographical Information System (GIS) used for managing spatial data in the form of maps, Infocouncil agenda management software, Pathway, and data reporting and management tools.

7        Invercargill City Council (ICC) can provide a private fibre connection (dark fibre) between the Don Street sites and Forth Street. This would provide network speeds of 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) and average latency of 2ms. The use of a private fibre connection will result in long-term cost savings and ensure Don Street staff can effectively use SDC systems.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Unbudgeted Expenditure - Don Street Dark Fibre Connection” dated 14 October 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 users at Don Street are experiencing speed and latency problems.

 

e)            Approves the unbudgeted expenditure amount of $39,586.25 excluding GST, for the installation and setup of a dark fibre network and that the cost is funded by a three-year loan, with repayments from the existing networking operational budget.

 

Technical Terms

8        The technical terms used in the report are explained as follows:

·        Throughput: this is the rate of data transfer across a given path.

·        Megabits per second (Mbps): this is a measure of throughput or speed in a network connection. One million bits = one megabit.

·        Gigabits per second (Gbps): one thousand megabits = one gigabit.

·        Latency (lag): the amount of time it takes for a packet of data to be captured, transmitted, processed and received at its destination and decoded.

·        Millisecond (ms): a way to the measure latency. The lower the time the more responsive the network typically is.

·        Virtual Private Network (VPN): a technology used to encrypt the network connection over the Internet from a device to a device. The encrypted connection helps ensure that sensitive data is safely transmitted. It prevents unauthorised people from eavesdropping on the traffic and allows the user to conduct work from remote locations.

·        Dark fibre: A fibre connection that is not owned and operated by a telecommunications provider. For the purpose of this report it is a private fibre connection owned by ICC.

Background

9        In February 2020 Council approved the operation of alternative corporate administration space to allow approximately 85 staff to relocate from the earthquake prone sections of the Forth Street office. New office space was leased at 20 and 42 Don Street, Invercargill.

10      The main data centre for Southland District Council (SDC) is located in the server room at Forth Street.

11      Business solutions department has an ongoing operational budget to provide network access for all SDC offices.

12      The business solutions team investigated different commercially available connection options for connecting the Don Street sites to Forth Street data centre. The most viable options were a shared business fibre connection or a dedicated fibre connection.

13      SDC chose the shared business fibre connection for both Don Street sites as it had the least cost and was thought to be sufficient for staff requirements at these sites. Shared business fibre connections are already being used successfully at our Winton and Te Anau area offices.

14      A VPN tunnel over the shared business fibre connection provides secure access for SDC staff to the core systems and data located at the Forth Street data centre.

15      The shared business fibre connection has a maximum theoretical throughput of 900Mbps, but operationally the throughput is typically 300Mbps. Average network latency time on these connections is 51ms, compared to the average network latency at Forth Street of 1ms.

16      Staff from the business solutions, knowledge management, strategy and policy, governance, property, and people and capability teams moved into 42 Don at the start of September 2020. Within days of operating at the 42 Don Street site it became apparent that some of the applications used by staff were running very slowly. The I.T team investigated the issues and identified that the problem related to high latency but was made worse when multiple staff were concurrently accessing resources from the Forth Street data centre. 

17      Don Street users are negatively affected by the high latency when using key software products like our document management system (RM8), Infocouncil, Pathway and database management tools. Copying of large documents is also negatively affected.

18      Staff productivity has been impacted due to the extra time it takes for applications to open and for data to move between sites. As an example, the time to save or open a one-megabyte word file at Forth Street is two seconds compared to 13 seconds at Don Street.   

19      It is expected that the project delivery, community and facility, communications, community partnership, commercial infrastructure and executive support will encounter the same network issues as staff as 42 Don Street when they relocate to 20 Don Street. The effect on the communications team is likely to be most significant due to the large multimedia files that they create and store at Forth Street data centre.

20      SDC could upgrade the shared business fibre connection to a dedicated fibre connection with Spark. While investigating this option the business solutions team became aware of the possibility to use the ICC dark fibre at Don Street sites, which would provide higher throughputs than the Spark dedicated fibre at a lower long-term cost.

21      SDC currently has a dark fibre connection between Forth Street and ICC. This connection is used as part of the data backup strategy where a copy of SDC data is stored in the shared services environment at the Invercargill city library. ICC are able to extend the dark fibre network to the Don Street sites.

22      Dedicated fibre connections provide the lowest latency as network traffic remains within the Invercargill boundary. Shared business fibre connections typically travel to the telecommunication provider’s central infrastructure, normally Wellington or Auckland. This means that data has to travel from Invercargill to Auckland and then back to Invercargill.

Issues

23      Loss of staff productivity due to network congestion and high network latency. This means tasks that take a few seconds to complete at Forth Street are taking minutes to complete at Don Street.

24      Staff frustration when using SDC systems at Don Street sites.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

25      The Local Government Act 2002 schedule 7 clause 32(1)(c) requires that any asset purchase requires approval from Council.

Community Views

26      No community views have been specifically sort as this is an internal operational issue.

Costs and Funding

27      The installation and setup of a dark fibre network will be funded by a three-year loan, with repayments coming from our existing networking operational budget. The three-year loan will be subject to an internal interest rate of 4.65%. Annual repayments will be approx. $14,214.

28      The long-term operating budget for networking already includes and allocation of $7,200 per year to provide networking to the Don Street sites. The recent introduction of fibre in the Te Anau area office has resulted in networking cost savings which could be used to offset the initial cost.

29      Lost productivity at each Don Street office, due to the use of a shared fibre connection, is conservatively calculated as 90 minutes per week.


 

30      Costs for Don Street connection options as shown below.

42 Don Street

Shared fibre
lost productivity

Shared
fibre

Commercial dedicated

Private dedicated

Year 1

$3,120

$1,320

$4,000

$19,793

Year 2

$3,120

$1,386

$0

$0

Year 3

$3,120

$1,455

$0

$0

Year 4

$3,120

$1,529

$0

$0

Year 5

$3,120

$1,604

$0

$0

20 Don Street

 

 

 

 

Year 1

$3,120

$1,320

 $16,832

$19,793

Year 2

$3,120

$1,386

$15,573

$0

Year 3

$3,120

$1,455

$16,352

$0

Year 4

$3,120

$1,529

 $17,170

$0

Year 5

$3,120

$1,604

$18,028

$0

Don Street totals

Shared
fibre

Commercial dedicated

Private dedicated

Year 1

$8,880

$20,832

$39,586

Year 2

$9,012

$15,573

$0

Year 3

$9,150

$16,352

$0

3 Year total

$27,042

$52,757

$39,586

Year 4

$9,298

$17,170

$0

Year 5

$9,448

 $18,028

$0

5 Year total

$45,788

$87,955

$39,586

 

Policy Implications

31      There is no current capital expenditure included within Council’s current 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, and this report seeks approval for the unbudgeted expenditure.

32      Our strategic framework says we will –

·    we will constantly look for better ways

·    find efficiencies and don’t waste money or resources

·    regularly review activities, services, assets and contracts to ensure efficient and effective management and delivery.

Analysis

Options Considered

33      The following three options have been considered.

·    shared business fibre connection

·    commercial dedicated fibre connection

·    private dedicated fibre connection

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Private Dedicated Fibre Connection

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        highest speed (10Gbps), low latency

·        no ongoing costs

·        lowest total cost of ownership over five year

·        dedicated and private connection

·        able to make changes to the connection without requiring external resources

·        best user experience for Invercargill staff

·        no cost to stop using the connection

·        no extra costs if SDC remains at the Don Street sites for more than five years.

·        requires capital expenditure, purchase must be funded up front

·        ICC and SDC technical staff are responsible for supporting and managing this connection.

 


 

Option 2 –Commercial Dedicated Fibre Connections

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        high Speed (1Gbps), low latency

·        managed and supported by Spark

·        dedicated and private connection.

·        most expensive option over the five-year lifetime

·        SDC will incur extra costs if we need to modify the connection

·        SDC will incur extra costs if we exit the service while under contract.

 

Option 3 –Shared Business Fibre Connections

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        lowest network connection cost.

·        loss of staff productivity

·        staff frustration with SDC system

·        requires work arounds for some SDC systems to work correctly

·        highest latency and lowest speed.

 

Assessment of Significance

34      This project is not assessed as significant as per Council’s current significance and engagement policy.

Recommended Option

35      Option 1 approve unbudgeted expenditure of $39,586.

36      Option 1 provides the best financial outcome for SDC in the long term, as well as providing the best connection for staff at the Don Street sites.

Next Steps

37      Install and setup dark fibre connections.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

Projects from 2019/2020 to be carried forward into the 2020/2021 financial year

Record No:             R/20/9/51628

Author:                      Susan McNamara, Management Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        To inform Council of the projects approved for delivery in the 2019/2020 year that were not completed by year end and to seek approval from Council to carry forward these projects or dollars related to these projects to the 2020/2021 year.

2        Please note – this list is not a complete list of all projects that were not complete in 2019/2020. Some projects included in 2019/2010 were deferred to a year later than 2020/2021 or were considered not required to be completed and deleted from the work programmer entirely and are disclosed in the Annual Report for 2019/2020. Projects moving to 2020/2021 or later will be included in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Executive Summary

3        Every year as part of the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan process, Council staff and elected members identify projects to be undertaken and the funding needed to complete the work.
Due to various reasons, these projects are not always completed in the financial year they were budgeted to occur in and need to be carried forward.

4        The projects identified by staff as needing to be carried forward, along with the reason the work has not been completed, are included in the list in Attachment A.  We ask Council to consider this request and approve appropriately.

5        As you are aware, as part of the forecasting process Council undertakes in November and March each year, staff identify projects that potentially won’t be completed and these are incorporated in to the Annual Plan for the next year. Where the actual amount spent in 2019/2020 was higher than the remaining funds available in 2019/2020 for the project, a negative amount has been included in Attachment A. This is to ensure that the overall project budget remains the same.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Projects from 2019/2020 to be carried forward into the 2020/2021 financial year” dated 14 October 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 projects/expenditure below to be carried forward into the 2019/2020 financial year to be funded from the sources indicated in Attachment A.

 

Category/town

Project name

Amount

Capital - other

Airport

Condition rating of runway

 $30,000

District

Library book renewal

 $30,000

District

Around the Mountain cycle trail to NZTA standard

 $213,822

District

Roading network and asset management

 $136,131

District

Accelerated bridge programme

 $1,283,759

District

Alternative coastal route seal extension

 $100,000

District

Sealed road resurfacing

 $707,128

District

Traffic services

 $360,647

District

Unsealed road metalling

 $257,196

District

Sealed road rehabilitation

($962,553)

Te Anau Rural Water

Flow meter replacements - rural schemes

 $29,194

Ohai

Ohai Hall equipment

 $10,000

Operational

District

Open spaces planner

 $25,990

District

Community Awards Night

 $10,000

District

Museum services funding

 $38,105

District

General projects community leadership

 $64,000

District

Stewart Island Opportunities project through MBIE

 $19,120

Gorge Road

Tree work at Gorge Road reserve

 $9,340

Waihopai Toetoes

Waituna lagoon grant

 $7,458

Waihopai Toetoes

Wyndham memorial archway

 $19,372

Waihopai Toetoes

Tokanui heritage/tramline project

 $2,245

Waihopai Toetoes

Contribution to Gorge Road bell tower installation

 $10,000

District

Removal of ouvea premix

 $72,500

District

Resource Management - resourcing

 $76,604

District

Regional LIDAR project

 $111,396

District

Resource management - policy development

 $248,779

District

Around the Mountain cycle trail flood repairs

 $369,722

Manapouri

Grant for replacement of heating of Manapouri pool

 $15,000

Stewart Island

Moturau gardens maintenance

 $7,500

Winton Wallacetown ward

Grant for Limehills community centre upgrade

 $10,242

SIESA

Wind power - pre development

($19,851)

Operational project

Balfour

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $2,149

Browns

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $3,500

Colac Bay

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $552

Dipton

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $1,075

Gorge Road

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $966

Mossburn

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $2,149

Nightcaps

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $5,086

Ohai

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $550

Orepuki

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $3,826

Otauatu

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $872

Winton

Footpath/Kerb and channel replacement

 $10,269

Garston

New Garston fingerpost sign

 $2,530

Projects by activity

Winton

New Information Kiosk at East Winton Cemetery

 $15,744

Limehills

Upgrade of Kitchen

 $10,418

Athol

Railway Project

 $6,424

Riverton/Aparima

Removal of trees and provision of walking track along estuary on railway line

 $46,142

Te Anau

Sign for gateway to Fiordland

 $10,000

District Reserves

Ivon Wilson Car Park Extension

 $35,770

Tuatapere

Additional playground equipment

 $19,946

Mossburn

Mossburn toilets upgrade

 $20,000

Monkey Island

Monkey Island Toilets

 $77,747

Wyndham

Wyndham toilet

 $55,000

SIESA

Fuel tanks (2x20,000L) replacement

 $26,914

Stewart Island Jetties

Rebuild Ulva Island Jetty

 $98,473

District leadership

Equipment Renewal

 $155,570

District leadership

Core Systems Replacement

 $316,430

District leadership

Upgrade Phone System

 $29,659

Gorge Road

Install bell at war memorial

 $10,000

Stewart Island

Construct new access on Ringa Ringa Road

 $132,874

Orepuki

Footpath improvements

 $7,589

Riverton/Aparima

New footpaths in the Riverton township

 $100,000

Riverton/Aparima

Footpaths

 $200,992

Riverton/Aparima

New dump station at Bath Road

 $15,135

Stewart Island

New walking track horseshoe Bay Road part 1

 $52,583

Stewart Island

Install new streetlights on the waterfront in Oban, Stewart Island

 $1,686

Stewart Island

Install power point on foreshore, Stewart Island

 $5,000

Stewart Island

Improving footpath and carparking at Argyle Street, Stewart Island

 $20,000

Te Anau

New footpath walkways

 $77,100

Te Anau

CCTV in Te Anau Town Centre

 $15,070

District

Inflow project to comply with Consent limits

 $105,740

Ohai

New UV/Treatment Plant upgrade

($3,295)

Ohai

Seals and arms to both trickling filters

 $61,500

Stewart Island

Scheme Capacity Upgrade

 $32,498

Te Anau

Scheme Capacity Upgrade

 $1,565,490

Te Anau

Consent - Upukerora extension

 $81,809

Tokanui

Embankment work to ponds

 $42,433

Tokanui

Consent renewal preparation & treatment upgrade

 $47,468

Winton

Consent Renewal Preparation

 $58,988

District

District wide oxidation pond security fencing

 $182,758

District

Well head improvements and seal off old wells

 $13,997

Manapouri

Lateral to Possum Lodge replace with 50mm to assist pressure

 $100,000

Riverton/Aparima

Additional UV disinfection

 $243,996

Te Anau

Te Anau water main renewal

 $946,674

Te Anau Rural Water

Consent Renewal Preparation (Ramparts)

 $7,063

Te Anau Rural Water

Consent Renewal Preparation  (Kakapo)

 $1,499

Otautau

Otautau Main Street watermain

 $207,676

Lumsden

Lumsden Falling Main Replacement

 $71,858

Motor Vehicle

District

Nine vehicle replacements

$309,400

 

Background

6        Every year Council staff carry out projects as planned in the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan. Although many are completed in the financial year they were budgeted in, a number of projects are delayed for varying reasons, but are still identified as needed by the community.
These projects are generally carried forward into the next financial year, whether they are a project in progress or not started. Typically only projects of a maintenance or capital nature are carried forward, but occasionally budget managers request operational expenditure to be carried forward as well.

7        The second round of forecasting occurred in March during the final drafting of the Annual Plan. During forecasting some projects were identified that would not be completed/started during 2019/2020. These were included in the working version of the Annual Plan for 2020/2021 and were included in the final plan that was adopted by Council in June 2020. Managers may have identified projects during the first round of forecasting and included these in the initial budgets for the Annual Plan discussed with Council prior to Christmas.

8        The completion of the Annual Report for 2019/2020 is the last stage of identifying projects and costs to carry forward. This final step requires managers to consider whether the project is still required and to make a request for approval to carry forward along with the budget. The projects are considered and approved by the relevant group manager before finance completes the final check on the budget available to be carried forward, given any actual costs during the year, before including them in this report. Any requests to carry forward operational expenditure are also considered and approved by the chief executive.

9        During the Annual Report process a review of projects included in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan was completed to determine if any funds were used during 2019/2020 that had not been anticipated. This review has resulted in negative amounts included in attachment A for three projects.

10      The list in attachment A has 91 items proposed to be carried forward to the 2020/2021 financial year with a net value of $8,966,187.

11      There is included in the list a number of capital items for roading programme to bring the Council budget in line with the expected delivery of the three year programme with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency. The roading team expect to deliver the program during the current year.

Issues

12      Projects carried forward into the next financial year are considered to be unbudgeted in the 2020/2021 year. Approval is required from Council to undertake the work.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13      Section 32 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to approve the purchase or disposal of assets where it is not in accordance with the Long Term Plan. A number of the items proposed to be carried forward relate to expenditure on assets and therefore require Council’s approval.

Community Views

14      All projects discussed in this report have been consulted on as part of the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan when they are originally budgeted to occur. Communities are informed via the community board throughout the year on the status of projects and often include the rationale for why projects need to be carried forward.

Costs and Funding

15      All overall budgeted costs associated with projects to be carried forward have previously been approved by Council and in total have not changed as part of the carry forward process. The approval from Council may have been by inclusion in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan or Annual Plan 2019/2020, approved as a carried forward project from 2018/2019 or approval for unbudgeted expenditure during the year.

16      If projects were to be funded from rates, the unspent rates will be retained in a relevant reserve and then utilised to fund the project costs when incurred. If a project is to be funded by a loan or reserves, the draw down does not take place until the actual costs are incurred.

Policy Implications

17      Council has provided delegated authority to the chief executive to approve expenditure for capital items and goods and services within the current estimates. The chief executive can also purchase operating expenditure items not within estimates up to $10,000 if suitable funding is available. Council retains the authority to approve the estimates (the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan) and unbudgeted items greater than $10,000.

Analysis

Options Considered

18      Council has the discretion to approve or decline individually or in aggregate, the proposed carry forward projects.

19      It is assumed, in regards to the options below, that Council will approve the carry forward of projects that have already been started.  The items listed as operational expenditure, motor vehicle expenditure and library book replacements can be considered as not being started.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve all expenditure to be carried forward (as per the attached list)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        projects can be completed/undertaken although later than originally planned.

·        risk associated with forecast costs increasing as a result of the delay/deferral in undertaking the project.

 

Option 2 – Approve selected expenditure only

20      Council can choose which expenditure is to be carried forward. It is recommended that should Council consider this option, that consideration is given to how this is done.

21      Councillors can identify what the different types of expenditure are in Attachment A using the heading along with the total amount for each category.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        selected expenditure and projects can be undertaken, although later than originally planned.

·        projects originally planned do not get completed or undertaken (when they have not commenced). These may need to be reconsidered as part of the next Annual Plan/Long Term Plan process

·        risk associated with forecast costs increasing as a result of the delay/deferral. Although managers have indicated for these projects that any change will not be significant at this stage

·        rates may have been collected for projects that were not completed

·        selection process for which projects are carried forward could be queried.

 


 

Option 3 – Approve all projects but decline all other expenditure

22      Only projects budgeted in 2020/2021 or already started in 2019/2020 will be undertaken.

23      Where the expenditure was funded from rates, the surplus funds will be retained in a reserve for future use.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Councils priorities may have changed enabling funds set aside for these being re-directed as appropriate.

·        projects originally planned do not get completed or undertaken (when they have not commenced), will need to be reconsidered as part of the next Annual Plan/Long Term Plan process

·        rates may have been collected for projects that were not completed.

 

Assessment of Significance

24      When considering the factors to assess in the Significance and Engagement Policy, the carry forwards in this report are not deemed significant.

25      When assessing significance, consideration has been given to the impact and consequences of the items being carried forward on the future of the District, people who are likely to be particularly interested in the items and the capacity of Council to perform its role.

26      The majority of the items have been consulted on in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process and prior Annual Plans, or are unbudgeted expenditure specifically approved during the year by Council. Individually or in aggregate the items do not have a significant impact on any one community or the whole District or the level of services in any one activity.

Recommended Option

27      Option 1 – approve all projects to be carried forward (as per the attached list).

Next Steps

28      Action Council’s recommendation, including amending financial forecasts for project approved to be carried forward and advising Council staff and communities of projects approved to be carried forward.

 

Attachments

a             2019 2020 proposed carry forwards into 2020 2021    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

Approval of Scope for Preparation of Community Housing Business Case and Unbudgeted Expenditure for the Project.

Record No:             R/20/9/53422

Author:                      Kevin McNaught, Manager Property Services

Approved by:         Matt Russell, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        To consider and approve the scope for a business case to be developed for community housing, with the intention of identifying all the issues and options to allow Council to make an informed decision on the future for this activity.

Executive Summary

2        Council at its meeting on 27 February 2018 received a report titled ‘Service Delivery Review – Community Services’ in line with the requirement under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002.

3        Council resolved to adopt all of the preferred options in the Morrison Low Report in a staged approach, including the development of a Business Case to further inform a decision on the future delivery of the Community Housing activity.

4        Council subsequently at its Long Term Plan Workshop on 16 December 2019 gave guidance that it would like the Business Case completed to facilitate the discussion of options for the activity including the cost for rent and refurbishing.

5        Attached for approval is the scope proposed for this business case to be undertaken.

6        As no funding has been set aside for the project, unbudgeted expenditure approval is also required to enable the project to commence.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Approval of Scope for Preparation of Community Housing Business Case and Unbudgeted Expenditure for the Project.” dated 14 October 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)           Endorses the attached scope for the Community Housing business case and request that staff proceed to have the business case prepared and reported back to Council once complete.

 

e)            Approves unbudgeted expenditure for the project of up to $50,000 to be funded from the Community Housing reserve account.

 

Background

7        Council at its meeting on 27 February 2018 received a report of the Service Delivery Review – Community Services as a result of the requirement under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. The report completed by Morrison Low tentatively identified Council opting out of Community Housing as the preferred option for this activity. However, a recommendation to complete further analysis and reporting was also included.

8        Council resolved to adopt all of the preferred options in the Morrison Low Report in a staged approach, including the development of a Business Case to further inform a final decision on the delivery of the Community Housing activity. A copy of the Council report and the relevant extract from the Morrison Low report is included for Councillors information.

9        Council subsequently at its Long Term Plan Workshop on 16 December 2019 gave guidance that it would like completed the Business Case to discuss options for the activity including the cost for rent and refurnishing.

10      Attached for endorsementl is the scope proposed for this business case to be undertaken.

11      As no funding has been set aside for the project then unbudgeted expenditure approval is also required to enable the project to commence.

12      This scope has been developed to provide appropriate background information, identify the issues and propose options to facilitate an informed discussion and decision-making process by Council.

Issues

13      There are a number of issues associated with this activity. Some of these include:

·    affordability of managing the activity and maintaining appropriate rental rates;

·    a lack of clarity around need and purpose for the activity;

·    resourcing;

·    suitability of current stock in terms of condition and location; and

·    an increasing legislative / regulatory environment.

14      Dealing with these has made the operations and future planning for this activity very challenging. As such the attached scope proposes to consolidate these issues into a business case to aid discussion and decision-making moving forward.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15      None identified at this stage as this action is subsequent to the legal requirement to undertake the Section 17A review. Depending on the options presented and subsequently selected by Council, further legal considerations will need to be identified and addressed at that time.

16      In that regard community housing as a whole is listed as a strategic asset in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The Local Government Act 2002 also states under the definition of a “Strategic Asset” - any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy. As such, consultation will be required in regards to any change to the current provision of this activity.

Community Views

17      None sought at this stage. However, future community engagement may be required, depending on the options presented and subsequent decision by Council.

Costs and Funding

18      There has been no specific budget approved for this project. As such, in order for the business case to be completed unbudgeted expenditure of up to $50,000 is sought.

19      The community housing reserve account currently has $189,723.00 as its balance as at 30 June 2020 therefore the funding is proposed from this reserve.

Policy Implications

20      None identified at this stage.

Analysis

Options Considered

21      The consideration of options is anticipated to be undertaken when considering the business case. On that basis the only options at this stage is to approve the scope and complete the business case or not

Analysis of Options

Option 1 –  Approve scope and complete business case.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        will identify all options and issues in regards the future of the community housing activity

·        will allow Council to consider issues in detail and make an informed decision.

·        none identified.

 

Option 2 – Do not approve scope and not complete business case

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        none identified

·        will not provide Council with further detail required to make a decision in regard to the future of this activity

 

Assessment of Significance

22      This step in the process is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

23      Option 1, approve scope and complete business case.

Next Steps

24      Procure appropriate resources to undertake the business case.

 

Attachments

a             Final Draft - business case scope for community housing

b             Report to Council 27 February 2018 - Sec 17A Review - Community Services.    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

21 October 2020

 

Monthly Financial Report - August 2020

Record No:             R/20/10/59372

Author:                      Lesley Smith, Management 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 for the two months to 31st August 2020 by the nine activity groups of Council, as well as the financial position, and the statement of cash flows as at the 31st August 2020.

2.       This report summarises Council’s financial results for the two months to 31st August 2020.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Monthly Financial Report - August 2020” dated 13 October 2020.

 

Attachments

a             Monthly Financial Report August 2020(2)    

 


Council

21 October 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


Council

21 October 2020

 

Management Report

Record No:             R/20/10/60329

Author:                      Ross McNeil, Interim Chief Executive

Approved by:         Ross McNeil, Interim Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Environmental Services

Group Managers Update

1.       A Maori cloak (korowai) workshop for Te Hikoi, Riverton with textile conservator Dr Tracey Wedge occurred during August. The Riverton Heritage Society has eight important cloaks with dates ranging from the early 19th to the early 20th centuries as well as kete and other important Maori textiles. This workshop was a follow up to one held in 2015 and funding was obtained from 2017 to continue with a project that will see them housed appropriately for the future. Volunteers were able to assist in surface cleaning and observe relaxing through re-humidification of these fragile and highly significant taonga. Tracey’s husband made several boxes for the smaller cloaks.

2.       Council took advantage of the visit of textile conservator Dr Tracey Wedge while in the region with the roving museum officer hosting her on Rakiura/Stewart Island where she assessed a highly significant cloak that had just come into the museum. A storage/display unit is being planned with the museum and the depositor of this taonga and funding will be obtained for housing and building the unit once plans have been received.

3.       Work is continuing as a priority on the Rakiura museum to ensure the displays are ready for the opening in December 2020.

Predator Free Rakiura project

4.       Predator Free Rakiura is an ambitious goal to rid the island of introduced predators – rats, possums, feral cats and hedgehogs. The island is home to more than 20 threatened species whose long-term survival is under threat due to predation. It’s also one of the most complex projects of its type anywhere in the world.

5.       Workshops to progress the formation of governance were held at Council’s Invercargill office on 17 September and on Rakiura on 13 October.

6.       The leadership group held a public event in collaboration with the Stewart Island Halfmoon Bay School on 13 October. The event launched the “World Movie Premiere” highlighting the school’s guide for protecting Ulva Island, and for the leadership group to announce their success in obtaining crown funding for five years for the Predator Free Rakiura project.

7.       This years’ funding will be used to establish a strong governance structure, kick-start project design and develop a project plan.

 

 

Building Solutions

8.       An important correction to last month’s report regarding compliance to statutory timeframe has been identified.  The newly combined data sets for Pathways and GoGet contained an error.  Compliance for August was not 37% as reported it was 55.2%.  A lot of work is still needed, however, this is an improvement from the previous month and not a decline as stated.

9.       The building team received 69 building consents in September 2020 (a consistent volume to the 70 received September 2019) and issued 82 building consents with 76.9% compliance to statutory timeframes during the month of September 2020.  The average working days were 18.  This is a significant improvement for the team, however further improvement is needed to reach 100% compliance as required.

10.     The successful applicant for the previously advertised Senior Building Consent Officer position has transitioned from a short, fixed term engagement to a permanent position.  This is fantastic news for the team, however did not result in expanding the team’s capacity in the interim.

11.     Recruitment for six vacant positions is underway with the first four roles closing on
15th October and the remaining two roles closing on 30th October.

12.     A successful industry engagement evening with the Te Anau based Placemakers members and attendance at the Invercargill based Registered Master Builders Association executive meeting were held in recent weeks and have supported effective two-way communication with the industry. 

13.     The building team have scheduled two system related training sessions (see flyer attached) as a result of requests at these meetings and are looking to implement text-based inspection confirmations.  These are simple changes we can make to better support our community.

14.     Conversations with the owners of properties that have received dangerous and insanitary notices are ongoing and monitoring is occurring frequently to ensure that full compliance with each notice is achieved.

Animal Control

15.     Following Council’s adoption of the Keeping of Animals Bylaw, staff are arranging an article in the Otautau News and Views that all Ohai residents receive, advising of the new permit process; the local community board representative advised that this would be an ideal medium for Council to communicate with the residents.

16.     Dog registrations are going well, at the time of writing there are only 253 dogs left to re-register.

Environmental Health

17.     MBIE has approved Council’s application for funding for freedom camping ambassadors and new signage.  Staff are in the process of recruitment for the ambassadors and organising vehicles for them, and will also meet with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Catlins Coast Inc concerning the signage.

18.     This funding will work in well with Council’s recent decision concerning the Waikawa designated site, where a new sheltered sign may be installed giving clear information for visitors there.

19.     Business solutions is working with the team to introduce online applications for alcohol and food licensing, and this is expected to bring efficiencies and an improved customer experience.

Resource Management

20.     Covid-19 has not noticeably affected workloads. Resource consent applications remain consistent with the same period in 2019. There has also been a vacancy within the team which has impacted on getting consents issued within timeframes.

21.     Dark Skies Plan Change for Rakiura – the decision on this plan change was released in August and no appeals were received. A report is being drafted to make this plan change operative.

22.     Up until the alert level 4 restrictions coming into force, ongoing policy focused work was occurring on the regional work streams for Climate Change, Biodiversity, Landscapes and Natural Character. In the national space, Covid-19 has delayed some anticipated national direction. Particularly the national policy statements on highly productive land and indigenous biodiversity have been delayed and it is anticipated that they will now be released in April 2021.

23.     Council has endorsed a report to bring forward the review of the landscapes section of the District Plan. Work is now underway to understand the unique nature of Southland’s landscapes, cultural values and local areas of significance. There are a number of pieces of work that will inform a review and also a number of conversations with communities and land owners. An article in First Edition was released in September notifying the community of this work and the next steps. It is anticipated that a plan change will be notified in the middle of 2021.

24.     Council was part of the reference group providing feedback to the Ministry of the Environment on the proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity and the proposed New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Consultation on the NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity closed in March 2020.

25.     Council submitted stating that in Council’s opinion, achieving the requirements of the Statement will require a significant body of work identifying potentially Significant Natural Areas, mapping them and revising rules within the District Plan to protect and enhance them. It is anticipated that there will be a significant cost associated with this. There is estimated to be 1.7 million hectares of potentially significant biodiversity which equates to 57% of our District. Approximately 94,000ha of this area is indicated to be on private land. Council has provided input into the LGNZ submission and the Southland District Council is one of the case study councils forming part of that submission. It was anticipated that the National Policy Statement will likely be gazetted prior to the general election in September but this has been delayed until approximately April 2021.

26.     Resource consent data for previous few months:

·     July - 29 applications received, 28 decisions issued.

·     August – 18 applications received, 29 decisions issued.

·     September – 32 applications received, 27 decisions issued.

Community and Futures

Strategy and Policy

Strategy and development plan

27.     Staff have identified the national, regional and District strategies that are relevant to Council. Staff will assess the strategies that are necessary to focus work/service delivery and to guide decision making, both from a Council and community perspective. Staff will produce a strategy development plan that will outline an intended work programme, why particular strategies will be prioritised, and the ongoing commitments Council will need to make.

Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw

28.     Council have finished formal consultation on the draft Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw, and councillors have received the submissions. On 29 September 2020, Council met and adopted the final bylaw.

Jetty usage

29.     Council are still reviewing the charging method for non-recreational jetty usage on Stewart Island/Rakiura. Staff will discuss three charging options with the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board on 12 October 2020, and then request Council to endorse a charging method to be included and consulted on in the draft Long Term Plan.

Procurement Policy

30.     Staff have been revising the Procurement Policy and developing a draft Procurement Manual. On 21 October 2020, staff will seek a decision from Council to release a draft policy for formal consultation from 4 November to 4 December 2020. Any submissions received will be presented to Council in the New Year. The executive leadership team will adopt a procurement manual that implements Council’s policy approach, following adoption of the policy.

Other policy work

31.     Review of a suite of policies that will inform the Long Term Plan is underway.  This includes the Revenue and Finance Policy, the Policy on Development and Financial Contributions, and the Significance and Engagement Policy.  Draft policies will be presented to committees in September and to Council on 21 October.  Following Council approval, the formal consultation period for these policies is planned for 4 November to 4 December 2020.  Staff are also working on the asset management, contract management, risk management and grants and donations policies.

Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy

32.     Strategy and policy are leading the review of the Stewart Island/Rakiura visitor levy.  An update on the progression of this work, and a proposed timeframe for completion, will be presented to the Community and Strategy Committee at its November meeting.

 

 

Corporate risks

33.     Work has begun to undertake the in-depth analysis of Council’s top corporate risks. Finance and assurance committee members will discuss in detail selected risks from the top 10 corporate risks in each quarter beginning September 2020.  Staff will also begin work on reviewing Council’s operational risk framework in the up-coming months.

Annual Report 2019/2020

34.     The annual report period is now underway. The Finance and Assurance Committee met on
11 September to review the draft Annual Report 2019/2020 for release to Audit NZ. The report due to be completed by mid-November 2020.  

Long Term Plan

35.     The Long Term Plan continues to build as we enter the final three months of 2020. Preliminary workshops with Council have been carried out and ongoing engagement with community boards prior to confirmation meetings in late October, early November. The communications and engagement team are now starting the consultation document development process while supporting documents such as the infrastructure and financial strategies, activity management plans and significant forecasting assumptions are further developed.

Community Leadership

Observation Rock application to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF)

36.     The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has advised that the funding application for the platform at Observation Rock on Stewart Island/Rakiura will not be proceeding at this stage due to the Provincial Growth Fund of $3 billion being almost fully allocated.  The volume and value of applications the PGF has received far exceeds the funding available. In addition, our application was not received in time for consideration in the last funding round in order to meet the processing timelines before the election.

Community Partnership Fund

37.     The first rounds of the Community Partnership Fund closed recently for the following boards.

·   Tuatapere Te Waewae (8 applications received)

·   Northern (9 applications received)

·   Oraka Aparima (12 applications received)

·   Ardlussa (19 applications received)

·   Wallace Takitimu (8 applications received)

·   Oreti (7 applications received)

·   Waihopai Toetoe (14 applications received)

·   Fiordland (11 applications received)

38.     A total of 88 applications were received and boards are now in the process of making their allocation decisions.

Waikaia Mountain Bike Track Project

39.     Following the decision of the Services and Assets Committee at its meeting on 7 September to allow access for mountain biking in the Council owned Waikaia Forestry block, planning is underway to establish a trust to drive this project. 

Milford opportunities

40.     The last opportunity for engagement by the public with the Milford Opportunities Project is happening between 5 and 30 October.

41.     Over the past two years the project team have talked to many people and collected many ideas from the local community, stakeholders and wider New Zealand. The team has spent a lot of time researching how these ideas could work and created different scenarios. It now wants to know what people think of them.

42.     Feedback is important for the project’s governance group when it makes decisions in December about what the master plan will say. Feedback can be provided through the website - https://www.milfordopportunities.nz/get-involved/haveyoursay/

43.     The Governance Group is looking to incorporate an additional workstream (a branding investigation) within the budget scope of the project. A separate report is being prepared for the Community and Strategy Committee meeting scheduled for 11 November.

Services and Assets

Stewart Island Electrical Supply Authority (SIESA)

44.     The Services and Assets committee approved award of a new SIESA management agreement with PowerNet, for commencement from 1 October 2020. This contract is pending PowerNet Board approval and signature.

45.     Progress on securing either of the two preferred sites for the wind power project has faced setbacks. The viability of alternative turbine site locations options is currently being evaluated in order to establish a path forward for land access.

46.     TerraCat recently reviewed the powerhouse and provided a report which contains feedback on specific areas and identifies opportunities for improvement. This includes current proposals for genset replacement and moisture control on the standby genset unit which may be inadequate or ineffective.

Forestry (IFS)

47.     The financial year 2020/2021 harvesting programme continues out of Waikaia block 4. The crop age is 30 years and estimated tonnes are 19,000t with a forecast return of $933,000.

48.     The Ardlussa Community Board have proposed establishing mountain bike trails within the Waikaia forest. A report was presented to the Services and Assets committee, outlining the project and seeking a decision on change to public access policy. The proposal passed, subject to establishing a variation with IFS that captures the operational requirements contained in a proposed MOU between Council and a trust proposed to develop and operate the trail. 

Around the Mountains Cycle Trail

49.     The contract for repairs to the trail, associated with the February flood event, was awarded to The Roading Company and work has progressed well but with some weather delays. Additional MBIE funding has been gained to repair a flood damaged culvert that was not originally identified and this will be added as a variation to the contract.

50.     The New Zealand Cycle Trail Board visited Invercargill in September for a board meeting, to visit the trail and engage with a range of stakeholders.

51.     A separate flood event has significantly damaged a section of trail near Centre Hill and a solution is being developed to restore the trail and reduce/eliminate the river threat. Given commencement of a new cycle season, this work is urgent and temporary route solutions are being considered.

52.     A meeting has been held to explore a new governance structure, specific to the trail activity and embark on a 90 day plan to uplift the user experience over the new season.

Te Anau Manapouri Airport

53.     A consultant has prepared a 10 year maintenance works programme which indicates $1.3 million of pavement rehabilitation capital spending need over financial years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023.

54.     Maintenance spending need of $192,000 is indicated for the 2020/2021 year and includes items such as patch repairs and crack sealing.

55.     A workshop was held with the Fiordland Community Board to discuss options for management of this asset over the next LTP. The Board has requested Council consider rating at a District level to address this increase in capital expenditure need.

Property

56.     Operating now at 42 Don Street, which has meant a change of operating processes being physically separated from many of the other departments, however challenges create opportunities to review and change.

57.     With the significant number of Council properties/tenancies to be managed, together with the number of Council and community projects which involve these properties, queries, advice and actions have increased the workloads significantly which means a lot of the work is now required to be prioritised resulting in some work not getting actioned as timely as preferred.

58.     The property disposal of the Ohai bowling club building is underway. The disposal of the former Stewart Island museum and the Hokonui hall has been completed as has the road stopping of the road intersecting the southern dairy hub and the registration of all documents for the realignment and easements for Ringaringa Road on Stewart Island/Rakiura. Finalising the updated landowner consent for the coastal route boundary adjustments and payment of compensations is also almost complete. Once this is done the legalisation Gazette Notice can be issued.

59.     The documents with Landcorp relating to the Kepler disposal field for the pipeline and disposal filed are in the process of being finalised. This includes pipeline and access easements, grazing licences, pasture management agreement and offset area agreement.

Strategic Water and Waste

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project

60.     Following Council resolutions from 23 October 2018 meeting, when it was resolved to proceed with a sub-surface drip irrigation as disposal route, staff have been progressing work on a number of fronts including development of resource consents for the sub-surface drip irrigation field, as well as advancing towards a detailed design.

61.     Work on the pipeline element has now been completed with practical completion issued in July.

62.     Work is also continuing on detailed design of MF plant and SDFI field following Council approval to award contracts to Downer and Fulton Hogan respectively. These designs underwent further HAZOP and value engineering in September with physical works programmed to get underway early October.

63.     The resource consent application for the discharge to the Upukerora has also been lodged with Environment Southland and with affected party approval provided by a number of stakeholders. Currently awaiting approval from Te Ao Marama before a decision on notification is made.

Land and Water Plan Implementation

64.     Environment Southland released their proposed Land and Water Plan in 2017.

65.     In total 25 appeals were received by Environment Southland of which Council has identified 10, which it will join as a Section 274 party. Council has also lodged an appeal to the decision. The basis of Council’s appeal, is largely around the ‘non-complying’ activity status on wastewater discharges to water. The latest direction issued from the Environment Court outlines a proposed path, where appeals to objectives will be heard ahead of mediation, by grouped topic on policies and rules. Evidence in support of the appeals have been filed with the Environment Court.

66.     Interim decisions were released by the Environment Court in late December with a recommendation that further expert conferencing be undertaken in early 2019.

67.     A further hearing was held in mid-June 2020 where evidence was presented on additional information that the courts required Environment Southland to provide based on their interpretation of a number of key principles underpinning the plan. Agreement has now been reached on all outstanding appeals related to the objectives and policies with a further hearing planned to cover all outstanding appeals. At this stage the timing of this is not known.

Review of Solid Waste Contract Arrangements

68.     Following a series of WasteNet meetings and Council mediation the RFP process was formally ended on 18 December without any award. At this stage each of the WasteNet councils are considering potential short and longer term options to process recycling post 30 June when current contract arrangements expire.

69.     Further recent developments are more closely related to the changing nature of the global recycling markets that have resulted in other councils reviewing how they manage recycling operations. Currently there is no market for low grade plastics and limited markets for fibre (paper/cardboard) with a number of councils across the country now opting to discontinue their collection.

70.     Agreement was reached with Invercargill City Council in June to handle Council’s recyclables through their contract arrangement with their incumbent contractor. This is for an 18 month period, after which alternatives will be considered separate to the ongoing LTP process.

Resourcing for Water and Waste Department

71.     Following Council’s meeting of 27 September where unbudgeted expenditure for additional resources within the water and waste team was approved, staff have developed a revised structure within the team which has been consulted on and finalised. The revised structure will place a significant focus on development of asset management capability as well as a more defined operations focus.

72.     A number of appointments have now been made with the remainder expected to be rounded out in the new financial year.

Review of Waste Disposal Levy

73.     On 27 November, Associate Minister for the Environment Eugenie Sage announced a wide- reaching review of the Waste Disposal Levy. The levy introduced through the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 places a charge of $10 per tonne for all waste disposed at municipal landfill sites. Of the money collected half is returned to TLAs to help fund waste minimisation activities with the remainder going to a contestable fund where any organisation can apply to gain funding to help set up waste minimisation initiatives.

74.     The review proposed to both increase the levy (phased over three years) from the current $10 per tonne to a proposed $50-$60 per tonne which brings it more into line with similar levy schemes in Australia and overseas. It is also proposed that the scheme will also be extended to include all landfill types (currently it only applies to those receiving household waste).

75.     Revenue raised from the landfill levy is currently around $36 million per annum. It is estimated that the proposals would result in an increase of levy revenue of around $220 million by 2023.

76.     The consultation document outlined four potential options for transitioning from current arrangements to future arrangements by 2023. The submission prepared by WasteNet was presented to Council on 30 January and formally submitted to MfE on 31 January.

77.     In August it was announced that the levy would incrementally increase to $60 per tonne by July 2024. This has been budgeted for through the LTP process.

Project Delivery Team (PDT)

78.     Fortnightly co-ordination meetings with services and assets managers on the works programme is working incredibly well.

79.     CAMMS has now provided options for simplified access for community boards and councillors. This is being reviewed internally.

80.     TAWW project has now started construction on both sites.

81.     Staff at 42 Don Street have now settled in well and the second shift, to 20 Don Street, is planned for early to mid-November.

82.     Winton library project is currently seeking tenders for design services.

83.     The bridge works programme continues to progress well.

84.     Fencing of waste water ponds is now nearly finished with only one site left to complete.

Community Facilities

85.     The community facilities team has been working through the third round of the Long Term Plan workshops with community boards and the finance team. This has focused on the implications for the local component of the rates after taking into account the operational and capital increases in the budgets. Meetings to date have been very positive with some robust debate. The work that has preceded these meetings has been very beneficial for staff and board members.

86.     Two of the mowing contracts have been awarded. Direct negotiations are in progress with the incumbent contractors for the Ardlussa Community Board. The remainder of the areas have had their contracts extended until the end of the financial year to allow them to be packaged up and put out to tender.

87.     We are working with contractors to bring them up to speed with the new STMS and traffic management requirements so that they can meet their approved contractor requirements.

88.     The asset manager is now looking at progressing the work to get the community facilities assets into Council’s asset management system (IPS). We now have a signed scope of work to have this completed by the end of the calendar year.

89.     Community facilities staff are completing projects that were carried forward from last year and starting the projects that are in this year’s capital works programme. The adverse weather has been hampering progress on some of these projects.

Strategic Transport

National Land Transport Plan

90.     The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021 (GPS) has been released and sets out the Government’s priorities for expenditure from the National Land Transport funding.

91.     The GPS builds on the direction set in GPS 2018 with the inclusion of climate change as a strategic priority.

92.     The four strategic directions set are

·   safety – developing a transport system where no-one is killed or seriously injured

·   better travel options – providing people better transport options to access social and economic opportunities

·   improving freight connections – improving freight connections for economic development

·   climate change – developing a low carbon transport system that supports emissions reductions, while improving safety and inclusive access.

93.     The strategic directions largely fit with Council’s roading focus when considering the priorities are largely around maintaining and replacing existing assets such as bridges in order to maintain freight connections and getting goods to market.

94.     From a road safety point of view, the journey Council has started on with the recently completed speed limit review is only part of a wider speed management review with a need for further reviews in the coming years particularly around schools. This is all part of the goal of reducing deaths and serious injuries by 40% by 2030.

District Wide Roading Programme

95.     The roading alliances have had a testing time during October with the snow and rain events resulting in large amounts of surface flooding, particularly in the lower half of the District. At this stage there has not been any significant damage to roading assets as a result of the events.

96.     Contracts have also been awarded for the first two pavement rehabilitation sites; SouthRoads have been awarded Balfour Ardlussa Road and The Roading Company have been awarded Otapiri Gorge Road.

97.     Council hosted a meeting with Waka Kotahi, Ngai Tahu and DOC on the future of the Lower Hollyford in relation to the section of road currently closed post February floods. At the meeting it was agreed that works would be completed to reopen the road to around the 11km mark. The last section of road required further discussion as this will require significantly more investment before it could be reopened.

Customer Delivery

98.     The Customer Delivery group has seen the spring rush for property purchases and with the warmer weather the number of calls to Council has decreased.  Below is the data relating to request for service received in September 2020.

 Customer Support

99.     It has quietened down a little with the team taking 3,693 calls in September with an average wait time of 23 seconds.

100.   Dog registrations have continued coming in, with only 253 left to register.

101.   Tracey Hunter was the successful applicant for the vacant CSP role. We had 90 applications for this position. We are very excited to have Tracey return to our team, as she brings with her a wealth of knowledge and a real passion for customer service. Her first day with us will be
2 November.

102.   Another staff member is due to go on maternity leave in 5 weeks so we will be looking to fill this position in the next few weeks.

103.   We have started work on calling customers with multiple phone numbers in the system. Of the first 50 we have contacted, 20% have left the District with another 18% suspected to have left. We have been able to update numbers for 44% of customers. We will continue to work through this list.

104.   We have introduced call routing which has made a significant difference in the team. This allows us to have “back-up” people on the queue - so two staff can be logged on and just receive overflow calls and it’s working very well.

Libraries

105.   The arrival of alert level 1 has meant a return to business as usual for our library service. Our home delivery options are still proving popular with some elderly members in our community, although demand is not at the same level as it was during alert level 2.

106.   Our school holiday programming has been well received with only a slight bump in the road caused by the snowfall in late September, resulting in a postponement for our Riverton programme.

107.   We have been busily working at getting ourselves set up with Wheelers Books to start partially operating on a shelf ready distribution model. This has been many years coming and our first orders (for December) are going through this week. Ordering shelf ready titles will free up staff resources, allowing for more time to be spent by staff with our community.

108.   Our RFID tender documentation is almost complete and will soon be ready to go out to tender. This project has been pushed year on year and it will be a great benefit to both our staff and our community once it has been implemented across the District.

Knowledge Management

109.   LIM numbers in September continue the upwards trend with 40 LIMs lodged (compared to 19 in September 2019) and 43 issued (compared with 18 in September 2019). 160 property files were requested during September, averaging seven requests per working day.

110.   Progress is continuing with Pathway Records Manager integration. Applications currently being implemented in the test environment for user acceptance testing and data cleansing has been completed for the NAR integration.

111.   With the move to 42 Don Street we have been training customer support staff in the processes relating to the opening, scanning and QA of mail. This transition has worked well and has freed up time in the team to undertake additional data cleansing and monitoring in Records Manager.

Business Solutions

112.   September continues to be another 600 + request month. The team continues to work through new issues with the relocation to 42 Don Street while also supporting staff in the transition to a ‘fat client’ environment. The team resolved more tickets than were received.

Service Desk: 1 August 2020 – 31 August 2020

113.   Progress on deploying new laptops in September was impacted by staff sickness and holidays.

114.   The applications team started a review of Pathway security in preparation for our eventual move to the new UX version next year. This work is allowing us to fully understand and document what access staff had and what access they need. This is an ongoing project.

115.   Work started on decommissioning our Citrix environment and retiring our old servers. This is a complex piece of work which will continue for the next eight months

116.   The new firewalls have been deployed and are now running as required. This has allowed us to get better visibility into our network traffic and provide a higher level of security. Work continues on refining our security rules, monitoring and alerting. This project was heavily impacted by the lack of documentation which we are addressing as part of this new deployment.

117.   Cyber security has become a bigger focus for the team and we are looking at different ways to protect ourselves as well as providing ongoing education to staff.

People and Capability

118.   Health, safety and wellness continues to be a focus within Council.

119.   The Health and Safety Plan for 2020/2021 was approved by Council in July 2020.  Key areas of focus for 2020 and 2021 include complete implementation of the health, safety and wellbeing training, finalisation of the serious mental harm critical risk control plan, continued work on critical risks and develop an action plan following the external gap analysis undertaken in July.

120.   Health and safety governance training is scheduled with Council and Community Board chairs on 18 November 2020.

121.   The recruitment process for a chief executive was finalised and Cameron McIntosh the successful applicant begins in early November 2020.

122.   Recruitment is currently underway for a significant number of roles across the building, resource management, community facilities and community futures teams.  These roles are to support the teams achieve their objectives, statutory timeframes and provide support to our community.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Management Report” dated 14 October 2020.

 

Attachments

a             Building Training Sessions Flier    

 


Council

21 October 2020

 

PDF Creator 


Council

21 October 2020

 

Schedule of Meetings for 2021 up to 8 October 2022

Record No:             R/20/8/47397

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to approve the schedule of meeting dates for the rest of the triennium up to 8 October 2022. This is so the meeting schedule can be publicly notified in accordance with the requirements set by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Executive Summary

2        The adoption of a meeting schedule allows for reasonable public notice preparation and planning for meeting agendas.  The act details the requirements for public notification of meetings.

3        The Local Government Act 2002 allows for a schedule which may cover any future period that Council considers appropriate and may be amended. In addition, notification of the schedule or any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.

4        The meeting schedule details dates for Council. It also details dates for the Community and Strategy, Services and Assets, Regulatory and Consents and Finance and Assurance Committees up to the end of the triennium in October 2022.  It also lists dates for consideration of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan.

5        Council adopted a schedule of meetings for 2020 at the 1 November 2019 Council meeting.

6        The community boards have all adopted a schedule of meetings for the whole of the 2019/2022 triennium.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Schedule of Meetings for 2021 up to 8 October 2022” dated 14 October 2020.

 

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

 

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

 

d)           Adopts the proposed schedule of Council and committee meetings for 2021/2022 up to 8 October 2022:

 

Date

Meeting

 

 

Thursday 28 January 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 9 February 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 10 February 2021

9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 24 February 2021

9am – Council (draft Long Term Plan approval for consultation)

Wednesday 3 March 2021

9am - Council

Tuesday 23 March 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 24 March 2021

9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee

Thursday 25 March 2021

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Wednesday 14 April 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 20 April 2021

(reserve day of Wednesday 21 April 2021)

9am – Council (draft Long Term Plan hearings)

Wednesday 28 April 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Thursday 29 April 2021

9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee

Thursday 6 May 2021

9am – Council (Long Term Plan deliberations)

Wednesday 19 May 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 1 June 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 2 June 2021

9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee

Tuesday 15 June 2021

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 22 June 2021

9am – Council meeting (Adopt Long Term Plan)

Tuesday 13 July 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 14 July 2021

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 4 August 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 24 August 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 25 August 2021

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Thursday 26 August 2021

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

9am – Council

Monday 27 September 2021

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 5 October 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 6 October 2021

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 27 October 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 23 November 2021

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 24 November 2021

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Tuesday 7 December 2021

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Wednesday 15 December 2021

9am – Council

Tuesday 25 January 2022

9am – Council

Tuesday 1 February 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 2 February 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Thursday 3 February 2022

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 22 February 2022

9am – Council (draft Annual Plan approval for consultation)

Tuesday 8 March 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 9 March 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Tuesday 29 March 2022

9am – Council

Wednesday 30 March 2022

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 12 April 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 13 April 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2022

(reserve day of Thursday 28 April 2022)

9am – Council (Annual Plan hearings)

Wednesday 11 May 2022

9am – Council (draft Annual Plan deliberations)

Tuesday 31 May 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 1 June 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 8 June 2022

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 21 June 2022

9am – Council meeting (Adopt Annual Plan)

Tuesday 12 July 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 13 July 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Tuesday 2 August 2022

9am – Council

Tuesday 23 August 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 24 August 2022

9am – Regulatory and Consents Committee

Thursday 25 August 2022

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 13 September 2022

9am - Council

Monday 26 September 2022

9am – Finance and Assurance Committee

Tuesday 27 September 2022

9am – Services and Assets Committee

1pm – Community and Strategy Committee

Wednesday 28 September 2022

9am - Regulatory and Consents Committee

Wednesday 5 October 2022

9am – Council

 

e)            Notes that Council at its meeting on 1 November 2019 agreed that delegated authority be granted to the chief executive (for Council) and the relevant group manager (for Community and Policy, Services and Assets, Regulatory and Consents and Finance and Assurance Committees) following consultation with the mayor (Council) or relevant committee chairs to amend the meeting dates when necessary or required.

 

Background

7        An approved schedule of meeting dates is required so that meetings can be publicly notified in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Issues

8        2021 and 2022 will be busy years as Council will be considering the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan and implementation of.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9        The statutory requirements for meetings and their notification of Council, committees and community boards are set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Community Views

10      Having a meeting schedule adopted enables the community to be aware of Council meetings.  These will be advertised the month prior to the meeting.

Costs and Funding

11      Costs for advertising are provided for in the communications budget.

Policy Implications

12      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

13      There are two possible options – adopt a meeting schedule or not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Adopt meeting schedule for 2021/2022 up to 8 October 2022

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        elected members and the public are aware of the meeting dates for the year to enable sufficient time to plan and for transparency purposes

·        the meeting schedule can be amended at a future date if required.

·        potential to create confusion when meetings need to be rescheduled.

Option 2 – Not adopt a meeting schedule for 2021 and up to 8 October 2022

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        allows for a fluid meeting schedule.

·        increasing the risk that Council may not meet its statutory responsibilities in notifying meetings

·        does not provide for transparency

·        the public would have no early indication of when meetings may be scheduled.

Assessment of Significance

14      Not significant as defined in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

15      Option one is the recommended option.

Next Steps

16      If the schedule of meetings for 2021/2022 up to 8 October 2022 is adopted staff will advertise the meetings on a monthly basis.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.