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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 18 November 2020

9am

Council Chamber
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Ebel Kremer

 

Councillors

Don Byars

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Christine Menzies

 

 

Karyn Owen

 

 

Margie Ruddenklau

 

 

Rob Scott

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive

Cameron McIntosh

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

18 November 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         Adoption of Annual Report 2019/2020                                                                                                  7

7.2         Plan Change 1 - Dark Skies                                                                                                                       287

7.3         Charging Option for Non-Recreational Jetty use on Stewart Island/Rakiura           337

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Winton Burner Incentive Programme                                                                                              355

8.2         Otautau Community Pool - Unbudgeted Expenditure                                                          367

8.3         Monthly Financial Report - September 2020                                                                                371

8.4         Management Report                                                                                                                                   387

Reports - Governance

9.1         Predator Free Southland - Request for Southland District Council Involvement  401

9.2         Appointments to the Milford Community Trust                                                                        419   

Public Excluded

Nil

 

 


Council

18 November 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, 21 October 2020


Council

18 November 2020

 

Adoption of Annual Report 2019/2020

Record No:             R/20/11/65098

Author:                      Jason Domigan, Corporate Performance Lead

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is for Council to adopt the Annual Report 2019/2020.

Executive Summary

2        Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to develop and adopt an Annual Report within four months of the end of a financial year. 

3        The Annual Report is a means for Council to account and report to the community on its performance for the preceding financial year.  It compares and comments on the performance of Council against the budget and operating targets set in the 2019/2020 Annual Plan. 

4        This year, legislation has recently been passed to extend the deadline for annual reports relating to the financial year 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. The Annual reports need to be adopted by 31 December 2020 rather than by 31 October 2020.  This extension is to allow for interruptions due to the impact of Covid-19.

5        The Annual Report has been reviewed by members of the executive leadership team and the Finance and Assurance Committee prior to being audited by Audit New Zealand.  Changes required from these processes have been incorporated into the document.

6        The Finance and Assurance Committee reviewed the final draft document at its meeting on 10 November and have recommended to Council that it adopt the Annual Report 2019/2020.

7        Dereck Ollsson, Associate Audit Director of Audit New Zealand was in attendance via video conference at the Finance and Assurance Committee meeting to give an overview of the audit process, findings and answer any questions the committee had.  At the Finance and Assurance meeting Mr Ollsson advised the committee of his intention to issue a modified audit opinion.

8        The draft audit opinion provided by Audit NZ is included as Attachment C.  The opinion is unmodified on the audited information, excluding the Activity Groups statement which is qualified on three performance measures.  Additionally an emphasis of matter paragraph has also been included in regards to the impact of Covid-19 on Council. 

9        The qualification is in relation to Audit NZ’s inability to gain completeness over three Department of Internal Affairs mandatory performance measures for water, wastewater and stormwater activities.  This is in relation to systematic issues with data capturing within the Palmerston North call centre, who Council use for managing after hours calls.  This qualification will apply to a number of Councils across New Zealand who use this after hours call centre. 

10      The auditors also wish to draw the reader’s attention to the impacts of Covid-19 on Council, and thus have included an emphasis of matter paragraph in their audit opinion which directs the reader to Councils note in the Annual Report.

11      Further discussion on these matters are included in the issues section of this report.

12      The final draft Annual Report and Summary Annual Report are attached to this report (Attachment A and B) as well as the draft audit opinion, and draft representation letter (Attachment C and D).

13      Council is asked to consider the Annual Report 2019/2020 as presented, incorporating any further changes as necessary, for adoption.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Adoption of Annual Report 2019/2020” dated 12 November 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)           Endorses the recommendation from the Finance and Assurance committee that Council adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020.

 

e)            Adopts the Annual Report for year ended 30 June 2020.

 

f)             Agrees to delegate authority to the chief executive to approve any minor amendments needed to the Annual Report, subsequent to this meeting.

 

g)           Agrees to delegate authority to the chief executive and mayor to sign the Annual Report letter of representation to Audit New Zealand on behalf of Council.

h)           Agrees to delegate authority to the chief executive to approve any staff/audit changes to the Summary Annual Report.

i)             Agrees to delegate authority to the chief executive and mayor to sign the Summary Annual Report letter of representation to Audit New Zealand on behalf of Council. 

j)             Notes that the Summary Annual Report will be released to the public once approved by the chief executive.

 

 

Background

14      The Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to prepare and adopt an Annual Report within four months of the end of each financial year. 

15      Legislation has recently been passed in June to extend this deadline.  Council annual reports are to be adopted by 31 December 2020 rather than 31 October 2020.  This is to allow for interruptions due to Covid-19.

16      An Annual Report is intended to outline Council’s actual performance in comparison with its intended performance as outlined in its Annual or Long Term Plan. The Annual Report details the operating activities of Council and includes financial statements for Council. The report and financial statements have been audited by Audit New Zealand on behalf of the auditor-general.

17      A draft of the unaudited Annual Report was presented to the Finance and Assurance Committee on 11 September 2020 for their review and the committee resolved to release the document to Audit NZ

18      At the date of this report, Audit New Zealand’s audit is substantially complete. 

19      The final draft Annual Report and Summary Annual Report document were presented to the Finance and Assurance Committee on 10 November 2020 and the committee has recommended to Council that it adopt the Annual Report.

20      Dereck Ollsson, Associate Audit Director of Audit New Zealand was in attendance via video conference at the Finance and Assurance Committee meeting to give an overview of the audit process, findings and answer any questions the committee had.  Mr Ollsson will also be present via video conference at the Council meeting to present the audit opinion and answer any questions regarding the Annual Report. Audit New Zealand have not finalised the management report at the date of this report, however Audit New Zealand have discussed the key findings with the Finance and Assurance Committee.  The formal report will be provided by Audit New Zealand in due course.

21      The Annual Report and Summary Annual Report will be made available to the public via Council’s website, by placing printed copies in libraries and service centres and having printed copies available for distribution on request in December 2020.  The availability of the Annual Report will be advertised.  Printed copies of the report and summary will also be sent to those on the strategy and policy mailing list.

Status of the Report

22      At the date of this report the Annual Report is practically complete.  The principal matters outstanding include finalisation of the audit opinion and representation letter by Audit New Zealand.

23      At the time of writing this report, Audit New Zealand have completed the majority of their audit fieldwork and review of the draft Annual Report.  Verbal audit clearance was provided at the Finance and Assurance meeting on 10 November 2020.

24      Subsequent to providing verbal audit clearance, Audit New Zealand have provided Council with the draft audit opinion, and the draft representation letter. These documents are included in this report as attachment C and D respectively.  The letter of representation is required to be signed by the mayor and chief executive.  Audit New Zealand have not finalised the draft management report as at the date of this report, however they have communicated the key matters and these are outlined in the issues section of this report.

Organisational Performance

25      The Annual Report 2019/2020 details performance of the organisation against the key performance targets that were specified in the 10 Year Plan.

26      Managers have reviewed the activities for which they are responsible and have provided commentary of the actual performance against targets, particularly in those instances where the performance targets have not been met. 

27      Of the 81 service performance targets, 54 (67%) achieved, two (2%) not measured and 25 (31%) not achieved. The result shows that just over 30% of the organisations KPIs were not met.  In general, throughout the report there were a variety of reasons why the performance targets were not achieved and these reasons are outlined in more detail in the performance tables within the various activity sections of the Annual Report.  However, some of the reasons include but are not limited to: 

·   that the target was set incorrectly

·   the priorities have changed

·   performance measure results are not available yet (e.g. Drinking Water Assessor report)

·   financial costs exceeded anticipated target

·   improvements are being made but are not yet in place

·   there may be issues with processes or resources

 

 

Activity group performance results

Achieved

Not measured

Not Achieved

Total

Community services

7

-

4

11

District leadership

14

-

5

19

Emergency management

2

-

-

2

Regulatory services

6

1

4

11

Roads and footpaths

2

1

3

6

Solid waste

4

-

2

6

Stormwater

8

-

2

10

Sewerage

6

-

-

6

Water supply

5

-

5

10

TOTAL

54

2

25

81

 

Capital Expenditure Projects

28      The draft unaudited Annual Report 2019/2020 includes information about projects, their completion status and actual cost versus budget.  The projects include those programmed in the Annual Plan 2019/2020 plus any projects carried forward from previous years or any new projects. This project information excludes the roading programme.

29      Of the 169 projects, overall, 64 (38%) were completed, 17 (10%) were deleted, 9 (5%) were not started, 58 (34%) were in progress and 21 (13%) were deferred. 

30      It should be noted that only about a third were completed within the financial year with 34% still in progress. 

 

Activity Group

Completed

In Progress

Not Started

Deferred

Deleted

Total

Community services

30

18

2

17

10

77

District leadership

2

3

 -

 -

1

6

Emergency Management

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Regulatory Services

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Roading & transport

10

12

4

2

1

29

Solid Waste

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Stormwater

1

1

 -

 -

1

3

Wastewater

7

13

1

1

1

23

Water supply

14

11

2

1

3

31

Total

64

58

9

21

17

169

 

Financial results

Statement of compliance

31      Clause 34 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that a Statement of Compliance be included in the Annual Report indicating whether the statutory requirements in relation to preparation of the Annual Report have been met. The statement is required to be signed by the chief executive and mayor.

32      The main statutory requirements relating to preparation of the Annual Report are outlined in the act under Part 6, Section 98 and Part 3 of Schedule 10. These sections largely require that the statements be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) and that certain information be disclosed in the Annual Report. Hence, the Statement of Compliance is confirming that the information that is required to be included in an Annual Report has been included and whether the report itself has been adopted within the four month timeframe and that it has been audited. The representations required in the statement do not extend to confirming, for example, that Council has met all of its statutory responsibilities during previous decision-making processes.

Financial Statements

33      These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Tier 1 PBE accounting standards.  The accounting policies for the year ended 30 June 2020 were approved at the Finance and Assurance committee meeting in June 2020. Explanations of the variances between actual results and budgeted results for 2019/2020 year can be found in note 36 of the Annual Report.

34     A summary of key financial information is set out below.

Statement of comprehensive revenue and expense

35      The statement of revenue and expense records the revenue received and the expenditure incurred by Council. It also records changes in the value of Council’s assets.  In summary, Council’s financial performance was as follows:

 

Actual 2019/2020

Budget 2019/2020

Actual 2018/2019

Total revenue

$80.5M

$73.1M

$77.1M

Total expenditure

($80.7M)

($76.4M)

($78.5M)

Share of surplus from associates

$0.1M

-

$0.3M

Operating surplus/(deficit)

($0.2M)

($3.3M)

($1.1M)

Gains on assets at fair value

$16.4M

$30.5M

$49.9M

Total comprehensive revenue and expense

$16.2M

$27.2M

$48.8M

36      Total revenue was $7.4 million over budget primarily due to increased NZTA subsidies ($0.9 million), forestry harvesting income ($0.4 million), grants ($2.0 million), forestry revaluation ($1.9 million), vested assets ($0.7 million) and Council’s share of income from WasteNet, not budgeted for ($1.3 million).  These increases were offset by the recognition of outstanding building consent fees as deferred revenue rather than income ($0.9 million).

37      Total expenditure was $4.3 million above budget predominantly due to increased costs associated with emergency roading works as a result of the February 2020 flooding event ($1.3 million); employee-related costs ($1.0 million), primarily due to increases in building control staff to manage workflows and accreditation as well as new positions to enable Council to manage legislative changes, predominantly around water reforms; increased waste management costs ($0.4 million); increased consultants costs, the majority of which are associated with government-funded projects including Milford Opportunities and Stewart Island/Rakiura Opportunities ($2.0 million); and Council’s share of WasteNet expenditure, not budgeted for ($1.1 million).  These costs are offset by Council’s contribution to the Pyramid Bridge rebuild being lower than budgeted ($1.3 million).  As a result of the higher than anticipated infrastructure values, Council’s depreciation also increased ($0.7 million).

38      Gains on assets at fair value was $14.1 million less than budget due to the increase in the roading and three waters valuations not being as high as budgeted as a result of current market conditions (compared to market conditions at the time the budget was established).

Statement of financial position

39      The statement of financial position (also referred to as the balance sheet) records the assets Council owns, and how those assets are financed.  Total assets refers to what Council owns, for example infrastructure assets.  Total liabilities are finance from third parties, for example accounts payable.  Total equity is the net community assets (total assets less total liabilities).  Key items in the statement of financial position are:

 

Actual 2019/2020

Budget 2019/2020

Actual 2018/2019

Total assets

$1,619M

$1,598M

$1,600M

Total liabilities

$16.5M

$9.0M

$13.4M

Total equity

$1,603M

$1,589M

$1,586M

40      Total assets are over budget primarily due to cash and trade and other receivables being more than budgeted, principally as a result of the higher than budgeted cash balance as a result of additional income received, investments being converted to short term deposits and delays in capital works.

41      At 30 June 2020, Council also had $2.5 million of external borrowings.  This was a short term utilisation of Council’s overdraft facility due to operational cashflow requirements. It was repaid in full in July 2020.

Statement of cash flows 

42      The statement of cash flows records the cash that Council received and disbursed.  Broadly cash, under financial reporting rules is recorded in three separate categories:

·   operating cash flows - the cash flow related to day-to-day operating activities

·   investing cash flows - the cash flow received from sale of assets and cash spent on capital assets

·   financing cash flows - the cash flow received from any borrowings and the cash flow disbursed in repaying borrowings.

43      Overall, Council’s cash position decreased from June 2019 by $3.9 million to $11.8 million at 30 June 2020.  In summary, the cash flows recorded within these categories are as follows:

 

Operating cash flows

Actual 2019/2020

Budget 2019/2020

Actual 2018/2019

Cash surplus/(deficit)

$23.6M

$21.2M

$23.1M

 

Investing cash flows

Actual 2019/2020

Budget 2019/2020

Actual 2018/2019

Cash surplus/(deficit)

($28.3M)

($37.6M)

($20.0M)

 

Financing cash flows

Actual 2019/2020

Budget 2019/2020

Actual 2018/2019

Cash surplus/(deficit)

$0.8M

-

$1.7M

 

44      Council’s net operating cashflows were higher than budgeted predominantly due to $1.8 million more receipts from Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for subsidies towards emergency works; as well as additional government grants for various projects.  Net cash outflows from investing activities were $9.3 million lower than budgeted due delayed progress on Te Anau wastewater project as well as other capital works as a result of COVID-19. 

 

Issues

45      As at the date of this report there are no significant unresolved issues in relation to the Annual Report. There are however, some matters that have arisen during the audit which Council need to be aware of.

 

 

Palmerston North call centre data capturing process

46      During their audit procedures, Audit NZ were unable to gain sufficient evidence over the completeness of three Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) mandatory performance measures for water, wastewater and stormwater activities, specifically customer complaints.  The issue is due to systematic issues with data capturing by the Palmerston North after hours call centre.  How a complaint is counted is not in accordance with the DIA guidance and the method of counting is likely to have understated the actual number of complaints received both in the current year and in the comparative year to 30 June 2019.  This issue will impact a number of local authorities across the country who also use this call centre. 

47      This matter was referred to Audit NZ’s technical department for consideration and the outcome was a qualification to Council’s audit opinion, specifically a qualification paragraph in the audit opinion (refer below). 

48      Council staff are working with the Palmerston North call centre management to look to resolve this matter going forward. 

Outstanding building consent liability

49      To date, Council have not recognised in its balance sheet the liability associated with building consent inspections that have not been undertaken given the difficulty in ascertaining accurate data to support a value.

50      Given the significant work that has been done in this area by the Building Solutions team in the last 12 months, staff now have more confidence in the data and the associated value that should be recognised in the balance sheet.  Based on data extracted from Council’s building control systems, it is estimated that there are approximately 3,288 consents outstanding at an estimated value of $0.9 million (GST exclusive) at 30 June 2020.

51      In the initial draft 2019/2020 Annual Report presented to the Finance and Assurance Committee on 11 September, staff advised that this liability had been recognised as a prior period error, and as a result, comparative information for the prior period (2018/2019) financial statements had been amended in the 2019/2020 Annual Report. 

52      Subsequently Audit NZ have reviewed this matter and the supporting information and have indicated that in their opinion, this matter is a change in estimate rather than a prior period error.  After further investigations and discussions with Audit NZ, staff accept Audit NZ’s position and have amended the accounting treatment in the final draft Annual Report to align with Audit NZ’s expectation.  The impact of this change was to revert 2018/2019 financial results to the match the published Annual Report, consent fee revenue was reduced by $0.9 million in 2019/2020 and the balance sheet now includes deferred revenue of $0.9 million. Disclosure on this matter is included in Note 20 of the final draft Annual Report.

Infrastructure asset data quality

53      The three waters valuations for 30 June 2020 indicted some issues with asset data. 

54      The valuers’ have noted in their valuation report that the confidence in Council’s data has reduced to a rating of 3 (50% estimated) across all asset categories.  In the 2018/2019 revaluation all asset categories (other than stormwater pipe attributes which was 3 in 2018/2019) were rated 2 (minor inaccuracies).

55      Management advised that this matter arose as a result of insufficient resourcing available to manage the increased work programme in recent times.  Council are currently recruiting to address this resourcing shortage.

56      Audit NZ have advised that this matter will be recognised in their management report as a recommendation.

Draft audit opinion (attachment C)

57      An auditor can issue either an unmodified or a modified audit opinion.  An auditor expresses an unmodified audit opinion when they are able to satisfactorily conclude that the financial statements are free from material misstatement (desired outcome).  However, an auditor may issue a modified opinion:

-     when the financial statements are not free from material misstatement or

-     when they have been unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.

58      Historically Council has typically received an unmodified audit opinion.  However, for the 2019/2020 Annual Report, the draft audit opinion provided by Audit NZ (Attachment C) is an unmodified opinion on the audited information, excluding the Activity Groups statement.  Additionally an emphasis of matter paragraph has also been included in regards to the impact of Covid-19 on Council.

59      The qualification is in relation to Audit NZ’s inability to gain completeness over three Department of Internal Affairs mandatory performance measures for water, wastewater and stormwater activities.  This is in relation to systematic issues with data capturing within the Palmerston North call centre, who Council use for managing after hours calls.  This qualification will apply to a number of Councils across New Zealand who use this after hours call centre. As we are already nearly 6 months through the 2020/2021 financial year, it is anticipated that this modified audit opinion will be in place for the 2020/2021 Annual Report also.

60      Audit NZ have advised that the disclosures in the audit opinion around the qualification is in line with NZ Auditing Standards. 

61      Staff understand from discussions with Audit NZ that this qualification wording is consistent across all affected Councils in New Zealand.    

62      The emphasis of matter paragraph is in relation to the impact of Covid-19 on Council.   Audit NZ advised staff that the Office of the Auditor General has requested an emphasis of matter paragraph be included in all audit opinions of financial statements with a balance date of 30 June 2020.  This is to bring to the readers’ attention the uncertainties in regards to the impact of Covid-19 on Council.  The emphasis of matter statement directs the readers to note 35 of the Annual Report where Council outlines the impact of Covid-19 on its operations. 

63      Staff have identified content in the audit opinion which differs from prior years, in red text within attachment C.  Yellow highlights indicate areas subject to change prior to finalisation of the document.

Representation letter (attachment D)

64      Audit NZ have provided a draft representation letter which is required to be signed by the mayor and chief executive on behalf of the Council.  It provides various representations to Audit NZ in relation to the preparation of the Annual Report. 

65      Audit NZ are awaiting guidance from their technical department in relation to the desired representations around the Palmerston North call centre matter (refer above).

66      Staff have identified content in the representation letter which differs from prior years, in red text within attachment D.  Yellow highlights indicate areas subject to change prior to finalisation of the document.

Management report from Audit NZ

67      Audit NZ are not in a position to provide Council with its draft management letter for consideration at this meeting.  Staff are, however aware that Audit NZ are proposing to include the following matters in their report, and that Mr Ollsson may speak to these at the meeting:

-     Palmerston North call centre data capturing process

-     Outstanding building consent liability

-     Infrastructure asset data quality

-     Unadjusted audit differences

o impairment of 15 Forth Street building ($0.3 million), and

o timing of recognition of grant revenue ($1.0 million)

Risks

68      There are no outstanding risks in relation to the annual report at this stage of the process. However, it should be noted that the issue relating to the call centre data capture process will likely result in a modified audit opinion for the 2020/2021 Annual Report due to the processes being in existence for the first part of the current financial year.

 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

69      Section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to adopt an Annual Report within four months of the end of the financial year. Legislation has recently been passed to extend the deadline for 30 June 2020 Council annual reports to be adopted by 31 December 2020 rather than 31 October 2020.  This is to allow for interruptions due to the Covid-19.

70      The Act also requires that Council publishes a summary of the Annual Report within one month of the Annual Report being adopted.  A final draft of the summary document is included in this report as Attachment B and will be available to the public soon after the adoption.

71      Part 3 of Schedule 10 also outlines a number of disclosures that are required to be included in the Annual Report.

72      Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 provide the inclusion of wellbeing’s.  In relation to annual reporting an amendment to Schedule 10 (3, 23), - Groups of activities now includes “(d) describe any identified effects that any activity within the group of activities has had on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the community.”  This had been reflected throughout the annual report document.

 

Community Views

73      The community expects Council to adopt an Annual Report in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.  The report is an important accountability document in terms of explaining the actual performance of the organisation relative to the objectives that were set via the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

74      No specific community views have been sought on the Annual Report.

75      The Annual Report and summary (once confirmed) will be made available to the public via Council’s website, by placing printed copies in libraries and service centres and having printed copies available for distribution on request.  Availability of the report will be advertised.  Printed copies of the report and summary will also be sent to those who have requested a copy.

Costs and Funding

76      The audit fee for the Annual Report is $120,124 (excluding GST) plus associated disbursements.

77      There are no additional financial considerations associated with making a decision on whether to adopt the Annual Report.

Policy Implications

78      Council’s policies relating to the basis upon which the Annual Report is prepared are outlined in the Statement of Accounting Policies contained in the report itself.

Analysis

Options Considered

79      Under the Local Government Act 2002, the Council must prepare and adopt an
Annual Report in respect of each financial year, no other options are available. 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Recommend adoption of the Annual Report 2019/2020, including any adjustments agreed by the committee at this meeting

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        compliance with Council’s legislative requirements and Council’s committee delegations

·        the committee has an opportunity to review the report and satisfy itself that the report is complete and that it has been prepared on an appropriate basis

·        the document provides information to the public on the performance to budget and against key performance indicators.

·        none identified.

 

Option 2 – Do not recommend adoption of the Annual Report 2019/2020, including any adjustments agreed by the committee at this meeting

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        there are no advantages of this option.

·        Council will not be compliant with the legislation if the Annual Report is not audited and adopted by Council by 31 December 2020.

 

Assessment of Significance

80      The Annual Report 2019/2020 is considered significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because the performance of Council is of wide community interest.

81      It is important to the public that Council meets both its financial and non-financial commitments to ensure it delivers its services efficiently and effectively.  To do this the public relies on the information provided in the Annual Report to give it assurance that Council is undertaking its responsibilities and how well it is performing these.

82      Along with the processes and procedures Council undertakes to track and record the information provided in the Annual Report, to ensure that the public can rely on the information provided an independent review is undertaken by auditors (Audit New Zealand).  In general, Audit New Zealand provides an opinion as to whether Council has complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) and that the Annual Report fairly reflects Council’s financial position, results of operations and cashflows, and levels of service and reasons for any variance.

Recommended Option

83      The recommended option is Option 1 – Recommend adoption of the Annual Report 2019/2020 including any adjustments agreed by the committee at this meeting.

Next Steps

84      Once the Annual Report and summary are adopted, and the signed representation letter has been provided to Audit NZ, the final audit opinion(s) will be issued to Council.  The audit opinion will be finalised in the Annual Report and the graphically designed version of the full document and summary including an online and printed version of the Annual Report will be made available to the public in late November.

 

Attachments

a             Final draft Annual Report 2019/2020

b             Final draft Annual Report summary document 2019/2020

c             Draft audit opinion for the year ended 30 June 2020 from Audit NZ

d            Draft representation letter to Audit NZ    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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

18 November 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


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

Plan Change 1 - Dark Skies

Record No:             R/20/10/59834

Author:                      Margaret Ferguson, Resource Management Planner

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek Council approval and an associated formal resolution to make Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies operative.

Executive Summary

2        Decisions on Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies, prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, were released in February 2020 and no appeals were received.

3        This report seeks the approval of Council to make the plan change operative. This is the final step in the plan change process and formalises the new provisions.   

4        An operative date of 18 December 2020 is recommended.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Plan Change 1 - Dark Skies ” dated 12 November 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 that Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies (attachment A of the report) to be made operative.

e)            Agrees to affix the Common Seal to the Southland District Plan 2018 to effect its approval of the plan change and His Worship the Mayor, and the Chief Executive sign the Plan.

f)             Approves that 18 December 2020 as the operative date for the Plan Change.

 

 

Background

5        Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies amends provisions relating to lighting and signage on Stewart Island/Rakiura only (see Attachment A).

6        Plan Change 1 has been through the prescribed process as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

7        Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies was publicly notified on 9 September 2019 and six submissions were received by the closing date of 7 October 2019.  One submission was received late on 9 October 2019.  A Section 37 waiver of time limits for submissions on Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies was granted for the late submission.  

8        A summary of submissions seeking any further submissions was publicly notified on the 28 October 2019.  No further submissions were received.  

9        A hearing was held on Wednesday 12 February 2020, with one submitter in attendance.  The decision on submissions to the plan change was publicly notified on 6 August 2020 with a 30 day legal appeal period. No appeals were received.

10      The provisions have been treated as legally operative since the close of the appeal period.  All that now remains is to make the provisions formally operative and legally part of the Southland District Plan. 

11      A final public notice needs to be published advertising when the changes to the current District Plan become operative.  Under the provisions of Clause 20 of Schedule 1, the Council must publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative at least five working days before the date on which it becomes operative.  It is therefore recommended that Plan Change 1 becomes operative on 18 December 2020, with this date being publicly notified on 10 December 2020.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

12      Clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, sets out that a local authority shall approve a proposed plan once it has made amendments under Clause 16 (which refers to directions of the Environment Court). Council is now required to approve the proposed plan change and define an operative date.  

13      This report seeks Councils approval to make the changes resulting from Plan Change 1 Dark Skies part of the Southland District Plan by setting the operative date under Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

14      There is no right of appeal in respect of any decision Council makes on this matter given the appeal period on Council’s decision on Plan Change 1 ended on 17 September 2020 and no appeals were filed.

Community Views

15      The views of the community were sought through the plan change process as provided for by Schedule 1 of the RMA. Submissions were received, a hearing was held and the final decisions released.

Costs and Funding

16      The costs at making Plan Change 1 operative will be met by existing District Plan budgets.  The costs are associated with the legal requirements for publishing a public notice and printing and updating the relevant pages of the District Plan.

Policy Implications

17      The Southland District Plan 2018 provides a policy framework for the development and use of land in the District. Making Plan Change 1 operative provides for consideration of the impacts of development on Stewart Island/Rakiura’s night sky.   

Analysis

Options Considered

18      Council could choose to make Plan Change 1 operative on a different date, however Council is required under section 21 to avoid unreasonable delay, so this must be considered when setting an operative date.

Assessment of Significance and engagement

19      Plan Change 1 is not considered to be significant in terms of the Local Government Act 2002. 

20      Plan change 1 has been through formal preliminary consultation and consultation processes, along with the submission and hearing process as required by the RMA.

Recommended Option

21      It is recommended Plan Change 1 be made formally operative on 18 December 2020 (see Attachment B).

Next Steps

22      If Council approves Plan Change 1 being made operative, a public notice is to be published in The Southland Times on 10 December 2020 announcing that Plan Change 1 will become operative on 18 December 2020. 

23      Updated pages of the ‘Southland District Plan 2018’ will be distributed to all of Council’s area offices and libraries, as well as to the Minister for the Environment, Environment Southland, adjoining territorial authorities, Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu  and Te Ao Mārama Incorporated. The Council website will also be updated accordingly as it relates to the District Plan.

 

Attachments

a             FINAL Dark Skies PC 1 text

b             Operative Seal Insert for Plan Change 1 - Dark Skies    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

 

 

Southland District Council

Southland District Plan – 2018 - Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies

 

 

At its meeting of 18th November 2020 the Southland District Council resolved to declare Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies 'Operative' pursuant to clause 17 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In accordance with clause 20 (1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies becomes 'operative ' on 18 December 2020.

Public notification of the availability of the operative Plan Change 1 – Dark Skies is to be given on 10 December 2020.

 

 

Date of council resolution            18 November 2020 
Date of public notice                     10 December 2020     
'Operative’ date                    18 December 2020

 

 

 

The COMMON SEAL of the SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL was affixed pursuant to a resolution of the Council dated 18 November 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                       Gary Tong, Mayor

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                       Cameron McIntosh, Chief Executive

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

Charging Option for Non-Recreational Jetty use on Stewart Island/Rakiura

Record No:             R/20/8/31572

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                 Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is:

·            to inform Council of work that is being undertaken considering new charging methods for non-recreational jetty use on Stewart Island/Rakiura

·            to inform Council of recent feedback that has been received from stakeholders about charging for jetty use

·            for Council to endorse a charging method for non-recreational jetty use, to be used as the basis for the proposed fees and charges for 2021/2022, related to the draft Long Term Plan 2031 (LTP 2031).

Executive Summary

2.       Currently, non-recreational users of Stewart Island/Rakiura jetties hold a licence from Council to use Council jetties, and the licensees pay an annual fee per vessel to Council. In 2017, the Stewart Island/Rakiura Jetties Subcommittee raised that a new charging regime for non-recreational jetty usage, based on patronage, might be more appropriate.

3.       Staff support reviewing the charging method as the review is a component of work being undertaken by Council to manage and fund jetties in a strategic, financially sustainable and fair way.

4.       This piece of work is seeking Council to endorse a method on how to charge non-recreational users of Council jetties on the island. All of the potential funding methods would be structured to try and generate the same amount of funding. This work does not involve determining appropriate funding sources for the jetties (which is determined in the Revenue and Financing Policy), or deciding the amount of the fee for non-recreational use (which is determined in the LTP 2031).

5.       On 21 October 2020, Council endorsed a draft Revenue and Financial Policy for consultation. This draft policy proposes 60-70% of operational costs to fund jetties will be generated from fees and charges (which is largely made up of the fee paid by operators). The remaining funding is proposed to come from the local Stewart Island Community Board rate, the general rate and from other sources such as the Stewart Island Visitor Levy.

6.       Currently, coastal permits for the jetties do not allow Council to charge non-recreational jetty users – so the current license fee is not in accordance with the coastal permit. Council needs to seek amendments to the coastal permits to enable a charging regime. Council has begun this amendment process, and it is likely to be completed soon. The work outlined in this report, to amend the charging method, will only proceed if the coastal permits for jetties are updated.

7.       When considering how to charge non-recreational jetty users, it is important Council considers who is benefitting and contributing to the need to provide and maintain jetties. It is also important that any charging method is practical, and that Council can prove the charge issued is accurate. Any fee set must also be fair and reasonable.

8.       In 2019, staff sought feedback on possible charging methods from the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board (the board) and the Stewart Island Rakiura Jetties Subcommittee (the subcommittee) (for the 2016-2019 triennium). In recent weeks, staff have also sought feedback from people who hold a license to use Council jetties, and staff have sought further feedback from the board.

9.       This report presents three charging options and requests that Council endorse a charging method to be included in the draft fees and charges associated with the LTP 2031. The charging options are:

·            option A - a base fee amount (for each vessel) with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried

·            option B - a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (for each vessel)

·            option C - a licence fee charged annually for each vessel.

Modelling, of how the different charging options could be structured to generate the required funding, is included with this report as Attachment A.

10.     A majority of the board prefer option A, and a jetties advisory group also prefer that option. Jetty users on the island are not aligned on how they would like to be charged. As there are pros and cons with each of the options, staff believe endorsing a charging option is a political decision for Council. On this basis, staff have not identified a preferred option in this report.

11.     The next step is for staff to include the charging method and associated fee in the draft fees and charges associated with the LTP 2031, which will be consulted on in March 2021.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Charging Option for Non-Recreational Jetty use on Stewart Island/Rakiura” dated 11 November 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 Council needs to ensure the coastal permits for the jetties allow for a charging regime.

e)            Notes, that on 5 August 2020, the Services and Assets Committee recommended Council endorse a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (option B) to be included in the draft Long Term Plan 2031, subject to hearing further feedback from the Stewart Island Community Board.

f)             Notes that staff have discussed the charging options and sought feedback from the Stewart Island Community Board, since the Services and Assets Committee meeting on 5 August 2020.

g)           Notes that on 5 August 2020 the Stewart Island Community Board endorsed a base fee amount (for each vessel) with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried.

h)           Endorses one of the following charging options, to be used as the basis for the proposed fees and charges for 2021/22 (related to the draft Long Term Plan 2031):

 

i.       a base fee amount (for each vessel) with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried

ii.     a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (for each vessel)

iii.    a licence fee charged annually for each vessel.

 

i)             Notes that the Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2031 (and supporting documents that will include a schedule of fees and charges) will be consulted on in March 2021.

 

Background

The current charging method

12.     On Stewart Island/Rakiura, Council administers Fred’s Camp Jetty, Little Glory Jetty, Millers Beach Jetty, Port William Jetty, Golden Bay Jetty and Ulva Island Jetty. In this report, these facilities are collectively referred to as the jetties.

13.     Council currently issues licences to non-recreational users of Stewart Island/Rakiura jetties, allowing licensees the non-exclusive use of the jetties for embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and for the loading and unloading of goods. The licence fee is currently $1,174 (GST exclusive), and this is charged annually for each vessel used by the licensee, in accordance with their licence. The licences currently held were issued in 2014 and the term of the licences is ten years. The licence agreements can be terminated upon notice. When notice is given, the agreement will expire on 31 October following the giving of notice.

14.     There are currently eight operators and 13 vessels using the jetties (this does not include operators/vessels that exclusively use Golden Bay jetty). The vessels vary in weight, ranging from four to 30 tonne. Some operators use the jetties regularly, while others make around 50 trips a year. Council does not have accurate information on the number of passengers travelling with operators per annum, but the Department of Conservation have reported that Ulva Island jetty has high usage, and the number of visitors to that site have been up to 25,000 per year.

15.     In 2017, the jetties subcommittee outlined that they wanted to change the current charging approach to be more in line with a user-pays regime based on patronage.

Scope

16.     The work being undertaken seeks to review the current charging method and to identify an appropriate and fair way to charge non-recreational users of Council administered jetties on the island. It is not within the scope of this work to determine what the user fee should be, or how jetties should be funded.

17.     A number of pieces of work are currently being undertaken or are anticipated, that relate to the jetties. These include:

·            review of the extent of provision, levels of service, projected demand and different service delivery options for the delivery of jetty services to the Stewart Island/Rakiura community

·            the review of the Stewart Island/Rakiura visitor levy

·            the review of the Revenue and Financing Policy (this involves applying legislation and considering appropriate funding sources for the jetties activity, for example considering whether district or local funding, fees and charges, grants etc are appropriate)

·            a Stewart Island/Rakiura Wharf and Jetties Service Delivery Strategy

·            investigating and providing further detail on the possible divestment of some jetties on Stewart Island/Rakiura.

18.     Going forward, these pieces of work will impact the expenditure required for the jetties, how jetties are funded and the levels of income needed from each funding source including the charge for non-recreational use.

Work already undertaken

19.     In 2017, a consultant Sandra James produced a community engagement report that captured the views Stewart Island/Rakiura residents hold about jetties on the island. This included views on jetty ownership, identifying the most critical jetties, jetty usage, strategic management, and funding.

20.     Staff presented reports to the board and the subcommittee in December 2018, seeking endorsement to undertake a review of the current charging regime. Staff also requested funding from the board to contribute towards the review. The board and subcommittee endorsed the work, and the subcommittee agreed to contribute $20,000 of funding. In March 2019, Council also endorsed proceeding with the work, and approved $20,000 of unbudgeted expenditure for the work to be funded from the jetties subcommittee general reserves.

21.     After receiving legal advice, in late 2019 staff presented possible charging methods to the subcommittee and the board. The subcommittee identified a new charging option (option A presented in this report).

22.     Staff presented the three charging options outlined in this report to the Services and Assets Committee on 5 August 2020. The committee recommended Council endorse a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (option B) to be included in the draft LTP 2031, subject to hearing further feedback from the board.

23.     In October this year, staff sought feedback from non-recreational jetty users on the options being considered, and on the number of passengers they carry and their vessel tonnage. In a workshop on 12 October 2020, staff also sought further feedback from the board. The board met with a jetties advisory group on 9 November 2020. The feedback the board received from the group is outlined below.

Issues

24.     The current coastal permits for the jetties do not allow for a charging regime. Staff are in the process of working with Environment Southland to update the coastal permits, and it is anticipated that the permits will be amended prior to the adoption the the LTP 2031. Work to alter the way people are charged for jetty usage will only proceed if the permits are amended.

25.     It is anticipated that the coastal permits will be amended as required, and on this basis, are staff are currently presenting three possible charging options for non-recreational jetty usage.

26.     It is important that any new charging method is practical to administer and that Council can validate the fee it charges.

27.     It is intended each funding method will generate the same total amount of funding.

28.     Advantages and disadvantages for each option are discussed in the ‘analysis of options’ section of this report.

Charging options

Option A - A fee that has a base amount (for each vessel) and an additional charge based on passenger numbers

 

29.     For this option, a base fee amount and a charge per passenger carried would be set through the annual plan/LTP process. The base fee would apply to each boat using the jetties. The number of passengers for each vessel would be the number who travelled on a return trip. The captain and any associated crew (employees/non-commercial passenger etc), would not count as passengers.

30.     Staff foresee that if this option is implemented, it would involve the non-recreational jetty users sending Council a count of passenger numbers (that have been recorded in manifests/ logbooks) at the end of each quarter. Council would raise an invoice, and the charge would be issued to the jetty user. The invoice for the base fee would be raised in the first quarter.

31.     For this option, staff may have to amend the current license agreements with non-recreational jetty users. Some clauses in the current contracts, such as on jetty usage, indemnity/insurance, and termination clauses, would continue to be part of the revised contracts. Amendments may include:

·            changing the wording in the contracts so it doesn’t refer to a license fee

·            including a requirement that jetty users provide passenger number information (and how passenger numbers should be counted)

·            terms on what will happen if passenger numbers aren’t provided

·            terms on how the verification of passenger numbers may occur – allowing some form of audit.

32.     This option may be hard to implement if Council was unable to reach a formal agreement with jetty users. This is discussed below under the ‘risk’ sub-heading.

Option B - A fee that has a base amount and an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (for each vessel)

33.     For this option, non-recreational users of jetties would pay an annual fee and an additional charge based on the weight of the vessel, for each vessel visiting Council jetties. Different tiers of boat weight would be used (such as <10 tonnes, 10-20 tonnes, and >20 tonnes) and a fee would be set for boats in each weight range. Heavier vessels would be charged a higher fee.

34.     In practice, this option would require Council to raise an invoice annually, and the charge being issued to the jetty user.

35.     This option may involve amending the current license agreements with non-recreational jetty users. Information about vessel weight could be included in the contract. As with option A, clauses on jetty usage, who is liable for damage, indemnity/insurance, and termination clauses, would continue to be part of the contract.

Option C - a licence fee charged annually for each vessel (the status quo)

36.     As is outlined above, Council current issues licences to non-recreational users of the jetties, allowing the licensees the non-exclusive use of Council administered jetties. The licence fee is currently $1,174 (excluding GST), and this is charged annually for each vessel used by the licensee. Council does have the option of continuing with this charging approach and changing the amount of the annual fee so the required funding is generated. Under the license agreements, non-recreational users are liable for any damage they cause. This option would be administered by Council issuing an annual invoice to the jetty users.

Risks

37.     If amendments to the contracts are required, there is a risk that Council won’t reach agreement with all the non-recreational jetty users, to amend the current contracts. This may take place at a time when Council has already committed to a charging method, in the LTP 2031. If this occurs, Council might have to set and administer the charge without contracts in place (with all users).

38.     There is small risk that applications to vary the coastal permit for the jetties, may get declined. If this is the case, staff advise Council not proceed to change the way jetty users are charged, and Council may decide not to charge for non-recreational jetty use going forward.

39.     If less funding is captured from non-recreational jetty users than was anticipated (through there being less passengers or less/lighter vessels), it may impact scheduled maintenance plans. Options B and C have reduced risk to Council as the options are more likely to generate a fixed amount of funding, whereas option A will generate more variable income for Council. Council is responsible for ensuring the jetties are maintained appropriately.

40.     There is also risk that operators using the jetties may not consider the fee that they are charged fair and reasonable, based on their jetty usage.

Enforcement

41.     Council has avenues available to enforce a charge for non-recreational jetty use.

42.     If formal agreements have been reached with jetty users, dispute resolution provisions in the agreement would outline a specific process to deal with disputes or differences. Under the current license agreements either party can terminate the agreement upon giving notice (and the agreement will expire on 31 October following the date of the notice), and any amended contracts are likely to have a similar termination clause.

43.     Council could also seek payment in accordance with its debt recovery policy. This may involve Council or an external recovery agency taking steps to recover the outstanding amount. Council would have the ability to recover a charge as a debt in the District Court, an assessment would be made regarding whether the costs of recovery is likely to exceed the amount recovered.

44.     Outside of any contractual agreement, Council could set fines for late payment in its schedule of fees and charges, or it could set a fine through a bylaw process.

45.     At this stage, Council is not be able to prevent non-recreational jetty users having access to the jetties – this restriction would need to be explicitly stated in the coastal permit.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

46.     Under section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA), Council must meet its funding needs for each activity following consideration of factors including who is benefitting, the period over which any benefit will occur, and whether the actions of a particular group contribute towards the need to undertake the activity (such as whether particular jetty users require more maintenance to be undertaken on the jetties). Council is also required to consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community.

47.     Council have received advice on how to create a legal mechanism for collecting and enforcing a fee for non-recreational jetty use. To make monitoring and collection easier, Council should try and reach agreement on how and when jetty users will pay Council, and on how information (such as passenger numbers) should be verified. The most practical way to set a fee for non-recreational jetty use is through fees and charges section in its Annual Plan/LTP. Council can set a fee in the annual plan/LTP, in accordance with section 103(2)(c) of the LGA.

48.     In setting a fee, Council has to ensure:

·            any charge set is fair and reasonable based on jetty usage

·            jetty resource consent conditions and any user fee, align

•             the charge does not ‘double dip’ (non-recreational users are not charged for amounts that will also be funded from other sources).

49.     As is outlined above, Council is currently in the process of amending the consent conditions, to allow for charging.

50.     Council’s financial services team have also assessed that visitor levy funds and funds from non-recreational jetty users are separate funding streams, and funding is not collected for the same purpose.

51.     In relation to monitoring and enforcement, Council should be able to prove that the people being charged a fee for jetty usage are using the jetties and Council should be able to justify any charge levied.

Community Views

52.     Council is aware of some community views on this matter.

The wider community

53.     Research completed on the Stewart Island Wharfing Provision, by consultant Sandra James in 2017, investigated community views on jetties on Stewart Island/Rakiura and identified:

·            that local users understood the need to pay for their use of the jetties

·            that there was a need for long term strategic planning rather than a reactionary approach to jetties

·            that there was unanimous agreement that the jetties should be self-funding and not a burden on ratepayers alone

·            a new funding strategy should be investigated, with funding from multiple sources, that is fair and equitable.

The board and subcommittee

54.     Council has sought feedback on potential charging options from the jetties subcommittee and the board. In 2019, both the subcommittee and board outlined a preference to have a base fee amount with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried (option A). In a workshop discussion on 12 October 2020, the board reaffirmed its support for option A. Four board members supported option A, two supported option B and one member thought all three methods should be used. Those in support of option A thought it was the fairest way to charge, and that the amount being paid by the operators would align with their actual income for each year (so it might be more in line with their ability to pay). They also believed the tonnage option may increase financial pressure on some non-recreational users and affect their ability to operate longer-term.

55.     The board also received feedback from a jetties advisory group on 9 November 2020. This group supported having a base fee amount and an additional charge based on passenger numbers (option A). The advisory group supported this option as the members believed it would result in a fair charge to the operators, based on jetty usage. 

The non-recreational users

56.     Council managed to get feedback on the charging options from six of the eight non-recreational users. Staff identified that the six operators have mixed views on the charging options, and collectively, there is no clear preference for any option.

57.     Three operators stated the passenger-based option would place an administrative burden on them. Two operators were in favour of the passenger-based option.

58.     Two operators stated that the tonnage option wouldn’t always impose a higher fee on those operators receiving more benefit from the jetties (such as the operators using the jetties a lot). An operator with a heavy vessel who didn’t carry many commercial passengers outlined the change may increase the financial pressure on their business and affect their ability to operate longer-term if there was a tonnage-based fee. One operator thought that the fee should be based on both vessel tonnage and horse power.

59.     Two operators were in favour of retaining the annual fee (the status quo), but another operator thought the current charging approach wasn’t charging an appropriate fee to the operators that were causing the most damage to the jetties.

Other considerations

60.     If the current licensees are required to pay more to use jetties, they are likely to expect a commensurate improvement in the service that they are receiving. This would include, for example, an improved maintenance and renewals regime. If there is an increase in user fees, this may not be well received well by some stakeholders and it may be seen as not facilitating local businesses.

Formal consultation

61.     Through the formal consultation on the LTP 2031 consultation document, anyone who would like to provide formal feedback on the fee that is set, will have the opportunity to make a submission.

Costs and Funding

62.     As has been outlined above, $20,000 of unbudgeted expenditure from the jetties subcommittee general reserves has been allocated to undertake this work. Funding has already been used seeking legal advice on charging methods, and further expenditure is anticipated on varying jetty consent conditions and the current license agreements.

63.     Staff have included with this paper (as Attachment A), scenarios on how the three charging options could be structured and options for the overall mix of funding for the jetties (fees, rates, grants). These scenarios have been updated to reflect sentiment from Council and the board, that the Golden Bay jetty renewal should be brought forward rather than incurring maintenance costs in the interim.

64.     Current budgets (Attachment B) indicate that the expenditure on jetties for the next two years requires approximately $15,000 of additional funding. For the eight remaining years of the LTP period (when Council will have drawn down loans to fund the Golden Bay jetty replacement) the average total additional funding required per annum is projected to be $95,000 (between $82,322 in 2023/24 and $100,395 in 2030/31, as shown in Attachment B).

65.     In accordance with the draft Revenue and Financing Policy, it is proposed that 60-70% of operational costs to fund jetties will be generated from fees and charges (which is largely made up of the fee paid by operators) with 0-10% to come from the local Stewart Island Community Board rate, 0-30% from the general rate (paid district-wide by all ratepayers) and 0-10% from the other sources (such as the Stewart Island Visitor Levy). The policy sets the bands of funding expected from each source with the specific amount to the decided on as part of the long term and annual plans.

66.     In relation to Attachment A (modelling of the three options), it is important to note that at this stage, staff have had to estimate the weight of some vessels using Council jetties and estimated passenger numbers. It is also important to note that staff have not considered the additional vessels that will pay the fee, with Council’s ownership of Golden Bay jetty. This additional information will be gathered by staff, prior to Council endorsing a fee for non-recreational jetty usage.

67.     In December this year, staff will be requesting Council endorse a fee for non-recreational jetty use, to be included in a supporting document for the LTP 2031 consultation document.

68.     It is possible Council may want to continue with the current charging method until the third year (2023/24) of the LTP 2031, once repayments of the loan funding for Golden Bay wharf begin. Based on the current budgets, there is a shortfall of around $14,000 in year 1 and $16,000 in year 2 of the plan. If this was to be fully funded from an increase in the current annual user fee (currently $1,174 excluding for 11 licences), the user fee (based on the updated 13 licences) would increase to $2,080 in 2021/22 and $2,230 in 2022/23. Any funding that was subsequently provided from a local rate and/or district rate and/or the visitor levy would reduce the amount needed from the user fee. General rate funding and any funding from the visitor level/external sources could then be used from 2023/24, which would allow the board more time to confirm funding arrangements with the visitor levy committee or third parties. The board have indicated a preference to implement the new charging method with the LTP 2031, rather than when loan funding for Golden Bay jetty commences.

 Policy Implications

69.     One of the work streams that has come out of the sustainability review is to develop a Stewart Island/Rakiura Wharf and Jetties Service Delivery Strategy, to ensure jetties are managed well in the future.


 

70.     People operating or travelling on non-recreational vessels on Stewart Island/Rakiura, may pay other fees or levies. These include:

·            the Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy, or revenue collected by transport operators on behalf of Council

·            a marine levy to Environment Southland

·            collecting $1 from each passenger who travels to Ulva Island (this is then passed on to the Ulva Island Charitable Trust)

·            a fee to South Port for using the main wharf

·            a concession fee to the Department of Conservation (for operators who take visitors on guided trips).

Analysis

Options Considered

71.     Possible charging options are:

·            option A - a base fee amount with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried (for each vessel)

·            option B - a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (for each vessel)

·            option C - a licence fee charged annually for each vessel.

Analysis of Options

Option A – a base fee amount with an additional charge based on the number of passengers carried (for each vessel)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        considers that some users benefit more from using jetties (vessels that carry more passengers are likely to have more benefit)

·        considers that vessels that carry more passengers may contribute more to the need to provide/maintain jetties – more passengers may be associated with heavier vessels that may do more damage when berthing, or more frequent visits to jetties

·        in line with general feedback given by the community that a fair user pays charging approach should be in place

·        contractual terms will outline how the jetties can be used, and about who will pay for damage etc

·        in line with the specific feedback given by the board and subcommittee

·        this option may enable commercial jetty users to identify the user fee in their retail price – being able to make this fee transparent may make it more palatable to both jetty users and their passengers

·        under this option the fee will be variable for each operator, reflecting the number of passengers carried each quarter, which may align to an operator’s ability to pay 

·      enforcement measures are available.

·        passenger numbers may not directly relate to the benefit received from the jetties

·        passenger numbers may not directly relate to the need to provide/maintain jetties

·        the exact cost of implementing this option is not known

·        this option requires more administration/administrative cost than the other options, as passenger numbers are needed from stakeholders to issue an invoice (and Council staff may have to actively seek this input)

·        Council would have less certainty about the funding generated (as it would vary depending on passenger numbers), compared to the other options. Events such as Covid-19 would impact the amount being collected and may impact maintenance plans. Funding sources/amounts could be altered in response (through the annual plan/LTP)

·        it may be hard to administer this option if formal agreements are not in place/if jetty users are not willing to provide passenger number information

·        it would be difficult for Council to validate the passenger number figures given by the operators – Council would rely on honesty

·        to set a fee, Council may have to estimate annual passenger numbers, and there is a risk estimates may not be accurate

·        there is a risk some people may not view the charge as fair and reasonable.

 

Option B – a base fee amount with an additional charge based on vessel tonnage (for each vessel)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        considers benefit as heavier vessels are able to carry more passengers/goods, so may benefit more from the jetties

·        considers that heavier vessels may contribute more to the need to undertake the activity as heavier vessels may cause more damage to the jetties than light vessels

·        in line with general feedback given by the community that a fair user pays charging approach should be in place

·        contractual terms will outline how the jetties can be used, and about who will pay for damage etc

·        this option would be slightly easier to administer than a passenger-based fee, as Council could issue an invoice without having to receive quarterly information from jetty users

·        this option would mean there is more certainty (than option A) around the amount of funding that would be generated each year from non-recreational jetty use

·        enforcement measures are available.

·        vessel weight may not directly relate to the benefit being received from the jetties

·        vessel weight may not directly relate to the need to provide jetties (for example other factors may impact the damage caused, such as how often a user visits the jetties or how vessels are berthed)

·        the exact cost of implementing this option is not known

·        there would still be some challenges implementing this option, if formal agreements weren’t in place with the jetty users

·        this option is not in line with the views received from the board and subcommittee

·        there is a risk that operators will not provide tonnage information to Council at an early stage. Tonnage information would enable staff to be more informed when it sets a base and tonnage fee, and Council would be more certain of the funding that would be generated

·        Council would not be completely certain about the amount of funding that will be generated by user fees, as the boats using the jetties may change

·        under this option the fee will not be linked to an operator’s passenger numbers/income – so this option may not align to an operator’s ability to pay

·        there is a risk some people may not view the charge as fair and reasonable.

 

Option C – a licence fee charged annually for each vessel

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        known by the current non-recreational jetty users

·        contractual terms outline how the jetties can be used, and about who will pay for damage etc

·        considers the benefit received and damage that may be caused, as jetty users are charged per vessel

·        formal agreements are already in place

·        this option would be slightly easier to administer than a passenger-based fee, as Council could issue an invoice without having to receive any information from jetty users

·        this option would mean there is more certainty (than option A) around the amount of funding that would be generated each year from non-recreational jetty use

·        enforcement measures are available.

·        may not accurately measure benefit – for example the owners of vessels that carry a large number of passengers may be receiving more benefit from the jetties than owners with smaller vessels (who pay the same amount).

·        does not take into account that heavier vessels or vessels using the jetties more frequently may contribute more to the need to undertake the jetty activity

·        this option is not in line with the community views received from the board and subcommittee

·        Council would not be completely certain about the amount of funding that will be generated by user fees, as the number of boats using the jetties may change

·        under this option the fee will not be linked to an operator’s passenger numbers/income – so this option may not align to an operator’s ability to pay

·        there is a risk some people may not view the charge as fair and reasonable.

 

Assessment of Significance

72.     This matter has been assessed as not significant in relation to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and the LGA. Although stakeholders are likely to be interested in this matter, staff believe the level of interest is not to the extent to trigger this being a ‘significant’ issue.

Recommended Option

73.     Staff are aware there are pros and cons for each of the options outlined in this report. Previously staff have indicated the use of option B. 

74.     Option A is supported by stakeholders and stakeholders believe this option would fairly apportion charges to non-recreational jetty users. Staff have concerns that there may be problems implementing and administering this option, and there would be a risk to Council that the funding method would not generate the required annual funding (if there are low passenger numbers).

75.     Staff believe option B would be relatively easy to administer and there would be more certainty about the funding generated, than for option 1. Staff do have concerns that going against the wishes of the board/stakeholders would not foster their relationship with Council, and it may make operators unreceptive to a tonnage-based charging mechanism. The board and staff also have concerns that option B may not result in a fair and reasonable charge to some operators.

76.     Staff believe option C would be easiest to implement and that it would be quite easy to administer. Selecting this option (and going against the wishes of the board and stakeholders) may also not foster Council’s relationship with stakeholders, and stakeholders may be unreceptive to continuing this charging mechanism. As with option B, stakeholders and staff have concerns that this option may not result in a fair and reasonable charge to some operators.

77.     Staff have given a broad range of advice in this report, but believe ultimately the decision to be made is a political decision. Council should select the method it wishes to endorse to be used as the basis for the proposed fees and charges for 2021/22.

Next Steps

78.     The steps to implement a new charging option are outlined below (please note some of the dates outlined below are tentative).

1           Date

Task

November 2020 →

1.  Amend the coastal permits so they allow Council to charge for jetty usage

16 December 2020

2.  Council endorse a draft fee (for non-recreational jetty use) to be included in a supporting document for the LTP 2031 consultation document

February 2020

3.  Inform stakeholders about the LTP 2031 consultation document (and the associated fees and charges)

March 2021

4.  Consultation process

29 April 2021

5.  Deliberate on the feedback received on the LTP 2031 consultation document

May – June 2021

6.  If necessary, amend and sign contracts with jetty users

June 2021

7.  Adopt LTP 2031

1 July 2021

8.  LTP 2031 (and any new charging method) comes into effect.

 

 

Attachments

a             Attachment A - Stewart Island Rakiura Jetties Funding and User Charge Modelling LTP 2031

b             Attachment B - Stewart Island Rakiura Jetties LTP 2031 Financial budget    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

Winton Burner Incentive Programme

Record No:             R/20/9/51068

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        To extend the free building consent incentives programme for burners in Winton.

Executive Summary

2        Environment Southland monitors air pollution in Winton. Winton is the only township in the Southland District that has come close to exceeding the standards. 

3        Air quality in Winton has improved slightly over the last five years, and there have been no exceedances since 2017.

4        The Regulatory and Consents Committee considered this programme at a workshop on
10 September 2020, and favoured an extension to this scheme. 

5        The author recommends extending the programme for a further two years. In so doing, this will support to achieve a goal of five years clear of National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) exceedances.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Winton Burner Incentive Programme” dated 12 November 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 fund applications for building consents for domestic solid-fuel burners that meet the operative National Environmental Standards for air quality, to be installed in the Winton Urban Resource Area, until 31 December 2022; and this funding will not be renewed after this date.

 

e)            Agrees that the end date in (d) above is subject to no further exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality being recorded in Winton.

 

 

Background

Air quality in Winton

6        Environment Southland (ES) has an air monitoring station at Centennial Park.  Among other things it measures PM10 concentrations in the air.

7        PM10 stands for “particulate matter”.  These are very small solid, liquid or gaseous particles in the air less than 10 micrometres (µm) in diameter, or one-fifth of the diameter of a human hair. 

8        ES staff advise that the main cause of PM10 emissions in the town is caused by domestic home heating.

9        An airshed is classified as polluted under the current National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) if the airshed’s average exceedance of the PM10 standard (50 micrograms per cubic metre expressed as a 24 hour mean) over the previous five years was more than one per year. An airshed continues to be polluted until the PM10 standard has not been breached in the previous five years.

10      Environment Southland (ES) started measuring PM2.5 in April 2019, and discontinued monitoring for PM10.  ES intends to continue monitoring PM2.5 for at least another 12 months, to ensure that they have a dataset that is representative of the town and any climatic variation that occurs there.

11      Winton is the only township in the Southland District that has come close to exceeding the Standards.  The following table summarises monitoring over the last five years:

Year

Number of exceedances in the year

Concentration (µg/m3) of the exceedance

Measure

NESAQ maximum threshold

2015

1

62

PM10

50 µg/m3

2016

1

53

PM10

50 µg/m3

2017

1

55

PM10

50 µg/m3

2018

0

-

PM10

50 µg/m3

2019

0

-

PM2.5

25 µg/m3

2020

0

-

PM2.5

25 µg/m3

12      Owen West, air quality scientist at Environment Southland, advises:

“The PM10 monitoring in Winton showed little change in annual average concentrations between 2013 and 2018. The annual values ranged between 14.7 µg m-3 and 15.8 µg m-3. The air quality guideline value for annual average PM10 is 20µg m-3. We did see a slight decrease in the maximum daily average concentrations though. So, on the days with high PM10 concentrations, those peak concentrations looked to be dropping over the years. While exceedance were noted earlier in the monitoring, there were none during our last complete year (2018) of monitoring PM10 there.”

13      Mr West is of the view that the town is likely to continue to meet the NESAQ; and advises that the air monitoring station will be removed after next winter, if air quality continues as it has during the last two winters.

14      The wind direction in Winton is illustrated in Attachment C.

Council’s incentives programme

15      Council introduced the programme at its meeting on 29 October 2014, the resolution being:

“That Council fully funds building consents lodged between 1 November 2014 and 31 December 2017 for burners that meet the National Environmental Standards for emissions and thermal efficiency, to be installed in the Winton Urban Resource Area.”

16      Council extended the programme for a further three years, to 31 December 2020, at its meeting on 13 December 2017.

17      The latest flyer promoting this scheme is in Attachment A.

18      Reasons for introducing the programme included:

·     to help prevent Winton exceeding the NESAQ

·     to protect public health

·     reputational

·     prevent the town being classified as a polluted airshed, that would bring in restrictions on new industry (restrictions on new consents for industrial discharges)

·     wider implications for the District.

19      The Regulatory and Consents Committee considered this programme at a workshop on 10 September 2020, and favoured an extension to this scheme, and recommended that this matter be considered by Council.

Airsheds

20      The following table summarises the situation in the region:

District

Gazetted airshed

Polluted airshed

Gore

Yes

Yes

Invercargill

Yes

Yes

Southland

No

No

21      Every district in New Zealand has an airshed. Ideally the District should be one that is not classified as being polluted, as is the case.

22      A polluted airshed is not the same thing as a gazetted airshed. All polluted airsheds are gazetted, but not all gazetted air sheds are polluted. 

Building development in Winton

23      Julie Conradi advises that there have been 92 new dwellings in Winton, over the last five years, and most would have burners.

24      This indicates that the slight downwards trend in air pollution is a much better result that at first sight.

25      The number and location of consents for new burners, and new buildings, is in Attachment B.

Issues

Goal achieved

26      Council’s goal in introducing this incentive programme was to help prevent the town being classified as a polluted, gazetted airshed. This goal has been achieved:

·     No exceedance since 2017, with air quality improving slightly over the years.

·     Mr West is of the view that the town is likely to meet air quality standards going forwards. The monitoring equipment will be moved out of Winton after next winter if trends continue, and District towns will be monitored intermittently over the years, including Winton.

Should Council extend the programme?

27      The author recommends extending the programme for a further two years. In so doing, this will give support the town towards a further suggested goal of five years clear of NESAQ exceedance.

28      The programme can discontinue after the two years, however Council could consider extending the programme if a further NESAQ exceedance is recorded.

Proposed amendments to the NESAQ

29      The Ministry for the Environment is proposing to amend the NESAQ, and has already consulted on this proposal (called “Improving our air”). It is expected that the way forwards with the proposal will be decided after the elections.

30      The amendments include:

a)    replacing PM10 with PM2.5; and

b)    an airshed would be classified as polluted if on average it exceeded the permissible exceedance allowed by the daily PM2.5 standard, or the annual PM2.5 limit. This average would be calculated using a minimum of 12 months of meaningful data within the previous five years.

c)    lower the emissions standards for new burners from 1.5g/kg to 1.0g/kg. The standard would apply to all new burners, not just wood burners as is the case now.

31      Mr West is of the view that Winton is likely to meet the new standards in (b) above.

32      Council may wish to note that the proposed NESAQ will make it mandatory for all new urban solid fuel burners to comply with the new emissions standards; effectively banning multi-fuel and coal burners in all urban areas. These proposed regulations will only apply to newly installed burners, not existing ones. And so this incentive programme may encourage residents to make the change from their existing burner to a new compliant lower emission one.

 

Revised wording for the incentives programme

33      The author recommends that the incentives programme can also apply if the NESAQ is amended. Thus the proposed resolution to this report:

“Funds applications for building consents for domestic solid-fuel burners that meet the operative National Environmental Standards for air quality, to be installed in the Winton Urban Resource Area, until 31 December 2022.”

34      “Domestic solid-fuel burners” conforms with the terminology in the proposed NESAQ, and so includes wood pellet burners for example; and also “operative” enables this incentives programme to apply to any amended NESAQ that may be approved.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

35      ES is required to administer The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004.

36      Council has a duty under the Health Act 1956 to improve, promote, and protect public health under the Health Act 1956.

Community Views

37      The Oreti Community Board considered a report on this matter at its meeting on 5 October 2020. The Board resolved to recommend to Council the recommendations in (d) and (e) of this report.

Costs and Funding

38      This table summarises the number of consents funded, and costs:

Year ending

No. of consents

Cost

2021 (year to date)

4

$1,796

2020

5

$2,033

2019

7

$2,862

2018

0

$0

2014 /2015 to 2016/2017

25

$6,702

Total

41

$13,393

39      The environmental health budget currently has $2,000 set aside each year for this programme.

40      For every eligible consent, building solutions creates an internal transfer for funds from the environmental health budget.

41      Here is the extract from the current fees and charges (incl. GST):

Policy Implications

42      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

Option 1 – Discontinues the burner free building consent after it expires on 31 December 2020

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Winton is compliant with the ambient PM10 air quality standard.

·        the likelihood of the town becoming a polluted airshed is unlikely.

·        further exceedances cannot be ruled out, with potential serious implications

Option 2 - Funds applications for building consents for domestic solid-fuel burners that meet the operative National Environmental Standards for air quality, to be installed in the Winton Urban Resource Area, until 31 December 2022; and this funding will not be renewed after this date

This end date is subject to no further exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) being recorded in Winton.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        clean air, improved health.

·        will help to achieve a goal of five years clear of exceedances. 

·        a cost to the ratepayer to fund this programme 

Assessment of Significance

43      Not significant.

Recommended Option

44      Option 2 is the recommendation of the Regulatory and Consents Committee.


 

Next Steps

45      Staff will implement this decision and advise the Winton community.

 

Attachments

a             Winton burner incentive flyer

b             Attachment - building consents in Winton

c             Winton wind rose    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 


Council

18 November 2020

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

Otautau Community Pool - Unbudgeted Expenditure

Record No:             R/20/11/65309

Author:                      Kathryn Cowie, Community Liaison Officer

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is for Council to approve an unbudgeted expenditure request for the Otautau Community Pool Incorporated to uplift funds currently sitting in the Otautau baths reserve.

Executive Summary

2        A pool rate is collected in the Wallace Takitimu Community Board area for the Otautau community pool. The Otautau Community Pool Inc. would like to uplift these funds to assist with final costs to upgrade the pool facility.

3        The reserve is currently sitting at $23,015.

4        The Wallace Takitimu Community Board resolved to recommend to Council to approve the unbudgeted expenditure request at its 5 November 2020 meeting.

 

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Otautau Community Pool - Unbudgeted Expenditure” dated 12 November 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 unbudgeted expenditure request for the Otautau Community Pool Inc. to uplift the $23,015 in the Otautau baths reserve.

 

Background

5        The Otautau Community Pool Inc. have been undertaking an extensive upgrade of the pool complex over the last few years. This has included a new roof, cladding and heating system.

6        They are currently in the final part of this upgrade which includes building works associated with obtaining a Certificate of Public Use (CPU). This work is estimated to cost approximately $45,000.

7        The pool has faced several financial challenges in the last two seasons which has affected the amount of income they have been able to generate. Issues with the boiler heating system in 2018/2019 meant that their season was cut short, and their 2019/2020 season was also considerably shorter due to the late issue of the CPU in December 2019. Covid-19 has also postponed a major fundraising event that was due to take place this year.

8        They are requesting to uplift the funds ($23,015) in the Otautau baths reserve to assist with the final upgrade costs, and also their current operational costs. They also plan to apply to community funders for the upgrade project, and will hold several fundraising events over the summer.

Issues

9        None identified.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

10      None identified.

Community Views

11      The pool is a well-used community facility in Otautau.

Costs and Funding

12      The estimated cost to complete the final upgrade is $45,000. The pool committee are planning on applying to community funders to assist with the project, and will hold fundraising events over the next few months.

Policy Implications

13      None identified.

Analysis

Options Considered

14      Approves or does not approve the unbudgeted expenditure for the Otautau Community Pool Inc. to uplift the funds in the Otautau baths reserve.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – approves the unbudgeted expenditure for the Otautau Community Pool Inc. to uplift the $23, 015 in the Otautau baths reserve.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the Otautau community pool can uplift the funds and use this for the building work and obtain a CPU.

·        none identified.

 

Option 2 – does not approve the unbudgeted expenditure for the Otautau Community Pool Inc. to uplift the $23, 015 in the Otautau baths reserve.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        none identified.

·        the Otautau community pool may not have enough funds to complete the work, will not be able to obtain a CPU, and the pool will not be able to open to the public.

 

Assessment of Significance

15      Not considered significant.

Recommended Option

16      Option 1 – approves the unbudgeted expenditure for the Otautau Community Pool Inc. to uplift the $23, 015 in the Otautau baths reserve.

Next Steps

17      The Otautau Community Pool Inc. will be advised of the outcome.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

Monthly Financial Report - September 2020

Record No:             R/20/11/64864

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 three months to 30th September 2020 by the nine activity groups of Council, as well as the financial position, and the statement of cash flows as at the 30th September 2020.

2.       This report summarises Council’s financial results for the three months to 30th September 2020.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Monthly Financial Report - September 2020” dated 12 November 2020.

 

Attachments

a             Monthly Financial Report September 2020    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

Management Report

Record No:             R/20/10/64046

Author:                      Liz Williams, Chief Executive Support

Approved by:         Cameron McIntosh, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Environmental Services

Group Managers Update

1.       Predator Free Rakiura have been successful in receiving funding from central government to assist this project achieve success. We are now in a transition phase preparing to establish a governance and design delivery team. We have lost our project manager and are still supporting the project with significant time from the group manager of environmental services and one of our planners.

2.       Emergency Management Southland’s Annual Plan 2019-2020 is now out. It was a busy year with the floods in February and Covid responses. Due to the events the budgets went into deficit by $409,844. Thankfully there was a reserve which had built up over a number of years so that this could be drawn on. Total equity at the end of the financial year 19/20 is $112,291. At the Co-ordinating Executive Group Emergency Management Southland meeting this month it was recommended that the councils look to re-establish this reserve over the next five years. The emergency management team are hopeful to have more Council team members going through the on-line two hour foundation training which will allow them to assist under supervision in the emergency management centre during an event.

3.       The Rakiura museum is still on track for opening in December although there is still a good push to ensure all the final touches are put on the displays.

Building Solutions

4.       Council continue to receive a higher volume of consents post Covid-19 lockdown than were received prior with 87 consents received during October 2020 (13% more than were received in October 2019).

5.       The team have improved processing timeframes for building consents issued achieving 80.25% compliance for October 2020.

6.       Half of the team have attended a two day training course delivered by IANZ to equip and prepare Council staff across all roles in building for the upcoming audit in February 2021.

7.       Industry training on the Simpli Portal and GoBuild Inspection Booking App was held in
Te Anau and Winton during the month with fantastic feedback from the community.

8.       Recruitment for the team leader roles has been very successful with three high calibre applicants now appointed.

9.       Recruitment activities for compliance and technical functions will continue in the coming months until all approved roles have been filled.

 

October building consents received

Dog Control

10.     As at 30 October there are only about 100 dogs that remain to be re-registered. Historically, staff have needed to follow up with dog owners well into the New Year. The main reason was a change in process, the use of e-texts to remind dog owners, followed by the usual escalation process of notice to register, then infringement.

11.     The team has met twice recently with other internal stakeholders, reviewing the dog registration process. The aim of this review include resolving the various problems that arose this year, improving our customer’s experience and encouraging more online registration.

Environmental Health

12.     Very good progress is being made with the freedom camping ambassador service:

·       The Department of Conservation (DoC) in Te Anau has appointed a 0.5 FTE ambassador focussing more on conservation land

·       Council has re-appointed Lindsay Stronach as an ambassador focussing on Southland District land in Te Anau and Northern Southland

·       Council has appointed Beth Beale for the Catlins area, who had the same role last year, though employed by DoC at that time

·       Jill Munro will have a support role.

13.     The team is working in closely with Catlins Coast Inc with regard to signage following being awarded $29,000 for signage in the Catlins area through TIF funding.

Resource consent

14.     Resource consent data for previous few months:

·       August – 18 applications received, 29 decisions issued.

·       September – 32 applications received, 27 decisions issued.

·       October - 30 applications received, 26 decisions issued.

Community and Futures

Strategy and Policy

Strategy and development plan

15.     Staff have commenced strategy development work and are presenting two reports to the Community and Strategy Committee meeting on 11 November 2020, proposing a slightly different way. Staff are going to discuss with the committee facilitating and developing a ‘Vision 2050 Project’ for the District as a whole, and then proceeding to finalise Council’s internal strategy development plans.

Jetty usage

16.     Council are still reviewing the charging method for non-recreational jetty usage on Stewart Island/Rakiura. Staff are continuing discussions with the Stewart Island/Rakiura Community Board on this matter, and are going to present possible charging options to Council on
18 November 2020, so Council can endorse a charging method to be included in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Procurement Policy

17.     Staff have been revising the Procurement Policy and developing a draft procurement manual. The formal consultation period for the policy is from 4 November to 4 December 2020. Submissions will be presented to Council in early 2021.  The executive leadership team will adopt a procurement manual that implements Council’s policy approach, following adoption of the policy.

Other policy work

18.     A review of the suite of policies that will inform the Long Term Plan is underway.  This includes the Revenue and Financing Policy, the Policy on Development and Financial Contributions, and the Significance and Engagement Policy.  The formal consultation period for these policies is from 4 November to 4 December 2020.  Submissions will be presented to Council in early 2021.  Staff are also working on the asset management, contract management, and risk management policies.

Stewart Island/Rakiura visitor levy

19.     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

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

Vision 2050 project

21.     Staff are presenting a report to the Community and Strategy Committee at the 11 November meeting seeking endorsement of the facilitation and development of a Vision 2050 project for the District.  The “Our Southland District Community – Vision 2050” project is an opportunity to lead an approach for strategic focus on community outcomes and a future vision for the District.  This approach can assist Council to determine its own strategic direction that aligns with and supports outcomes to achieve the District vision.  For “Our Southland District Community – Vision 2050”, success would see Council’s vision closely align to the District’s vision, and the support of Council and all stakeholders in achieving the outcomes identified.

Annual Report 2019/2020

22.     The draft Annual Report and Summary Document have been completed and are going to the Finance and Assurance Committee and Council meetings in November. Audit NZ have completed their on-site work and are currently reviewing the report and summary and finalising the management report. At this stage, everything is on track for adoption at the Council meeting on 18 November.

Long Term Plan

23.     The drawn out Annual Report process has put additional pressure on staff over the past month in particular, however the teams have been working well to manage and prioritise workloads to meet the timelines for both processes. We are halfway through the community board direction setting meetings and the process of developing the overall budgets is now underway. The focus now is to complete the necessary work required to get the draft budgets, consultation document, activity management plans, infrastructure and financial strategies complete for December. The Revenue and Financing Policy, Significance and Engagement Policy and Development and Financial Contributions Policy are currently out for public consultation, and close at 5pm on
4 December 2020.

 

 

 

Community Leadership

Rakiura Museum Te Puka O Te Waka

24.     The Rakiura Museum, Te Puka O Waka, will be officially opened on Tuesday, 1 December.  This is a major milestone for the Stewart Island/Rakiura community who have been working on this project for 20 years. Funding for the museum has been from major grants, public donations and fundraising efforts. Many in-kind donations and volunteer hours have also contributed to ensure the completion of museum.

Thriving Southland

25.     Thriving Southland is a community-led project which seeks to create a healthy environment from the mountains to the sea by supporting catchment groups to deliver positive environmental outcomes. The team from Thriving Southland have started to get out and about in Southland connecting with catchment groups and communities to begin the conversation. The community leadership team have been working alongside the Thriving Southland team to make connections in the community, get the word out, and share community board visions and outcomes.

Regional events fund

26.     The government has recognised the role that events have in domestic travel and have allocated $50 million to the Regional Events Fund. This money is to support the tourism and events sector, and replace some of the spend lost from international tourists as a result of Covid-19.

27.     The funds are given to International Marketing Alliances (IMAs) and are allocated based on their share of international visitor spending prior to Covid-19. The “Pure Southern Land” IMA (Dunedin, Southland, Waitaki, Clutha) is receiving $1.5 million and the “Southern Lakes” IMA (Wanaka, Queenstown, Central Otago, Fiordland) is receiving $8.5 million. The Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs) within each IMA are responsible for the distribution and spending of this funding.

Sport NZ TūManawa Active Aotearoa Fund

28.     This isa fund aimed at providing quality play, active recreation and sport opportunities and experiences for tamariki (children aged 5-11) and rangatahi (young people aged 12-18), in particular those groups that are less activeand/or missing out on opportunities.

29.     $326,028 of the fund will be available in Southland over the next 12 months, to be managed and distributed on Sport NZ’s behalf by Sport Southland. The fund covers programme or project delivery (eg venue or equipment hire, transport to event), equipment (as part of aprogrammeor project), officials (where these are an essential component for delivery and delivery staff wages (eg activity leader, co-ordinator). Programmes or projects may be new or already operating, and funding will be provided for up to 12 months.

30.     For further information contact Sport Southland - tumanawa@sportsouthland.co.nz or 03 211 2150.  Check the Sport Southland website to check eligibility, funding guidelines, project planning resources and application form. 

 

 

Stewart lsland/Rakiura Future Opportunities project

31.     The final report for the Stewart Island Future Opportunities project has been delivered to MBIE.  A report will be presented to the Community and Strategy Committee at their December 9 meeting.

Leadership Academy

32.     Following on from the success of the Stewart Island/Rakiura Leadership Academy, the Southland Chamber of Commerce are planning to deliver three Leadership programs across the District in 2021. The locations for the workshops are Edendale, Lumsden and Otautau. The first intake is likely to be in March 2021.

Services and Assets

Stewart Island Electrical Supply Authority (SIESA)

33.     The Services and Assets committee approved a new SIESA management agreement with PowerNet, with commencement date 1 October 2020. This contract now has PowerNet board approval and execution is pending final legal review.

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

Forestry (IFS)

35.     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.

36.     Pruning and thinning operations in Gowan Hills are pending.

37.     The Ardlussa Community Board have proposed establishing mountain bike trails within the Waikaia forest. An MoU between Council and the trust proposed to develop and operate the trail will be established. 

Around the Mountains Cycle Trail

38.     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. The original scope is nearing completion.

39.     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 Roading Company construction contract. The design has been completed.

40.     A separate flood event has significantly damaged a section of trail near Centre Hill and a long term solution is being developed to restore the trail and reduce/eliminate the river threat. Given commencement of a new cycle season, a temporary route diversion has been constructed to avoid the washed out section.

41.     A community/stakeholder 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

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

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

44.     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

45.     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. Any operational issues will be reduced with the location of further staff to 20 Don Street.

46.     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. This is unfortunate however it’s the environment that this and many other departments are working in at the moment.

47.     The property disposal of the Ohai bowling club building is almost complete with the acceptance of a tender for removal. 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. Recently the last two of three electric vehicle (EV) charging stations located on Council land at Tuatapere and Curio Bay became operative to complement the one on Mokonui Street in Te Anau. The other two proposed sites to complete the Southern Scenic Route at Fortrose and Manapouri are to be located on private property.

48.     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

49.     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.

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

51.     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.

52.     The resource consent application for the discharge to the Upukerora has also been lodged with Environment Southland (ES) and with affected party approval provided by a number of stakeholders. A request for additional information is being prepared and will be forwarded to ES by early November.

Land and Water Plan Implementation

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

54.     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.

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

56.     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

57.     Following a series of WasteNet meetings and Council mediation the RFP process was formally ended on 18 December 2019 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 2020 when current contract arrangements expire.

58.     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.

59.     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.

 

 

Review of Waste Disposal Levy

60.     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.

61.     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).

62.     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.

63.     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.

64.     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.

3 Water Reforms

65.     There is currently a significant amount of work ongoing across the 3 waters reform in New Zealand. Council is currently awaiting DIA sign off on our delivery plan for undertaking the additional stimulus funding and close to finalising a procurement plan to enable delivery.

66.     In addition work is ongoing to progress investigation into alternative collaborative work models across Southland and Otago with a view to meeting government expectations that the sector will voluntarily aggregate to a significant scale (most likely cross regional) to deliver long term service delivery benefits.

67.     In late October Council also received a significant Request for Information (RfI) from the Department of Internal Affairs in support of the reforms. This will most likely require a significant amount of additional workload across not only water and waste but also others across the organisation within a relatively short timeframe. Deadline for returns is 1 February 2021.

Project Delivery Team (PDT)

68.     PDT have a number of key projects in full swing with footpaths on Stewart Island, new water mains in Te Anau and Monkey Island now being completed.

69.     Currently working through a standardised reporting structure for services and assets.

70.     Core improvement project will be looking at contracts, QA and payment terms.

71.     A major shift is now underway with 20 Don Street and Forth Street upgrade planned for December to February 2021.

 

Community Facilities

72.     The Long Term Plan process continues to be at the forefront of the work programme with staff and the finance team adding the final changes to the projects and budgets after the third round of meetings.

73.     Rounding out the final direct negotiations with incumbent mowing contractors has been a priority with the growing season well and truly under way. The remaining areas will be going out to tender in November and be in place for 1 July 2021. This provides staff will ample time to meet the governance time frames for community board, committee and Council meetings.

74.     The gardening contracts are the next on the list to be renewed. These will also be a mix of direct negotiation with the incumbent contractors and tendering.

75.     Good progress is being made towards getting Council’s asset management system (IPS) set up to receive the asset data. Data cleansing is progressing so that it can be imported directly into the application.

76.     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. Adverse weather, contractor availability and material supply has been hampering progress on some of these projects.

77.     Contractors have started on completing the development of the Monkey Island camping area. A good size group of interested locals were on site to watch the start of the works.

Strategic Transport

National Land Transport Plan

78.     The transport team have continued to work and provide input into the Regional Land Transport Plan and refine the transport programme including budget for inclusion in the National Land Transport Plan.

79.     This is all part of Council’s bid to obtain its share of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency funding for the period 2021-2024.

District Wide Roading Programme

80.     After a testing start to the construction season due to inclement weather, several works programmes are now underway. These include annual road resurfacing programme and seal widening works. Contracts have been awarded for all pavement rehabilitation sites with the last contract covering the central area has been awarded to The Roading Company.

81.     Further meetings have been held between Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Ngai Tahu and DOC on the future of the last section of the Lower Hollyford Road. Following further discussions around future risk including a geotechnical engineering presentation, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency have agreed to provided additional funding to reinstate the road as best as possible back to the original road end.

82.     It was also agreed that ongoing discussions around the long term future of the road needs to continue.

83.     The annual district wide Roadroid survey is due to commence mid-November. This survey provides a snapshot of the gravel road roughness condition.

84.     WSP as Council’s new structures service provider has also commenced the next round of bridge inspections. This information will be used to help refine work programmes priorities as well as the annual bridge posting restrictions.

Customer Delivery

Customer Support

85.     A little quieter this month with 3,514 calls – although 5 October was incredibly busy after the flooding. Only 97 dog registrations remain outstanding.

Libraries

86.     October has seen a quieter time as dog registration season nears an end, although infringement notices have been served to a minority of dog owners.

87.     Area office staff in Winton supported the Blair Vining ‘pack the park’ promotion with a colourful display.

88.     Staff are supporting elderly customers to apply for rates rebates, and a steady stream of Environment Southland rates invoices have been received in our offices.

89.     The introduction of a web based roster system and a monthly reporting tool for staff have simplified and streamlined those processes. It also provides a channel for area office staff to set goals for personal development and celebrate community connections for the month. Planning is now being undertaken to ensure that staff cover is adequate over the Christmas holiday period, and this includes working with stakeholders to provide on call staff for interments over this time.

90.     Our Te Anau staff have been busy planning a week of events to celebrate the Te Anau library’s 30th birthday, we have a number of speakers, workshops and readings planned over the course of the first week of November.

Knowledge Management

91.     LIM numbers continue the upwards trend from previous months with 47 LIMs lodged in October and 40 issued. At the end of October there were six LIMs still in processing. 150 property files were requested in October with several properties requested multiple times.

92.     Applications (building consents) integration between Pathway and Records Manger is currently being implemented in the production environment. NAR integration in the test environment is ready for further testing in preparation for moving to production.

93.     Other work in the team includes ongoing data cleansing and monitoring and development of disposal schedules. Archives research continues with an increase in public requests this year.

 

 

Business Solutions

94.     October was a very productive month for the service desk. Although we still continue to get in excess of 600 requests per month we were able to resolve a significant number of older tickets and have reduced our overdue tickets to less than 30. We are also targeting to reduce our backlog tickets below 300 by the end of the year.

Service Desk: 1 August 2020 – 31 August 2020

95.     Deployment of new laptops continued in October with a dedicated person focused on getting this project completed by the end of the year. This has been a significant undertaking as we move away from Citrix at the same time as we upgrade to Windows 10 while still supporting the organisation’s business as usual. 

96.     RM8 to Pathway integration continues with the application module now ready to be deployed to production.

97.     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.

98.     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. We are in discussion with our neighbouring councils on a shared initiative around cyber security and the adoption of the same frameworks.

99.     A new private network fibre connection (dark fibre) was approved for the Don Street sites to address the network slowness that has been experienced when using some of our applications. This fibre should be available by the New Year.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Management Report” dated 12 November 2020.

 

Attachments

a             RFS Count by Type - October 2020    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator 


Council

18 November 2020

 

Predator Free Southland - Request for Southland District Council Involvement

Record No:             R/20/10/63276

Author:                      Scott Dickson, Graduate Planner

Approved by:         Fran Mikulicic, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the Predator Free Southland Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and to seek delegation to the chief executive to sign the document on behalf of Council.

Executive Summary

2.       Predator Free Southland is part of the national Predator Free 2050 initiative, and seeks to achieve the eventual eradication of introduced predators on mainland Southland.  The project was established in 2018 as a joint initiative involving Environment Southland, Invercargill City Council, Gore District Council, Department of Conservation and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu.

3.       The Predator Free Southland governance group has sought to ensure visibility of the project’s progress with the Southland District Councillors, to outline why Southland District Council is considered to be an essential partner to the project.  Outgoing Project Co-Ordinator, Dr Ini-Isabee Gunn presented to Council on 29 September 2020.

4.       There is not currently any funding commitment in Council’s Annual Plan 2020/2021 to support the project.  The provision of additional support from Southland District Council would need to be considered under Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Predator Free Southland - Request for Southland District Council Involvement” dated 12 November 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 endorse the Predator Free Southland Memorandum of Understanding and delegates authority to the chief executive to sign the document on behalf of the Southland District Council.

 

Background

5.       Predator Free Southland is part of the national Predator Free 2050 initiative which aims to rid New Zealand of rats, stoats, and possums by 2050.  Anticipated benefits of Predator Free 2050 include the protection of precious species, biodiversity improvement, greater ecological resilience, and the restoration of unique ecosystems.

6.       Predator Free Southland focuses on the advancement of predator free goals for mainland Southland, excluding Fiordland and the Catlins.  The Predator Free Southland governance group was formed in 2018.  The following agencies are currently signatories to the Predator Free Southland MOU:

Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu

Gore District Council

Invercargill City Council

Southland Regional Council

Department of Conservation

7.       Dr Ini-Isabee Gunn was appointed as Predator Free Southland Project Co-ordinator in 2019.  The role is currently hosted by Environment Southland, with co-funding for the role committed by Gore District Council, Invercargill City Council, Department of Conservation and Environment Southland.  Gore District Council has committed $5,000 per year for 5 years to co-fund the Project Co-ordinator position and a further $2,000 per year for operational costs.  Invercargill City Council has committed $10,000 per year to co-fund the Project Co-ordinator position and a further $2,000 per year for operational costs.

8.       Southland District Council was represented at the initiation of the Predator Free Southland project, however a change of roles within the organisation has resulted in a lack of capacity to continue attending meetings.  During the formation of the Predator Free Southland governance group, it was unclear what role Southland District Council was expected to play.  No funding commitment has been made in the Annual Plan 2020/2021 to support the project.

9.       Pest eradication programmes are not identified as core business for territorial authorities.  Any decision to provide additional support would need to be considered under Southland District Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

10.     Southland District Council is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Predator Free Rakiura project.  The Predator Free Rakiura Leadership Group has been operating since 2014, and has received support, input and commitment of resources from Southland District Council since its inception. 

11.     In relation to Predator Free initiatives, Council’s focus has been with Predator Free Rakiura.  Predator Free Rakiura sits under the wider banner of Predator Free Southland.  Council’s Group Manager Environmental Services presently commits approximately 4 hours per week to Predator Free Rakiura.  Resource Management staff commit a further 2 hours per week to support the project.

12.     Dr Gunn’s attached report identifies a close link between Predator Free Rakiura and Predator Free Southland and outlines that a successful Predator Free Southland project will be essential to maintaining biosecurity on Rakiura. 

13.     Dr Gunn further identifies Southland District Council as an essential partner in any regional Predator Free approach, and states that the continuing absence of Southland District Council from the Predator Free Southland partnership initiative will thwart all partners’ efforts towards a regional approach.

Issues

14.     The development of a formal MOU between the participant agencies is a key component of cementing the future direction and inter-agency relationships for the project.

15.     The MOU demonstrates the commitment of the participant agencies to the project, and this will have value in seeking to obtain both public and private sector funding support for the project in the future.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16.     The MOU is not a legal requirement and there is no legal requirement to consult in relation to it. Likewise, the signing of the MOU does not in itself commit Council to formal funding or other future commitments in relation to Predator Free Southland beyond those articulated in the MOU.

17.     Any specific funding requests for further Council support, if this were to occur, would need to follow due process through future Annual Plan or Long Term Plan processes.

Community Views

18.     There is no requirement for community consultation in relation to the MOU and its content.

Costs and Funding

19.     The signing of the MOU does not in itself commit Council to additional costs or funding requirements Council’s commitment will need to be determined both in terms of funding and the provision of staff time to the project.

Policy Implications

20.     There are no specific policy implications in relation to the signing of the Predator Free Southland MOU.

Analysis

Options Considered

21.     The options considered are for Council to endorse and sign the Predator Free Southland MOU or not endorse and sign the Predator Free Southland MOU.

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Endorse and Sign the Predator Free Southland MOU

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Demonstrates Council’s commitment to the Predator Free Southland project.

·        Demonstrates Council support for biodiversity projects that can have potentially significant ecological and socio-economic benefits for the region.

·        Strengthens relationships with other agencies.

·        Council commitment to the project will assist with leveraging further public and private sector funding.

·        Ongoing biosecurity is a significant aspect of a successful Predator Free Rakiura project.  A predator free mainland will make this more achievable.

·        Redirection of some level of Council resources away from other work streams.

·        Potential for controversy should the project involve the use of controversial pest eradication tools and techniques in the future.

 


 

Option 2 – Do Not Endorse and Sign the MOU

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Less involvement will enable Council resources to be directed to other important projects and work streams.

·        Less potential for Council to be drawn into any future controversy associated with the project, should this occur.

·        Could adversely affect Predator Free Southland’s ability to obtain funding in the future.

·        Council would not be contributing to a project with potentially significant ecological and socio-economic benefits for the region.

 

Assessment of Significance

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

Recommended Option

23.     Option 1- Council endorses the document and delegates to the chief executive to sign on behalf of Southland District Council.

Next Steps

24.     If endorsed, the chief executive would sign the MOU on behalf of Southland District Council.  Future funding commitment would be considered under Council’s Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

 

Attachments

a             Predator Free Southland Report for SDC Councillors

b             PFS - Memorandum of Understanding

c             PFS Co-ordinator - Job Description    

 


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 November 2020

 

 

Job Description

 

Job Title:

Predator Free Southland Coordinator

Job Evaluation (SP10):

Grade:  16 Pathway: T

Organisation:

This role is a joint initiative of Ngai Tahu, Environment Southland, Department of Conservation, Gore District Council and Invercargill City Council

Location:

The position will be based at Environment Southland

Reports to:

A collaborative governance group – for guidance on the work programme

Team Leader Biosecurity (ES) – for day to day work

Supervision of:

Nil

Position Purpose:

To advance Southland towards a predator free future.  This will be achieved by supporting existing predator control groups and organisations to establish a collaborative structure that supports existing efforts and builds a shared plan for advancing Southland towards Predator Free 2050.

Date Prepared/Reviewed:

26 June 2019

 

Environment Southland’s Vision and Purpose

 

Vision – A thriving Southland…Te taurikura o Murihiku

Mission – Working with our communities to improve Southland’s environment

 

As a regional council, Environment Southland is responsible for leading the sustainable management of Southland’s natural, physical resources – water, land, air and the coast. These resources are vitally important because they underpin both our regional economy and our quality of life. This means our work is about people and working with others to ensure the region’s natural resources are in the best possible condition they can be for future generations of Southlanders to use and enjoy

 

Environment Southland’s Values

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Background

 

Predator Free 2050 is an ambitious goal to rid New Zealand of the most damaging introduced predators that threaten our nation’s indigenous biodiversity, our taonga species, our economy and primary sector.  The programme is bringing people together to work towards a predator free future.  Iwi, schools, farmers, businesses, innovators, agencies, non-government organisations and individuals are all helping to support the long term goal.

 

Southland is no exception and a broad range of predator control efforts are underway.  This work is spread over one of New Zealand’s largest but least populated regions.  Programmes are well underway across Fiordland, Stewart Island/Rakiura and the Sub Antarctic Islands.  These areas are outside the scope of this proposal as collaborative support and planning is already in place.

 

For the remainder of ‘mainland’ Southland the community and agency predator control projects are working in a stand-alone manner and are all challenged to find sufficient people and funds to continue in the longer term.

 

Over the past year an informal group of people and organisations with an interest in Southland’s predator control have been discussing how the existing efforts in ‘mainland’ Southland could be sustained and start to move together towards Predator Free 2050.  The group supported the importance of predator control continuing while acknowledging that more cooperation between iwi, community groups and government agencies is needed before striving to make gains.

 

A strategic plan of action was viewed as essential to progress towards Predator Free 2050.  This would inform how to strengthen existing control work and then to grow this in a progressive, measured way.  While the plan must account for existing regional pest (suppression) strategies, the purpose of this plan is for eventual eradication.  The plan will cover how current (suppression) work can be sustained and progressively grown, while also defining priorities for where and how to start and defend some eradication efforts.

 

The time needed to create a collaborative support structure and develop a practical, shared action plan is not available within the existing groups and agencies.  These are already fully extended with the status-quo.  This role has been funded to provide the expertise and focus to undertake this work in cooperation with the many predator control groups and organisations across ‘mainland’ Southland.

 

 

Key Relationships

 

·        The role’s core governance groupNgai Tahu, Environment Southland, Department of Conservation, Gore District Council and Invercargill City Council

 

·        The Department of Conservation Predator Free 2050 programme unit

 

·        Local place groups (hubs): (to be confirmed)

-           These would be drawn from the organisations, groups and individuals that actively controlling predators in their local areas.  This would provide a practical way to work across Southland, providing a contact point to direct support.

-           An example of a local place group is the Predator Free Bluff working group. 
Other local place groups might include Invercargill City and surrounds, inland rural areas, the Catlin’s Coast and Fiordland’s gateway communities.

 


 

 

Biosecurity Operations Organisational Chart

 

Chief Executive,Director: Operations and Environmental Information,Biosecurity Manager,Team Leader Biosecurity,Predator Free Southland Coordinator 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Work Profile

 

Establish the collaborative structure (30% of time)

To support the implementation and start-up of a structure for the coordination of predator control in ‘mainland’ Southland

 

·        To establish a network of local places groups based on existing ‘hubs’ of activity, including a regional support group.

·        To develop a collaborative charter/terms of reference to clarify objectives and working arrangements.

·        Develop an initial work plan to agree on what tasks the coordinator will support.

·        To identify how this structure should continue in the longer term after a start-up phase.

 

Future planning (30% of time)

To coordinate the joint thinking of the collaborative to develop a five year plan that sets out how the region will start its progress towards Predator Free 2050

 

·        To identify and describe resource gaps - outlining what is achievable with existing resources and then what would be possible if resource limitations were removed.

·        To apply DOC’s landscape project planning methods for pre-assessment of potential ambitious large scale projects.

·        To address how to effectively build and sustain public interest.

·        To cover scientific knowledge, technology and capacity issues.

·        To take an inclusive ‘ground up’ approach so a wide range of aspirations and perspectives are included.

·        The plan should aim to deliver environmental, cultural, social and economic benefits for Predator Free 2050 work.

·        To allow for ongoing review to accommodate learning and change.

 

Building support and knowledge within communities (30% of time)

To work with local place groups/hubs to help them communicate with others, find technical expertise and apply best practice methods.

 

·        To support local place groups (hubs) with their public communication, information sharing and engagement work.  This may include attending community events.

·        To assist local place groups (hubs) build their knowledge and skills through coaching best practice methods.

·        To support local place groups (hubs) upskill for specialist activities (as needed), e.g. applying new technology, engaging contractors, designing new work, wildlife monitoring.

·        To represent local place groups (hubs) on area-wide issues, e.g. agency led consultation, to provide a stronger collective voice.

 

Source funding (10% of time)

To help secure funding for existing control efforts and priority activities from the action plan.

 

·        Support local place groups (hubs) build business cases, write and submit funding applications for their work.

·        Directly seek funding for area-wide activities, including continuation of the paid coordinator role.

 

Health and Safety

·        Abide by ES health and safety policy and SOPs.  

·        Report all incidents, near-misses, new hazards and accidents promptly.

·        Preparation (including, but not limited to, information checking and appropriate gear) is completed prior to departure to the field.

·        Attend required health and safety training and induction sessions.

·        Be responsible for your own safety, and work safely so as not to cause harm to another.

Person Specification

 

The following capabilities and experience are sought for this position.

 

Capabilities

·        Exceptional communication and interpersonal skills to work collaboratively with others, build effective relationships and influence a wide range of stakeholders.

·        A proven ability to engage people, to connect with them, listen and build trust.

·        Strong analytical skills and the ability to think strategically, to see the bigger picture and plan for future challenges.

·        Situational awareness, displays knowledge and awareness of situations, identifies relevant context to develop robust recommendations and make sound decisions.

·        Self-awareness and agility, is development focused, reflects on and adapts their approach in changing circumstances.

 

Skills and experience

·        An ability to work with Ngāi Tahu whānau, hapū and iwi, including knowledge of the Treaty of the Waitangi and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act.

·        Experience of working with Iwi or Māori groups and organisations or in cross-cultural environments.

·        Demonstrates a desire to embrace tikanga Māori, and the values of kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, rangatiratanga and whanaungatanga.

·        Proven abilities and experience in project management, report writing and self-managing work priorities.

·        Experience in predator control (or other activities) for protecting New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity.

·        A qualification in environmental sciences is desirable.

·        A full drivers’ licence.

Additional Information

 

Civil Defence Duties

 

All staff of Environment Southland may be required to undertake Civil Defence duties in the event of an emergency.   Training will be given as appropriate.

 

Performance Review

 

We have a Performance Development Programme (PDP) that is the basis for performance assessment at all levels of the organisation.  There is at least one informal meetings between the employee and their supervisor/manager and one formal meeting annually.

 

Remuneration

 

Salary will be paid within the range for the position, according to the skills and experience of the appointee.

 

Signed:

 

____________________________   Job Holder                           Date:___________________

 

 

____________________________   Manager/Supervisor      Date:___________________


Council

18 November 2020

 

Appointments to the Milford Community Trust

Record No:             R/20/11/65318

Author:                      Simon Moran, Community Partnership Leader

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                       Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek approval from Council to appoint Brad Johnstone and Tim Holland as trustees of the Milford Community Trust.

Executive Summary

2        The report provides some background to the trust, a summary of the appointments process and recommends appointing Brad Johnstone and Tim Holland as trustees (both have formerly been trustees).

3        Brad Johnstone is again proposed to be appointed as the Milford community representative trustee.

Recommendation

That Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Appointments to the Milford Community Trust” dated 12 November 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 appoint Brad Johnstone and Tim Holland as Trustees of the Milford Community Trust.

 

Background

4        The Milford Community Trust was established in 2007 by Southland District Council and the Department of Conservation with the assistance of Environment Southland for the purposes of providing leadership and governance for the Milford community.


 

5        The objectives of the trust are:

(a)   To manage and carry out services and undertake leadership, planning and advocacy for the general benefit of the Milford community so as to ensure as far as possible that the infrastructure of the community and its sense of identity, viability and wellbeing are maintained and enhanced.

(b)   To liaise with and communicate with all individuals, organisations, groups and other parties with interests in the Milford community for all purposes which are beneficial to the community.

(c)   To represent the interests of the Milford community to ensure that the natural environments and outstanding values of the Milford Sound area are safeguarded and protected for all residents and visitors to the area.

(d)   To monitor and maintain an overview of all activities and services provided within the Milford community.

(e)   To consider and report on all matters either referred to and/or delegated to it from time to time by the Department of Conservation and Southland District Council and on any matter of interest or concern to the Milford community.

(f)   To access, use or invest funds and enter into arrangements, contracts and other agreements upon such securities or in such manner and upon such terms and conditions that the trustees deem suitable for the purpose of furthering the objects and purposes of the trust.

(g)   To carry out such other lawful activities which are incidental or conducive to attaining the objects and purposes of the trust.

Issues

6        The expiry of a Trustee’s term and a resignation by a Trustee from the Trust created two vacant trustee positions that need to be filled. The Trust is considering making changes to its Trust Deed and must have a full complement of trustees in order to do that.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

7        The Trust Deed sets out the trustee positions, who may qualify for appointment to the trust, and the process for their appointment.

8        As part of that process there is a Trustee Appointments Recommendation Panel made up of the chief executives of Southland District Council and Environment Southland, the Department of Conservation’s Southland Conservator (now the director of operations under the new structure) and the Milford Community Representative Trustee. In this instance there were two applications received for two vacant positions and both applicants work in tourism operations associated with Milford. Therefore, the recommendations panel was not required to interview and select applicants to recommend to Council.

Community Views

9        As stated above the Trust Deed sets out the process and it does not require community input.

Costs and Funding

10      The appointment of the trustees will not alter existing costs and funding for the trust or Council.

Policy Implications

11      There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

12      At a basic level the options are straight forward – they are that Council either makes the appointments or it does not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Appoint the Trustees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        the trust has continuity

·        none

 

Option 2 – Do not appoint the Trustees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        none

·        any significant decisions made by the trust should be made by as many trustees as possible

 

Assessment of Significance

13      The decision sought from Council does not trigger any of the significance criteria.

Recommended Option

14      Option 1 is recommended.

Next Steps

15      Advise Brad Johnstone and Tim Holland that they have been appointed by Council as trustees of the Milford Community Trust.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.