Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary
Meeting of Southland District Council will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Wednesday, 14
December 2016
11.30am
Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill
|
|
Council Agenda
OPEN
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Mayor
|
Mayor Gary Tong
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Stuart Baird
|
|
|
|
Brian Dillon
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Bruce Ford
|
|
|
|
Darren Frazer
|
|
|
|
George Harpur
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Ebel Kremer
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
|
|
Neil Paterson
|
|
|
|
Nick Perham
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Chief Executive
|
Steve Ruru
|
|
|
Committee Advisor
|
Fiona Dunlop
|
|
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
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
Nil
Reports - Operational Matters
8.1 Libraries
Moving Forward 7
8.2 New
Road Maintenance Contracts 15
8.3 Alternative
Coastal Route Improvement Project Update and Procurement Options 29
8.4 Southland
Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report for the 2016/2017 Year 37
8.5 Draft
Southland Cycling Strategy 43
8.6 Management
Report 121
Reports - Governance
9.1 Stewart
Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project 153
9.2 Financial
Report for the month ended 31 October 2016 167
9.3 Elected
Members Remuneration - Positions of additional responsibility 203
9.4 2016
Local Elections Statistics 219
9.5 Minutes
of the Matuku Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8 December 2015 235
9.6 Minutes
of the Five Rivers Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8 December 2015 237
9.7 Minutes
of the Waikaia Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 11 May
2016 239
9.8 Minutes
of the Athol Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016 241
9.9 Minutes
of the Garston Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May
2016 243
9.10 Minutes
of the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 3 October
2016 245
9.11 Minutes
of the Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 July
2016 247
9.12 Minutes
of the Balfour Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August
2016 249
9.13 Minutes
of the Riversdale Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24
August 2016 251
Public Excluded
Procedural motion
to exclude the public 253
C10.1 District
Valuation Roll maintenance contract renewal 255
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
1 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Leave
of absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
3 Conflict
of Interest
Councillors are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a
conflict arises between their role as a councillor and any private or other
external interest they might have.
4 Public Forum
Notification to
speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further
information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz
or phoning 0800 732 732.
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items
To consider, and if
thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further
items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to
be held with the public excluded.
Such resolution is
required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:
(i) The
reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a)
that item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) that
item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority;
and
(ii) the
presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is
open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
6 Confirmation
of Council Minutes
6.1 Meeting
minutes of Council, 16 November 2016
6.2 Meeting
minutes of Extraordinary Council, 30 November 2016
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Libraries
Moving Forward
Record No: R/16/9/14380
Author: Lynda
Hodge, Manager District Libraries
Approved by: Trudie
Hurst, Group Manager Customer Support
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
Purpose
1 To
provide a progress update to council on recommendations made in the Service
Delivery Review tabled with Council in April 2016.
Executive Summary
2 Included
in the Service Delivery Review – Library Services were a number of
recommendations made to ensure that Southland District Libraries remain well
positioned to meet both the current and anticipated information needs of the
residents.
3 Some
of these recommendations have already been acted upon with little, or no,
budgetary impact whilst others will require significant funding to make them
happen.
4 In
the benchmarking section of the report Southland District Libraries (SDL) were
shown to be providing a comparable level of services at the lower range of
costs, offering a number of quality programmes and activities to suit community
demands and had a high level of qualified staff to provide assistance as
required. With a good spread of the population already library members
there is the opportunity to promote existing services and to deliver a range of
enhancements with reasonable speed and economy. In all resident surveys our
Libraries have always received a high level of user satisfaction.
5 Attachment
A sets out the recommendations and progress to date. Overall, 10 are
completed, six require further funding and approval from Council and eight are
in progress.
6 There
were four significant recommendations made which have an impact upon the
services available and particularly the ease of doing business. These are:
· Join
Kōtui for the provision of the Library Management System (LMS) and to take
advantage of collaborative opportunities ($55,175).
· Plan
for and fund the introduction of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification of all
resources) within the next three years: Budget $150,000 for the upgrade of the
collection and technology including security gates, auto-return function.
· Use
Enterprise discovery layer as the SDL’s website and link this from the
Council’s website: Budget $15,000 for a one-off design cost to get the
template properly designed.
· Seek
opportunities to develop a new community hub and library/service centre for
Winton in partnership with other community, commercial, health or educational
organisations. Fund for this redevelopment in the next Long Term Plan.
7 Planning
is underway to join the Kotui consortium for LMS as part of the Core Systems
Review while the other work will be entered into the Long Term Plan.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Libraries Moving Forward” dated 8 December
2016.
|
Attachments
a Update
on the recommendations ⇩
Library 17A Review progress of recommendations
|
Recommendation
|
Commentary
|
Progress
|
|
In conjunction with ICC
and GDC develop a strategy that looks to promote the notion of
“Southland Libraries for all” brought to you by ICC, SDC and
GDC.
|
Had first meeting with
ICC, discussed opportunities which may exist and confirmed continuance of
SummerReading programme, reciprocal membership agreement and exploring
"one card" option. Will involve GDC in future meetings.
|
Under action
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grow the depth
and range of digital content and promote this service to rural residents as
broadband spreads through the District.
|
Hold an extensive, and
growing, collection of e-resources and hold classes to assist residents in
the use of their devices.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Join Kōtui for
provision of the LMS and to take advantage of collaborative opportunities;
connect Stewart Island to the LMS at the time of going live with Kōtui
or earlier if this is not likely to happen in 2016/2017.
|
The current partnership
arrangement leaves SDC in a vulnerable position should there be any unusual
event as we are solely reliant on a single ICC staff member for support.
Membership of the Kotui group would provide on-going support 24/7, access to
additional features, including enhanced reporting tools, and the integration of
resources to a single search. There are one-off migration costs of $55,175
and a modest increase in annual support charges of $6000. Moving to Kotui
would also allow the exploration of "latch-key" access across our
libraries, benefitting those with reduced hours in particular.
|
Seek approval for
funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use Enterprise
discovery layer as the SDL’s website and link this from the
Council’s website; budget $15,000 for a one-off design cost to get the
template properly designed.
|
Absence of a fully
functioning website inhibits communication and access in an on-line world.
The use of the Enterprise model from the Kotui platform would allow for
customisation and bring all content together in an easy-to-search place.
One=design costs would be around $15,000 however it is proposed that by using
the communications Dept. experience and expertise it would be possible to do
this in-house.
|
Seek approval for
funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan for and fund the
introduction of RFID within the next three years.
|
RFID terminals are
becoming the industry standard for Libraries as they allow for autonomy and
with circulation, free up staff for customer support and interaction and
provide a much higher level of security for resources. The likely cost to
install RFID for all resources, across six sites, and security gates at
Winton and Te Anau would be in the vicinity of $150,000.
|
Seek approval for
funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce Wi-Fi
on the Bookbus and use with tablets to promote access to eBooks and
databases, and provide access to the internet for users of the Bookbus.
|
Wi-Fi available on the
Bookbus and tablets have been introduced, on a loan basis, for residents in a
“try before they buy" concept.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investigate the slow
connections to Council’s systems.
|
Appear to be little
different to elsewhere in Council.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase the range of
available eBooks and eMagazines and begin to promote this as a viable option
particularly for those remote from libraries. This will need a
sustainable campaign and good education and training of SDL’s staff to
be effective. As part of this campaign have tablet and/or eBook readers
available for use in libraries so that staff can demonstrate these to
customers.
|
Recently entered a
partnership agreement with Gore, Queenstown Lakes/Central Otago,
Invercargill, Clutha and Dunedin Libraries to purchase a further collection
of e-resources which adds approximately 4000 more items to our collections.
PressReader has also been purchased for Southland District residents, giving
access to 70 plus newspapers and 400 plus magazines in a variety of
languages. In the first month uptake has been very significant.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outsource up to 80% of
collection supply to shelf ready and develop standing orders for fiction and
selected non-fiction based on community profiles. Phase this in over a
two-three year period if necessary.
|
Investigations into this
are on-going to ensure readiness following the introduction of RFID.
|
Will be undertaken
following the
implementation of RFID
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduce excessive
duplication of fiction titles after consultation with affected community
boards
|
Have introduced a
"hot pick" collection of highly popular fiction which can be loaned
to branches for eight weeks only and reduced the purchased number of these
items by 33%.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get comparative pricing
from two or three magazine suppliers, including the local bookseller such as
Paper Plus
|
Have changed magazines
from subscription basis to "single copy supply" to ensure high
turnover, lower cost demand is met. Will evaluate on a six monthly basis.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduce stack
collections in branches and return to central stack for selection by other
libraries
|
Undertaken strict
weeding regime at all branches and have investigated alternative disposal
method for old/outdated stock, rather than offering all at book sales. Local
schools to be approached regarding junior materials.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seek opportunities to
develop a new community hub and library/service centre in Winton in
partnership with other community, commercial, health or educational
organisations. Fund for this redevelopment in the next 10 Year Plan.
|
A number of libraries
and service centres have been visited to look at best operational sites with
communities similar to SDC area. Seeking to incorporate the best of
everything in any proposal which may be presented.
|
Under action
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consult with the
Stewart Island community to investigate whether a self-service model in some
form would be worth trialling at this library.
|
Moving the self-issue
machine from Winton to Stewart Island and will be trialling local acceptance
prior to looking at providing "latch-key access".
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
In collaboration
with the Nightcaps school and community investigate whether alternative
service models would be acceptable.
|
Community and school
consultation will be undertaken over the coming months to establish the best
service model to fit with community needs.
|
Under action,
completion by June
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
At such time as the
Council may be reviewing the community and service needs of Tuatapere and
surrounding districts, work with the community and the Waiau Memorial
Trust to see how a wider range of library services could be offered. In
the meantime instigate a regular annual meeting with the Trust to support and
review the agreement.
|
Consultation with the
Waiau Memorial Trust will be undertaken during the coming months to ensure
the best possible range of Library services is offered for their residents. A
regular annual meeting with the Trust will be organised.
|
Under action, completion
by June
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
The District Libraries
Manager develops service delivery standards in collaboration with the
Customer Support Team Leader and produces an Annual Plan for clarity around
priorities.
|
To be part of the
longer planning and development process.
|
Under action completion
by
December 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
A realignment of roles
is done to clarify the responsibilities and skills needed to deliver the
service following the Customer Support restructure and the out sourcing of
collection supply.
|
Already undertaken with
the appointment of Customer Support Partners and the realignment of
specialist Library positions. Training in new roles is under action and will
be an on-going process as demands require.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure staff have the
opportunity to participate in professional development and receive ongoing
training.
|
Supporting staff to
undertake training and personal development opportunities as they arise.
Ensuring all staff are made aware of these opportunities and that any course
attendance becomes part of the on-going training schedule.
|
Completed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be open to partnership
opportunities that are aligned with SDL’s objectives and bring new
users to libraries, eg partnership with rural education institutions to
provide resources and services from various library locations.
|
Promotional and
outreach activities within local communities are a regular focus to ensure
residents are informed of all resources and opportunities available for
learning. Partnerships, both for specific events and life-long learning, are
actively explored.
|
Under action
|
|
|
|
|
|
Develop a more
comprehensive and systematic system for collecting, using and reporting on
library data, particularly around electronic use.
|
Installation of Kotui,
with 24/7 support, will provide more robust data and RFID will capture trends
in stock usage and people movement through our buildings.
|
Will be undertaken
following the
implementation of Kotui
and RFID
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use focus groups of
non-users, telephone surveys, use data and other mechanisms to gather
information on user and non-user needs for the various communities of
interest to inform service development.
|
The next stage of
development.
|
Will be undertaken
following the
implementation of Kotui
and RFID
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider reviewing the
current funding mechanism for libraries to determine whether the mix of
uniform annual charge and targeted local rate is the most equitable way of
funding libraries.
|
For the next report.
|
Under action, February
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
Develop a 10
year investment plan, both operational and capital for the next 10 years
to phase in the recommendations in this report.
|
On-going.
|
Part of 2018-2028 LTP
|
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
New Road Maintenance Contracts
Record No: R/16/7/11945
Author: Joe
Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport
Approved by: Ian
Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets
☒
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☐
Information
Purpose
1 The
aim of this report is to detail the outcomes required to optimally sustain the
needs and delivery of the Southland District Council roading services and
infrastructure in the coming years.
Executive
Summary
2 This
report outlines the proposed way forward for the current road maintenance
contracts which are all up for renewal by 30 June 2017. Council endorsement is
sought to commence the procurement of the new maintenance contracts and that
these contracts are to continue in a similar format as the current maintenance
contracts.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “New Road Maintenance Contracts” dated 6
December 2016.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Notes
the outcome of the LGA s17A review endorsement of the Alliance
Contract model.
e) Approves
the scope of the Alliances will include all works within the road corridor,
fence to fence including designated township works except street lighting,
pavement marking, pavement rehabilitation, reseals and other major
construction works which will be separately (externally) tendered.
f) Approves
that procurement proceed for three new Alliance Style contracts to the point
that the Transport Team can report back to Council with a recommendation on
the preferred supplier for each contract.
|
Content
Background
3 This
report covers the outcome of further consideration on how Council delivers its
Roading Services.
4 This
follows on from the review of the delivery of Roading Services carried out last
year and the recommendations of the Morrison Low Report “Optimisation of
Roading Service Delivery Structure” of June 2015. Further consideration
has been given to how service delivery may be streamlined and strengthened.
5 Council’s
Local Government Act section 17a review for Roading Services endorsed and
affirmed the value of the Alliance Contract Model and that the future needs are
being delivered.
6 All
of Council’s current term road services contracts expire on 30 June 2017
including the current Waimea, Central and Foveaux Alliance road maintenance
contracts.
7 It
is necessary to determine now what key changes, if any, are required ahead of
scoping what is to be put to the market in the next tender rounds.
8 As
part of this process a workshop was held with the current alliance partners
(Fulton Hogan and SouthRoads), SDC’s professional services advisor (MWH)
and Council staff to canvass optimisation opportunities and issues across the
board.
9 Also
considered is information extracted from the Final Draft of the Road
Maintenance Procurement Guidelines report by The Road Efficiency Group in
relation to alliances generally and additional comment on their application in
Southland.
Issues
and Discussion
10 As
part of the review the main points that need to be considered include;
· How
many road maintenance contracts?
· What
activities should be included or excluded as part of the road maintenance
contracts?
· What
is the ideal term of the contract? How can Council better deal with the two
recent market disruptions of the Highway Network Outcome Contracts (NOC) with 9
year terms. Consequently, each services delivery requirement (renewal and
maintenance activities) was reviewed.
11 Some
of the key considerations and market limitation included;
· The
large size of each Contract (regions) and that there will never be gargantuan
and unwieldy ‘ONE’ alliance to cover our vast network.
· Full
Service Maintenance Integration and tailored to operate within each unique
geographic location dictates what key services are dominantly required by each
Alliance contractor to deliver and master.
· Market
Limitations: there are only three established and experienced Maintenance
Alliance contractors in the region, of which only two resident sealing
contractors, and only two professional Engineering Consultants that are active
and solvent.
· The
mission critical need for the contract model is to remain as flexible as
possible. Where success is the ability to quickly adapt to rapid changing needs
of the commercial environment, ever changing global warming environmental
limitations, existing and growing coastal erosion risks, increasing freight
demand and vehicles with heavier loads, and conversely lesser private vehicle
use, due to urbanisation and sought service migration.
This dictates the need to ensure the ‘Alliance
Contract Model’ is market ‘AGILE’ and contract change
‘NIMBLE’. Thereby affording Council to shift and move with the
increasing technology advances, increasing costs with diminishing funding.
· The
vast size of Councils network, encourages a split by three or more distinct
Alliance Contract regions to tailor the service required by each, to fit their
service environments and limitations.
12 In
this Alliance Service Model it expected that the contractor will service and
satisfy the clients directly, – or service Councils ratepayers. This
vastly improves the client and community service satisfaction ‘end
result’, and ensures the future client identity and service ownership is
upheld by all of the alliance contractors.
13 Intuitively,
we originally believed that less contracts and associative administrations
would be more efficient. However, we soon realised that with a larger
diversified number of alliance 2-3 or more contracts would allow council to be
more flexible as to how to rebalance the budget outcome by reassembling and
restructuring service categories to match the optimal service required –
hence deliver the optimal result sought.
14 Conversely,
with one alliance contract we would lose our ability to adaptively redistribute
funds to match environmental service outcomes as they presented themselves.
Which reminded us that maintenance is a hugely variable service that is very
dependent on many environmental variables that are essentially unpredictable
and never able to forecast.
15 Considering
the issues of an ever increasing ‘competitive market’ for Roading
Contract Services made it essential for Council to never award all three
alliances to one contractor. This option was favoured by all unanimously
including the contractors.
16 For
capital works some contrasting views were expressed regarding whether capital
renewals should be included in the Alliances (one way or the other), or kept
outside the Alliances and separately tendered. Some key considerations
included service integration and the opportunity for transparent competitive
pricing.
17 Roading
Capital Renewals were found to be primarily dependent on ‘Volumetric
SCALE, to achieve optimal pricing. It was decided they remain outside of the
Alliance Contract and tendered independently as required. Alternately, Alliance
Partners will be entitled to bid on these renewals independently.
18 Other
activities such as pavement marking and road signs maintenance service have
also considered in length.
19 Pavement
marking is very similar to the reseal market with only two local suppliers. As
this is also a specialised activity it is proposed that this be best kept
outside the Alliance contract unless, the contractors can provide Council the
convincing confidence that service quality and safety standards will be
ultimately achieved and met.
20 Previous
Alliance Maintenance contracts terms have historically been limited to five
years. Yet recently there has been a shift with recent 9 Year NOC Contract
Terms. In recent years there has been a move to match NZTA NOC Highway longer
term contracts.
21 This
is to compete with keeping our ‘A’ Team Preferred suppliers that
are more drawn to long term stable contracts which de-risk their plant and
resource (staff) relocation investments required. As an example the new NZTA
NOCs have potential term of 9 years and so Transport wish to have the same
maximum contract term as our market resource competitors.
22 Attachment
A from Morrison Low has also been included with this report as it provides
additional information and detail of the new alliance contracts.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
23 No
unusual legal consideration are involved with this activity or the procurement.
As with all large value project or term contracts there is the risk of a legal
challenge regarding the results and market tensions realised by unsuccessful
offers.
24 To
reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team will diligently follow the NZ
Transport Agency and Council’s procurement procedures and mandatory NZTA
accredited tender evaluator.
25 As
the Tender Process of the past, Council will continue to engage commercial
‘Probity’ is adhered to by utilising a recognised Probity Auditor
from Audit New Zealand. We expect this to remain as s critical element of the
tendering and evaluation process for the Alliance Contracts.
Community
Views
26 Although
no specific community views have been sought, feedback has been sought and
received from a range of stakeholders as indicated in the report.
Costs
and Funding
27 The
works form part of the overall roading programme and will be delivered as part
of this programme.
28 It
is proposed that the Road Maintenance Contracts continue to be based on cost
recoverable model with an agreed total out turn cost per contract. In
other words the work will be delivered within the approved budgets.
Policy
Implications
29 There
are no expected policy implications as the work does not involve any out of the
ordinary activity beyond that already currently undertaking as part of Councils
road maintenance activates.
Analysis
Options Considered
30 General
two main points, the number of contracts operational and what should be
included in the contracts as part of the total scope of work.
Analysis of Options
Number of Maintenance Contracts (Two versus Three)
Option
1 – Two Contracts
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Potential
improved administration efficiency.
|
· Reduces
flexibility to respond and redirects funds between regions for events such of
weather, etc.
· Potentially
reduces tendering competition.
|
Option
2 – Three Contracts
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Better
recognises uniqueness of the district
· Provides
greater flexibility and responsiveness to network needs
· Allows
for more discrete management including additional resources management needs.
· Does
not detract from one Contractor providing tender for up to two contract areas
|
· Potentially
increased administration efficiency however this can be mitigated by joint
Alliance Leadership Teams.
|
Scope of Work
Option
1 – Fence to Fence Delivery
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Improved
service integration between maintenance and renewal activates
· Reduces
council’s direct management and tendering cost as there are will be
less contracts to manage.
|
· Removes
the price tension that currently exist with the renewal activates.
· Potentially
reduces market competition long term.
· Reduces
the ability to fully optimise the renewal programmes to provide what is best
for the network as a whole compared to contract area.
|
Option
2 – Status Quo excluding Major Renewals
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Maintains
the opportunity for transparent competitive tendering (test the market) and
expenditure.
· Recognises
some market limitation of services such as pavement marking and reseals.
· Helps
maintain a healthy market.
· Enables
Council to optimise renewals across the district versus by contract area.
|
· Don’t
have full service integration between maintenance and renewal.
· More
contracts for Councils to manage.
|
31 Some
of the disadvantages noted above can be managed by closer involvement and
interaction by the various teams through co-location and improved integration
of work programmes.
32 Another
possibility to consider dedicated specialised roles for activities such as
traffic services. While the physical works can be carried by the respective
alliance contractors one person is dedicated to the programming, service
management and quality assurance across the district.
Assessment of Significance
33 While
the dollar value of this activity is high the activity and cost associated with
this activity are not considered significant as this is part of routine service
deliver.
Recommended
Option
34 The
report provides an outline of the proposed approach to go to market and
discover by working with each tendered offer to determine and ensure the
optimal service cost and most flexible delivery model is delivered.
35 The
way forward for the Council’s road maintenance and renewal activities
requires some discovery of alternate service offers proposed by our incumbents
and other potential local providers. Council will continue to strive to achieve
the best service (optimal) for funding available in spite of expected change in
freight demand to increased heavier transported loads on Councils aging
pavements.
36 It
is recommended that the Council endorse the status quo of the three alliance
contracts for a period of up to 9 years dependent on contractor performance.
37 It
is also proposed that the performance including safety of the alliances will
continue to be reviewed and guided by an Alliance Leadership team which is
chaired by an appointed Councillor. This model has worked well with the
existing alliances model.
Next
Steps
38 That
procurement will proceed through the tendering process until the Transport Team
is in a position to report back to Council. The tendered findings and alternate
service offers will be analysed and processed to provide the Council a clear
recommendation as to the preferred supplier/s and investment solutions for each
of the three Alliance Contracts.
39 The
Council tender evaluation results will be reported to the Council including
recommendations to let the contracts.
Attachments
a New
Alliance Model 2017 - Roading Maintenance Contracts ⇩
SOUTHLAND NEW ALLIANCE MODEL 2017
Decisions on the future model
Following on from the
review of delivery of Roading Services last year and the recommendations of the
Morrison Low Report “Optimisation of Roading Service Delivery
Structure” of June 2015 further consideration has been given to how
service delivery may be streamlined and strengthened. All of the current
Waimea, Central and Foveaux Alliance contracts expire in June 2017. It is
necessary to determine now what key changes if any are required ahead of
scoping what is to be put to the market in the next tender round.
Accordingly, a workshop
was held with the current alliance participants (Fulton Hogan and South Roads),
SDC’s professional services advisor (MWH) and Council staff to canvass
optimisation opportunities and issues across the board. Following the workshop
two feedback opportunities were provided and the submissions considered in
detail. The active participation and objective contribution of all
involved has been highly appreciated.
The result is that a set
of conclusions and decisions have now been reached as to how the SDC Roading
Services Delivery model can be enhanced and put in place from July 2017.
These conclusions and the resulting decisions are set out below.
Also included is
information extracted from the Final Draft of the Road Maintenance Procurement
Guidelines report by The Road Efficiency Group in relation to alliances
generally and additional comment on their application in Southland.
Finally, the paper
summarises specific matters that need to be addressed in the new alliance
contracts to be tendered for commencement in July 2017.
1. Capital
Renewals
Some
contrasting views were expressed regarding whether capital renewals should be
included in the Alliances (one way or the other), or kept outside the Alliances
and separately tendered. Key considerations here are:
· SDC has a preference to maintain the
opportunity for transparent competitive pricing which will only be achieved by
SDC managing the ‘go to market’ open bid tendering process and the
resulting contract being managed by SDC or its consultant. It is
acknowledged that while this is not ideal from a services integration
perspective, for there are complications in terms of accountability for the
advance preparation and precise readiness required for renewals by the Alliance
Maintenance contractor, this can be managed as described below.
· The use of nominated subcontractors
(whereby SDC tenders the work and selects the supplier who then is invited to
enter into a subcontract with the Alliance Partner) has been considered but not
favoured due to performance accountability complications. In addition,
such arrangements would normally only be used in a situation where there was a
clear mutual construction dependency between the head contractor and nominated
supplier (e.g. a proprietary bridge joint to be supplied and installed during
bridge construction).
· Given that there will not be
‘ONE’ Alliance for District-Wide Renewals and the programme for
renewals can be very unpredictable over time both in quantum and location, there
is a very real risk if included in each of the alliances that the programme
will fall well short of the level required to satisfy plant and staff
utilisation for this requirement.
· Consideration has been given to a
design and construct approach however the renewals programme is now so small
(~4km) that it is not worth putting out in this way at this time. Until
there is a viable programme level (say 14 – 20km) SDC should continue
with status quo i.e. Consultant design and tender outside the alliances as a
single annual package. This is limited to a limited single year package
unless a multi-year package can be developed.
IT
is therefore necessary to maintain the renewals contractually separate from the
alliances.
In
order to achieve the levels of service integration sought the Alliance
Management Team (AMT) must have a significant involvement in developing the
renewals programme. This should extend to identifying the most
appropriate metal sources and what support can be provided to the renewals contractor
and these written into the tender documents. This needs to benefit from
the combined knowledge of the Asset Manager, Consultant and AMT. When
awarded the renewals contractor will be required to mesh with the AMT to
achieve operational integration. There is an opportunity here for a
suitable alliance KRA/KPI.
2. Reseals
Again
contrasting views were evident as to the wisdom of including the reseal
programme within the alliances. SDC has a requirement to ensure this
significant area of expenditure is transparently and competitively
tendered. Accordingly, for this reason reseals will be better served if
they remain outside the alliances and go to Council selected local bidders as
two packages which could be won separately or combined. We must recognise
that there are only two resident sealing contractors available and the offering
of two separate packages both of which can be won together by a single
contractor helps retain the required commercial tension that exists in a
duopoly market. The procurement strategy argument remains that in the
interests of maintaining some future local market viability the selected
tendering process are completely justified. Selective tendering is
subject to sign off by NZTA and by Council APAC.
To
enable Council to remain in control and optimise resealing programmes the
combined history and asset condition knowledge of the Asset Manager,
Consultant, Road Engineers and AMTs should contribute to determining the reseal
programme. The aim must be to achieve the ideal maximum Practical End of
Life (non-theoretical) for future reseal programmes and manage the pre-seal
repair integration with the Alliance delivery programme. In future this
team will identify the optimum sealing chip sources in advance of preparation
of sealing tender documents to reduce risk and enable production ahead of
requirement. When the awarded the reseals contractor will liaise with the
AMT to achieve operational integration with pre-seal repairs. This will
remain a challenge and will require full co-operation of the Alliance and
Council Roading. Again this integration can be incentivised and monitored
through an alliance KRA/KPI Outcomes – (one entire year in advance
pre-seal repairs will enable the most efficient cost and service delivery of
our future sealing programme due to no dependency delays. This has now
been achieved following a strategic investment for Council which took over two
years to put in place by taking the opportunity where renewal work was at a
lull offering Council a better price.)
3. Management
and Planning
There
is a recognised need for a closer involvement of the Asset Manager and
Consultant with the Alliance AMTs to enable the developing of more robust
integration of work programmes and optimised service delivery. Accordingly,
the Asset Manager and Consultant will keep attending the AMTs meetings
routinely allowing increased accuracy and clarity of renewal programmes being
co-developed or input into other issues or required interventions.
4. Scope
With
the exceptions of Professional Services, street lighting, capital renewals
(rehabs and reseals) and major capital projects, all activities within the road
corridor will be included within the alliances. In order to realise the
overall integration of services within the corridor the involvement of the
Asset Manager and Consultant with the Alliances will be necessary to ensure the
renewals and reseal contractors are able to operate efficiently without
unnecessary conflicts with overall service quality or network safety.
5. Co-location
There
is strong support from the Alliance Team and SDC Transport
management for co-location of appropriate resources with Services
partners. This has been variously interpreted from co-location of the
whole Transport Team to co-location of dedicated Roading Engineers to offices
of each AMT.
The
SDC Transport Team as a whole should not be co-located as they would be put in
a conflicting situation as Client and have other necessary district wide
responsibilities. Nevertheless, the importance of the now consolidated
and holistic Roading Team/Alliance/Professional Service relationship must not
be under estimated and is bringing rewards to all parties through
“effectiveness by connectedness”.
After
much consideration, given the inescapable reality is that there remain two or
more alliance partners (and in the future are also likely to be) and two or
three AMTs, the real benefit would come from co-location of dedicated Roading
Engineers and Alliance Partner’s management teams to best enable a combined
focus as the Alliance Management Team to optimise service delivery and cost
efficiency. In addition, it would be valuable to provide for “hot
desks” to enable members of Council’s Roading Team to spend some
crucial time directly involved with each AMT. This would lift the
communication levels and better inform them of issues and enable their input as
needed. It is noted however that it this is not intended to manage or
direct the AMT routinely. It remains important that commercial effective
service sovereignty of the transferred ‘Trusted’ decision
empowerment and cost efficiency must remain intact within the AMT and Governed
by the ALT. Nevertheless, periodic local presence would afford the opportunity
for immediate guidance, assistance and support generally and for emergency
situations or event management where direct Council management will likely
become more intimately involved.
6. Regions
The
three Southland Road Network Regions are believed to have been historically
improved and refined due to their uniqueness in regard to: dominating
topography and terrain, commercial service locations, dominant climate and
conditions (ice/snow, flooding) freight demand, dairy collection, tourism and
network density. While it is tempting to intuitively believe that two
administrations are more efficient and therefore better than three or four as
being more efficient, it has been recently realised by Roading Management that
the larger number of regions provides far greater flexibility to redirect funds
between regions for reasons of weather events, shifts in freight loadings,
unpredictable forest harvesting, etc.
The
previously unrealised higher number and unique diversity of each Alliance
Region, allows Council financial forecasting resolution to have finer
granularity in decisions to redistribute funds and resource and a finer
resolution of the effects across the whole network.
The
retaining of the current three regions does provide the opportunity for seeking
alternative bids that allow tendering of each region separately or tendering an
alternative of two regions combined with associated benefits in finer discrete
management and additional resource efficiency.
In
considering the issue of sustainability of market the strategy that is required
for Southland includes the following:
1. No party should
be awarded all three regions. This option is favoured by all.
2. The ongoing
tendering opportunities for existing established contractors and
sub-contractors is paramount for the future existence of full market
“Commercial and Competitive” sustainability. Any strategy
that promoted or enabled the establishment of duopolies or monopolies in our
very limited contractor environment is ‘competitive suicide’ and a
commercial travesty.
3. Council’s
Roading Team and the Alliances believe the ‘Road to Commercial
Sustainability’ is to protect both small and larger Contractors in our
region. If we force them out of work by single alliance contract models (i.e.
NOC type contracting – as recently released by NZTA HNO) having one
single provider for the entire region or district would result in future
competitive failure where small operators are placed at high commercial risk
and the remaining one or two larger contractors will withdraw from our region
and restrict their focus to areas of work continuity and better margins.
In
the event that Gore DC participates in the future there is are options of
treating it as a separate region or to incorporate it into the Foveaux
Region. This would need further consideration.
7. Governance
There
is general support for the principle of having a common combined governance
body (alliance Leadership Team or ALT) to which each alliance, through their
respective AMTs reports. This would provide a level of significant
transparency around performance against a common set of outcome measures and
increase contractor accountability. This would also support the needed
accountability required by NZTA and OAG in their routine audits. This new
model ALT should be the vehicle to promote improved resource management and
market sustainability achievement across the district.
The
issue here is to develop a TOR for such a combined ALT that provides these
benefits but also respects and does not compromise the clear commercial
independence and competitiveness of the two or more alliance partners.
The TOR needs to be completely agreed to by all parties at all levels.
Assuming this is achieved it is proposed that the combined ALT should be
trialled and refined over the remaining terms of the current alliances.
A
draft TOR is attached. It is proposed that this be finalised in
consultation with each of the alliance partners.
8. Summary
The
conclusions of this paper are summarised as:
1. Capital
Renewals to be tendered by SDC with design and supervision by SDC’s
Professional Services Provider (currently MWH) as at present
2. Reseals to be
similarly tendered by SDC and supervised by MWH
3. Integrated
development of renewals and reseal programmes is to be achieved by coordinated
inputs from Council’s Asset Engineer, MWH and the respective AMTs
4. Work programmes
to be similarly integrated to ensure smooth operational delivery by renewals
and sealing contractors
5. Council’s
Asset Manager and MWH representative to regularly attend the alliance AMT
meetings
6. With the
exceptions of Professional Services, street lighting, capital renewals, reseals
and major capital works, all activities within the road corridor will be
included within the alliances.
7. There is a
strong case for co-locating SDC dedicated Roading Engineers with the relevant
Alliance Partner’s management team to achieve a most efficient and
effective AMT
8. The current
three road network regions should be retained. In the event that Gore DC
participates in the future the district could be added to the Foveaux Region of
kept as a separate region to be determined in discussions with GDC.
9. Tenders for the
next alliance contracts to allow for up to two alliances being won by a single
tenderer but no tenderer being permitted to win all three
10. The strong support for a
combined Alliance Leadership Team is noted and a terms of reference (TOR) is to
be prepared and adopted
9. National
Use of Alliances for Maintenance
The
Road Efficiency Group is finalising its “Delivery Model Guidelines”
which will be published later this year. While only in draft[1]
at present and of course subject to change it is worth while noting some
specific factual and draft findings in respect of alliances. Other
comments have also been added touching on matters that are not noted in the
draft.
· Maintenance alliances are
currently being used in Waikato, Hamilton, Auckland Motorway Alliance, Central
Otago and Southland with the common key drivers/objectives being “the
desire of the client to work collaboratively to understand the cost structures
for making cost savings, to improve value for money and target continuous
improvement”.
· The optimum circumstances
for the use of particular delivery models includes “The
Alliance model for flexibility, risk sharing in a structured, incentivized and
formalized one team client/contractor approach to focus on network outcomes and
to understand cost structures for optimizing investment”
In
addition, it is noted that the market has been constrained due to reducing
programme levels and more recently by the effects of NZTA’s NOC contracts
which is seriously impacting the sustainability of the market in Southland and
Otago. For contractors to continue to be viable they need to have a solid
baseload of work from which they can launch bids for more lucrative
opportunities when they present. Southland is in a good position to
benefit from this by providing long term stability of cashflow and resource use
providing a level of investment certainty for contractors and in return benefit
from very competitive margins. It is worth noting also that the strongest
incentive for high performance of Southland’s Alliance Partners is
continuity of work and cashflow and that is achieved by excellent performance
that leads to contract renewals and a better opportunity of winning in the next
round of alliance tenders.
10. Implications
for the Next Alliance Contracts
The
three alliance contracts will need to be tendered to the market in time for the
alliances to be mobilised and ready to commence service delivery on 1 July
2017. It is proposed to modify the documents for scope and specific
contract conditions to align with the findings listed above and invite tenders
by October 2016.
Specific
matters to be addressed in the new contracts are:
· An increase in the contract term to
provide for a maximum of 9 years[2]
made up of:
o Up to a 1 year (maximum) period of
an Interim Project Alliance Agreement (IPAA) (developed with the preferred
alliance partner prior to service commencement) during which time the alliance
must demonstrate it has the capability to perform at the required levels of
service before the full Project Alliance Agreement (PAA) is entered into.
o Following entering into the PAA a
term of the balance of year 1 plus 4 years and the opportunity for two 2 year
extensions at the discretion of Council after taking in to account the
performance of the Alliance Partner giving a maximum term of nine years
OR
o Following entering into the PAA a
term of the balance of year 1 plus 6 years but with provision for a reduction
in term of up to 2 years (-1-1) for substandard performance and the opportunity
of up to two 1 year extensions (+1+1) at the discretion of Council after taking
in to account the performance of the Alliance Partner giving a maximum term of
nine years
· The inclusion within the alliance
work scope subject to excellent performance of:
o pavement line marking
o signs maintenance
· Provisions for a new alliance
governance arrangements including:
o the use of a common Alliance
Leadership Team (ALT) that will harness the combined skills of all parties to
monitor the performance of all three alliances and provide “best for
network” direction in terms of resource optimisation and maintenance
strategies
o the reporting of each alliance on
progress and performance through its Alliance Management Team (AMT) to the ALT
o a terms of reference (TOR) for the
common ALT that enables it to achieve the higher levels of performance
accountability desired and strategy direction while accepting and respecting
the commercial and competitive needs of each alliance partner.
· The refinement (currently in hand)
of outcome performance measure including a specific KRA relating to network
safety
· Recognition of the changing national
road network performance measures[3]
· Recognition of the need to
incorporate the role of Professional Services Consultant into the regular
meetings of the AMTs to improve information exchange and issue understanding
and to reinforce the overall “Roading Team” culture of service
delivery and achieve integrated programmes and standards
· A requirement in the alliance
agreements and those of the renewal and reseal contractors to collaborate to
optimise the efficiency and safety of operational delivery
· Provision for co-locating of
dedicated SDC Roading Engineers with the respective Alliance Management Team
members to achieve a more efficient and effective partnership
· Tendering provisions that prevent
all three alliances being won by a single contractor but provides for
alternatives that would provide advantages in terms of economies in the event
two alliances are won by a single contractor
· Provisions that may be required in
the event that there is a future shared services arrangement with an adjacent
road controlling authority
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project Update
and Procurement Options
Record No: R/16/11/19380
Author: Joe
Bourque, Strategic Manager Transport
Approved by: Ian
Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets
☒
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☐
Information
Purpose
1 To
outline to the Council the proposed Tourist Route Improvements Project and
seeking endorsement for the project to be publicly tendered.
Executive
Summary
2 This
report outlines the proposed Tourist Route Improvements that have been surveyed
and designed along with the proposed procurement methodology. Council’s
endorsement is sought on this programme of work and the planned procurement
processes.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Alternative Coastal Route Improvement Project Update
and Procurement Options” dated 7 December 2016.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of
Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Approves
the project proceed to the tender stage and that the results of the tender
evaluation process be reported back to Council for consideration of awarding
a contract.
|
Content
Background
3 This project
involves the Sealing, Otta sealing and associated improvement of approximately
23 kilometres of road on the last unsealed section of the alternative coastal
route along the Southern Scenic Route and the two main side journeys of this
section.
4 Currently
tourists are put off travelling on these roads and those that do use them,
often get into difficulties. The purpose of this project is to make access to
these points of interest easier and safer, without necessarily making travel on
the road that much faster.
5 At the 28
September 2016, Activities Performance Audit Committee were presented with a
report outlining the status of the project including confirmation of NZ
Transport Agency (NZTA) funding.
6 At this
meeting it was resolved that the detailed design work be completed and reported
be presented back to Council prior to the project being put out to tendered.
Discussion
7 The total road
length is split into three routes. The main route involves the unsealed
sections of Otara Haldane Road, Tokanui Haldane Road and Haldane Curio Bay Road
and will complete the sealing of the Alternative Coastal Route.
8 The route is
to be fully constructed and bitumen sealed for the majority of its length,
apart from a tidal flood prone section of approximately 1800 metres directly
adjacent to the Haldane Estuary, which is proposed to be Otta sealed.
9 The reason for
the use of Otta seal in this location is to reduce the amount invested in this
section, which may need to be raised in the future to cope with rising sea
levels.
10 The first side road is
Slope Point Road which leads off the Haldane Curio Bay Road to Slope Point, the
southernmost point of the mainland of New Zealand. The route is to be fully
constructed with a bitumen seal for its full length to the first car park.
11 The second side road is
the route to Waipapa Lighthouse which consists of Otara Waipapa and Waipapa
Lighthouse Road.
12 This route runs off the sealed
section of Otara Haldane Road and involves the full length of Otara Waipapa and
Waipapa Lighthouse Roads. It is proposed that the bulk of the construction for
this section to involve limited construction (reshaping, shoulder widening and
construction) and Otta sealing.
13 It is proposed that the
three main curves and start of the road will be fully constructed and sealed as
these areas would be under the greatest stress for an Otta seal.
14 The choice of Otta
seal on this road has been driven by funding, as this section is considered the
third priority of the three routes for seal extension.
15 This route could
also be treated as provisional tender item as a means of managing SDC’s
overall budget for this project. There is also a possibility with this section
that, if prices come in well below estimate, Council
may consider a full construction and seal option for this road.
16 As the engineering
design has neared completion a Registration of Interest request was placed.
Four companies officially registering an interest, these were;
· The
Roading Company
· SouthRoads
· Fulton
Hogan Southland and
· Wilson
Contracting.
17 Current design
information and quantities have been supplied to the companies who registered
an interested. The aim is to provide these organisation with an indication
around the scope and scale of work involved so that they can start considering
items such resource requirements including gravel sources and supply.
18 Being a road that
will have a higher proportion of tourist drivers than
other Council roads, extra work will be required to provide a roadside
with safe pull-off parking areas at points of interest to reduce the likelihood
of vehicles stopping in the roadway to take photos.
Issues
19 It has been established
there exist risks in using Mairs Pit – particularly as is. From
discussion with potential tenderers options have be discussed around how this
material could be utilised.
20 Based on the evidence
available it is possible to successfully construct pavements that perform long
term and deliver the thirty year life design requirement. There is significant
cost savings in using alternate Mairs Pit material – as follows.
21 Acceptance of a tender
using this material would be subject to a tenderer demonstrating appropriate
management, surveillance and quality assurance - that they will select, process
and handle the material in a way that maximises the chances of success and that
there is a very substantial saving in using this material to make the residual
risks worth accepting.
22 It is not expected that
there will be any unusual resource consenting requirements with the work, as
the work will take place either on road reserve or on land purchased for the
purpose of creating a road reserves.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
23 No significantly unusual
legal considerations are involved with this project. As with all larger value
projects, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results
from unsuccessful tenderers. To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation
Team will diligently follow the NZ Transport Agency and Council’s
procurement procedures.
24 It is also intended to
engage probity auditor as part of the evaluation process.
25 The Requests for
Tender will state that the Principal reserves the right to consider or reject
any alternative tender, at the Principal’s sole discretion.
26 While most of the curve easing will be within the legal
road alignment, several of the potential curve realignments may involve the
need to purchase private land to expedite the new road line. These will be
discussed with the Council’s Property Management as soon as the need is
determined.
Community
Views
27 During the
Strategic and Indicative Business Cases specific community views were sought
and included into those reports. These reports formed the basis for the design
work being carried out with the concerns noted.
28 During consultation
on the Annual Plan, there was strong public support for sealing these roads to
aid tourism and to increase safety on these roads.
Costs
and Funding
29 The project has been allowed for in the Long Term Plan and
Annual Plan with the project cost to be funded via a loan. The overall project
estimate is $7.15M (+/- 25%) with approved co-funding from the NZ Transport
Agency (NZTA) based on using some of Southland ‘R Funds’.
30 Based on the engineering design the latest construction
costs are estimated in the range of $7.6M to $8.3m which are within the
original estimated range. These costs are based on the two options below;
· This estimate is made up of $7.6m - Mairs Pit
material with 80% of fill material from cut on site.
· $8.3m
- Mairs Pit (Sub Base) Edendale (Base Course) with 50% of fill from cut on
site.
31 In
order to best maximise the opportunities for the construction to come in below
the engineering estimate, tenderers will be asked to supply alternative options
for consideration. Potential alternative could be modification of aggregate to
reduce cartage costs and temporary road closure to reduce traffic management
costs.
32 NZTA are still fully
supportive of this project and acknowledge that the current costs are based on
engineering estimates and as such are likely to vary from tendered rates. On
this basis NZTA are amenable to additional funding if required.
Policy
Implications
33 The road sections
form the Southland District Council Tourist Route Improvements Project which has
received updated approval as part of the Annual Plan and was initially approved
as part of the Long Term Plan.
Procurement Considerations
34 As there are
several out of the ordinary risks currently identified with this project
particularly in relation to the Mairs Pit material, a Price Quality procurement
method is proposed.
35 The standard
assessment weighting for the price quality is 70/30 respectively. The price
receiving a dominant 70% weighting is to push the market for aggressive pricing
while still providing for due consideration for optimal methodology and
quality.
36 It is proposed the
30% non-price attributes have greater emphasis on the methodology component and
work quality assurance to help select a supplier that has the capabilities to
best mitigate risks associated with construction projects.
37 As part of the
procurement it is also proposed to allow for alternative options as mentioned
above to be considered. These alternatives can then be evaluated and considered
on a NPV basis to assess the benefits of accepting an alternative against
conforming tenders.
38 Attachment A
provides an indication of the current procurement timeline as general
information.
Analysis
Options Considered
39 The two main procurement methodologies assessed are Lowest
Price Confirming and the Price Quality method.
Analysis of Options
40 Tendering
Options
Option
1 - Lowest Price Confirming
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Quicker
to evaluate as only the lowest price tender is assessed to confirm
conformance to the tender requirements
· Reduced
evaluation time and cost
|
· Does
not take account of non-price attributes.
· Makes
no allowance for potential added value that tenderers may offer.
· Unlikely
to produce the best value for money solution for the Council
|
Option
2 - Price Quality
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Focus
is on both price and quality
· Non
price attributes are considered and assessed as part of the tendering
process.
· Can
allow for ‘added value’ of a proposal to be considered
· The
cost of risks is more transparent and a balance of risk allocation can be
achieved.
|
· Requires
a longer timeframe to evaluate as all tender proposals need to be reviewed
and assessed.
|
Assessment of Significance
41 The Tourist Route
Improvements Projects has been specifically consulted on as part of the
Long Term Plan and more recently as part of the Annual Plan.
42 The additional
detail in this report is not considered significant.
Recommended
Option
43 The proposed procurement
methodology of Price Quality has been chosen to balance obtaining competitive
prices, managing risks and price certainty. The overall aim is to obtain
value for money.
44 It is also recommended
that the Council endorse both the proposed programme of work and procurement
methodology which allows for alternative proposals to be considered.
Next
Steps
45 That the project
proceed to the procurement stage, utilising a Price Quality Method and that the
outcome of the tender evaluation be reported back to Council. The report will
also cover sources of funding and any changes in scope to reduce cost, if
required.
Attachments
a Alternative
Coastal Route- Attachment A, Tendering Timeline ⇩
Alternative Coastal Route Improvement
Project – Tender Timeline
· Council
Approval to go to market 14
December 2016
· Put
out to Tender 15
December 2016
· Close
Tender 24
January 2017
· Read
/ Review Tender 27
January 2017
· Complete
tender scoring 1
February 2017
· Open
Prices and review 3
February 2017
· Complete
Tender Evaluation 7
February 2017
· Report
back to Committee / Council Meeting 22
February 2017 (TBC)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Southland Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report
for the 2016/2017 Year
Record No: R/16/11/19388
Author: Bruce
Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
Purpose
1 The
Invercargill City Council has supplied the attached report relating to the
operations of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust Board Incorporated
(hereafter SMAG) for the first quarter of the 2016/2017 financial year,
ending 30 September 2016.
2 The
report outlines status of performance in relation to the projects and service
levels outlined in the 2016/2017 SMAG Statement of Intent. It also
provides additional information on levels of use of the museum itself, and
exhibitions which have occurred or are occurring.
3 The
Trust is incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.
4 Council
appoints two representatives to the Trust in terms of the Trust Deed, with
these being Councillors MacPherson and Patterson.
5 It
is also worth noting Pages 3 and 4 of the report itself, in the “Future
Issues” section, which refers to the $600,000 request which has been made
to the Southland Regional Heritage Fund for additional funding. This is
proposed, if approved, to be “used by SMAG to employ curators and
technicians who will carry out the conservation, storage, cataloguing,
interpretation and construction work required to provide captivating and
educational exhibitions” (see Page 3 of the report) of items in the
SMAG collections.
6 This
Quarterly Report is hence presented for Council’s information only.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Southland Museum and Art Gallery Annual Report for
the first Quarter of the 2016 /2017 financial year ended 30 September 2016.
|
Attachments
a Southland
Museum and Art Gallery First Quarter Report for the 2016/2017 Year ⇩
TO: SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
GORE
DISTRICT COUNCIL
SOUTHLAND
REGIONAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
FROM: THE CHAIRMAN
SOUTHLAND
MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY TRUST BOARD
MEETING DATE: THURsday 3 NOVember
2016
|
quarterly report
– southland museum and art gallery
|
Report Prepared by: Paul Horner - Manager, Building Assets and Museum
Summary
|
Report on the operation of the
Southland Museum and Art Gallery for the First Quarter of the 2016-2017 financial
year.
|
Recommendations
That the report be received.
Implications
Financial Implications
Ø Expenditure variance is $83,684 underspent at the end of September
2016. This is due to an increase of funding from the Regional Heritage
Committee for 2016/2017 ($171,000) and a slow start to operational expenditure
for the year.
Ø An application to seek an increase of operational funding for the
2017/2018 financial year and beyond has been forwarded to the Southland
Regional Heritage Committee
Level of Performance
Target Levels of Performance Required by
the Statement of Intent are:
|
Service Level
|
Achievement, First Quarter
|
|
Prepare for building refurbishment and extension to enable
internal environmental conditions to meet national/international guidelines.
|
Redevelopment plan completed and approved
by Trust Board.
Presentations provided to councils and
funders.
Discussions with Southland Regional
Development Strategy project managers.
|
|
No irreparable loss or damage is caused to collections or objects
on loan.
|
No irreparable loss or damage detected
|
|
100% of objects acquired entered into Vernon database and
verified
|
50% of new acquisitions entered.
Review of collection information urgently
required.
|
|
100% records on Vernon database maintained
|
100% maintained.
Review of collection information urgently
required.
|
|
Project planned to review, update and verify records on
database
|
Review of 73,200 collection objects
information urgently required. This project is dependent on achieving a
$600,000 p.a. increase of funding
|
|
Three semi-permanent exhibitions are
delivered.
A minimum of 12 short-term exhibitions,
including 8 in the community access gallery, are presented annually.
|
Six semi-permanent exhibitions at
present.
5 short term exhibitions opened by end of
first quarter including 3 in the Community Access gallery.
|
|
Over 25 education programmes delivered to
4000 school students, including curriculum-linked and exhibition-related
programmes.
|
3 programmes delivered to 692 pupils by
end of first quarter
|
|
Iwi Liaison Komiti (representing the four
Southland Runanga), meets four times a year.
|
One by end of first quarter.
|
|
Annual visitor
numbers exceed 200,000/annum
|
52,561 by end of first quarter.
|
Operational Comments
The museum is operating well with high
people-counter numbers at the front door. With 52,561 people counted in
the first quarter of the year the museum is the most visited tourist attraction
and community heritage organisation in Invercargill.
Data gathered since January 2016 shows that
16% of visitors make purchases at the café, 10% make enquiries or
purchases at the i-SITE and 6% make purchases at the shop. Additional
door-counters will soon be installed to analyse movement of visitors within the
museum.
Exhibitions which have been held in the
Community Access gallery during the first quarter of the year have been:
Ø Hokonui Fashion Awards show.
Ø Polyfest 2016 (schools)
Ø Together We Travel Day Activity Centre
clients of SDHB
The art exhibitions which have opened
during the first quarter of the year were:
Ø In Residence. An Exhibition of Art
from the Southland Art Foundation Collection
Ø Something Borrowed, Something Blue. An Exhibition of Wedding Dresses from the Southland Museum and
Gallery collection.
The semi-permanent exhibitions at present
are:
Ø Roaring 40’s
Ø History Gallery
Ø Maori Gallery
Ø Natural History Gallery
Ø Victoriana Gallery
Ø World War 1 Exhibition
Staff
Kimberley Stephenson, our new Collection
Curator began work on 26th September.
Future Issues
The Southland Museum and Art Gallery is
important to Southland. It is the first museum to be developed in
Southland and the only one to hold a significant collection of the natural and
human history of the province. The collection includes about 14,000
geology, flora and fauna objects, over 900 archaeology objects and over 4,000
taonga Māori
objects.
The core exhibitions of SMAG are the
geology, geography and natural history of Southland, southern Maori history
(pre-European contact), Sub-Antarctic Islands, early coastal and nautical
history and the history of Invercargill.
A collection the size of the Southland
Museum and Art Gallery is extremely important on a national and international
scale, both as a reference collection for research and for curation of
exhibitions. The museum Trust Board is ethically obliged to preserve and
interpret, through its displays and research, our history and culture as
revealed by the collections for present and future generations.
However some of the collections are without curators to do this
work. Additional funds, if obtained, will be used by SMAG to employ
curators and technicians who will carry out the conservation, storage,
cataloguing, interpretation and construction work required to provide
captivating and educational exhibitions.
Employment of sufficient staff at Southland
Museum and Art Gallery will also enable support and assistance to be given to
the smaller museums of Southland to help with their collections and displays.
This will be of benefit to the whole province.
There are about 24 smaller museums
throughout Southland which have been developed since about the
1950’s. Each of these has a unique collection and story to tell
about their local community or specialisation and they generally collect and
show the social history of Southland (post-European contact).
The Southland Museum and Art Gallery has
made a request to the Southland Regional Heritage Committee for a grant
increase of $600,000 (compared with the 2015-16 year) in the 2017–18
financial year and beyond to employ the additional staff discussed
above.
It is anticipated that the increased grant
would be used as follows:
Employment of
two curators $150,000
Employment of
two collection technicians $100,000
Employment of
one exhibition construction technician $60,000
Associated costs
for staff training, equipment $40,000
Exhibition
costs: materials, technology, contract labour $100,000
Collection
costs: storage equipment, archive materials $100,000
District Museum
support, travel, materials $25,000
Education
(LEOTC), provide mobile service to district schools $25,000
Total
expenditure per. annum $600,000
**********
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Draft Southland Cycling Strategy
Record No: R/16/11/19569
Author: Ian
Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets
Approved by: Ian
Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets
☒
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☐
Information
Background
1 The
Southland Cycling Strategy was developed in consultation with the
region’s councils, government agencies, cycling organisations and the
community.
2 Venture
Southland managed a process whereby an experienced consultant was procured via
a competitive tender process. The successful consultant was TRC
Tourism. The TRC team has been working in the fields of tourism,
recreation, conservation and culture for over 25 years.
3 The
process TRC used involved analysis of Southland’s population, social,
economic and tourism situation. Previous plans and studies on cycling in
the region were reviewed. An audit was conducted of the existing cycling
infrastructure, services, experiences and organisation in Southland and
competitor cycling destinations. Local and visitor cycling markets and their
cycling needs and references were also analysed to identify the market segments
and types of cycling with most potential for the region.
4 Community
views and input on directions for cycling were provided through interviews with
major stakeholders and community open house sessions. Stakeholders were
also invited to comment on a paper setting out a proposed strategic approach to
cycling development.
5 The
views of Southland’s cyclists were sought through an online survey that
received 339 responses.
6 This
process lead to the compilation of the attached draft strategy.
Purpose
7 “The
Southland Cycling Strategy is a guide for government, the community, cycling
organisations, the tourism industry and business at the local, district and
regional levels to develop and invest in cycling opportunities in a consistent,
collaborative and sustainable way.”
8 This
will be a useful document for the Southland District Council to use as the base
planning document for cycling initiatives of all types. Whether it be
on-road or off-road cycling. Whether it be NZTA funded, local funded,
private funded or District funded.
Vision
Statement
9 The
vision statement in the draft strategy is quoted below;
10 “Our
aim is to provide quality safe cycling infrastructure and increase cycling
participation so that the people of Southland will gain in health, quality of
life and appreciative use of their outstanding natural environment.
11 Cycling
opportunities will contribute to Southland’s socio-economic and
population development by increasing the attractiveness of the region as a
family friendly place to live and visit.”
Process
12 The
proposal from here is for each of the Southland region’s authorities to
adopt the draft strategy and that it be distributed for
further public consultation.
13 Venture
Southland will manage this consultation process.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Draft Southland Cycling Strategy” dated 8
December 2016.
b) Endorses the draft Southland Cycling Strategy 2016-2026 and
approve that it can be distributed for further public consultation.
c) Appoint two council representatives (a councillor and a staff
member) to the proposed Southland Cycling Governance Group which will oversee
implementation of the strategy.
|
Attachments
a Draft
Southland Cycling Strategy ⇩
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Management Report
Record No: R/16/12/19780
Author: Steve
Ruru, Chief Executive
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
Chief
Executive
Southland
Regional Development Strategy (SoRDs)
1 The
SoRDs project has been developed over the last two years with the overall goal
of attracting 10,000 more people to Southland by 2025.
2 Over
the 2016 calendar year there have been nine SoRDs Teams developing Action Plans
to advance the overall SoRDs goal. These action plans have now been developed
into a consolidated Action Plan document which was launched publicly on 30
November.
3 The
launch attracted around 500 people including Ministers Joyce and Guy. At the
launch Central Government indicated its strong support for the project by:
· Announcing funding
support for upto $2.4 million for a range of initiatives to be advanced as part
of the Action Plan. This includes some $950,000 for the Aquaculture development
project and $250,000 for the first phase of the Milford Opportunities Project.
· Indicating very
strong support for the overall Action Plan, the range of initiatives within it
and the work that Southland has done to bring it to this stage of development.
4 The
final Action Plan will be brought to Council for formal endorsement at its
meeting in February 2017. At that time there will also be a report outlining
the structures that are seen as being needed to lead the overall implementation
of the final SoRDs Action Plan.
5 The
Governance Group highlighted in the final Action Plan a number of principles
that they see as being important for the next phase of work. To a significant
degree these reflect the ‘Southland Inc’ approach that has been a
key feature of the first two phases of SoRDs to date.
6 Work
to develop the recommended implementation structures has been developed under
the leadership of the Mayoral Forum.
Local
Government Reform
7 The
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which implements the Better Local
Services reforms, is currently before the Local Government and Environment Select
Committee. The date by which the Select Committee is due to report back to
Parliament has been extended to 31 March 2017.
8 The
extension of time reflects the strength of concern relating to the proposal
that the Local Government Commission (LGC) be given the power to initiate
reforms at an individual service level without a ratepayer referendum or
support from the local authorities involved. There is a level of discussion
occurring between the sector and Government about what might constitute appropriate
provisions in this area.
9 While
it is likely that changes will be made it is important to recognise that there
are a number of changes included in the Bill which are very positive and have a
strong level of support across the sector. It is also important that the
underlying message about the need for the sector as a whole to improve its
performance and change the way in which it works to ensure that it meets the
changing needs of the communities it serves is not lost. In particular, it is
clear that Central Government remains committed to the need for local
government to deliver ‘more for less’ and ensure that rates remain
affordable.
Local Government Risk
Agency
10 A
business case has been put to Central Government seeking support for the
development of a Local Government Risk Agency (LGRA), which would be
responsible for promoting the development of sound risk management practices
across the sector.
11 A
decision on whether Government will support the business case is not expected
to be made until the first half of 2017. There is a strong linkage between the
potential formation of this agency, the review of the 60:40 principle for the
funding of recovery costs following a natural disaster and the management of
the 3 waters infrastructure. The findings from the Havelock Water Inquiry are
likely to have an impact on the development of future government policy in
these areas.
12 Ahead
of decisions being made in these LGNZ has work underway to develop a high level
risk framework which will provide the sector with a common way of speaking
about, and applying risk assessment and management tools and concepts. Ideally
the framework will be applied across all council functions, including hazard
management. It is expected that this work will be released early in 2017.
Road
Speed Management
13 During
November the Ministry of Transport and NZ Transport Agency released a new Speed
Management Guide, which replaces the former Land Transport Rule: Setting of
Speed Limits.
14 The Guide combines a wide range of information
to help councils, the New Zealand Transport Agency and other road controlling
authorities decide where and when to make safety improvements or changes to
speed limits. The Guide attempts to recognise that conditions vary
significantly between different locations and that it is also important to have
local community input to the speed setting process.
Rural
Broadband and Mobile Blackspots
15 The Crown has
recently released a further Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Rural Broadband
Extension and the Mobile Black Spot Fund programmes to extend the Rural
Broadband Initiative (RBI) and provide mobile coverage to black spots on state
highways and in tourist areas. This includes a number of areas within Southland
including the Milford Road corridor.
16 The development
of broadband and cell phone coverage on the Milford Road corridor is seen as a
high priority by Milford Sound Tourism Ltd and other tourist operators in at
Milford.
National
Policy Statement – Urban Development
17 The
NPS on Urban Development has now been issued by Government and comes into
effect from 1 December 2016.
18 The
NPS provides direction on planning for urban environments and requires local
authorities to both enable urban environments to grow and change in response to
the changing needs of the communities, and future generations and provide
enough space for their populations to happily live and work. While the NPS will
particularly affect medium to high growth communities it does apply across all
local authorities.
Services
and Assets
Stewart
Island Wharfing Infrastructure
19 As
indicated previously Southport have written to Council indicating that they no
longer wish to retain the ownership and operating responsibility for the Golden
Bay wharf on Stewart Island. The wharf simply does not generate the revenue
needed to ensure that it remains commercially viable.
20 Following
discussions with Southport, officers have developed a project definition to
look at the medium – long term needs for the provision of wharfing
infrastructure on the Island and how these needs are best met and funded.
21 A
report seeking support for a comprehensive review of the current and future
needs for wharfing infrastructure is being submitted to the Community Board and
Council for formal approval and the allocation of funding needed to enable the
project to progress. Note that it is important that the project proceed with a
degree of urgency given the pending withdrawal of Southport from the Golden Bay
facility.
Te
Anau Wastewater
22 Council
was granted consent for discharge of treated wastewater at the Kepler block in
2015. The consent was subsequently appealed to the Environment Court by
Fiordland Sewage Options (FSO) and two other appellants. While the FSO appeal
remains live the other two appellants have withdrawn their appeal.
23 Officers
attended Environment Court assisted mediation with the appellants to the Kepler
resource consent appeal process in June and October. While the discussions were
productive the parties were unable to reach an agreed settlement position.
24 The
Environment Court has now set the appeal down for a hearing in the weeks
commencing 29 May and 6 June 2017. The parties will now need to work towards
the preparation and exchange of evidence in accordance with this
timetable.
Around
the Mountain Cycle Trail
25 The
Environment Court released its decision on the appeal by Fish and Game against
the consent that was granted for section 8 of the ATMCT on 14 November.
26 In
its decision the Court has upheld the Fish and Game appeal meaning that the
consent has now been declined. Officers have had work completed to analyse the
decision and provide advice for Council on the options that it has for
responding to the decision including whether to lodge an appeal.
27 In
parallel with decisions around whether or not to appeal the decision there is
also a need for the Council to complete a ‘stocktake’ of the
options that might exist for moving forward in light of the Environment Courts
decision. Officers are scoping this work and will be looking to engage with the
Project Governance Committee early in the new calendar year.
Curio
Bay Project
28 Development
of the new Curio Bay wastewater treatment plant is well advanced and proceeding
in accordance with the project plan.
29 The
Council application to the Mid-Sized Regional Tourism Facilities Fund was not
successful. The feedback received that the application was of a high quality
and that the project fitted the criteria apart from the fact that it was
approved after 13 May, when the scheme was announced and was reliant on the
funding to enable it to proceed.
30 It
is important, for any future applications, that Council adopt a high level
strategic approach to the development of facilities that will support growth
from tourists/visitors to the district.
Resource
Management
31 Mediation
is being scheduled for the remaining appeals on the Proposed Southland District
Plan. It is likely that mediation will occur in the first few months of 2017.
There are five remaining appeals as four have already been resolved through
previous mediation. It is likely that mediation will occur at the end of
January or during February.
32 Council
has declined a subdivision consent to create five new lots on Charles Nairn
Road, Te Anau. An Independent Commissioner was appointed to hear and make a
decision on the application. His reasons for declining the decision focused on
maintaining the rural amenity of the area, the intensity and cumulative effects
of development. The proposed average allotment size in the application was 1ha
whereas the current average allotment size along William Stephen Road was
approximately 2.9ha.
33 Council
has recently approved resource consent for a commercial airport approximately
2km south of the Kingston Township. The application seeks to establish a
hanger, grass strip and operate up to 10 aircraft and 10 helicopter movements
per day. The closest dwelling (who has provided approval) is approximately
1.1km from the airstrip.
Resource
Consents and Other Resource Management Act Items - April to October 2016
34 Attached
to this report is a schedule of the non-notified resource consents and other
Resource Management Act items processed by the Resource Management
Department staff, under delegation from the Council during April to October
2016.
April 2016
35 An
average processing time of 17.42 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 14 non-notified consents processed.
Eleven consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.
The 3 consents processed outside of the statutory timeframe were as a result of
applicants wishing to view a draft decision prior to issue and all provided a
section 37 timeframe extension.
36 Also
processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified application; (1)
Certificate of Compliance application; (2) Withdrawn applications; (1)
Section 348 Right of Way Extension of timeframe application; (1) Section 243(e)
Cancellation of Easement application and (2) Section 241 Cancellation of Amalgamation
applications.
37 The
number of applications processed was average this month with 14 non-notified
consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application.
May 2016
38 An
average processing time of 13.86 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 22 non-notified consents processed. All
consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.
39 Also
processed during this timeframe was (1) Section 348 Right of Way application;
and (1) Section 241 Cancellation of Amalgamation application.
40 The
number of applications processed was higher this month with 22 non-notified
consents being processed.
June 2016
41 An
average processing time of 18.11 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 17 non-notified consents processed.
Twelve consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe.
Of the 5 consents processed outside the statutory timeframe 2 consents were
granted Section 37 extension of timeframe while the applicant reviewed the
draft decision; 1 consent was historic (lodged in 2007) and the 20 working
day timeframe is not applicable and 2 consents were subject to a discount for
going overtime by 1 day.
42 Also
processed during this timeframe were (2) Certificate of Compliance applications
and (2) Section 243(e) Cancellation of Easement applications.
43 The
number of applications processed was average this month with 17 non-notified
consents being processed.
July 2016
44 An
average processing time of 19.14 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 14 non-notified consents processed.
Eleven of the resource consents were processed within the 20 working day
statutory timeframe.
45 The
higher average processing time was a result of one application taking much
longer to process - the information lodged was insufficient and it was thought
the application had been returned to the applicant under Section 88(3), but due
to internal miscommunication this had not occurred.
46 Also
processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified Land Use application;
(2) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice applications; (1) Section
243(e) Cancellation of Easement application and (1) Section 127 Change or
Cancellation of Condition application.
47 The
number of applications processed was lower this month with 14 non-notified
consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application. July is
traditionally a quieter month.
August 2016
48 An
average processing time of 16.45 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 11 non-notified consents processed. All
of the resource consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory
timeframe.
49 Also
processed during this timeframe was (1) Section 127 Change or Cancellation of
Condition application and (1) Withdrawn application.
50 The
number of applications processed was lower this month with 11 non-notified
consents being processed. August is traditionally a quieter month being
winter, with less activity.
September 2016
51 An
average processing time of 18.08 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 12 non-notified consents processed.
Three consents were processed outside of the 20 working day statutory
timeframe. In all three instances this was due to the applicant wishing to
review the draft decision and a Section 37 timeframe extension was granted by
the applicant.
52 Also
processed during this timeframe was (1) Limited Notified Land Use application;
(1) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice application and (2)
Section 88 applications returned to the applicants as incomplete.
53 The
number of applications processed was lower this month with 12 non-notified
consents being processed and 1 Limited Notified application.
October 2016
54 An
average processing time of 17.64 working days from receipt of all required
information was achieved for the 28 non-notified consents processed. 21
consents were processed within the 20 working day statutory timeframe. Those
that were processed outside of the statutory timeframe were all as a result of
applicants wishing to review the decision before issue - with the exception of
one consent where issue was delayed as a result of staff illness.
55 Also
processed during this timeframe were (2) Section 127 Change of Condition
applications; (2) Section 221 (3) Variation of Consent Notice
applications; (1) Section 139 Certificate of Compliance application; (3)
Section 243(g) Cancellation of Easement applications and (1) Section 241
Cancellation of Amalgamation Condition application.
56 The
number of applications processed was higher this month with 28 non-notified
consents being processed.
Community
and Futures
Strategy
and Policy
57 The
2017/18 annual plan is currently being developed and local estimates meetings
are underway. A Councillors’ workshop will be held on 15 December 2016 to
discuss issues affecting the development of the plan.
58 Progress
on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) continues. The infrastructure strategy
and financial strategy are in the process of being developed and will be
presented to Council in early 2017. Activity planning has commenced whereby all
activity managers review their activities in preparation for the LTP. There are
a number of work streams occurring as part of the LTP project including the
review of policies, budgeting, community board and CDA planning, the review of
performance measures and community engagement. A Council workshop is planned for
15 December 2016 to review arising policy issues.
Governance
59 Introduction
workshops were completed for all Community Boards, with support from CPLs,
during November. There was good turnout with discussion amongst Board members
at each meeting on how they wished to operate. The inaugural Board meetings
were held in late November and early December.
60 There
has also been a significant level of work required to support the Council
induction process and establishment of the new Council Committee Structure. A
number of Councillors attended the LGNZ Elected Members induction programme
held in Gore on 8 December 2016.
61 A
two day Councillor tour of Western Southland was also completed.
Community
Partnership Leaders
62 The
CPLs will be working with each of their Community Boards and CDAs to develop
Community Leadership Plans outlining the key goals and strategic priorities
that each Board/CDA wants to see progressed their community. The development of
these plans will comment following the CDA elections in March 2017.
63 Work
has been progressed to finalise a Southland District Community Facilities
Assessment project brief. This project is looking at how we might complete an
assessment of the current range of facilities and what might be needed in the
future. The project definition is complete and with Venture Southland for
action.
64 Involvement
with Ministry of Education concerning possible Western Southland Community of
Learning initiative.
Building
Control
65 Building
Consent numbers for October 2016 were back by 14% and Project Values back by
19% from those of the corresponding 2015 period. Four months into the new
financial year, total Building Consent numbers are up by 3%, but Project Values
are back by 15%. All Building Category consent numbers were back slightly with
the except for Commercial, Heating Unit and Houses for Removal consents which
were up on the corresponding period for last financial year.
|
|
|
No.
|
2016
$
|
No.
|
2015
$
|
|
1.
|
Dwellings
|
12
|
3,193,600
|
16
|
4,189,800
|
|
2.
|
Additions to Dwellings
|
8
|
239,000
|
10
|
432,000
|
|
3.
|
Commercial/Industrial Buildings
|
8
|
2,015,154
|
8
|
1,582,212
|
|
4.
|
Swimming/Spa Pools
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
5.
|
Heating Units
|
10
|
40,500
|
2
|
7,250
|
|
6.
|
Garages
|
3
|
18,000
|
12
|
327,400
|
|
7.
|
Farm Buildings
|
10
|
392,340
|
12
|
621,500
|
|
8.
|
Houses for Removal
|
6
|
151,000
|
3
|
10,000
|
|
9.
|
Cowsheds
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
200,000
|
|
10.
|
Miscellaneous
|
3
|
23,500
|
4
|
63,565
|
|
11.
|
Certificates of Acceptance
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
42,000
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
60
|
6,073,094
|
7070
|
7,475,727
|
|
|
2016
|
2015
|
Variation %
|
|
Total consents for month
|
60
|
70
|
-14.29
|
|
Total consents for year
|
346
|
335
|
3.28
|
|
Total project values for month
|
6,073,094
|
7,475,727
|
-18.76
|
|
Total project values for year
|
24,622,676
|
28,800,675
|
-14.51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Residential Cost
|
290,327
|
261,863
|
|
|
Average House Area (m2)
|
183.09
|
247.83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Inspections Carried Out
|
350
|
397
|
|
66 Building
consent numbers for November are up by 21% from 90 in 2015 to 109 in 2016.
However the total value of work is down by .66% and the project value is down
11.3% from the corresponding period last year. The total number of consents for
the year is up 7% from 425 in 2015 to 455 in 2016. There were 15 applications
for new dwellings most of these were in the Te Anau area. There were 9
commercial consent applications which were distributed around the district and
18 farm buildings which included tanks for effluent storage.
|
|
|
No.
|
2016
$
|
No.
|
2015
$
|
|
1.
|
Dwellings
|
25
|
5,227,000
|
20
|
4,829,000
|
|
2.
|
Additions to Dwellings
|
21
|
764,580
|
17
|
1,690,000
|
|
3.
|
Commercial/Industrial Buildings
|
9
|
647,458
|
6
|
228,000
|
|
4.
|
Swimming/Spa Pools
|
1
|
35,000
|
0
|
0
|
|
5.
|
Heating Units
|
21
|
76,200
|
7
|
28,626
|
|
6.
|
Garages
|
7
|
133,600
|
7
|
127,200
|
|
7.
|
Farm Buildings
|
19
|
1,176,800
|
20
|
1,192,000
|
|
8.
|
Houses for Removal
|
4
|
104,350
|
3
|
200,000
|
|
9.
|
Cowsheds
|
1
|
308,850
|
1
|
200,000
|
|
10.
|
Miscellaneous
|
2
|
8,000
|
7
|
36,000
|
|
11.
|
Certificates of Acceptance
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
7,500
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
11010
|
8,481,838
|
9090
|
8,538,326
|
|
|
2016
|
2015
|
Variation %
|
|
Total consents for month
|
110
|
90
|
22.22
|
|
Total consents for year
|
455
|
425
|
7.06
|
|
Total project values for month
|
8,481,838
|
8,538,326
|
-0.66
|
|
Total project values for year
|
33,104,514
|
37,339,001
|
-11.34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Residential Cost
|
435,583
|
241,450
|
|
|
Average House Area (m2)
|
250.90
|
199.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Inspections Carried Out
|
331
|
417
|
|
67 Attached
to this report are the detailed statistics for Building Consents.
Information
Services
Property
File Digitisation
68 Currently,
we are still working in ‘Pilot’ mode which means that only a small
part of the paper property files have been sent away to be scanned
(approximately. 2400 property files). This is allowing us to refine the
various quality assurance processes that are required to ensure that the
scanning process is meeting the standard we need.
69 The
recent North Canterbury earthquakes have created a challenge with the movement
of property files to be scanned given the pressure that is now on transport
services. An interim solution has been found which will allow some files to be
moved with a major shipment delayed until the first part of 2017. This risk
will continue to be monitored.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Management Report” dated 8 December 2016.
|
Attachments
a Resource
Consent Activity April - October 2016 ⇩
b Consents
Database Graph - October 2016 ⇩
c Building
Consents Issued Numbers - October 2016 ⇩
d Building
Consents Issued Values - October 2016 ⇩
e Consents
Database Graph - November 2016 ⇩
f Building
Consents Issued Numbers - November 2016 ⇩
g Building
Consents Issued Values - November 2016 ⇩
April 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2013/53051
|
C J Lindsay
|
385 Feldwick Road, Feldwick
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Indigenous vegetation modification -
three small degraded peat bogs as part of a development programme
|
24
|
1,000.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
22/04/2016
withdrawn
|
|
2015/53178
|
Enterprising Faith Limited
|
85 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Operate scenic and fishing boat trips on
Lake Te Anau with guided walks in Fiordland National Park
|
13
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
20/04/2016
withdrawn
|
|
2015/53210
|
Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited
|
10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Establish and operate a Rural Supplies
Store
|
80
|
11,098.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
29/04/2016
Limited Notified
|
|
2016/53017
|
A C O'Meara and
T W Sorensen
|
29 Weir Road, Waianiwa
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - three lots - Split
consent see 360/10/16/39
|
25
|
584.25
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
1/04/2016
|
|
2016/53019
|
I C Ward
|
69 Palmerston Street, Riverton North
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Subdivide to create two lots
|
15
|
540.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
28/04/2016
|
|
2016/53028
|
Carran Scott Contracting Company Limited
|
580 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Earthworks - Gravel extraction
|
9
|
1,826.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
5/04/2016
|
|
2016/53031
|
Southern Centre Dairies Limited
|
851 Hokonui School Road, Browns
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Earthworks - Gravel extraction -
7,000 m3 per year as a commercial quarry
|
22
|
870.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
20/04/2016
|
|
2016/53035
|
Apolima Farms Limited
|
1264 Riverton Otautau Road, Gummies Bush
- Gropers Bush
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Rural subdivision -Two lots
|
13
|
500.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
4/04/2016
|
|
2016/53036
|
Two Degrees Mobile Limited
|
1103 Woodlands Invercargill Highway,
Woodlands
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Establishment and maintenance and
operation of telecommunications facility.
|
15
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
1/04/2016
|
|
2016/53039
|
A C O'Meara and
T W Sorensen
|
29 Weir Road, Waianiwa
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Building platforms within 150 m
separation
|
25
|
584.25
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
1/04/2016
|
|
2016/53040
|
Alliance Group Limited
|
225 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Industrial Subdivision - Six lot
subdivision - Split consent see also 360/10/16/41 and 360/10/16/42
|
19
|
310.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
21/04/2016
|
|
2016/53041
|
Alliance Group Limited
|
175 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
S348 approval to create an Easement for
Right of Way - Split consent see also 360/10/16/40 and 360/10/16/42
|
19
|
310.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
21/04/2016
|
|
2016/53042
|
Alliance Group Limited
|
175 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Land use - cancellation of existing
S241 (2) certificates - Split consent, see also 360/10/16/40 and 360/10/16/41
|
19
|
310.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
21/04/2016
|
|
2016/53043
|
R L McNaught and
D G McNaught
|
136 Forbes Road, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
11
|
5,500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
6/04/2016
|
|
2016/53046
|
Kendalvale Farms Limited
|
159 Teviotdale Road, Isla Bank
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Erect a wintering shed
|
12
|
500.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
12/04/2016
|
|
2016/53047
|
Glenfalloch Limited
|
63 Waikawa Valley Road, Waikawa Valley
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
19
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
21/04/2016
|
|
2016/53049
|
Castlerock Dairies Limited
|
109 Double Road, Castlerock
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Boundary
adjustment
|
20
|
500.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
20/04/2016
|
|
2016/53050
|
The Power Company Limited
|
253 Sinclair Road, Browns
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Certificate of Compliance - NES - Cabinet
and antenna as now PA'S under the INF.1 Rule
|
14
|
500.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
13/04/2016
|
|
2016/53051
|
Castlerock Dairies Limited
|
647 Sutherland Road, Castlerock
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two allotments
|
20
|
740.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
20/04/2016
|
|
2016/53053
|
T A D O'Brien and
K A O'Brien
|
94 McLean Road, Garston
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 226 - split consent see
360/10/16/54
|
19
|
255.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
28/04/2016
|
|
2016/53054
|
T A D O'Brien and
K A O'Brien
|
94 McLean Road, Garston
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Cancellation of a Section 241 certificate
- split consent see 360/10/16/53
|
19
|
255.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
28/04/2016
|
|
2016/53065
|
Manildra Stockfeeds
NZ Pty Ltd
|
226 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 234(e) approval to cancel an
existing easement
|
12
|
240.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
21/04/2016
|
May 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2015/53249
|
N D Cleaver and
B S Cleaver
|
144 Colac Foreshore Road, Colac Bay -
Tihaka
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Build new dwelling within 1 metre if the
side boundary
|
6
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
3/05/2016
|
|
2016/53004
|
P A Buick
|
589 Ryal Bush Wallacetown Road,
Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Two Lot Subdivision - Buick Subdivision
|
14
|
500.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
5/05/2016
|
|
2016/53018
|
Blue Sky Meats (NZ) Limited
|
729 Woodlands Morton Mains Road, Morton
Mains
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Construct an effluent pond
|
13
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
6/05/2016
|
|
2016/53021
|
Haurua Farm Limited
|
435 Orion Road West, Makarewa West
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision
|
13
|
1,359.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
31/05/2016
|
|
2016/53030
|
Te Anau Lodge (2007) Limited
|
229 Milford Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Erect a sign to advertise our Bed and
Breakfast.
|
10
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
4/05/2016
|
|
2016/53034
|
Opus International Consultants Limited -
Dunedin
|
966 Athol Five Rivers Highway, Five
Rivers - Parawa
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - To facilitate the
disposal of former Kingston Branch Railway land
|
4
|
750.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
31/05/2016
|
|
2016/53045
|
Longwood Farms Limited
|
142 Endowment Road, Pebbly Hills
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Earthworks - Gravel extraction - up to
11,000 m3 per year for 15 years
|
18
|
840.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
30/05/2016
|
|
2016/53048
|
W M Renton
|
17 Lyne Street, Nightcaps
|
Waiau Aparima
|
To keep two horses on site.
|
15
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
25/05/2016
|
|
2016/53052
|
Ralph Moir and Associates
|
65 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Section 348 application to create a Right
of Way
|
18
|
540.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
10/05/2016
|
|
2016/53055
|
D R Bleasel
|
361 Great North Road, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Urban Subdivision - Two new allotments -
split consent see 360/10/16/74
|
19
|
600.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
5/05/2016
|
|
2016/53057
|
A Irving and M A Irving
|
205 Blondell Road, Kennington
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Three new allotments
|
16
|
500.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
2/05/2016
|
|
2016/53059
|
Quarter Moon Limited
|
59 Lynwood Road, Hillside
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
14
|
500.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
5/05/2016
|
|
2016/53060
|
R J Flynn
|
52 Orbell Crescent, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Urban Subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
13
|
740.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
6/05/2016
|
|
2016/53061
|
Seaview Trust
|
746 Rimu Seaward Downs Road, Oteramika
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two allotments
|
14
|
1,147.10
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
13/05/2016
|
|
2016/53062
|
Two Degrees Mobile Limited
|
25 Scenic Reserve Road, Edendale
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Telecommunications installation
|
14
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
23/05/2016
|
|
2016/53063
|
W J Gill
|
63 Northview Avenue, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Construct a dwelling that is in breach of
the front yard setback
|
20
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
13/05/2016
|
|
2016/53064
|
Paddock 186 Limited and G K Hull
|
186 Waimatuku Flat Road, Waimatuku -
Wrights Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
To operate a commercial kitchen and
dining activity
|
29
|
1,403.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
31/05/2016
|
|
2016/53066
|
B R Gray and G K Gray
|
197 Collinson Road, Ryal Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
16
|
500.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
17/05/2016
|
|
2016/53069
|
Jayal Trust
|
36 Moana Crescent, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To increase the car parking area at
FreshChoice Supermarket-Te Anau
|
18
|
600.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
31/05/2016
|
|
2016/53071
|
Aurum Farming Limited
|
2533 Wreys Bush Mossburn Road,
Dunrobin
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new
allotments - split consent see 360/10/16/72 - cancellation Section 241
certificate
|
16
|
250.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
24/05/2016
|
|
2016/53072
|
Aurum Farming Limited
|
2533 Wreys Bush Mossburn Road, Dunrobin
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Cancellation of Section 241 certificate -
split consent - see 360/10/16/71- subdivision
|
16
|
250.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
24/05/2016
|
|
2016/53073
|
P J Balneaves and
V J Balneaves
|
36 Taramea Bay Road, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Erect a garage on the boundary
|
13
|
500.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
18/05/2016
|
|
2016/53081
|
R K Imlach and
P R Imlach
|
31 Towack Street, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Construct a single level dwelling that
breaches the height recession plane
|
13
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
31/05/2016
|
|
2016/53090
|
R G Horrell and
L S Horrell
|
52 Breaksea Street, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Construction of a carport
|
8
|
500.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
31/05/2016
|
June 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2007/53172
|
G W Keen and
R A Keen
|
185 Devereux Road, Lady Barkly
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
To create two new allotments
|
28
|
550.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
16/06/2016
|
|
2016/53056
|
Land Information New Zealand
|
Unassessed land at Lumsden
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
18
|
500.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
29/06/2016
|
|
2016/53067
|
C E F Kidd
|
10 Thomsons Crossing Road West, Thomsons
Crossing
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Construct a dwelling and two sheds which
are workshops for building company.
|
15
|
720.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
28/06/2016
|
|
2016/53068
|
The Carrington Trust
|
1157 Garston Athol Highway, Athol
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments -
spilt consent see 360/10/16/92- breach of recession plane.
|
14
|
370.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
3/06/2016
|
|
2016/53075
|
R J W Faulkner
|
140 North Makarewa Grove Bush Road, Ryal
Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 139 Certificate of Compliance -
Moving the approved building platform
|
20
|
360.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
2/06/2016
|
|
2016/53079
|
LM Rentals Limited
|
43 Mary Street, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Urban Subdivision - Two new allotments
|
19
|
250.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
7/06/2016
|
|
2016/53080
|
Alliance Group Limited
|
225 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 127 Change of Condition
-Variation to Subdivision 360/1016/40 / 360/1016/41 and 360/10/16/42
|
17
|
750.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
7/06/2016
|
|
2016/53083
|
Bare Hill Limited
|
2700 Otapiri Mandeville Road, Hokonui
Hills
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
19
|
540.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
13/06/2016
|
|
2016/53085
|
M I Hagen
|
415 Weir Road, Freestone - Mararoa
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Three new allotments
|
24
|
750.00
|
Theresa
Cameron
|
20/06/2016
|
|
2016/53086
|
C M Adams and
P A Adams
|
(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 250 Carmichael
Road
|
Waiau Aparima
|
New transportable dwellings - The
dwellings are within 200 m of a designated gravel pit.
|
17
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
10/06/2016
|
|
2016/53088
|
J Lewis
|
7 Carlyle Street, Tuatapere
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Urban Subdivision - Three Lots - Split
Consent see 360/10/16/89
|
20
|
657.60
|
Marcus
Roy
|
20/06/2016
|
|
2016/53089
|
J Lewis
|
7 Carlyle Street, Tuatapere
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Section 243(e) - Cancel easement - Split
consent see 360/10/16/88
|
20
|
657.60
|
Marcus
Roy
|
20/06/2016
|
|
2016/53091
|
C M Withington and
S C Howden and
M S Thomas
|
30 Counsell Road, Makarewa
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
To shift the approved building platform
360/10/15/62
|
21
|
500.00
|
Jennifer
Green
|
29/06/2016
|
|
2016/53092
|
The Carrington Trust
|
1157 Garston Athol Highway, Athol
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Breach of recession plane - Split consent
see 360/10/16/68
|
14
|
370.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
3/06/2016
|
|
2016/53094
|
B. & M. Scammell Limited
|
4 Price Road, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Two allotments- split
consent see 360/10/16/95
|
21
|
250.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
29/06/2016
|
|
2016/53095
|
B. & M. Scammell Limited
|
4 Price Road, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
To locate a dwelling within the building
platform identified on Lot 2 - Split consent see 360/10/16/94
|
21
|
250.00
|
Kelwyn
Osborn
|
29/06/2016
|
|
2016/53096
|
B M Brand
|
750 Woodlands Invercargill Highway,
Longbush
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Three lots - split
consent see 360/10/16/97
|
16
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
23/06/2016
|
|
2016/53097
|
B M Brand
|
750 Woodlands Invercargill Highway,
Longbush
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Section 139 Certificate of compliance -To
locate a dwelling within the identified building platform on Lots 1-3 - split
consent see 360/10/16/96
|
16
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
23/06/2016
|
|
2016/53099
|
LM Rentals Limited
|
43 Mary Street, Otautau
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Existing shed to breach recession plane
and side yard requirements - Split consent see 360/10/16/79
|
19
|
250.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
7/06/2016
|
|
2016/53100
|
Bob's Concrete & Building Limited
|
52 Home Street, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement
|
16
|
240.00
|
Marcus
Roy
|
22/06/2016
|
|
2016/53105
|
A L van Uden and
J D MacManus
|
9 McGregor Court, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Carport which breaches the side yard
boundary and height recession plane.
|
5
|
500.00
|
Olivia
Krielen
|
21/06/2016
|
July 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2016/53077
|
Department of Conservation Invercargill Office
|
601 Waikawa Curio Bay Road, Slope Point - Curio Bay
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
To undertake an amenity upgrade at Curio Bay incorporating
construction of a new visitor car park, realignment of part of Mair Road and
construction of the new road alignment.
|
25
|
1,350.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
21/07/2016
|
|
2016/53078
|
A L McCracken
|
1 Dover Street, Orepuki
|
Waiau Aparima
|
“Off-site signage”
|
85
|
249.98
|
Marcus Roy
|
4/07/2016
|
|
2016/53082
|
E A Stephens
|
32 Otahuti Wrights Bush Road South, Waimatuku - Wrights
Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment - Bundle consent
with 360/16/124
|
16
|
562.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
20/07/2016
|
|
2016/53093
|
Pahia Point Limited
|
87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent
with 360/10/16/129 and 360/10/16/130
|
24
|
580.66
|
Theresa Cameron
|
29/07/2016
|
|
2016/53101
|
L F Strang
|
98 Waimatuku Township Road, Waimatuku
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Three new allotments
|
18
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
1/07/2016
|
|
2016/53103
|
J L Meikle
|
51 Tokanui Gorge Road Highway, Gorge Road
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
(Opus) Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
16
|
740.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
4/07/2016
|
|
2016/53108
|
B J Irwin and R M Irwin
|
83 Dejoux Road, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
(Opus) Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
7
|
740.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
5/07/2016
|
|
2016/53109
|
Fiordland Outdoors Company Limited
|
12 Paton Place, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To locate a four bay shed and office building
|
20
|
720.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
19/07/2016
|
|
2016/53110
|
Firdale Farms Limited
|
377 Edendale Seaward Downs Road, Menzies Ferry
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
11
|
740.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
8/07/2016
|
|
2016/53113
|
C J Jane and T D Jane
|
473 Waikawa Curio Bay Road, Waikawa
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
To build and extension to an existing dwelling
|
8
|
500.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
20/07/2016
|
|
2016/53114
|
I J Maher
|
2 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To operate a bed and breakfast accommodation
|
7
|
744.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53114
|
I J Maher
|
2 Lakefront Drive, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To operate a bed and breakfast accommodation
|
7
|
744.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53116
|
J W Caldwell and
A J Caldwell
|
16 Douglas Street, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 348 - Right of way easement
|
17
|
360.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
22/07/2016
|
|
2016/53117
|
Fiordland Trails Trust
|
234 Golf Course Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 348 - Right of way easement
|
20
|
360.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53118
|
P H van Berkel
|
(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 75 Brightwater Road
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent
see 360/10/16/119 - cancellation of easement
|
19
|
709.50
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53119
|
P H van Berkel
|
(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 75 Brightwater Road
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement - Bundle consent
see 360/10/16/118
|
19
|
240.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53125
|
L J Rule
|
948 Wilsons Crossing Road, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
(Opus) To construct an additional
dwellinghouse and accessory building on the site of an existing
dwellinghouse.
|
3
|
1,020.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53125
|
L J Rule
|
948 Wilsons Crossing Road, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
(Opus) To construct an additional dwellinghouse and
accessory building on the site of an existing dwellinghouse.
|
3
|
1,020.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
28/07/2016
|
|
2016/53126
|
G P Robson and
B J Robson
|
58 Achison Road, Ryal Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
(Opus) To erect a garage within the 4.5 metre front yard
setback
|
6
|
600.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
27/07/2016
|
|
2016/53129
|
Pahia Point Limited
|
87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Section 127 - Cancellation of conditions - upgrade to SH
intersection no longer required as part of Resource Consent 60/3/05/180 -
Bundle consent with 360/10/16/93 and 360/10/16/130
|
24
|
580.66
|
Theresa Cameron
|
29/07/2016
|
|
2016/53130
|
Pahia Point Limited
|
87 Tihaka Beach Road, Longwood
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Section 221(3) - Part Cancellation of easement of consent
notice 60/3/05/180 - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/93 and 360/10/16/129
|
24
|
580.66
|
Theresa Cameron
|
29/07/2016
|
|
2016/53124
|
E A Stephens
|
32 Otahuti Wrights Bush Road
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 221(3) - Cancellation of Consent Notice
|
1
|
562.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
19/07/2016
|
|
2015/53182
|
Winton Skate Park Trust
|
37 John Street, Winton
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Develop and construct a multi use skate park
|
123
|
TBC
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
10/08/2016
Limited Notified
|
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2016/53102
|
Nelson Petroleum Distributors Limited
|
37 Devon Street, Mossburn
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Establishment of a 24-hour self-service fuel facility
|
20
|
3,065.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
15/08/2016
|
|
2016/53104
|
Fiordland Outdoors Company Limited
|
1000 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Surface water activity - Commercial jet boat with two
boats on the upper Waiau and the Waiau Arm of Lake Manapouri down to the
Mararoa Weir and a commercial water taxi service on the Upper Waiau River and
the Waiau Arm of Lake Manapouri down to the Mararoa Weir
|
9
|
930.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
11/08/2016
|
|
2016/53111
|
Pahia Point Limited
|
375 Frentz Road, Pahia
|
Waiau Aparima
|
(Opus) Rural subdivision - Three allotments - Bundle
consent 360/10/16/112 - Land use consent to erect dwellings on proposed
building platforms A and B
|
16
|
1,779.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
8/08/2016
|
|
2016/53112
|
Pahia Point Limited
|
375 Frentz Road, Pahia
|
Waiau Aparima
|
(Opus) To erect dwellings on proposed
building platforms A and B - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/111 - Subdivision
three lots
|
16
|
240.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
8/08/2016
|
|
2016/53122
|
R J Miller and
T E V Miller
|
499 Riversdale Waikaia Road, Waipounamu
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Build within 150 metres of neighbours’ dwelling
|
17
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
22/08/2016
|
|
2016/53127
|
J S Burrows and
Y M Campbell-Burrows
|
128 Rocks Highway, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Build new dwelling and detached garage
|
20
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
16/08/2016
|
|
2016/53128
|
Southland District Council
|
120 Stevens Road, Niagara
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Earthworks - Develop and extract further material from
existing historical Mairs quarry site
|
20
|
1,507.25
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
26/08/2016
|
|
2016/53132
|
N P Terpstra and
D E Terpstra
|
392 Kennington Roslyn Bush Road, Roslyn Bush
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Section 127 - Removal of Condition 8 from Resource Consent
360/10/08/353
|
6
|
500.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
5/08/2016
|
|
2016/53133
|
L A Smith
|
136 Howden Street, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Dwelling that breaches the recession plane on the east
side
|
7
|
0.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
5/08/2016
withdrawn
|
|
2016/53134
|
P B Smith and
S A Smith
|
202 Mona Bush Road, Longbush
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
17
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
23/08/2016
|
|
2016/53135
|
M J Gill
|
95 Gill Road, Merrivale
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
13
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
17/08/2016
|
|
2016/53136
|
Tralee Vale Farm Limited
|
465 Kennington Waimatua Road, Waimatua
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
15
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
23/08/2016
|
|
2016/53142
|
Real Journeys Limited
|
74 Waiau Street, Manapouri
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To operate upto four commercial vessels on Lake Manapouri
|
18
|
570.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
29/08/2016
|
August 2016
September 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision
Date
|
|
2016/53058
|
Waipounamu Contracting Limited
|
69 Riversdale Waikaia Road, Riversdale
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural contractors storage yard
|
83
|
TBC
|
Theresa Cameron
|
30/09/2016
Limited Notified
|
|
2016/53098
|
Driffield Farming Limited
|
209 Hamlyn Road, Barnhill
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Earthworks - Gravel extraction upto 20,000 m3
over a five year period
|
13
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
5/09/2016
|
|
2016/53139
|
Gap Road Services Limited
|
83 Dejoux Road, Winton
|
Winton
Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
23
|
600.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
6/09/2016
|
|
2016/53140
|
D J Richardson and
J E N Gray
|
889 Lorne Dacre Road, Rakahouka
|
Winton
Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Three new allotments - Bundle consent
see 360/10/16/153 - two new building platforms
|
15
|
300.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
6/09/2016
|
|
2016/53141
|
Driffield Farming Limited
|
30 Hamlyn Road, Barnhill
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
(Opus) Redpath Steel Framed Standoff Shelter
|
14
|
600.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
9/09/2016
|
|
2016/53145
|
S J Stock and
M T Stock
|
348 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments - Bundle consent
with 360/10/16/146- cancellation of consent notice
|
24
|
300.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
27/09/2016
|
|
2016/53146
|
S J Stock and
M T Stock
|
348 Manapouri Te Anau Highway, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 221(3) - Cancellation of consent notice - Bundle
consent 360/10/16/145
|
24
|
300.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
27/09/2016
|
|
2016/53150
|
J A Macmillan Armstrong and S J Macmillan Armstrong
|
135 William Stephen Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Shift the building platform and build new dwelling.
|
20
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
19/09/2016
|
|
2016/53151
|
Tower Peak Holdings Limited
|
1793 Blackmount Redcliff Road, Whare Creek - The Key
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Boundary adjustment
|
26
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
28/09/2016
|
|
2016/53153
|
D J Richardson and
J E N Gray
|
889 Lorne Dacre Road, Rakahouka
|
Winton
Wallacetown
|
Two building platforms - Bundle consent with 360/10/16/140
- Subdivision
|
15
|
300.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
6/09/2016
|
|
2016/53156
|
R R Burgess and
B M Burgess
|
17 Orbell Crescent, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To establish visitor accommodation for up to nine people.
|
11
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
9/09/2016
|
|
2016/53157
|
Southern Centre Dairies Limited
|
560 Browns Otapiri Road, Browns
|
Winton
Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - four new allotments
|
20
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
28/09/2016
|
|
2016/53159
|
P Senior and
K Senior
|
85 William Stephen Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Create new building platform
|
20
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
30/09/2016
|
|
2016/53160
|
R M Jones and
M R Jones
|
(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 50 Young Road
|
Winton
Wallacetown
|
Build a dwelling within 150 m of neighbour’s
property
|
16
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
22/09/2016
|
|
2016/53162
|
J W McMillan and
R D McMillan
|
10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To erect a building platform
|
9
|
N/A
|
Dianne Williams
|
13/09/2016
Sec 88
|
|
2016/53174
|
G B Lawrence and
T A Hanna
|
23 Diana Street, Lumsden
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To run a Sunday market between the hours of 9.30 am
and 1.30 pm
|
5
|
N/A
|
Dianne Williams
|
26/09/2016
Sec 88
|
October 2016
|
Application
Number
|
Applicant
|
Address
|
Ward
|
Description
of Application
|
Working Days
(from receipt of all information)
|
Total Costs
Incurred
|
Processing
Officer
|
Decision Date
|
|
2015/53253
|
T W Young
|
38 Manse Street, Edendale
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Three new allotments- split consent -
land use consent - residential dwelling that does not meet the meet the
150 m separation
|
17
|
570.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
17/10/2016
|
|
2015/53254
|
T W Young
|
38 Manse Street, Edendale
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
New dwelling breaches 150 m separation - spilt
consent - see 360/10/15/253- subdivision
|
17
|
570.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
17/10/2016
|
|
2016/53026
|
GreenOcean Limited
|
2 Neva Street, Fortrose
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Subdivision - Create two lots - Split consent see also
360/10/16/27
|
27
|
918.75
|
Theresa Cameron
|
21/10/2016
|
|
2016/53027
|
GreenOcean Limited
|
2 Neva Street, Fortrose
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Residential dwelling - Split consent , see also
360/10/16/26
|
27
|
918.75
|
Theresa Cameron
|
21/10/2016
|
|
2016/53044
|
Bathurst Coal Limited
|
571 Sinclair Road, Opio
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Bathurst Coal Limited - Consent application for Black
Diamond Mine, Tinkertown
|
39
|
3,734.50
|
Jennifer Green
|
6/10/2016
|
|
2016/53106
|
C W McCullough and
J M McCullough
|
76 Walker Street, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
(Opus) Rural subdivision - nine allotments - Bundle
consent see 360/10/16/107 - Land Use Consent for building platforms
|
22
|
2,660.80
|
Dianne Williams
|
10/10/2016
|
|
2016/53107
|
C W McCullough and
J M McCullough
|
76 Walker Street, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Building platforms- Bundle consent see 360/10/16/106 -
Subdivision - nine allotments
|
22
|
2,660.80
|
Dianne Williams
|
10/10/2016
|
|
2016/53121
|
Riverton Racing Club Incorporated
|
2236 Riverton Wallacetown Highway, Riverton Racecourse
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Operate a parkover camp
|
20
|
500.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
31/10/2016
|
|
2016/53131
|
M L Dobbins and
B J Dobbins
|
7 Wohlers Road, Stewart Island
|
Stewart Island Rakiura
|
To build a garage
|
11
|
600.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
3/10/2016
|
|
2016/53147
|
S Dawson
|
46 Bungalow Hill Road, Colac Bay
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Rural boundary adjustment subdivision - Two new allotments
|
19
|
746.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
11/10/2016
|
|
2016/53155
|
K M Martin
|
22 Boston Street, Riversdale
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
New dwelling - breach of 150 metre setback rule
|
15
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
6/10/2016
|
|
2016/53158
|
P G Coats
|
208 Dryden Road, Colac Bay - Pahia
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Extension to existing dwelling
|
7
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
19/10/2016
|
|
2016/53161
|
A J Pope and
A M P Pope
|
1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
20
|
187.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
3/10/2016
|
|
2016/53163
|
P M Callahan
|
160 Sinclair Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural subdivision - Two lots - Bundle consent with
360/10/16/164
|
20
|
386.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
11/10/2016
|
|
2016/53164
|
P M Callahan
|
160 Sinclair Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 139 Certificate of Compliance - To locate a
30 m x 30 m building platform on Lot 2 and to locate a
dwelling within the building platform. Bundle consent with 360/10/16/163
|
20
|
386.00
|
Marcus Roy
|
11/10/2016
|
|
2016/53165
|
R D McMillan and
J W McMillan
|
10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 127 Change of Condition - To alter side of
building platform - Bundle consent see
|
20
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
12/10/2016
|
|
2016/53166
|
C M Stalker
|
(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 35 Tihaka Beach Road
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Application to change the farm shed to a dwelling.
|
5
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
27/10/2016
|
|
2016/53167
|
PF Olsen Limited
|
100 Rowallan Road, Rowallan
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Undertake exotic species harvest and cartage
|
20
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
11/10/2016
|
|
2016/53168
|
R P Murdoch and
K L Murdoch
|
31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Rural Zone - Boundary adjustment - Bundle consent with
360/10/16/169 (surrender of easements) and 360/10/16/170 cancellation if
existing easement
|
22
|
300.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53169
|
R P Murdoch and
K L Murdoch
|
31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 241(2) - Surrender of easements for right of way-
Bundle consent with 360/10/16/168 and 360/10/16/170
|
22
|
300.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53170
|
R P Murdoch and
K L Murdoch
|
31 Ramparts Road, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 243(e) - Cancellation of the existing easement -
Bundle consent with 360/10/16/168 and 360/10/16/169
|
22
|
300.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53171
|
Southland Educare
|
51 Pounamu Drive, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Early childcare centre
|
19
|
1,033.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
31/10/2016
|
|
2016/53172
|
W I Dawson and
J M Dawson
|
543 Flora Road East, Makarewa
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 243(e) - Cancellation of a right of way easement
|
16
|
360.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
12/10/2016
|
|
2016/53173
|
B R Gray and
G K Gray
|
197 Collinson Road, Ryal Bush
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Construct a residential building within the proposed building
platform
|
20
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
20/10/2016
|
|
2016/53175
|
A J Pope and
A M P Pope
|
1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 127 Change of Condition - Bundle consent with
360/10/16/76 and 360/10/16/177
|
20
|
187.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
3/10/2016
|
|
2016/53176
|
A J Pope and
A M P Pope
|
1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 221(3) - Part cancellation of consent notice -
Bundle consent with 360/10/16/175 and 360/10/16/177
|
20
|
187.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
3/10/2016
|
|
2016/53177
|
A J Pope and
A M P Pope
|
1059D Winton Lorneville Highway, Lochiel
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Section 243(e) - Cancellation of easement - bundle consent
with 360/10/16/175 and 360/10/16/176
|
20
|
187.50
|
Theresa Cameron
|
3/10/2016
|
|
2016/53178
|
N K Farm Limited
|
200 Progress Valley Road, Progress Valley
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Section 226
|
22
|
360.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
27/10/2016
|
|
2016/53179
|
A J Hamilton and
J A Hamilton
|
217 Mayfield Road, Drummond
|
Waiau Aparima
|
Rural subdivision - two new allotments
|
19
|
600.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
31/10/2016
|
|
2016/53180
|
J B Hopcroft and
J E Hopcroft
|
27 Hamlet Street, Riverton Rocks
|
Waiau Aparima
|
To create a building platform on Lots 1 and 2
|
19
|
600.00
|
Jennifer Green
|
31/10/2016
|
|
2016/53181
|
Southern Stars Early Learning Centre
|
18 Luxmore Drive, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Extend existing building and refit areas internally.
|
12
|
600.00
|
Dianne Williams
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53183
|
S J Cave
|
277 Horseshoe Bay Road, Stewart Island
|
Stewart Island Rakiura
|
Build a kitset shed
|
15
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
27/10/2016
|
|
2016/53184
|
H N Laurie
|
787 Te Anau Mossburn Highway, Hillside
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To build a shed/workshop
|
12
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53186
|
R D McMillan and
J W McMillan
|
10 Holmwood Road, Manapouri
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
Section 221(3) - Variation of consent notice - Bundle
consent with 360/10/16/165
|
20
|
211.00
|
Theresa Cameron
|
12/10/2016
|
|
2016/53188
|
N A List
|
37 Kirkbride Street, Wallacetown
|
Winton Wallacetown
|
Versatile garage 1 m from the west boundary
|
11
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
25/10/2016
|
|
2016/53189
|
D J Johnston and
D J Johnston
|
63 Howden Street, Te Anau
|
Mararoa Waimea
|
To construct a dwelling 3 m from the frontage
|
7
|
600.00
|
Olivia Krielen
|
18/10/2016
|
|
2016/53190
|
South Pro Woodlands Limited
|
262 Trotter Road, Longbush
|
Waihopai Toetoes
|
Rural subdivision - Two new allotments
|
8
|
600.00
|
Kelwyn Osborn
|
19/10/2016
|
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Stewart
Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project
Record No: R/16/11/18406
Author: Michelle
Stevenson, Community Partnership Leader
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☒
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☐
Information
Purpose
1 This
report provides an overview of a project around the medium to long term
wharfing infrastructure needs of Stewart Island. The wharves identified
for consideration and involving wider community and stakeholder engagement are Ulva
Island, Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory, Port William (all
Southland District Council owned), and Golden Bay (Southport).
2 Staff
are seeking approval for an allocation of unbudgeted expenditure to undertake
this project.
Executive
Summary
3 This
is a project of strategic importance and has Local, District, Regional and
National interest. The project will include a Stewart Island community
and stakeholder engagement process, and discussion around how and by whom these
facilities are best delivered and how they might be funded.
4 Southport
NZ has approached Southland District Council (SDC) to consider the future
ownership of Golden Bay wharf, which has prompted the need to consider a more
strategic approach to the current and future provision of wharves on Stewart
Island.
5 A
marine engineering report of Golden Bay wharf has determined that the wharf is
close to the end of its physical life, and requires immediate and short term
maintenance to get it to a fit-for-purpose standard, and will require full
replacement within five years.
6 Halfmoon
Bay wharf is owned and operated by Southport NZ and is the principal wharf on
the Island. Halfmoon Bay wharf is outside the scope of this project and
will not require additional revenue resources from SDC or the Island residents.
Southport will, however, work with commercial users to ensure that the facility
remains commercially viable.
7 Currently,
the five SDC owned wharves and Golden Bay wharf do not generate sufficient
revenue to cover the basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal.
8 The
project identifies three key objectives to evaluate the current situation and
assess future options and strategies, involving community and stakeholder
engagement.
9 Staff
recommend commissioning an independent facilitator to undertake the engagement
process, and engage with an external agency for an independent business
operations plan.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future
Requirements Project” dated 7 December 2016.
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) Endorse
the scope of the project and approves Council to engage in Community and Key
Stakeholder consultation around wharfing provision and future requirements.
e) Approves
unbudgeted expenditure from the CEO’s Consultancy Budget up to a
maximum of $25,000 for an external agency to carry out a business
operation plan and to engage an independent facilitator to undertake the
community and stakeholder engagement process.
|
Content
Background
10 Golden
Bay Wharf:
Southport NZ has approached SDC
to consider the future ownership of Golden Bay wharf, which has prompted the
need to consider a more strategic approach to the current and future provision
of wharves on Stewart Island.
11 A
marine engineering report of Golden Bay wharf has determined that the wharf is
close to the end of its physical life, and requires immediate and short term
maintenance to get it to a fit-for-purpose standard, and will require full
replacement within five years. The estimated cost over a five year period to
repair, maintain and replace Golden Bay wharf is $255,000.00 + GST.
12 The
current annual revenue received towards Golden Bay wharf is estimated at
$12,710.00 of which $12,060.00 was obtained through a Southport administered $5
per passenger levy for the cruise ships that visit Stewart Island. Due to
the current condition of Golden Bay wharf, all cruise ships for the 2016/17
season will tender to the Halfmoon Bay wharf.
13 Ulva
Island, Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory, Port William:
The five wharves currently owned by
SDC are in varying states of condition, with two having known maintenance
issues within the next two years, and one scheduled for full replacement in
2018/19 (Ulva Island). The remaining two are in very good condition.
There is not currently an annual maintenance programme in place, and the
recommended maintenance expenditure for the five SDC owned wharves should be
$21,250.00 pa. The estimated cost of a single SDC jetty disposal or removal
is $25,000.
14 The
current sole revenue for SDC owned jetties is through the local tourism
operators who pay a total combined Jetty User Licence fee of $14,257.00 pa. for
the use of SDC owned jetties.
15 Ulva
Island wharf receives approximately 65% of all annual visitors to the
Island. The remaining four SDC owned wharves are primarily utilised by
DOC and local tourism operators.
16 Halfmoon
Bay Wharf
Halfmoon Bay wharf is owned and operated by Southport NZ and
is the principal wharf on the Island. Halfmoon Bay wharf is outside the
scope of this project and will not require additional revenue resources from
SDC or the Island residents.
17 Southport
NZ have indicated their commitment on a long-term basis to own, operate and
maintain Halfmoon Bay Wharf and the Bluff Ferry Wharf. They will ensure that a
commercial return is made via the user charges they impose upon users of these
facilities.
18 Key
stakeholders – tourism
There are a number of key
public stakeholder organisations who have responsibility for and management of
land and ventures on Stewart Island (DOC, Environment Southland and Rakiura
Maori Land Trust). All rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.
19 There
are a number of local Small-Medium Enterprise tourism operators who all rely
and benefit from tourism to the Island.
20 Fishing
and tourism as the two main sources of livelihood for those living on Stewart
Island, generating employment of approximately 158 full-time equivalent
positions (roughly 61% of the working age population).
21 Local
tourism operators make up the sole Jetty revenue for SDC on the Island.
The operators utilise approximately $1.1m of asset for $1,350 each pa.
22 Golden
Bay wharf – Aquaculture
Aquaculture on the Island currently
consists of Mussel, Oyster and King Salmon farming, and workers are transported
to their facilities by freight vessel accessed by Golden Bay wharf. Due
to the limited roading infrastructure and isolation of Stewart Island, existing
aquaculture (and any new aquaculture opportunities) rely heavily on sea or air
based support – suggesting compromised access to wharves on Stewart
Island may directly compromise existing and future aquaculture on the Island.
Issues
23 Approach
taken to determining the future of wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island
Currently, the five SDC owned
wharves and Golden Bay wharf do not generate sufficient revenue to cover the
basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal. The project identifies three
key objectives to evaluate the current situation and assess future options and
strategies:
· Identify
the current use, user and owner needs of the wharfing infrastructure, and what
opportunities need to be developed to support future provision requirements
· Determine a
community engagement and consultation process that will determine the short,
medium and long term user needs of the wharves. This will include an
understanding of how the wharves are perceived by the community, the perceived
and actual value of the wharves, the implications for community of any reduction
or privatisation in wharf access
· Determine
a key stakeholder engagement process that will include tourism industry users,
aquaculture users and freight companies; identify actual and perceived
implications for any changes to the current wharfing infrastructure.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
24 There
are no legal or statutory requirements to consider.
Community
Views
25 Community
and key stakeholder views will be considered during the community engagement
process.
Costs
and Funding
26 Staff
are seeking approval for unbudgeted expenditure from the CEO Consultancy budget
to cover the costs of an external business plan and workshop facilitation to a
limit of $25,000.
27 Engaging
an independent agency to provide a business operational plan allows for an
equitable and independent report of the current state and expected future needs
of the wharfing infrastructure.
28 Engaging
an independent facilitator to undertake the community and stakeholder
engagement and consultation process, provides Council the opportunity to seek
independent feedback lowering any perceived Council agenda around the future of
wharfing infrastructure needs on the Island.
Policy
Implications
29 There
are no immediate policy implications for this project.
Analysis
Options Considered
30 Council
could consider the following three options:
· Option
1: Undertake the project with existing Council resources
· Option
2: Engage with an external and independent facilitator and agency
· Option
3: Not undertake the project
Analysis of Options
Option
1 – Undertake the project with existing Council resources
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Unbudgeted
expenditure not required
· Utilise
existing skill base within Council
|
· High
risk of actual and perceived bias towards a Council desired outcome
· High
risk of dissention throughout the engagement process
· Risk
that outcomes are not supported by the community or key stakeholders.
|
Option
2 – Engage with an external and independent facilitator and agency
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Engagement
with the Stewart Island community and key stakeholders in an unbiased
discussion
· Assist
to rebuild trust within the Community through an independent and transparent
process
· Expertise
in community engagement and business planning available to a very high
standard.
|
· Unbudgeted
expenditure required
· Risk
that outcomes are not supported by the community or key stakeholders
· Greater
emphasis on managing community and stakeholder expectations.
|
Option
3 – Not undertake the project
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Staff
time and resources not required to further the engagement process
· Unbudgeted
expenditure not required.
|
· Golden
Bay wharf will be available for sale on the open market and may have
significant implications for local operators and tourism on the Island
· For
the five SDC owned wharves a maintenance plan and budget will still need to
be established
· Risk
to Council of the actual and perceived inaction around significant
infrastructure that caters to the majority to visitors to the Island (Golden
Bay Wharf and Ulva Island).
|
Assessment of Significance
31 The
project is not considered significant in relation to Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
32 The
project is of strategic importance at Local, District, Regional and National
level in relation to the wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island. In
determining future strategies for the wharves, there is direct relationship to
the impact on tourism, local operators and aquaculture on Stewart Island.
33 This
importance will also need to be offset by the ability of tourists, local
operators, key stakeholders and rate payers to financially support the existing
and future wharfing infrastructure on the Island.
Recommended
Option
34 Option
2 – engage with an external and independent facilitator
35 Based
on the degree of risk to Council in actual and perceived bias towards a Council
desired outcome, it is recommended that external facilitation and business plan
agency be engaged.
Next
Steps
36 Community
and key stakeholder engagement process will ideally be completed by the end of
March 2017. Following this, a final report and recommendations will be
presented to Council in May 2017.
Attachments
a FINAL
Stewart Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements Project Definition ⇩
STEWART ISLAND WHARFING PROVISION AND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT DEFINITION
1. Project Outline
|
1.1 PROJECT
INFORMATION
|
|
Project Leader/Sponsor: Steve
Ruru
|
|
Project Manager: TBA
|
|
Project Name: Stewart
Island Wharfing Provision and Future Requirements
|
|
|
|
Project Start Date
|
14 October 2016
|
Project Finish Date
|
May 2017
|
|
|
|
|
DOCUMENT CONTROL
|
|
Version
|
Date
|
Author(s)
|
Comments
|
|
1
|
7 October 2016
|
Michelle Stevenson
|
Rex Capil for
comment
|
|
2
|
14 October 2016
|
Michelle Stevenson
|
Steve Ruru for
comment
|
|
3
|
19 October 2016
|
Michelle Stevenson
|
SDC staff for review
|
|
4
|
28 October 2016
|
Southport
|
Southport for review
and comment
|
|
5
|
4 November 2016
|
Michelle Stevenson
|
FINAL report to
Steve Ruru & Southport before submission to Council
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2 PROJECT
PURPOSE
|
|
The primary purpose of
this project is to determine the medium to long wharfing infrastructure needs
for Stewart Island, and how and by whom these facilities are best delivered
and how they might be funded.
|
|
|
|
1.3 PROJECT
OVERVIEW
|
|
The request from Southport NZ for SDC to
consider Golden Bay wharf ownership has prompted the need to consider a more
strategic approach to looking at the current and future provision of wharves
on Stewart Island, demand for such, the quantity and quality of provision requirements
and an overall medium to long term capital development provision and
maintenance plan.
The following summary information relating to the
respective wharves provides some initial context for the project.
Overview of Golden Bay Wharf
· Golden Bay wharf is currently owned by Southport NZ
and is a key wharf for Cruise ship tenders to Stewart Island, the gateway to
Ulva Island, wharf of departure for aquaculture staff vessels, and a primary
wharf for local tourism operators who operate water taxis around the island
· The engineering report of Golden Bay wharf[4] has determined
that the wharf is close to the end of its physical life and immediate repairs
of $60,000 are required to get it to a suitable standard to receive
passengers – further annual maintenance of $4,000 for 5 years is also
recommended. The wharf has significant deterioration of critical
structural components…and the wharf, with the exception of the approach
is in poor condition[5]
· Southport have provided a costing of $45,000 plus
GST to undertake immediate repairs to the wharf, which would allow cruise
ships to tender there in the upcoming season
· Any repair and maintenance will only be a temporary
measure and the wharf will need to be replaced in no more than 5 years’
time at an estimated cost of $3,000 per m2. Southport have provided an
estimated cost of $185,000 plus GST to replace Golden Bay wharf to a similar
size[6]
· Marine Engineers for Southport have since confirmed
that one cruise ship in January may tender to the wharf under specific
restrictions, which would postpone immediate repairs until the end of the
2016/2017 season
· The total revenue received in 2015 by Southport NZ
for the Golden Bay wharf was $12,710 Of this $12,060 was received by
way of a cruise ship levy for use of the wharf by ship tenders to the Island
(A Southport NZ administered $5 per passenger levy for the cruise ships that
visit Stewart Island)
· The remaining $650.00 pa is a fee paid by Rakiura
Adventures for a floating pontoon tied to the wharfing structure
· Local tourism operators utilising this and other
wharves pay an annual Jetty User Licence Fee ($1,350 per operator)
· Golden Bay wharf does not currently generate
sufficient revenue to justify maintaining or rebuilding
Overview of all other wharves on Stewart Island
· There are six wharves identified for further
discussion in this brief. SDC own five wharves including Ulva Island,
Millars Beach, Fred’s Camp, Little Glory and Port William. Golden
Bay is owned and operated by Southport NZ
· Of the seven wharves on Stewart Island (including
Halfmoon Bay), three have known maintenance issues within the next two years[7], one is
scheduled for full replacement in 2018/19, one has recommended replacement
within five years, and two remain in fit-for-purpose condition
· The current maintenance schedule budgeted for the
five SDC wharves is $5,000 pa with no current annual maintenance programme in
place. The recommended maintenance expenditure for the five jetties
should ideally be calculated at $5,000 each for Ulva Island and Port William;
$3,750 each for Fred’s Camp, Little Glory and Millars Beach at a total
of $21,250 pa
· The estimated cost of a single SDC jetty disposal or
removal is $25,000
· The current sole revenue for SDC owned jetties is
through the local tourism operators who pay a total combined Jetty User
Licence fee of $14,257 pa for the use of SDC owned jetties. The
benefit/cost ratio is currently very poor; for every $1 invested there is a
return of just under $0.20[8]
· The Stewart Island Jetties Subcommittee have, up to
now, approved a number of wharfing repairs and rebuilds, however no
longer-term funding vision or options are in place
· The five SDC owned jetties do not generate sufficient
revenue to cover the basic costs of maintenance, rebuild or removal
Halfmoon Bay Wharf
· Halfmoon Bay wharf is owned and operated by
Southport NZ and is the principal wharf on the Island. It services the
primary passenger and freight facilities between Bluff and Stewart
Island. The passenger ferry service, operated by Real Journeys between
Bluff and Stewart Island accounts for 75-85% of all visitors pa to the Island[9].
· Southport NZ have indicated their commitment on a
long-term basis to own, operate and maintain Halfmoon Bay Wharf and the Bluff
Ferry Wharf. These wharfing infrastructures will be outside the scope
of this project and not require additional revenue resources from the Island
residents. Southport NZ will liaise directly with their key
stakeholders. In the next five years there is an unconfirmed
maintenance cost of $766,000 to Halfmoon Bay Wharf, and $1,176,000 to the
Bluff Ferry Wharf
Key stakeholders - tourism
· There are a number of key public stakeholder
organisations who have responsibility for and management of land and ventures
on Stewart Island (DOC, Environment Southland and Rakiura Maori Land Trust)[10].
All rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.
· There are a number of local SME[11] private tourism operators
who all rely and benefit from tourism to the Island.
· DOC has responsibility for managing 92% of the
forest and wildlife of Stewart Island land, and administration of Ulva
Island. These are the primary attractions for tourism to the Island
· Environment Southland has responsibility for all
cruise ship landings on the Southern Coastline, including Stewart Island
· Rakiura Maori Land Trust has responsibility for the
remaining 8% of land on Stewart Island and administer hunting blocks and have
recently embarked on a joint tourism venture with Real Journeys for a
‘Wild Kiwi Encounter’ that will begin November 2016
· Fishing and tourism as the two main sources of
livelihood for those living on Stewart Island, generate employment of
approximately 158 full-time equivalent positions (roughly 61% of the working
age population[12])
· Local tourism operators make up the sole Jetty
revenue for SDC on the Island. The operators utilise approximately
$1.1m of asset for $1,350 each pa
Golden Bay wharf - Aquaculture
· Aquaculture on the Island currently consists of
Mussel, Oyster and King Salmon farming, and workers are transported to their
facilities by freight vessel accessed by Golden Bay wharf. There are
additional consents issued for farming, however they are not currently operational
· Aquaculture requires a skilled labour force and can
attract workers with the right conditions. Stewart Island currently
produces 3% of NZ’s mussel production and 29% of NZ’s King Salmon
production at an estimated annual value of $44,800,000[13]
· Due to the limited roading infrastructure and
isolation of Stewart Island, existing aquaculture (and any new aquaculture
opportunities) rely heavily on sea or air based support – suggesting
compromised access to wharves on Stewart Island may directly compromise
existing and future aquaculture on the Island
|
|
1.4 PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
|
|
The primary purpose of
this project is to determine how wharfing infrastructure should be provided
and funded on Stewart Island to ensure that the long term needs are met in a
sustainable manner.
The three key
objectives to be achieved will assist in evaluating the current situation and
assess future options and strategies.
1. Identify
the current use, user and owner needs of the wharfing infrastructure, and
what opportunities need to be developed to support future provision
requirements
· Identify the primary function and users of the
current wharfing infrastructure (who uses the wharves, what they are used
for, current and projected future volumes, are they fit-for-purpose, do the
wharves meet the requirements of the local community, tourist industry, and
freight companies, are the number of current wharves sufficient, too little
or too many)
· Location (where are the wharves located on the
Island, are they in appropriate locations for their use, could their use be
further developed taking into account the environment they exist in, identify
any land based infrastructure that may have impact or be important to
consider in the future for wharfing infrastructure on the Island)
· Description and condition (determine the current
physical state of the wharfing infrastructure on the Island, give a brief
description of what annual maintenance would be required and the cost of full
replacement for each wharf)
· Determine the current funding streams and future
funding opportunities for the wharves. This should include but not be
limited to; investigating an increase in revenue received through use of the
wharves, or from those who might benefit from the wharfing infrastructure,
and implications for current users; and investigate an increase in the
Stewart Island Visitor Levy to cover the cost of maintaining and replacing
existing and future wharves (how are the wharves currently funded to operate,
identify all revenue associated with the wharves, identify any funds
allocated to maintenance or replacement of existing wharves, determine what
has been spent on the wharfing infrastructure in the last five years, develop
a strategy for capital expenditure around the repair, replacement or removal
of each wharf on the Island)
· Ownership and operation (who currently owns and
operates each wharf, are the requirements of the owners currently being met
through existing infrastructure, what opportunities do the owners see for the
future ownership and operation of the wharves, does the current ownership fit
with the core business of the owner, are there opportunities for additional
ownership of existing infrastructure)
· Investigate what wharfing infrastructure is required
to best meet current and future tourism, aquaculture, freight and community
needs on the Island. This may include but not be limited to;
prioritising the wharves by order of capital and community value,
investigating the closure of unviable wharves and the potential community and
economic impacts
2. Determine
a community engagement and consultation process that will determine the
short, medium and long term user needs of the wharves. This should
include but not be limited to; an understanding of how the wharves are
perceived by the Islanders, the perceived and actual value of the wharves,
the implications for Islanders of any reduction or privatisation in wharf
access
· Audience (identify who on the Island are key
community stakeholders which may include but not be limited to tangata
whenua, residents’ association, local residents, government
agencies. Determine their varying levels of understanding and interest
in the wharfing infrastructure)
· Methodology (what structure will community
engagement take, and may include all or none of the following; workshops,
focus groups, social media, public forums. Determine how any background
information will be delivered and any planned developments will be consulted
on. Determine appropriate timeframes for community engagement)
· Communication (identify an appropriate communication
strategy around community engagement)
3. Determine
a key stakeholder engagement process that will include but not be limited to;
tourism industry users, aquaculture users and freight companies; identify
actual and perceived implications for any changes to the current wharfing
infrastructure
· Methodology (what structure will key stakeholder
engagement take; workshops, focus groups, social media, workplace
forums. Determine how key draft developments will be consulted
on. Determine appropriate timeframes for stakeholder consultation)
· Audience (identify who on the Island are key
stakeholders which may include but not be limited to local and District
tourism operators, aquaculture, freight companies, other local business
owners impacted by wharfing infrastructure on the Island, DOC, Environment
Southland,. Determine their varying levels of understanding and interest in
the wharfing infrastructure)
· Communication (identify an appropriate communication
strategy around stakeholder consultation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Project Scope
|
2.1 IN
SCOPE
|
|
a) All
wharves owned by SDC on Stewart Island
b) Golden
Bay Wharf, currently owned and operated by Southport NZ Ltd
c) Transport
affecting wharf infrastructure decisions, including roading and pedestrian
access. This will include but not be limited to; Golden Bay Rd, Elgin
Terrace and the upcoming Roading Bylaw consultation around parking at
Halfmoon Bay wharf
d) All
current users (community, tourism, commercial both direct and indirectly) and
uses of the wharves
e) Determining
future ownership, operating and maintenance responsibilities for in-scope
wharfing infrastructure servicing Stewart Island.
|
|
|
|
2.2 OUT OF
SCOPE
|
|
· All other wharves owned and operated by SDC not
listed above
· Halfmoon Bay Wharf
· Bluff Ferry Wharf
· All other wharfing infrastructure owned and operated
by Southport located off Stewart Island
· All other infrastructure on Stewart Island that is
not specifically identified above
· Implementation of any new ownership, operating or
maintenance regimes that might be agreed through this project will be
addressed
|
|
|
|
2.3 ASSUMPTIONS
AND CONSTRAINTS
|
|
· The total revenue from the wharves can be increased
to a sufficient level to justify maintaining or rebuilding the wharfing
infrastructure
· Tourism to the Island is increased or remains at its
current numbers
· Aquaculture on the Island is maintained or grown
· The population of Stewart Island is sufficient to
sustain a future wharfing infrastructure.
|
|
2.4 RISKS
|
|
· Tourism to the Island takes a steep decline in the
short-medium term rendering investment in wharfing infrastructure to be
continued financially unviable
· Closure of the Golden Bay wharf would have
significant negative impact on the future of Ulva Island tourism and
aquaculture ventures currently operating from the wharf – local, district,
regional and national impacts
· Aquaculture on the Island and across New Zealand
declines
· The population of Stewart Island declines and
becomes unsustainable to maintain and operate from wharfing infrastructure
|
|
|
3. Project Tasks, Deliverables and Milestones
|
PROJECT TIMELINE
|
|
|
|
3.1 TIMEFRAME
|
2017
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 KEY
DELIVERABLES
|
|
DELIVERABLES
· SDC report, with the support of Southport NZ, that
will provide an assessment and analysis of the short, medium and long term
future of wharfing infrastructure on Stewart Island
· A capital expenditure plan for any and all
maintenance and replacement of wharves on the Island
· Issues and options report that outlines options and
recommendations for future ownership, maintenance, operation and funding of
each wharf
· Completion of a community engagement process
that will achieve the outcomes defined in 1.4.2
· Completion of a process to engage with key
stakeholders as identified in 1.4.3
· Proposed process via which the Agencies involved
will make decisions on future ownership, maintenance and funding
responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
3.3 KEY
MILESTONES
|
Forecast
Due Date
|
Actual Date
|
Responsibility
|
|
Draft brief to be
approved by CEO for circulation to relevant SDC staff
|
14 October 2016
|
|
Michelle Stevenson
|
|
Brief finalised and
circulated to external agencies for input and comment
|
28 October 2016
|
|
Steve Ruru
|
|
FINAL project plan
approved by Council and Southport
|
14 December 2016
|
|
Steve Ruru
Mark O’Connor
|
|
Issues and options
report developed to inform community and stakeholder engagement process.
|
31 January 2017
|
|
SDC/Southport
|
|
Community engagement
completed
|
3 March 2017
|
|
TBA
|
|
Key stakeholder
engagement completed
|
3 March 2017
|
|
TBA
|
|
Assessment and analysis
report completed
|
31 March 2017
|
|
TBA
|
|
Final report and
recommendations presented to Council and Southport
|
May 2017
|
|
TBA
|
|
Inclusion in 2018 LTP
as required
|
2017
|
|
TBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Stakeholder Management
|
4.1 STAKEHOLDERS
|
|
Stakeholder
|
Nature of Relationship
|
Nature of Involvement
|
|
Southland District
Council
|
Project co-owner
|
Kay stakeholder
|
|
Southport NZ Ltd
|
Wharf owner/operator
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Environment Southland
|
Regional Authority
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Department of
Conservation
|
Land
owners/Crown/Tourism operator
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Ngai Tahu
|
Tangata Whenua
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Rakiura Maori Land
Trust
|
Land owners
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Stewart Island
community
|
Residents & local
businesses
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Stewart Island Tourism
Operators & Stewart Island Promotions
|
Users of the wharfing
infrastructure
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Stewart Island
Community Board
|
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Stewart Island Fishing
industry
|
Local fishing industry
operators
|
|
|
Sanford
|
Aquaculture operator
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Real Journeys
|
Operator passenger
ferry & tourism operator
|
Key stakeholder
|
|
Cruise NZ – Kevin
O’Sullivan
|
Cruise industry
representative and liaison group
|
|
|
SORDs Aquaculture and
Tourism Working Groups
|
Information relating to
potential growth of the industries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Budget
|
Task
|
People Hours
|
Opex ($’000)
|
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
6. Appendix
Background Information
Ulva Island (SDC)
· Ulva Island is a key attraction on Stewart Island and
local tourism operators currently gain access via Golden Bay wharf
· In the 10 years 2002-2012 there were approximately
263,205 visitors to Ulva Island, which suggests that roughly 65% of all
visitors to Stewart Island visit Ulva Island, accessed from Golden Bay wharf[14]. NB
there has been a decline in visitor numbers since 2008, however remain steady
at a lesser number of approximately 23,000 pa
· Ulva Island should be a critical factor in determining
the future of Golden Bay wharf. If the wharf is determined to be not
viable, then alternative access to Ulva Island may need to be investigated with
urgency
· Ulva Island jetty is scheduled for rebuild in 2018/19
at an estimated cost of $333,000[15]
Millars Beach (SDC)
· This wharf is utilised primarily by DOC and local
tourism operators
· The revenue from this wharf is generated through the
annual Jetty User Licence fee
· Wharf is in functional condition and has known repairs
due in the next 2 years
Fred’s Camp (SDC)
· This wharf is utilised primarily by DOC and local
tourism operators
· The revenue from this wharf is generated through the
annual Jetty User Licence fee
· Wharf is in good condition and has maintenance due in
the next 2 years
Little Glory (SDC)
· This wharf is utilised primarily by DOC and local
tourism operators
· The revenue from this wharf is generated through the
annual Jetty User Licence fee
· Wharf is in very good structural condition
Port William (SDC)
· This wharf is utilised primarily by DOC and local
tourism operators
· The revenue from this wharf is generated through the
annual Jetty User Licence fee
· Against the advice of a Marine Consultants report to
Council in early 2014, Port William was rebuilt in late 2014 at a cost of
$250,000[16]
· Wharf is in excellent condition
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Financial Report for the month ended 31 October 2016
Record No: R/16/11/19284
Author: Robert
Tweedie, Management Accountant
Approved by: Anne
Robson, Chief Financial Officer
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
Background
1. This
report outlines the financial results for the 4 months to 31 October 2016 or 33.3%
through the financial year.
2. The
Monthly and YTD (Actual) results, in the attached Council Summary Report, are
compared to the Full Year Budget (Projection) in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan
budget. The projection values include any carried forward items approved by
Council in August 2016. The 2016/2017 Annual Plan budget is shown in the
Council Summary Report as the
Full Year Budget.
Overview
3. The
Council Summary Report consolidates the business units within each of the key
areas of management’s responsibility. The following commentary focusses
on the year to date (YTD) results.
4. The
Council Detailed Reports includes more detailed explanations and commentary on
variances by the Executive Leadership Team. Commentary generally focuses
on the year to date (YTD) results.
5. Part
of the monthly review involves budget managers phasing or timing of the budgets
in conjunction with the finance team. Where phasing of budgets has not
occurred, one twelfth of annual budgeted cost is used to calculate the
monthly budget.
6. In
the Council Summary and Detail Reports, the values in the columns for:
· The
Monthly Budget is phased, where appropriate, and includes forecasting.
· The
YTD Budget is the Annual Plan and forecasting year to date.
· The
Full Year Budget is the LTP budget for the year.
· The
Full Year Projection is the forecasted year end result.
7. Council
staff will continue to refine the format of this report to enhance the
financial information reported. We welcome any feedback or suggestions on
further improvements that could be made to this report.
8. Most
of the commentary this month is based on the timing of actual costs to
budget. Staff will be reviewing phasing across the organisation over the
next month to correct this.
9. The
Council Summary Report (actuals vs phased and forecast budget) year to
date are as follows:
Income
10. Operating
Income is ($1.6M) 7% under budget year to date ($20.9M actual vs $22.5M
budget).
11. Financial
Services is an internal allocation where internal income reflects the costs
incurred year to date. To date income and expenditure is $201K under
budget, this will reduce when phasing and corrections to costs discussed below
are undertaken.
12. Other
Activities is over budget due to external interest income on investments being
higher than budgeted. Annual Budget 2016-17 assumptions were made based
on the level of cash reserves of projected capital works that were going to be
undertaken. A number of these have not yet started or occurred including
the completion of the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail. Cash reserves which
would have been applied to these projects have resulted in higher cash reserves
than budgeted leading to more interest income.
13. Services
and Assets are $535k under budget. This is due to phasing needing to be
completed for a number of business units.
- The
grant from NZ Lotteries for the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail has not been
received. The budget reflecting 4 months of the total $500k is phased over 12
months. The construction of the remaining stages has been delayed due to
the decision from the Environment Court hearing, the first round of forecasting
will remove the grant as any construction would not occur until the 2017/18
year at the earliest.
- The
only Forestry Income has been recognised at Waikaia where they have commenced
logging.
- Phasing
of income in the Sewerage and Water business units needs to occur.
- Costs
in the Area Engineers and Engineering Consultants business units are under
budget to date. These costs are allocated internally resulting in the
same income as the expense, both are less than budgeted.
Operating Expenditure
14. Operating
Expenditure is ($0.3M) 1% under budget for the year to date ($16.6M actual vs
$16.9M budget).
15. The
operating expenditure of the Chief Executive includes the grant made to
Southern Rural Fire. The grants cover the first and second quarter to the end
of December.
16. Environmental
services is down due to no major work being completed (building regulations and
resource planning) on the district plan.
17. Information
Management is over budget mainly due to phasing of the budget. Further work is
currently being undertaken on records digitisation and business process mapping
in the core systems review.
18. Financial
services is below budget as Audit NZ is yet to provide the final account as
well as staff cost due to vacancies. Any savings in these costs will be
reflected in recoveries against income.
Capital Expenditure
19. Capital
expenditure is 74% ($6.7M) under budget year to date ($2.3M actual v $9.0M
budget).
20. The
Chief Executive capital expenditure includes the new reception desk, funding
for this will be from savings in the business unit or the district operating
reserve and will be included in forecasting.
21. Information
Management Services is progressing with the digitisation project. Work in
respect of the core systems review is in progress but it is unlikely that any
significant capital expenditure will be incurred in this financial year.
Forecasting will reflect this.
22. Capital
expenditure for Services and Assets need to be phased appropriately.
Included in this category is the project to complete the Around the Mountains
Cycle Trail. This will be removed as part of the forecasting process.
Roading and Transport
23. The
seasonality of the capital works programme directly affects the level of income
received from NZTA. Overall roading costs were $2.6M less than budgeted.
This has resulted in the NZTA revenue also being less than budgeted.
24. Operating
expenditure is on track year to date.
25. Capital
expenditure is currently under budget $1.3M. The Roading team have noted
that this is historically a quiet time of year and that capital expenditure
will increase significantly as the financial year progresses.
Balance Sheet
26. Council’s
financial position as at 31 October 2016 is detailed below and is for the
activities of Council only. The balance sheet as at 30 June 2016
represents the audited balance sheet for activities of Council and includes
SIESA and Venture Southland.
27. At
31 October 2016, Council had $13M invested in four term deposits ranging from
one to four month maturities as follows:
28. Funds
on call are the result of Council rates received at the end of October and held
to ensure there is enough cash available to meet commitments as they fall
due:
29. The
borrowings shown in current liabilities was the outstanding amount of assets
funded by finance leases for computer equipment in the prior year. External
borrowings have not been required with internal funds being used to meet
obligations for the year to date.
30. Current
Assets (Other Financial Assets) relate to loans to Venture and SIESA. An
additional amount of $10M in term deposits was disclosed under Other Financial
Assets at year end as requested by Audit NZ.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Financial Report for the month ended 31 October
2016” dated 7 December 2016.
|
Attachments
a Report
- 31 October 2016 - Summary Financial Report ⇩
b Report
- 31 October 2016 - Detailed Commentary ⇩
Key Financial
Indicators
|
Indicator
|
Target*
|
Actual
|
Variance
|
Compliance
|
|
External Funding:
Non rateable income/Total income
|
> 36%
|
39%
|
3%
|
a
|
|
Working Capital:
Current Assets/Current Liabilities
|
>0.39
|
2.75
|
2.36
|
a
|
|
Debt Ratio:**
Total Liabilities/Total Assets
|
<0.82%
|
0.56%
|
-0.26%
|
a
|
|
Debt To Equity Ratio:
Total Debt/Total Equity
|
<0.01%
|
0.00%
|
-0.01%
|
a
|
* All
target indicators have been calculated using the 2016/17 Annual Plan
figures.
** Excludes
internal loans.
Financial
Ratios Calculations:
|
Non
Rateable Income
|
|
Total
Income
|
External Funding:
This ratio indicates the percentage of revenue received
outside of rates. The higher the proportion of revenue that the Council
has from these sources the less reliance it has on rates income to fund its
costs.
|
Current
Assets
|
|
Current
Liabilities
|
Working Capital:
This ratio indicates the amount by which short-term assets
exceed short term obligations. The higher the ratio the more comfortable
the Council can fund its short term liabilities.
|
Total
Liabilities
|
|
Total
Assets
|
Debt Ratio:
This ratio indicates the capacity of which the Council can
borrow funds. This ratio is generally used by lending institutions to
assess entities financial leverage. Generally the lower the ratio the
more capacity to borrow.
Debt to Equity Ratio:
It indicates what proportion of equity and debt the Council
is using to finance its assets.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE COMMENTARY
Chief Executive
Income in this business unit is 10% ($29K) over budget
predominantly due to higher rates penalties income ($26K). Expenditure is
15% ($31K) over budget mainly due to the annual membership of NZ Society of
Local Government Managers ($8K) and Staff Costs Ordinary Time ($21K).
Civil Defence
Income and expenditure are on budget.
People and Capability
Income is 20% ($40K) under budget due to internal overhead
recoveries being lower than budget. Expenditure year-to-date is 14%
($27K) under budget year to date. This is mainly due to reduced expenditure on
training ($8.5K), other expenditure for OSH ($9K), catering / surveys ($6.5K)
and consultants ($5.8K). This is offset by an over spend on insurance
write off of personal accident and employee and stat liability ($7K). As
this activity is internally funded, the reduced expenditure impacts directly on
income.
Rural Fire Control
Income and expenditure are on budget.
Shared Services Forum
Income is 25% ($14K) under budget for grants not yet
received. This is offset by reduced consultant services year to date. The
overall position for this business unit is on target year to date.
Stewart Island Visitor Levy
Income is 64% ($28K) under budget as levies are still to be
processed. Last year, the bulk of the levies were collected over the
summer months from December through to the end of May.
COMMUNITY &
FUTURES COMMENTARY
Income is 17% ($179K) under budget and expenditure is 5%
($52K) under budget for the year-to-date.
Communications and Engagement
Income is 19% under budget. Expenditure is 16% under
budget. As this activity is internally funded the expenditure impacts directly
on income allocation.
Community Leadership
Income is 17% under budget and expenditure is 8% over
budget. As this activity is internally funded the expenditure impacts directly
on income allocation. Expenditure reflects staff related costs in undertaking
these roles which had not been budgeted in this financial year.
Community Outcomes
Income is on budget. Expenditure is over budget due to the
payment of the agreed SDC allocation to the SORDS project.
Governance
Income is 13% under budget. Expenditure is 5% under
budget. . As this activity is internally funded the expenditure impacts
directly on income allocation.
Capital expenditure includes minor furniture acquisitions
which were not budgeted.
Strategy & Policy
Income is 17% under budget. Expenditure is 13% under
budget. As this activity is internally funded the expenditure impacts directly
on income allocation.
Capital expenditure includes minor furniture acquisitions
which were not budgeted.
COUNCIL AND
COUNCILLORS’ COMMENTARY
Total Income is 2% ($25K) under budget and total expenditure
is on budget for the year-to-date.
Council and Councillors
Income is on 3% under budget and expenditure is 24% under
budget.
The following expenditure is underspent:
· Conferences
and courses $19K.
· Other
Expenditure $5K.
· Staff
Costs $30K.
· Travel
and Accommodation $10K.
Council Contributions / Grants
Income is 2% under budget and expenditure is currently 31%
over budget
This is due to the following overspend:
· IWI
Funding to Environment Southland for Te Ao Marama $40K and Tangata Whenua $39K
against a budget of $40K.
· Miscellaneous
Grants $182K against a budget of $152K. The year to date spend is within the
annual limit of $215K.
Council Elections
Income is 5% over budget and expenditure is 22% over budget.
This is due to the following overspend:
· Election
Expenses of $66K against a budget of $54K year to date. These expenses are
within the full year budget of $167K
Council Water and Sewerage Loans
Income is 2% under budget and expenditure is on budget for
the year-to-date.
International Relations Committee
Income is 2% under budget and expenditure is 85% under
budget for this reporting period.
Regulatory – Non Recoverable
Income is 2% under budget and expenditure is 52% under
budget.
Venture Southland
Income is 2% under budget and expenditure is 1% over budget
CUSTOMER SUPPORT
Overall our Income is down 4% and current expenditure 3%
under budget year to date.
Area Offices
The transfer of the Stewart Island Area Office to combining
with the Stewart Island Library has required some electrical, networking and
building work so there is some capital expenditure, however this is expected to
come under $10,000 in total.
Customer Services
For the month of October business unit 10065 is over by 6% to
budget due to increased Eftpos charges, mileage and travel to cover the area
offices for leave and ordinary time is over by 14% due to unbudgeted extra
staff to support additional training and coaching to up-skill staff.
Libraries
Income is below the
budgeted level as recoveries are slightly down so far this year. The
Memorandam of Understanding with Gore District Council has recently been
renegotiated and this amount will show in next month’s accounts.
Electricity costs in
almost every building are exceeding budgeted figures and are likely to continue
in this pattern for the remainder of the year.
The addition of
PressReader to our range of services has affected the on-line databases account
and also our annual Internet charge has been paid as a lump sum. Both services
are appreciated by users across the district.
Books budgets are
underspent at this stage however there are a lot of resources on order and most
of these will arrive prior to Christmas.
The outcome of the grant
application for the Vince Boyle collection is still unknown however a colourful
selection of furniture and fittings have been purchased for Stewart Island and
these should arrive in time for the launch of the new service.
In all other areas
expenditure has been trimmed where possible, or delayed, and is currently
tracking at 3% under budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES COMMENTARY
|
October Month-end Results:
The total Monthly Income for the Environmental Services
Group was on target ($1K) at $353K actual versus $352K budget.
Key features of this month’s income were:
· Alcohol
Licensing was 47% ($8K) ahead of budget reflecting reduced vehicle use and
income from alcohol fees.
· Environmental
Health income was 83% ($10K) ahead of budget, largely reflecting income
received from Freedom Camping service provision.
· Resource Consent
processing income was 6% ($5K) ahead of budget reflecting some larger
invoices for major consents processed.
Conversely, Building Consent income was 16% ($20K) below
budget reflecting relatively subdued building consent activity, particularly
in relation to larger projects. This contrasts with two previous months where
monthly income has been slightly ahead of budget.
The total Monthly Expenditure for the Environmental
Services Group was 14% ($54K) below budget at $341K actual versus $395K
budget.
All departments, with the minor exception in Animal
Control (3% over) were below budget on expenditure, reflecting a close focus
on spending, which is always important, particularly so in the current
economic climate. In particular, Resource Planning Policy was significantly
(61%= $22K) under budget primarily due to the timing of hearing of the
remaining appeals and the fact that recent District Plan Variations proceeded
with relatively minimal opposition.
Year to date results for the 4 months to the end of
October 2016:
The Group YTD Total Income is 4% ($68K) below budget, at
$1,722K actual versus $1,790K budget.
The Group YTD Expenditure is 16% ($252K) below budget at
$1,366K actual versus $1,618K budget.
|
|
While Group income has been slightly less than budgeted
reflecting current generally relatively subdued development activity levels
within the District; particularly with regard to larger projects, expenditure
is also under budget by a significantly greater amount.
Management staff within the Group are closely monitoring
incoming work as well as expenditure, and associated resourcing
requirements.
|
FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMMENTARY
Income is 29% ($200K) under budget for the year to date. As
this activity is internally funded the reduced expenditure impacts directly on
income.
Direct expenditure is 26%
($179K) under budget for the year to date.
This is primarily due to the
following:
• Audit
Fee reversal journal $65K and under budget by $32K YTD.
• Valuation
Fee Phasing, Budget and PO Timing $46K under budget YTD.
• NCS
Fee Phasing bill not yet in $25k.
• Wages
phasing and vacancy $25K.
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY
Overall Income is 2% ($15K) under budget for the
year-to-date. Overall expenditure is 16% ($138K) over budget.
The year-to-date position is $123K under budget.
Information Management
Income is 3% ($15K) over budget for the year-to-date.
Overall expenditure is 25% ($131K) over budget. The net year-to-date
position is $123K under budget.
This is mainly due to:
· Professional
Services for the quarter being $50K against a budget of $20K
· Supplies
and Materials of $62K against a budget of $6k year to date.
Core Systems Project:
Expenditure for consultants have
been incurred for this project, with professional services for development of
the terms of reference and governance options for this project as well as some
work around data collection in terms of organisation wide surveys. The
two surveys completed will be used as the benchmark for the annual review of IM
service and the effectiveness of these to the organisation.
Work is currently focusing on the
current business process mapping and documentation that will be used for bench
marketing against future improvements and opportunities. This work will
lead Council officer into understanding and prioritising what application
and/or services are candidates for review under core systems.
Knowledge Management
Income is 10% ($21K) under budget.
· This
is mainly due to Internal Overhead recoveries being 12% ($25K) under budget.
Expenditure is 10% (21K) under budget year-to-date:
Over expenditure variances included:
· Conferences
and Courses ($9K) over budget for training.
· Postage
12% ($4K) over budget
Digitisation Project:
Expenditure to date includes the
purchase of Nova software licence and setup of Nova for Council’s
requirements, project management, and costs associated with packing and
transporting files to Power Business Services premises in Auckland. The recent
upgrade to Office 2013 and the training that was made available to all staff is
also included. Total expenditure is $144K. This does not include any
costs associated with preparation, scanning and metadata allocation for the
pilot.
Current work around this project
has focused on the fixed price negotiation that is planned to be finalised in
December. Once this contract price has been completed we will be able to
forecast the next 12 months of expenditure for this project.
With the recent earthquakes that
occurred in November the options for freighting our planned 5,000 property file
has been affected and alternatives are currently being investigated. This
will impact future planning freight costs but will report back to Council once
confirmed.
As this activity is internally funded the changes in
expenditure impacts directly on income.
Property and Spatial Services
Income is 16% ($21K) over budget. This mainly comes from
Internal income which includes overhead recoveries and GIS income.
Expenditure is 22% ($28K) over budget.
Over expenditure variances included:
· Consultants
$35K over budget.
OTHER
ACTIVITIES COMMENTARY
Allocations Committee
Year to date Income is 7% ($5K) over budget as the budgeted
grants from Sports NZ ($10K) was received in Octber.
Year to date Expenditure is 84% ($29K) under budget with
various grants not yet accrued or paid out. The major grant not yet paid to the
Ohai Railway Fund of $20k.
Operating Investments
Income is $191K over budget.
· Internal Interest on reserves, cost of capital and
contributions is only distributed later in the year in the preparation of the
annual report. The year to date variance for these are $185K which should be
phased to be received at year end.
· Internal Interest received on loans is ($116K) less than
budget year to date. This is mainly due to loan balances being $5.3M less than
budgeted. Council has set the interest rate to be charged on these loans as
part of its 10 Year Plan process and interest is being charged on a monthly
basis on all internal loans drawn down at 30 June.
· Other Income received is over budget by $122K and
constitutes interest on investments where cash has not been distributed for
loans.
Expenses are in line with budget
other than a $6K depreciation charge which requires reversal in November.
SERVICES AND ASSETS (Excluding
Roading) COMMENTARY
Overall Financial Performance
The overall financial performance
of the Services and Assets group shows income as well as expenditure are below
budget.
Income is significantly driven by
the forestry income result to date and a grant for the Around the Mountains
Cycle Trail. The forestry result is a timing issue in that the revenue flow is
not in line with the staged budgets. Overall other income streams are 8%
below budget.
Operating expenditure overall is 2% below budget. The
outliers are the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail legal expenses which is the
last of the legal and expert witness costs for the Environment Court
hearing. The forestry expenditure is 30% above budget at this point in
time. This is due to the gross costs of harvesting now being charged (and
the gross harvesting revenue also being shown). The Road Safety Community Advisor costs are 443% over budget
but this business unit will balance to zero at year end. We are revising
the accounting process for this activity.
Capital expenditure is only 9% of
the budgeted figure. The biggest variance is the Around the Mountain
Cycle Trail where no expenditure has been incurred against a budget of
$1.955M. Many capital works projects, including District Water ($1,228K)
and Sewerage (793K) under budget, are not yet underway or are underway but
little costs have come to charge.
TRANSPORT
COMMENTARY
Please note that the budgeted numbers for 16/17 have not
been apportioned, therefore a number of the variances are as a result of timing
issues.
Overall Financial Performance
Strategic Roading is currently placing a major focus on the
Southern Scenic Route and is currently in the process of reviewing the
Registration of Interests (we have received four). The guardrail
project designs are currently being reviewed by the Southland District
Council’s Safety Engineer, with these going to tender on Thursday, 10
November. The guardrail packages that were carried forward from 2015/16
are completed. The work for the bridge upgrades has been awarded to
SouthRoads and both will be completed by March 2017.
Operating Expenditure
Operating expenditure is slightly over for the year to date
however this is expected to be in line with budget after the Christmas break.
|
Financial Tracking vs
Plans (Maintenance)
|
|
YTD
|
Forecast
|
Annual
Plan
|
NZTA
Approved
|
|
34.54%
|
33.33%
|
33.33%
|
33.79%
|
Capital Expenditure
Capital expenditure is currently behind however with the
reseal programme work due to start in November and other capital projects being
tendered, this is expected to increase significantly in next three to six
months.
|
Financial Tracking vs
Plans (Capital)
|
|
YTD
|
Forecast
|
Annual
Plan
|
NZTA
Approved
|
|
11.31%
|
33.33%
|
33.33%
|
10.96%
|
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Elected Members Remuneration - Positions of additional
responsibility
Record No: R/16/11/19330
Author: Sheree
Marrah, Finance Manager
Approved by: Anne
Robson, Chief Financial Officer
☒
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☐
Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to establish the levels of Elected Members
remuneration for those positions holding additional responsibilities, for the
period 15 October 2016 to 30 June 2017 (post-election) in accordance with the
requirements of the Remuneration Authority.
Executive
Summary
2 The
Remuneration Authority (RA) requires notification of the recommended
remuneration of Elected Members for the period 15 October 2016 to 30 June 2017,
where there have been changes to the positions of additional responsibilities
subsequent to the recent elections.
3 The
remuneration for the financial year 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 was recommended
at the April 2016 Council meeting and approved by the Remuneration Authority in
May 2016. As a result of Council revising the committee structure
following the local body elections, the Remuneration Authority requires Council
to recommend any changes to the remuneration set through to 30 June 2017.
4 It
is proposed that the majority of the current remuneration levels will remain
consistent with what has previously been set (ie Mayor, Councillors (base
rate), community board members and chairs), however the allocation of
remuneration to positions of additional responsibility needs to be amended to
be in line with the new committee structure.
5 The
RA allocates a pool of funds for disbursement to Councillors for additional
duties. This pool is currently set at 150% of the Councillor’s base
salary ($38,591).
6 Council
are required to recommend the allocation of the pool to the various positions
of additional responsibility to the RA as soon as possible. Once the RA
has considered information from all councils a formal determination will be
issued. The change in the determination will require Council’s
Elected Members Reimbursements and Remuneration policy to be revised also
(draft attached).
7 Please
note: although the RA may not issue the determination until early in
2017, the determination will allow for back pay to positions of additional
responsibility from the date of appointment post-election.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “Elected Members Remuneration - Positions of
additional responsibility” dated 8 December 2016.
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) Recommend
to the Remuneration Authority, Option 2 of this report, for proposed
Elected Members remuneration for the period 15 October 2016 to 30 June 2017,
being:
• Allocate the
150% pool for additional responsibilities as follows:
- Deputy
Mayor (40%).
- Regulatory
and Consents Committee Chair (22%).
- Services
and Assets Committee Chair (22%).
- Finance
and Audit Committee Chair (22%).
- Community
and Policy Committee Chair (22%).
- Available for Councillors contributing to the development
of the District Plan (22%).
• All other
elected member remuneration to remain consistent with the current
2016/2017 determination.
e) Requests
that staff provide the necessary information to the Remuneration
Authority.
f) Approves
the proposed changes to the elected members reimbursements and remuneration
policy attached (Appendix 2), subject to approval of d) above by the
Remuneration Authority.
|
Content
Background
8 The RA sets the
framework for the remuneration and reimbursement of local government Elected
Members. This includes:
· The Mayor;
· The Deputy Mayor;
· Councillors;
· Community Board members; and
· Chairpersons of Council Committees, and
· Chairpersons of Community Boards.
9 The RA has set the Elected Members remuneration for the
period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 by way of the Local Government Elected
Members Determination 2016. This was subsequent to consultation with the
various local authorities across the country.
10 In accordance with the determination, Southland District
Council base councillor salaries have been set at $25,728 for the year 1 July
2016 to 30 June 2017 with an additional total allowance of 150% ($38,591) for
positions of additional responsibility.
Remuneration of Councillors for
additional responsibilities
11 As
noted above the RA’s model for remuneration allows up to an additional
200% of the base remuneration for a Councillor to be available to remunerate
the deputy mayor, chairs of committees and portfolio holders for additional
responsibilities.
12 Given
that the Council committee structure has changed subsequent to the election,
and therefore positions of additional responsibilities have changed, Council is
required to recommend to the RA how the pool for additional responsibilities
for these positions should be allocated. Feedback provided to the RA will
be used by them to inform the allocation of additional funds to the total
remuneration pool and accordingly set the new determination.
13 Currently,
Council has allocated 150% of a base councillor salary as remuneration for
positions of additional responsibility.
14 The
2016/17 and 2017/18 budgets has allowance for additional salary of 150%.
As such this report is recommending this be retained. Further
consideration could be given to whether this should be increased to within the
200% maximum as part of the 2018-2028 10 year plan process.
15 On this basis, the amount available to supplement base
remuneration for Councillors with additional responsibilities in this financial
year is 150% of base Councillor Remuneration ($38,591).
16 Some
of the additional amount is able to be retained for allocation during the
development of District Plan.
17 The
current allocation of the 150% of base Councillor Remuneration is summarised
below, along with possible options under the new Council committee structure.
|
Role
|
2016/2017 Remuneration uplift
%
(pre-election)
|
2016/2017 Remuneration uplift
$
(pre-election)
|
|
Deputy
Mayor
|
40%
|
$10,291
|
|
Policy Committee Chair
|
20%
|
$5,145
|
|
Venture Southland Director
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee Chair
|
25%
|
$6,432
|
|
Available for Councillors contributing to the development
of the District Plan
|
50%
|
$12,864
|
|
TOTAL
|
150%
|
$38,591
|
18 The
amount allocated for developing and adopting a District Plan is intended to
recognise the additional demands on Councillor’s time during this period.
Issues
19 The
key issue is the allocation of the additional funds available to the various
Councillors with additional responsibilities under the new Council committee
structure. Council has previously agreed to 150% of a base salary
available for distribution, thus the total pool available to those with
additional responsibilities is $38,591. The RA guidance allows for an
additional 50%, above a base salary (being the maximum of 200%) to be available
for distribution (an additional $12,863), however this has not been considered
in this report based on the recommendations from the April 2016 Council meeting
to only allocate 150% of the pool to stay within the current budgets.
20 The
Venture Southland directorate has historically been allocated remuneration for
additional responsibilities, however in this recommended approach this has been
removed on the basis that the elected Council representative to this role is
proposed to be entitled to additional remuneration in relation to other Council
positions. It is of note that historically no other Council
representative on a joint committee has been paid for additional
responsibilities.
21 It
is also important to note the meeting schedule in considering the remuneration
for positions of additional responsibility. The Regulatory and
Consent, Services and Assets and Community and Policy committees are all
scheduled to meet on a 6 weekly basis. The Finance and Audit committee is
scheduled to meet on a 3 monthly basis. The work of this Committee does,
however, carry considerable strategic importance particularly as we look to
further develop Councils risk management processes over the next three years.
22 In
2013 the RA approved Council’s recommendation of allocating a share of
the pool for Councillors involved in the District Plan. The current pool
allocation for the District Plan is 50% ($12,864). In reviewing the
actual remuneration paid from this pool since 2013, the full allocation has
never been required. Additionally the resource management team leader has
advised that a variation to the current proposed district plan is currently
being scoped and will be notified in 2017 and could be subject to hearings
prior to 30 June 2017. However, it is expected that the current full
allocation would not be required. Please note that any unspent pool for
the District Plan can be applied to be carried forward into the following year,
but is subject to approval by the RA during the elected members remuneration
review which occurs in April/May each year. It is also important to note
that the chair of this committee has historically been paid from the pool
allocation.
23 Below
are three potential options for distribution of the 150% pool for those with
additional responsibilities:
• Option
A - No change to the Deputy Mayor and District plan pool allocation from
the current determination (totalling 150%). Remaining positions of
additional responsibility (4 Council committee chairs) receive equal share of
the remaining pool (15% uplift each). The Venture Southland directorate
will no longer be entitled to additional remuneration.
• Option
B - No change to the Deputy Mayor from the current determination (totalling
150%). Remaining positions of additional responsibility (4 Council
committee chairs and district plan pool) receive equal share of the remaining
pool (15% uplift each). The Venture Southland directorate will no longer
be entitled to additional remuneration.
• Option
C - Allocate the 150% on a different basis across the positions of
additional responsibility.
|
|
2016/2017 Remuneration uplift
(pre-election)
|
2016/2017 Remuneration uplift
(post-election)
|
|
Role
|
CURRENT
|
OPTION A
|
OPTION B
|
OPTION C
|
|
Deputy
Mayor
|
40%
|
$10,291
|
40%
|
$10,291
|
40%
|
$10,291
|
40%
|
$10,291
|
|
Policy Committee Chair
|
20%
|
$5,145
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Venture Southland Director
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Activities Performance Audit Committee Chair
|
25%
|
$6,432
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Available for Councillors contributing to the development
of the District Plan
|
50%
|
$12,864
|
50%
|
$12,864
|
22%
|
$5,660
|
Council to propose
|
-
|
|
Regulatory and Consents Committee
|
-
|
-
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
22%
|
$5,660
|
Council to propose
|
-
|
|
Services and Assets committee
|
-
|
-
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
22%
|
$5,660
|
Council to propose
|
-
|
|
Finance and Audit Committee
|
-
|
-
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
22%
|
$5,660
|
Council to propose
|
-
|
|
Community and Policy Committee
|
-
|
-
|
15%
|
$3,859
|
22%
|
$5,660
|
Council to propose
|
-
|
|
TOTAL
|
150%
|
$38,591
|
150%
|
$38,591
|
150%
|
$38,591
|
150% or 200%
|
$38,591 or $51,455
|
Factors
to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
24 There
are no legal considerations relevant to this issue.
25 The
Remuneration Authority is legally required to set the remuneration of local
authorities. It does so based on a matrix that it applies to all local
authorities. Within the amount calculated by the matrix, the authority
asks Councils to recommend the allocation of which it reviews and if in
agreement, issues a determination on.
Community
Views
26 There
are no requirements to consult with the community in respect of this issue.
The position of the Southland District Council in relation to this issue is
unlikely to impact on the perception of public value, as payments received by
Elected Members of Southland District Council and Community Boards are not high
in terms of the national range.
27 The
remuneration budget is set as part as part of the Ten Year Term Plan/Annual
Plan process and is subject to public consultation as part of these processes.
Costs
and Funding
28 The
2016/2017 Annual Plan and draft 2017/2018 Annual Plan include budgets for all
Elected Members remuneration of $606,617 and $622,389 respectively. These
budgets are based on the pool being retained at 150% of a base Councillor
salary ($38,591) and are sufficient to meet the proposed remuneration.
The RA guidance allows for an additional 50% of a base salary (being the
maximum of 200%) to be available for distribution (an additional $12,863),
however this has not been provided for in the Council budgets based on the
recommendations from the April 2016 Council meeting to only allocate 150% of
the pool.
29 The
proposed reallocation of the pool for additional responsibilities has no impact
on the value of remuneration currently being paid, just who it is paid
to.
Policy
Implications
30 The
RA will publish a determination following the receipt of information from local
authorities. This determination will create a need for changes to
Council’s Elected Members Remuneration and Reimbursement Policy. An
approved policy will be provided to the RA in due course.
31 Attached
is a draft of the revised policy (attachment 1). The changes to this
policy are amendments to the allocation of the pool for additional
responsibilities only (noted in red text). Elected member base
remuneration, reimbursements, allowances, travel time payments and mileage
rates will remain unchanged.
Analysis
Options Considered
32 If
Council does not provide information to the RA, it will not be able to pay
elected members for their additional responsibilities. It is therefore
recommended that Council respond to the RA advising of the recommended
allocation of additional responsibilities of Committee chairs under the new
Council committee structure.
Analysis of Options
33 Option
1 - No change to the Deputy Mayor from the current determination (40%).
Remaining positions of additional responsibility (4 Council committee
chairs and district plan pool) receive equal share of the remaining pool (22%
uplift each).
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Consistent
salary increase across all Elected Members with additional responsibilities.
· Allocation
to District Plan is reduced on the basis that there is not a significant
amount of further work required to finalise this document.
|
· Risk
that the District Plan may require additional resource than what current
remuneration allows for (thus will be unpaid).
|
34 Option
2 – Retain the Deputy Mayor and District plan pool allocation
consistent with the current determination (40% and 50% respectively).
Remaining positions of additional responsibility (4 Council committee chairs)
receive equal share of the remaining pool (15% uplift each).
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Consistent
salary increase across all Elected Members with additional responsibilities.
|
· Allocation
may not reflect the level of work.
· Allocation
to district plan may be excessive based on level of work anticipated.
|
35 Option
3 - Allocate the 150% on a different basis across the positions of
additional responsibility.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Elected
members can propose what they think is appropriate
|
· May
not be able to achieve an approach agreeable by all.
· No
evidence to support differentiation of remuneration as it is a new structure.
|
Assessment of Significance
36 This
matter is not considered significant as it is a routine operational matter.
Recommended
Option
37 Option
1 - No change to the Deputy Mayor from the current determination (40%).
Remaining positions of additional responsibility (4 Council committee chairs
and district plan pool) receive equal share of the remaining pool (22% uplift
each).
Next
Steps
38 Staff
to provide Council’s proposal on allocation of the pool for additional
responsibilities for the post-election to 30 June 2017 as soon as possible,
including a draft of the revised policy.
39 Finance
staff to provide a copy of the Elected Members Determination to payroll staff
to implement once the formal determination is issued. Please note:
although the RA may not issue a determination until early in 2017, the
determination will allow for back pay to positions of additional responsibility
from the date of appointment post-election.
40 Council
have the ability to reconsider the allocation of the pool for positions of
additional responsibility as part of the review of Elected Members remuneration
for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018. This will occur in April-May
2017.
Attachments
a Draft
Elected Members' Remuneration and Reimbursements Policy ⇩
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
2016 Local Elections Statistics
Record No: R/16/11/19416
Author: Virginia
Dillon, Property Officer
Approved by: Steve Ruru,
Chief Executive
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
Purpose
1 To
present the Electoral Officer’s report on the 2016 local election
processes and key statistics.
Summary
2 The
Council’s electoral officer, Dale Ofsoske, has submitted a report an
overview of the electoral process and key statistics for the 2016 local
elections.
3 The
overall cost has risen from the contract (from an estimate of $112,610 plus GST
to an actual of $121,445 plus GST- all due to an increased cost (over budgeted
estimate) by NZ Post for the voting mailers (an additional $9,756 plus
GST).
4 Mr
Ofsoske has indicated that he has not had the opportunity to
work through the Memorandum of Understanding cost share with Environment
Southland yet - this will result in a refund of part of the cost to Southland
District Council.
5 There will be no contribution from the District Health Board this
year as it did not hold an election.
|
Recommendation
That the Council:
a) Receives
the report titled “2016 Local Elections Statistics” dated 6
December 2016.
|
Attachments
a Electoral
Officer Report ⇩
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Matuku Water Supply Subcommittee
Meeting dated 8 December 2015
Record No: R/16/12/20028
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Matuku
Water Supply Subcommittee meeting held 8 December
2015 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Matuku Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8 December
2015 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Five Rivers Water Supply Subcommittee
Meeting dated 8 December 2015
Record No: R/16/12/20029
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Five
Rivers Water Supply Subcommittee meeting held 8
December 2015 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Five Rivers Water Supply Subcommittee Meeting dated 8
December 2015 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Waikaia Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 11 May 2016
Record No: R/16/12/19836
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Waikaia
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
11 May 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Waikaia Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 11 May 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Athol Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016
Record No: R/16/11/19178
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Athol
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
18 May 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Athol Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Garston Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016
Record No: R/16/11/19177
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Garston
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
18 May 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Garston Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 18 May 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Lumsden Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 3 October 2016
Record No: R/16/12/20030
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Lumsden
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
3 October 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 3 October 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Mossburn Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 July 2016
Record No: R/16/12/19802
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Mossburn
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
25 July 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Mossburn Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 25 July 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Balfour Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016
Record No: R/16/12/19829
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Balfour
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
24 August 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Balfour Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Minutes of the Riversdale Community Development Area
Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016
Record No: R/16/12/19809
Author: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
Approved by: Rose
Knowles, Committee Advisor
☐
Decision ☐
Recommendation ☒
Information
|
Recommendation
That
Council receives the minutes of the Riversdale
Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held
24 August 2016 as information.
|
Attachments
a Minutes
of Riversdale Community Development Area Subcommittee Meeting dated 24 August 2016 (separately enclosed)
|
Council
14 December
2016
|
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987
|
Recommendation
That the
public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this
meeting.
C10.1 District
Valuation Roll maintenance contract renewal
The general
subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
|
General subject of each matter to be considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to
each matter
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
District Valuation Roll maintenance contract renewal
|
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to protect information where the making available of the
information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position
of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
|
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.
|
The increased maximum term of the contracts
will require an amendment to Council’s Procurement Strategy which will
require NZTA approval. We note however that the proposed maximum 9-year
term is aligned to current thinking on alliance contracts and is consistent
with contracts being awarded for the State Highway sector by NZTA.
Due to the immediate repairs needed for the
safe ongoing use of Golden Bay wharf, Southport have taken the step of
directing all cruise ships for the 2016/17 season to tender at Halfmoon Bay
wharf
