Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 8 December 2021

Council Meeting Agenda

8 December 2021

MINUTES OF A Council Meeting OF THE Central Otago District Council
HELD AT Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra ON Wednesday, 3 November 2021 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (Chairperson), Cr N Gillespie, Cr T Alley, Cr S Calvert, Cr I Cooney, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Jeffery, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson, Cr T Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE: L van der Voort (Acting Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), G Robinson (Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), J McCallum (Roading Manager), D Rushbrook (General Manager Tourism Central Otago), A Crosbie (Senior Strategy Advisor), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), A Rodgers (Principal Policy Planner), I Evans (Water Services Manager), Q Penniall (Environmental Engineering Manager), M De Cort (Communications Coordinator), R Williams (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Alley

That apology from Cr L Claridge be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum via Microsoft teams

Stu Calder of Calder Surveying spoke on behalf of the applicant to form an unformed legal road for property access at Cambrians before responding to questions.

Thomas Cardy spoke as a submitter on the application to form an unformed legal road for property access at Cambrians before responding to questions.

Janet McDonald and Gill Booth had sent in and spoke to feedback from the community about the three waters reform before responding to questions.

Don Sparks and Hugh McIntyre had circulated a paper to Councillors about CouncilMARK and responded to questions.

Jamie Seymour from the Otago Southland Cancer Society spoke about the proposed Smokefree and Vapefree Policy.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Jeffery

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 September 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.

5 Reports

Note: Cr Duncan assumed the Chair as the Roading Portfolio lead.

21.8.2 Forming of Unformed Legal Road - Cambrians

To consider an application to form an unformed legal road for property access at Cambrians.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the request to form an unformed legal road to provide property access for the applicant, with the following conditions:

(i) The road be formed to the relevant right of way subdivision standard.

(ii) The road be surveyed to ensure construction occurs within the legal alignment.

(iii) The survey and road construction are undertaken at no cost to Council.

(iv) The applicant is responsible for maintaining the road in the future to a safe standard. If Council does not believe the condition of the road is safe and the applicant does not remedy this after notification, then Council may undertake work to make the road safe and recover this cost from the applicant.

(v) The applicant acknowledges they are aware that Council does not accept any responsibility for future maintenance costs.

(vi) The applicant shall not locate any improvements on the road without the prior consent of the Council.

(vii) The applicant shall not impede others from using the road.

(viii) All costs associated with fencing and cattle stops will be the responsibility of the applicant.

(ix) As the existing track from the end of Cambrian Road is not maintained by Council, all costs associated to provide suitable access to form this section of unformed legal road will be the responsibility of the applicant (i.e. the existing track to reach this area may require metalling prior to construction being undertaken)

Carried

Note: Cr Jefferies assumed the Chair as the Economic Development and Community Facilities Portfolio lead.

21.8.3 i-SITE NZ Future Network Proposal

To approve non-binding expressions of interest be submitted for Ranfurly and Roxburgh i‑SITE’s to remain in the VIN Inc future network and a non-binding expression of interest be submitted on behalf of Alexandra and Cromwell Information Centres as outlined in the proposal document.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Ranfurly and Roxburgh i-SITEs to become Tier Two centres.

C. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Alexandra and Cromwell information centres to become Tier One or Two centres.

Carried

21.8.4 Smokefree and Vapefree Policy update

To consider the Smokefree and Vapefree Policy developed through the review of the existing Smokefree Policy.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Adopt the updated Smokefree and Vapefree Policy

Carried

Note: Cr Gillespie and other members of the Hearings Panel noted that they had considered the proposal in item 21.8.5 and would not be withdrawing from the item.

21.8.5 Proposal to Revoke Part of the Greenway Reserve off Waenga Drive, Cromwell

To consider a recommendation from the Hearings Panel to revoke the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification for 619m² (subject to survey) from Lot 201 DP 359519 which is part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve.

A correction to minutes of the Hearings Panel was noted, with Irene and Dave Wallace being in attendance when the hearing reconvened on 5 October 2021.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Cadogan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees with the Hearings Panel recommendation to the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m2 (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

C. Agrees to notify the Minister of Conservation in writing of the resolution and request the revocation be approved and notified by Gazette notice.

Carried

Note: Cr Gillespie assumed the Chair as the Planning and Regulatory Portfolio lead.

Note: The Mayor left at 11.45 am and returned at 11.47 am.

Note: Cr Cooney left the meeting at 11.48 am.

21.8.6 Plan Change 17 - GIS Mapping

To consider approval of Plan Change 17.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves Plan Change 17 without modification in accordance with Clause 10 (1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

C. Directs that the decision to approve Plan Change 17 be publicly notified, and the Central Otago District Plan be amended.

Carried

Note: Cr Cooney returned to the meeting at 11.50 am.

21.8.7 RMA Reform Update

To provide an update on the Resource Management reform.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Jeffery

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr McKinlay assumed the Chair as the Three Waters Portfolio lead.

21.8.8 Options for Disinfection of Community Water Supplies

To consider future options for disinfection of community water supplies to provide bacterial treatment.

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes that current chemical deliveries arrangements result in a lack of resilience in provision of service.

C. Directs staff to provide a report outlining the work required to meet Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act requirements for the delivery of chlorine to existing treatment sites.

D. Agrees to the phased transition of chlorine gas disinfection as community water supplies are upgraded

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 12.07 pm and returned at 12.09 pm.

21.8.9 Waste services review feedback results

To consider the results from the waste services review survey.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Items 21.8.13, 21.8.14, 21.8.15, 21.8.16, 21.8.17, 21.8.18, 21.8.19 and 21.8.11 were taken at this point.

7 Status Reports

21.8.13 November 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations, consider Council’s forward work programme and the legacy and current status report updates.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

8 Community Board Minutes

21.8.14 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 11 October 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: McKinlay

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 11 October 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.8.15 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 14 October 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: McKinlay

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 14 October 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.8.16 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 19 October 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: McKinlay

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 19 October 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.8.17 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 21 October 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: McKinlay

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 21 October 2021 be noted.

Carried

9 Committee Minutes

21.8.18 Assessment Committee Minutes

To note the confirmed minutes of the Assessment Committee meeting held on Tuesday 16 March 2021.

Resolution

Moved: Calvert

Seconded: Alley

That the minutes of the meeting of the Assessment Committee held on 16 March 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.8.19 Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 1 October 2021

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 1 October 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.8.11 2022 Meeting Schedule

To approve a schedule of meetings for 2022.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Adopts the proposed 2022 meeting schedule.

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12.20 pm and reconvened at 1.05 pm.

21.8.10 CouncilMARK programme

To provide an outline of the CouncilMARK programme run by Local Government New Zealand and provide advice on this Council’s participation in the programme.

There was a discussion about the benefits of participating in the CouncilMARK programme and the staffing and financial resourcing required to participate in it.

Following discussion and the loss of the original motion, it was agreed that the Mayor would discuss participation in the programme with other Mayors and report back to the January meeting.

Motion

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes that the CouncilMARK programme is a programme designed to review organisational performance.

C. Notes that participation in the programme is very resource intensive and the organisation is currently juggling multiple work programme commitments.

D. Agrees to not participate in this programme at this point of time.

LOST on a show of hands 5:6

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. That the Mayor brings to the January Council meeting information from other Mayors as to the benefits or otherwise of participation in CouncilMARK.

Carried with Cr Cooney recording his vote against.

6 Mayor’s Report

21.8.12 November 2021 Mayor's Report

In speaking to his report, the Mayor reflected on the three waters reforms process and the recent decision by Central Government to mandate the decision. He noted that the Central Otago community had the expectation that that they would be heard through the reform process and he would like something done about that. He then invited Councillors to share their views on the reforms.

It was agreed that the Mayor and Three Waters portfolio lead would write an open letter to the Government expressing the concerns outlined.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

10 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 8 December 2021.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter 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 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 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.20 - Minor Boundary Adjustment	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.21 - William Fraser Coal Fired Boiler Replacement	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	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.22 - Lake Dunstan Water Supply Project Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.23 - Contract for provision of Enviroschools education	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.24 - An update of the draft non-audited Annual Report 2020/21	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.25 - November 2021 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.26 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 11 October 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.27 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 14 October 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.28 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 19 October 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.29 - Confidential Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 1 October 2021	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest s7(2)(d) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 2.14 pm and the meeting closed at 3.46 pm.

8 December 2021

21.9.3 Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group and Charitable Trust

Doc ID: 559801

1. Purpose of Report

To consider continuing the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group for a second term and approving the establishment of a charitable trust for project donations and bequests.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Authorises the continuation of the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group for a second term, through to the end of 2023.

C. Approves the establishment of the Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust for the purpose of holding and utilising community-raised funds towards projects and activities that benefit the collection and related experiences.

2. Background

In August 2017 the Central Otago District Council approved the formation of a steering group for Eden Hore Central Otago (EHCO). This was a recommendation of the feasibility study on the long-term care and display of the Eden Hore fashion collection, undertaken for Council in 2016 (resolution 17.4.9). The purpose of the steering group was to provide innovative thinking for this nationally significant collection, leverage partnerships, and create promotional opportunities that celebrate Central Otago values and draw visitation to the region.

The steering group has provided strategic oversight for the development and delivery of a programme of initiatives that exemplifies the essence of EHCO – i.e., Eden Hore plus Central Otago adds up to a magical proposition that connects with and engages people. Since coming together, the steering group’s expertise has guided a number of milestone projects:

· Development of a collections policy (including procedures for loaning garments)

· EHCO brand, logo and storyline

· A fashion photoshoot with an internationally recognised photographer and project team

· A strategic partnership with Te Papa Tongarewa Museum of New Zealand

· A feature exhibition at The Dowse Art Museum (December 2021 – March 2022)

· National media exposure and coverage of EHCO activities

Contingent on the continued development of EHCO experiences and conservation is the ongoing availability of funding. Council has been approached by members of the community wishing to donate/bequest to the care and display of the collection. There is a desire from potential donors for a charitable trust to be formed whose specific role is to receive and utilise funds raised for the betterment of the EHCO collection and projects.

Council staff have researched trust deeds of similar nationally significant collections throughout the country and have sought independent legal advice. Advantages of establishing an independent charitable trust include having an independent entity that can seek out funding opportunities that Council could not otherwise approach, as well as providing public assurance that any monies donated to EHCO will be ringfenced from other Council activities and will remain with the collection for as long as they are needed.

3. Discussion

Steering group term renewal

The current steering group members have been extremely generous of their time to EHCO projects and have created opportunities that Council would not have achieved if it had acted independently. Each member brings unique insight and expertise to discussions and the group gels well as a team. All steering group members are willing to continue their involvement for a second term.

It is proposed that the structure of the group will remain the same in this second term. His Worship the Mayor will remain as chairperson^{^[2]} and Council staff will continue to provide administrative support and implementation. Formal meetings of the entire group are no more than twice a year, though staff will continue to liaise with individual members on specific projects, as needed. Online meetings via Microsoft Teams are also utilised, from time to time, for specific project discussions.

The proposed timeframe for this second term is two years. This will enable the group to progress projects that are already underway – such as refining content on the www.edenhorecentralotago.com website and creating a mobile interactive visitor experience about EHCO for the Central Otago region – as well as seeking out new opportunities for the collection at a national level.

Establishment of a charitable trust

A draft deed for the Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust is attached to this report (Appendix 3). The purpose of this trust is to:

· raise and utilise funds to further the awareness, preservation, promotion and presentation of the EHCO collection and story;

· advance education through promoting the value of the collection to New Zealand’s fashion, textiles and design;

· advance education through promoting the value of the collection to Central Otago’s social and cultural history;

· be a vehicle for raising, holding, enhancing and dispensing funds;

· provide support and assistance to the owner consistent with these charitable purposes.^{^[3]}

The exclusive role of this trust is to hold and utilise fundraised monies for EHCO. The EHCO steering group will continue to advise Council on potential projects and activities for the collection. Projects seeking funding through the trust will need to be presented to trustees and funding would be allocated according to the project’s relative fit with the purposes of the trust.

Council will continue to cover the operational costs and staff time of caring for and managing the EHCO collection, and will seek out grant funding for projects through agencies that give monies to local authorities. The trust will hold donations and bequests from the public specifically for the collection, and may apply for additional project funding from agencies where appropriate.

Should Council agree to the establishment of this charitable trust, staff will seek out individuals to fill the trustee positions. It is anticipated that four to five trustees will be sufficient to serve the needs of the trust, as trust activities and transactions are expected to be relatively low.

4. Financial Considerations

Council staff administer the EHCO project through the Central Otago Regional Identity work programme and budget. An annual budget of $20,000 is set aside for operational and administrative costs associated with EHCO. These costs include website hosting and maintenance, storage and curation costs, and expenses related to the EHCO steering group. The cost of continuing the steering group membership for a second term will therefore be absorbed into this existing budget allocation.

Similarly, the establishment of the Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust and ongoing administrative and support costs will also be absorbed into existing Council operational budgets and staff time.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To continue the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group for a second term and to approve the establishment of a charitable trust for project donations and bequests.

Advantages:

· The steering group has guided Council in the development of a strategic directive for EHCO that encompasses the Central Otago high country farmer and his impresario approach to life, alongside his unique and high-quality fashion collection – this direction is promoting unique opportunities for the region.

· The steering group is now established and working well together; a second term will build on this relationship.

· The steering group has and continues to create nationally significant outcomes for the EHCO collection.

· Establishing an independent charitable trust for EHCO will provide assurance to potential donors that any gifted funds will be used exclusively for EHCO projects.

· The charitable trust may act as a vehicle to garner additional funding for EHCO.

· Funds invested in the charitable trust will support the collection and the purposes of the trust deed.

Disadvantages:

· Developing an independent trust could be viewed as creating additional administrative work when Council could manage donations raised through its own financial processes.

Option 2

To discontinue the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group and decline the proposal of establishing a charitable trust for project donations and bequests.

Advantages:

· There would be administrative savings for Council in the 2021-22 year.

Disadvantages:

· National leveraging and relationship opportunities would be lost.

· The creation of innovative solutions that celebrate this collection in unique ways that do not excessively drain ratepayer funding, will be seriously compromised.

· A trust fund would provide financial transparency for donors for where the funds are being used, without the added complexities of Council overhead or administration costs.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future by maximising opportunities to celebrate and amplify the high value / high story proposition of Eden Hore Central Otago. Through creative thinking, relationship developments and maximising the use of funds raised, this collection can enhance regional pride, cultural appreciation and economic opportunities for Central Otago district.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes · Central Otago Regional Identity Values · Central Otago Tourism Strategy 2018-2028
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	EHCO projects and initiatives are looking to develop exceptional experiences and interactions that celebrate the EHCO story rather than investing in fixed infrastructure with high ongoing overheads. · Affordable and equitable provision of services to promote well-being; · Keep developing culture and heritage opportunities; Improve value-added tourism through Central Otago.
Risks Analysis	The EHCO steering group provides advice and connections but ultimate decision-making remains with Council, as owner of the collection. The proposed charitable trust will operate independently of Council. There is a financial risk of fraud and of funds being mishandled. Due diligence will therefore be required when selecting the trustees. The trust will also need to have an effective finance system to track income and expenditure, as well as an annual review of their accounts (in line with the Charities Act 2005 requirements for a tier 4 organisation and section 6 of this draft trust deed).
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Checketts McKay Law has written the trust deed, in consultation with Council staff and the EHCO steering group chair. Advice will be sought from Council’s Corporate Services Manager on the establishment of appropriate financial processes for the proposed charitable trust.

7. Next Steps

Should Council approve the recommendations of this report, staff will proceed with sourcing trustees, establishing financial processes and applying for charitable status through New Zealand’s Charities Services for the proposed Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust.

Steering group members will be asked to sign the attached terms and conditions (Appendix 1) and will continue their involvement with EHCO as they have in their first term.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - EHCO Steering Group Terms of Reference 2022-23 (Draft) ⇩

Appendix 2 - EHCO Steering Group Member Biographies ⇩

Appendix 3 - Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust Deed (Draft) ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Paula Penno	Sanchia Jacobs
Community and Engagement Manager	Chief Executive Officer
23/11/2021	29/11/2021

1. Background

The Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group [Steering Group] was established in 2017 as an action point from the 2016 High Fashion High Country; Eden Hore Fashion Collection Feasibility Study [Feasibility Study]^{^[4]}, written by Tim Walker Associates. The feasibility study was developed for the Central Otago District Council [Council], to explore and test opportunities for Eden Hore Central Otago fashion collection and related stories [EHCO] to:

· Be recognised as a unique cultural treasure (recognition of its value as a fashion / design / NZ’s social & cultural history);

· Be protected for current and future communities;

· Safeguard the connection between the collection and its Maniototo ‘home’;

· Contribute to economic development opportunities (diversity of visitor experience; opportunity for the development of creative experiences within the region);

· Be an exemplar for the Central Otago regional identity values.

The Feasibility Study recommended Council develop a ‘strategic coalition’ between Council and a number of strategic partners and other parties to deliver a programme of events and initiatives to leverage value of Council’s ownership of the Collection.

The purpose of this inaugural EHCO Steering Group was to make strategic and at time bold decisions in line with an agreed Terms of Reference, to guide and enhance the development of the EHCO proposition. Steering group members with expertise in unique areas relevant to EHCO were individually approached – these ranged from knowledge in fashion, textiles conservation, event management and local knowledge. Collectively, the Steering Group provides the strategic vision, local nous and ability to leverage extensive networks and opportunities at a national level. It also provides guidance and advice to Council staff and elected members.

Over the past four years the Steering Group has created opportunities for EHCO that would not have been achieved if Council had operated independently. The support and guidance of the Steering Group is greatly valued by Council and it is proposed that the EHCO Steering Group is continued into a second term. This Steering Group Terms of Reference relates to 2021 through to the end of 2023.

Council’s Chief Executive is project sponsor for EHCO and His Worship the Mayor will continue as chairperson for the EHCO Steering Group. Existing members of the Steering Group have been invited to continue in their roles.

The continuation of the EHCO Steering Group will enable the growth and exploration of future opportunities that will enhance the conservation, enjoyment and understanding of EHCO.

2. Role of the Steering Group

The role of the Steering Group for this second term is as follows:

Ÿ Develop, for endorsement by Council, an EHCO Strategy and work programme [Programme] for 2022 through 2024, based on but not limited to the recommendations and approaches outlined in the Feasibility Study, and building upon the outcomes achieved by the Steering Group during their past term.

Ÿ Oversee the development of Programme objectives and initiatives, and evaluate proposals for EHCO.

Ÿ Develop and continually update a 1-2 year Programme framework, ensuring all Programme projects and initiatives are aligned with the Strategy.

Ÿ Ensure all Programme initiatives make appropriate and effective use of EHCO in relation to the Strategy and the Collection policy and procedures.

Ÿ Assist with resolving strategic level issues and risks.

Ÿ Provide advice whether to approve or reject changes that have a high impact on timelines and budget.

Ÿ Provide advice and guidance on business issues and strategic opportunities facing the project.

Ÿ Use influence and authority to assist the project in achieving its outcomes.

Ÿ Review and approve final project deliverables.

3. Responsibilities of the Steering Group Chair

Mr Tim Cadogan, Mayor of Central Otago District Council is the Steering Group Chair^{^[5]}. Should he be unable to attend a meeting, Tim Walker will serve as Group Chair. Note that the Project Administrator should not serve as Group Chair in the absence of the Project Sponsor.

The responsibilities of the Steering Group Chair (supported by the Project Administrator) are as follows:

Ÿ Sets the agenda for each meeting

Ÿ Ensures that agendas and supporting materials are delivered to members in advance of meetings

Ÿ Ensure conflicts of interest are identified in relation to all agenda items in advance of the meeting commencing (see 5.5.3)

Ÿ Makes the purpose of each meeting clear to members and explains the agenda at the beginning of each meeting

Ÿ Clarifies and summarizes what is happening throughout each meeting.

Ÿ Keeps the meeting moving by putting time limits on each agenda items

Ÿ Encourages broad participation from members in discussion by calling on different people

Ÿ Ends each meeting with a summary of decisions and assignments

Ÿ Follows up with consistently absent members to determine if they wish to discontinue membership

Ÿ Ensures the Group nominates replacements for members who discontinue participation

4. Responsibilities of Steering Group Members

Individual Steering Group members have the following responsibilities:

Ÿ Understand the goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the project.

Ÿ Understand and represent the interests of project stakeholders.

Ÿ Apply their expertise to and take a genuine interest in the project’s outcomes and overall success.

Ÿ Act on opportunities to communicate positively about the project.

Ÿ Check that the project is making sensible financial decisions – especially in procurement and in responding to issues, risks and proposed project changes.

Ÿ Check that the project is aligned with the organisational strategy as outlined in the Feasibility Study as well as policies and directions across Council and relevant regional, national and international contexts.

Ÿ Actively participate in meetings through attendance, discussion, and review of minutes, papers and other Steering Group documents.

Ÿ Support open discussion and debate, and encourage fellow Steering Group members to voice their insights.

5. General

5.1 Membership

The table below lists the inaugural membership of the Steering Group, as at [ ] 2017.

Name	Title	Organisation
His Worship Tim Cadogan (Chair)	Mayor	Central Otago District Council
Claire Regnault	Senior Curator New Zealand History & Culture	Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa
Jane Malthus	Curator, and Hore family liaison	Otago Museum
Margi Robertson	Director	Nom D
Paul Blomfield	Consultant	Paul Blomfield PR
John Crawford	Advisor, community	Big Skies Tours
Tim Walker (Facilitator)	Consultant	Tim Walker Associates

5.2 Term

Additional members may be added at the behest to the Chair. The mix of members may be refreshed provided at least 50% of the sitting members remain through any single refreshment of membership, to ensure continuity.

5.3 Ex-officio members

Individuals with relevant expertise may be appointed as ex-officio members, to assist the Steering Group. Ex-officio members will not have voting rights or responsibilities.

5.4 Payment

Members who do not work for Council or an organisation which has signed a formal partnership with Council in relation to the EHCO project will receive an honorarium of $1,000 plus GST per day for attendance of meetings and the costs of travel and accommodation. For professional services outside of the context of meetings, members will negotiate any fees payable with Council on a case-by-case basis.

5.5 Quorum and Decision-making

5.5.1 Quorum

All efforts will be made to schedule meetings when all members can attend. That said, a minimum number of 5 Steering Group members are required for decision-making purposes. The quorum must include the Chair or his proxy from Council, the Facilitator and a minimum number of 3 other members. It is expected that all members will be present at meetings; however if necessary a member may participate via a remote connection (such as Teams), as deemed appropriate by the Chair, and their involvement will be counted toward the quorum.

5.5.2 Decision-making Process

The process the Steering Group will use to make decisions is 2/3 Majority - a course of action requires support from 2/3 of the members who attend the meeting if there is quorum.

5.5.3 Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest will be managed as follows:

A direct conflict of interest

· Where a member or the organisation they represent on the Steering Committee stands to benefit financially and/or materially from an initiative or decision of the Steering Group. In such cases the member will stand down for that item.

An indirect conflict of interest

· When a person or organisation other than the member submits or is the subject of a proposal or application for which the member or the organisation they represent on the Steering Group would benefit financially or otherwise if a commitment was made to progress. In such cases the member may, at the invitation of the Chair, contribute to discussion of that item but will stand down for deliberation and decision-making.

A perceived conflict of interest

· When an associate, friend, family member or organisation associated with a member submits or is the subject of a proposal or application there is potential for a perceived conflict of interest. In such cases the member will declare this to the Chair who will decide on the appropriate action.

All conflicts of interest will be declared to the Chair ahead of the commencement of the relevant meeting.

5.6 Frequency of Meetings

No more than two ordinary meetings will be held per annum according to another schedule set out by the Chair. The Chair reserves the right to call extraordinary meetings.

5.7 Agenda, Minutes, and Decision Papers

A package will be sent to members three to five business days in advance of a Steering Group meeting. This package will include the following:

Ÿ Agenda for upcoming meeting

Ÿ Minutes of previous meeting

Ÿ A progress report for the project

Ÿ Decision papers

Ÿ Any other documents/information to be considered at the meeting

5.8 Proxies

Members of the Steering Group have specialist skills, so there will be a presumption against sending proxies to meetings. If however there is good cause, and a skilled proxy can be identified, Steering Group members will inform the Chair Sponsor as soon as possible of their recommendation to send a proxy to a meeting in their place. This will occur no less than five business days before the scheduled meeting. Proxies are entitled to participate in discussion but are only allowed a role in decision-making at the invitation of the Chair.

6. Signatures

These Terms of Reference have been read by and are understood to provide the guidelines within which the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group is established and will operate, as below:

Project Owner

Sanchia Jacobs, Chief Executive, Central Otago District Council

………………………….…………….……………..…….. date..……….…………….……

Steering Committee Chair

His Worship Tim Cadogan, Mayor, Central Otago District Council

……………………………………………………..………. date……………………….……

Steering Committee members

Claire Regnault ……………………..……………………. date………………….…………

Paul Blomfield ..…………….……………………..……… date……………….……………

John Crawford ……………………………………………. date……………….……………

Jane Malthus …..…………………….………………….… date……………….……………

Margi Robertson .………………….…….……………..… date………………….…………

Tim Walker …...…………………………………….…….. date…………………….………

Project Administrator

Paula Penno, Community and Engagement Manager, Central Otago District Council

..……………………………………………………………. date…………………….………

Council meeting

8 December 2021

Trust Deed

The Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust

THIS DEED is made the day of 2021

BETWEEN: LINNET MARY JULIUS, of Alexandra, Solicitor (“Settlor”)

AND: TRUSTEES of address, occupation (“Trustees”)

BACKGROUND:

A. The Owner purchased the Collection of fashion garments from family members of the late Eden Hore in 2013. Central Otago high-country farmer Eden Hore amassed the collection of mainly couture ladies’ fashion garments between the 1960s and 1980s. Recognised as the largest privately owned collection of its kind in the southern hemisphere, the Council agreed to purchase the Collection to keep it together as a single entity, and to ensure that it remains in its Central Otago ‘home’.

B. The Collection represents multiple layers of New Zealand’s social history. It includes garments from New Zealand’s leading fashion designers of the time, a number of which were worn at significant national events such as the Benson and Hedges Fashion Show and Miss New Zealand pageants. Through the garments we can gain a deeper understanding of New Zealanders’ lifestyles and its emerging fashion industry of the time.

C. The paradoxical nature of a high-country farmer living in a remote Central Otago location and having a passion for this refined interest creates mystique and intrigue. Mr Hore was a successful farmer and acclaimed stockman who had a strong affinity for his Maniototo homeland. His ability to transition from the farming to entertainment industry is intriguing and inspiring. It is the intention of the Eden Hore Central Otago project to honour this impresario collector; the beauty of both the garments he collected and the landscapes that he adored; and the events, activities and people that surrounded Eden during this time. Further, the Owner intends that the stories of Eden Hore and Central Otago are amplified to motivate others to celebrate beauty and craftsmanship, and to follow their passions.

D. The Settlor has recognised the need for the provision of funding for the preservation of the collection and its ongoing interpretation and display.

E. The Settlor considers it desirable to establish a trust for the purposes set out in detail in this deed.

F. The Trustees are prepared to act as trustees of the Trust Fund.

G. By way of initial gift to the Trustees to establish the Trust, the Settlor has paid the sum of $10 to the Trustees on the date of execution of this deed.

TERMS:

1. PAPAKUPU/GLOSSARY

1.1 In this deed, the following terms shall, where the context admits, have the following meanings:

“Balance Date” means 30 June or any other date adopted from time to time by the Trustees as the end of the Trust’s Financial Year;

“Chairperson” means the Trustee appointed in accordance with clause 6.4;

“Collection” means the nationally significant collection of avant garde 1960s-1980s fashion purchased by the Owner in 2013 which provides a unique insight into the fashion industry and NZ social history of the time and is described in more detail in the Background paragraph A above;

“Concessionary Provisions” means sections CW 41 (Charities: non-business income), CW 42 (Charities: business income), CX 25 (Benefits provided by charitable organisations), DB 41 (Charitable or other public benefit gifts by company) and DV 12 (Maori authorities: donations) and subpart LD (Tax credits for gifts and donations) of the Income Tax Act 2007; and, if the Trustees are registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, the provisions of that Act relating to non-profit bodies, as defined in section 2(1) of that Act;

“Financial Year” means any year or other accounting period ending on the Balance Date;

“Owner” means the Central Otago District Council;

“Patron” means those appointed under clause 16.1 of this deed;

“Property” means real or personal property of any kind and includes any right or interest in such property and any thing in action;

“Secretary” means the person appointed in accordance with clause 6.5;

“Settlor” means Linnet Mary Julius, Solicitor of Alexandra;

“Story” means the Eden Hore Central Otago (EHCO) Story which is that the Collection has a rich story value both for avant-garde fashion and the big sky thinking of Central Otago high country impresario Eden Hore;

“Trust” means the trust created by this deed;

“Trust Fund” means any Property, which may be paid to or held under the control of or vested in or acquired by the Trustees for the Trust from any source on or after the date of this deed and whether by way of gift, bequest, devise, purchase, exchange or otherwise; and

“Trustees” means the trustee or trustees for the time being of the Trust, and, where the trustees of the Trust have incorporated as a board under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, either the trustees acting as a board or the trustee or trustees for the time being constituting the board, as the context requires;

1.2 References to clauses are references to this deed’s clauses;

1.3 Expressions defined in the main body of this deed have the defined meaning in the whole of this deed including the background;

1.4 References to one gender include the other gender;

1.5 Section, clause and other headings are for ease of reference only and do not form any part of the context or affect this deed’s interpretation;

1.6 Any obligation not to do anything includes an obligation not to suffer, permit or cause that thing to be done;

1.7 References to anything of a particular nature either before or after a general statement do not limit the general statement unless the context requires;

1.8 References to parties are references to parties to this deed;

1.9 References to persons include references to individuals, companies, corporations, partnerships, firms, joint ventures, associations, trusts, organisations, governmental or other regulatory bodies or authorities or other entities in each case whether or not having separate legal personality;

1.10 Singular words include the plural and vice versa; and

1.11 References to any statutory provision include any statutory provision, which amends or replaces it, and any subordinate legislation made under it.

2. TE INGOA/ NAME:

2.1 The name of the Trust is The Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust.

2.2 The Trustees may change the name of the Trust by deed to any other name which they may determine from time to time, provided that:

2.2.1 The Trustees will be incorporated as a trust board under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 under the new name; or

2.2.2 If the Trustees will not be incorporated as a trust board, the new name is not offensive or liable to mislead any member of the public.

3. WHāINGA/ PURPOSE

3.1 The Trustees hold the Trust Fund on trust to pay or apply so much of the capital and income of the Trust Fund as the Trustees think fit exclusively for or towards any one or more of the following exclusively charitable purposes, which are declared to be the purposes of the Trust, namely:

3.1.1 For the benefit of the New Zealand and Central Otago community through raising and utilising funds to further the awareness, preservation, promotion and presentation of the Eden Hore Central Otago Collection and Story.

3.1.2 For the advancement of education through promotion of the value of the Collection to New Zealand’s fashion, textiles and design, particularly in relation to 1960s and 1980s New Zealand avant garde fashion.

3.1.3 For the advancement of education through promotion of the value of the Collection to Central Otago’s social and cultural history, particularly in relation to the Story.

3. 1.4 For the achievement of the purposes listed in clause 3 through being a vehicle for raising, holding, enhancing and dispensing funds.

3.1.5 To provide other support and assistance to the Owner consistent with these charitable purposes.

3.2 If, because of any change in the law brought about by the enactment of new legislation and/or the amendment or repeal of existing legislation, or by any change in the official interpretation or official application of any such legislation, it is at any time necessary to amend the terms of this deed in order to achieve and/or preserve the availability of any concession in relation to the Trust under any of the Concessionary Provisions, which would otherwise be available were it not for the change in the law, then, despite clause 14, the terms of this deed will at that time be deemed to be amended to the extent necessary.

3.3 None of the purposes of the Trust will be:

3.3.1 in any way limited or restricted by reference to or inference from the terms of any other clause or the name of the Trust, except where the context specifically or expressly requires it; and

3.3.2 treated as subsidiary or ancillary to any other purpose of the Trust.

3.4 The Trustees are empowered to carry out any one or more of the purposes of the Trust independently of any other purpose of the Trust.

3.5 All of the purposes of the Trust must be pursued wholly or mainly within New Zealand.

4. TARI/OFFICE

The office of the Trust will be in such place in New Zealand as the Board of Trustees may from time to time determine.

5. Appointment and removal of TRUSTEES

5.1 The number of Trustees must be not less than three nor more than ten provided that:

5.1.1 if at any time there are less than three Trustees, the person having the power of appointment of Trustees must increase the number of Trustees to three as soon as is reasonably practicable; and

5.1.2 the remaining Trustees will be entitled to act until the number of Trustees is increased and no act or decision of the remaining Trustees will be called into question on account of the fact that there were less than three Trustees when that act or decision was carried out or made.

5.2 The power of appointment of replacement Trustees is vested in the person in whom that power is vested by section 92 of the Trusts Act 2019, who also has the following powers:

5.2.1 to appoint at any time or times an additional Trustee or additional Trustees;

5.2.2 to reappoint any retiring or retired Trustee as Trustee; or

5.2.3 to appoint that person, or any of them, to be a Trustee.

5.3 The person having the powers of appointment under clause 5.2 also has the power to remove any Trustee.

5.4 The following persons may not hold office as a Trustee:

5.4.1 an individual who is under the age of 16 years;

5.4.2 an individual who is an undischarged bankrupt or who is a discharged bankrupt but is prohibited by the Court from engaging in any form of business activity;

5.4.3 a company, incorporated society or any other body corporate:

(a) which is being wound up or has gone into liquidation;

(b) in respect of which a resolution has been passed appointing a liquidator;

(d) in respect of which a meeting of shareholders or members has been called at which the appointment of a liquidator will be considered;

(e) for which a receiver or statutory manager has been appointed in respect of all or any part of its assets; or

(f) which has made or entered into, or attempted to make or enter into, any compromise, assignment or other arrangement with or for the benefit of all or any class of its creditors;

5.4.4 a person who has been:

(a) convicted of any crime involving dishonesty, within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, and sentenced for that crime within the last seven years; or

(b) convicted of any offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of two or more years, or sentenced to imprisonment for any offence, unless that person has:

(i) obtained a pardon; or

(ii) served, or otherwise suffered, the sentence imposed on that person;

· provided that that person will not be disqualified from appointment as a Trustee, or may continue to hold office as a Trustee, but will be deemed to have taken leave of absence, until the expiry of the time for appealing against the conviction or sentence of imprisonment, and if there is an appeal against conviction or sentence, until the appeal has been determined;

5.4.5 a person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or being concerned or taking part in the management of, a company under the Companies Act 1993, the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 or the Takeovers Act 1993;

5.4.6 a person who is subject to a property order made under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 or whose Property is managed by a trustee corporation under section 32 of that Act; or

5.4.7 a person who is subject to an order made under section 31 of the Charities Act 2005 disqualifying the person from being an officer of a charitable entity.

5.5 If any person having the powers of appointment under clause 5.2 and removal under clause 5.3:

5.5.1 dies or, in the case of a body corporate, is liquidated or otherwise dissolved; or

5.5.2 in precluded from holding office as a Trustee under clause 5.4;

· then the Trustees, but excluding that person if that person is also Trustee, will have the power to:

5.5.3 remove those powers of appointment and removal from that person; and

5.5.4 revest those powers of appointment and removal in another person who may or may not be a Trustee.

From the date of any such revesting, this clause 5.5 will apply to the person in whom the powers of appointment and removal are revested as if that person were originally named in clause 5.2.

5.6 A Trustee will cease to hold office if that Trustee:

5.6.1 resigns by giving 30 days’ written notice to the Secretary, who must circulate that written notice to the remaining Trustees within 10 days of receipt;

5.6.2 is precluded from holding office as a Trustee under clause 5.4;

5.6.3 fails to attend a meeting of the Trustees for a period of 12 months;

5.6.4 dies while holding office as a Trustee; or

5.6.5 is removed by the person having the power of removal of Trustees.

5.7 On every appointment, reappointment, removal or cessation of office of any Trustee, the Trustees must cause an entry to that effect to be recorded in the Trust’s minute book.

6. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST

6.1. The Trustees must regulate and conduct meetings as follows:

6.1.1 within four months of the end of each Financial Year, the Trustees must hold an annual general meeting;

6.1.2 the Secretary must give no less than 30 days’ written notice of the annual general meeting to the Trustees;

6.1.3 the business to be transacted at the annual general meeting will be the:

(a) receipt of the financial statements;

(b) appointment of the auditor (if any); and

and any other business will be treated as special business and will be dealt with in accordance with clause 6.1.4;

6.1.4 written notice of any special business must be given to the Secretary no less than 21 days before the annual general meeting and the Secretary must circulate a written agenda including all special business to the Trustees no later than 14 days before the annual general meeting;

6.1.5 the Trustees may otherwise meet at any times and places, which they may agree, provided that any two or more Trustees may at any time requisition a meeting of Trustees by giving written notice to the Secretary and the Secretary must, within 10 days of receipt of that notice, convene a special general meeting by giving, subject to clause 13.1 not less than 10 days’ notice of the meeting to the Trustees; and

6.1.6 every notice of meeting given by the Secretary to the Trustees must:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) state the date, time and place of the meeting; and every notice of a meeting requisitioned under clause 6.1.5 must state the matters to be discussed at that meeting, but notice of any meeting may be abridged or waived if all the Trustees consent in writing to that abridgment or waiver.

6.2 A quorum at meetings of the Trustees will be comprised of half the number of Trustees.

6.3 All acts done by any meeting of Trustees or by any person acting as Trustee will be as valid and effectual as if that Trustee or those Trustees:

6.3.1 had been duly appointed;

6.3.2 were qualified to hold office as Trustee; and

6.3.3 had complied with the rules and regulations made in accordance with clause 6.1;

· even if it is later discovered that:

6.3.4 there was some defect in the appointment of any of the Trustees;

6.3.5 any of the Trustees were for any reason disqualified from holding office as Trustee; or

6.3.6 there was accidental failure to comply with the rules and regulations made in accordance with clause 6.1.

6.4 The Trustees must appoint a Chairperson of the Trustees from among their number who will hold office at the Trustees’ pleasure.

6.5 The Trustees must from time to time appoint either one of their number or some other person to be Secretary who shall hold office at the Trustees’ pleasure.

6.6 Except as otherwise provided, and subject to clause 6.2, all resolutions passed at a meeting of the Trustees may be by a majority of Trustees present at that meeting and any such resolution will be binding on all Trustees. The Chairperson will have a casting as well as a deliberative vote if there is a tie and equality of votes.

6.7 A written resolution, signed by all the Trustees, will be as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of the Trustees. Any such resolution may consist of several documents in like form each signed by one or more Trustees.

6.8 The Trustees may from time to time rescind or vary any resolution of the Trustees by the same majority as was necessary to pass the resolution being rescinded or varied.

6.9 The Trustees must provide and keep a minute book. The Secretary must prepare and enter a record of all resolutions of the Trustees in the minute book. If confirmed by the Trustees, the Chairperson must sign those minutes as a true and correct record. Every minute purporting to be so signed will be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in those minutes.

6.10 The Trustees must keep an account at a bank, which they may determine from time to time. Payments from the bank account must be authorised by at least two Trustees.

6.11 The Trustees must ensure that:

6.11.1 full and correct records and accounts are kept of all their receipts, credits, payments, assets, liabilities, transactions and all other matters necessary for showing the true state and condition of the Trust Fund; and

6.11.2 financial statements are prepared as soon as practicable after the end of each Financial Year, those statements must include:

(a) a statement of financial position;

(b) a statement of financial performance; and

· giving a true and fair view of the financial position of the Trust Fund for that Financial Year and, if the Trustees so resolve, a chartered accountant appointed for the purpose by the Trustees will audit those financial statements; and

6.11.3 any change to the Balance Date for the Trust has been approved, if required, pursuant to section 41 of the Charities Act 2005 or otherwise.

6.12 Subject to clause 6.13, all documents required to be executed by the Trustees will be deemed to be validly executed and binding if those documents have been signed by at least two Trustees.

6.13 If the Trustees become incorporated as a board under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, then:

6.13.1 the Trustees will provide a common seal for the board, which will be:

(a) deposited with the Secretary; and

(b) affixed to any document requiring execution by the board under common seal; and

6.13.2 every affixing of the common seal must be:

(a) performed in the presence of and accompanied by the signatures of two Trustees, which will be sufficient evidence of authority to affix the seal; and

(b) recorded in a seal register retained for such purpose.

6.14 The Trustees must cause to be prepared, and retained and/or filed with any relevant authority all necessary tax accounts, returns, reports, declarations, notices, certificates, reconciliations, applications, forms and other information required to be prepared or filed, pursuant to any revenue legislation, the Charities Act 2005 or otherwise, so as to achieve or preserve the availability of any concession in relation to the Trust under any of the Concessionary Provisions.

6.15 Any notice to be given to the Secretary under this deed must be in writing signed by the person giving the notice and served at the office of the Trust. Any notice or document so served will be deemed to be duly given:

6.15.1 if delivered by hand, when so delivered;

6.15.2 if delivered by facsimile, when receipt is confirmed;

6.15.3 if delivered by post, on the third working day after posting; or

6.15.4 if sent by e-mail, on the sender’s receipt of an e-mail message indicating that the e-mail has been opened at the recipient’s terminal.

7. TAKETAKE/ POWERS

7.1 The Trustees, in connection with the Trust, will only promote the exclusively charitable purposes of the Trust described in clause 3.

7.2 In particular and in addition to all other powers conferred by law, but subject to the restrictions contained in this deed:

7.2.1 the Trustees will have the same powers as if they were the beneficial owner of the Trust Fund; and

7.2.2 the Trustees’ powers will not be limited or restricted by any principle of construction or rule of law or statutory power or provision except to the extent that it is obligatory.

7.3 None of the powers or authorities conferred on the Trustees by this clause or otherwise will be deemed subsidiary or ancillary to any other power or authority. The Trustees may exercise any of those powers and authorities independently of any other power or authority. If there is any ambiguity, this provision will be construed so as to widen and not restrict the Trustees’ powers provided that at no time shall this provision be construed so as to prevent the availability of any concession in relation to the Trust under any of the Concessionary Provisions, which would otherwise be available.

8. KO NGĀ RAWA HEI PAINGA MO TE IWI/TRUSTEE REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES

8.1 Subject to clause 8.3, any Trustee being a lawyer, accountant or other person engaged in any profession, business or trade is entitled to be paid all usual professional, business and trade charges for services provided by that person or that person’s employee or partner in connection with the Trust including acts, which a Trustee, not being in any profession, business or trade, could have done personally.

8.2 Subject to clause 8.3, each Trustee is entitled to such remuneration for services provided as may be reasonable having regard to that Trustee’s duties and responsibilities and to any remuneration paid to that Trustee in accordance with clause 8.1 for those services.

8.3 Any payment to a Trustee referred to in clauses 8.1 and 8.2 must not exceed fair market value for services provided and, where any such payment is a benefit or advantage to which clauses 10.2 to 10.4 apply, no Trustee receiving such payment and no person associated with such Trustee may:

8.3.1 take part in any deliberations or proceedings relating to that payment; or

8.3.2 in any way determine or materially influence directly or indirectly the nature or amount of that payment or the circumstances in which it is to be paid.

8.4 Each Trustee is entitled to be indemnified against, and reimbursed for, all travelling, hotel and other expenses properly incurred in connection with the Trust.

9. NO PRIVATE PROFIT

Nothing expressed or implied in this deed will permit:

9.1 the Trustees’ activities; or

9.2 any business carried on by or on behalf of or for the benefit of the Trustees, in connection with the Trust;

to be carried on for the private profit of any individual.

10. RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO BUSINESS INCOME

10.1 In any tax year, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007, where any business, within the ambit and scope of that Act and in particular section CW 42 of that Act, is carried on by or for the benefit of the Trust:

10.1.1 the Trustees must not derive directly or indirectly from any such business any amount of income that is not exempt from income tax under section CW 42 of the Income Tax Act 2007; and

10.1.2 within the ambit and scope of clauses 10.2 to 10.4, no person with some control over the business may direct or divert, to their own benefit or advantage, any amount derived from that business.

10.2 For the purposes of clause 10.1.2, a person who may have some control over the business is a person who is, within the ambit and scope of section CW 42(5)–(7) of the Income Tax Act 2007:

10.2.1 a settlor or trustee of a trust carrying on the business or of a trust that is a shareholder in a company carrying on the business; or

10.2.2 a director or shareholder of a company carrying on the business; or

10.2.3 a person associated with any person described in clauses 10.2.1 and 10.2.2.

10.3 For the purpose of clause 10.1.2, an amount is directed or diverted to the benefit or advantage of a person described in clause 10.2 if that person is given or receives from the business any benefit or advantage, whether or not convertible into money, within the ambit and scope of section CW 42(6)–(8) of the Income Tax Act 2007, or any income of a kind specified in and not excluded by those sub-sections.

10.4 For the purpose of clause 10.1.2, a person described in clause 10.2 has some control over the business and is able to direct or divert amounts from the business to their own benefit or advantage if, by virtue of their position described in clause 10.2 and within the ambit and scope of section CW 42(5)–(8) of the Income Tax Act 2007, that person is, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, able to determine or materially influence in any way the determination of:

10.4.1 the nature or extent of any benefit, advantage or income described in clause 10.3; or

10.4.2 the circumstances in which any benefit, advantage or income described in clause 10.3 is, or is to be, given or received.

11. TAKAWAENGA/ MEDIATION & ARBITRATION

11.1 Any dispute arising out of or relating to this deed may be referred to mediation, a non-binding dispute resolution process in which an independent mediator facilitates negotiation between parties. Mediation may be initiated by either party writing to the other party and identifying the dispute which is being suggested for mediation. The other party will either agree to proceed with mediation or agree to attend a preliminary meeting with the mediator to discuss whether mediation would be helpful in the circumstances. The parties will agree on a suitable person to act as mediator or will ask the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc. to appoint a mediator. The mediation will be in accordance with the Mediation Protocol of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ institute of New Zealand Inc.

11.2 The mediation shall be terminated by:

11.2.1 The signing of a settlement agreement by the parties; or

11.2.2 Notice to the parties by the mediator, after consultation with the parties, to the effect that further efforts at mediation are no longer justified; or

11.2.3 Notice by one or more of the parties to the mediation to the effect that further efforts at mediation are no longer justified; or

11.2.4 The expiry of sixty (60) working days from the mediator’s appointment, unless the parties expressly consent to an extension of this period.

11.3 If the mediation should be terminated as provided in 11.2.2, 11.2.3 or 11.2.4 any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this deed, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in New Zealand in accordance with New Zealand law and the current Arbitration Protocol of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc. The arbitration shall be by one arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties and if they should fail to agree within twenty-one (21) days, then to be appointed by the President of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc.

12. TAUNAHA/ TRUSTEE LIABILITY

12.1 No Trustee will be liable for any loss to the Trust Fund arising from any act or omission of the Trustee unless it is attributable to that Trustee’s own dishonesty or to the wilful commission or omission of any act known by that Trustee to be a breach of trust or from that Trustee’s gross negligence.

12.2 Subject to clause 12.1, despite:

12.2.1 the provisions of section 30 of the Trusts Act 2019; and

12.2.2 the likelihood that the Trustees will from time to time include persons whose profession, employment or business is or includes acting as a trustee or investing money on behalf of others;

the care, diligence and skill to be exercised by those persons will not be that required by section 30 of the Trusts Act 2019 but will at all times be the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of others.

12.3 No Trustee will be bound to take, or be liable for failure to take, any proceedings against any other Trustee or former Trustee for any breach or alleged breach of trust committed by that other Trustee or former Trustee.

12.4 Subject to clauses 12.1 and 12.2, a Trustee will be chargeable only for any money, which that Trustee has received. For the purposes of this clause, a Trustee is deemed to have received money even if not actually paid to that Trustee if that money has been credited in account, reinvested, accumulated, capitalised, carried to any reserve, sinking or insurance fund, or otherwise dealt with on that Trustee’s behalf.

12.5 Notwithstanding the procedure or otherwise of retaining assets in the Trust Fund no Trustee shall be liable for any loss suffered by the Trust Fund by reason of the Trustees retaining any asset forming part of the Trust Fund.

12.6 Each Trustee or former Trustee is entitled to be indemnified out of the Trust Fund against all actions, proceedings, claims, damages, losses, demands, calls, liabilities, costs (including legal costs) and expenses (together called “liabilities”) suffered or incurred by that Trustee or former Trustee in connection with the Trust, except to the extent that those liabilities are due to:

12.6.1 that Trustee’s or former Trustee’s own dishonesty or lack of good faith;

12.6.2 that Trustee’s or former Trustee’s wilful commission or omission of an act known by that Trustee or former Trustee to be a breach of trust; or

12.6.3 that Trustee’s or former Trustee’s gross negligence.

13. TE TUKU TOENGA RAWA/DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS ASSETS

13.1 The Trustees may wind up the Trust by a unanimous resolution of the Trustees, provided that, in the event there is more than one Trustee:

13.1.1 that resolution must be passed at a Trustees’ meeting called for that purpose; and

13.1.2 the Secretary must give not less than 30 days’ notice of that meeting to the Trustees.

13.2 If, on the winding up of the Trust, any portion of the Trust Fund remains after satisfaction of all the debts and liabilities of the Trustees in connection with the Trust, none of that portion may be paid out or distributed other than for similar charitable purposes to this Trust, carried out exclusively within New Zealand. Alternatively, any surplus Property remaining after the winding up or dissolution of the Trust may be disposed of at the direction of a Judge of the High Court of New Zealand.

14. WHAKAREREKĒTANGA TURE/ALTERATION OF THIS DEED

14.1 The Trustees may by consensus or pursuant to a motion decided by a majority of votes, by supplemental deed make alterations or additions to the terms and provisions of this deed provided that no such alteration or addition will allow the Trust:

14.1.1 to operate other than for exclusively charitable purposes;

14.1.2 to operate for private profit;

14.1.3 result in the distribution of its assets on winding up or dissolution for any purpose that is not exclusively charitable; or

14.1.4 affect the eligibility of the Trust for the benefit of any of the Concessionary Provisions, unless in relation to any such provision the Trustees have unanimously determined that eligibility for the benefit of that provision is not required in the best interests of pursuing the purposes of the Trust.

14.2 Any alteration or addition must be recorded in writing either in a supplemental deed or a trustees’ resolution signed by all Trustees.

15. GOVERNING LAW

This deed is governed by New Zealand law. The Trustees submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of all courts having jurisdiction in New Zealand.

16. PATRON

16.1 There shall be patrons of the Trust who shall be appointed by the Trustees from time to time.

16.2 Each Patron shall:

16.2.1 be recognised also as patron for the Eden Hore Central Otago project;

16.2.2 abide by this deed and each other specification pertaining to the status of Patron determined from time to time by the Trustees;

16.2.3 not attempt to injure the Trust or objects or purposes of the Trust or bring the Trust or its objects or purposes into disrepute;

16.2.4 adopt and conform to all decisions and directions of the Trustees from time to time; and

16.2.5 have no right or claim upon the Trust or to or against the Trust Funds at the time when the Patron ceases to be a Patron.

16.3 If any Patron refuses or neglects to adopt or conform to any decision or direction of the Trustees in any matter whatsoever, or does not abide by this deed, or injures the Trust or defeats or attempts to defeat the objects or purposes of the Trust, the Trustees shall give the Patron written notice of default whereupon the Patron shall have 10 days to rectify the default failing which the Trustees may, by not less than one months’ notice in writing, terminate the Patron’s status as a Patron.

16.4 Despite clause 16.3, no Patron shall be appointed or continue to hold the status of Patron if they fall under one of the circumstances listed in clause 5.4 of this deed.

16.5 A Patron may resign their status as a Patron of the Trust by giving notice in writing to the Chairperson or any other person or persons appointed by the Trustees for this purpose.

Executed as a deed.

SIGNED by <non-Council person> *[1=FULL NAME OF SETTLOR]* as Settlor in the presence of:

___________________________________________________
[1=FULL NAME OF SETTLOR]

Witness:

___________________________________________________

Signature of witness

___________________________________________________

Full name of witness

___________________________________________________

Occupation of witness

___________________________________________________

Address of witness

SIGNED by *[2=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 1]* as one of the Trustees in the presence of:

___________________________________________________
[2=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 1]

Witness:

___________________________________________________

Signature of witness

___________________________________________________

Full name of witness

___________________________________________________

Occupation of witness

___________________________________________________

Address of witness

SIGNED by *[3=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 2]* as one of the Trustees in the presence of:	___________________________________________________
	[4=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 2]
___________________________________________________
[3=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 2]

Witness:

___________________________________________________

Signature of witness

___________________________________________________

Full name of witness

___________________________________________________

Occupation of witness

___________________________________________________

Address of witness

SIGNED by *[4=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 3]* as one of the Trustees in the presence of:	___________________________________________________
	[5=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 3]
___________________________________________________
[4=FULL NAME OF TRUSTEE 3]

Witness:

___________________________________________________

Signature of witness

___________________________________________________

Full name of witness

___________________________________________________

Occupation of witness

___________________________________________________

Address of witness

NOTE: The Trust Deed has to be certified as a correct copy by one of the trustees, or a member of the committee or governing body of the society with the following statement:

“I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the trust deed or rules of the [Name of Trust Board]”.

Full Name: .............................................................................

Signed: ..................................................................................

Date: …..................................................................................

8 December 2021

21.9.5 Request for Minister of Conservation's consent to reclassify part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve [PRO: 61-2000-00]

Doc ID: 558362

1. Purpose of Report

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the reclassification of part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. To grant consent (under delegated authority), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, to Council:

1. Reclassifying approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123, being part of the Alexandra Town Belt/Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

2. Background

Resolution 21.8.4

At its meeting of 11 October 2021, the Vincent Community Board (the Board) considered a report proposing the reclassification of approximately 250 square metres of the Alexandra Town Belt (Recreation Reserve) to Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

The purpose of the proposed reclassification is to increase the size of the land parcel containing the existing water reservoir. Increasing the size of the land parcel will enable Council to construct a new 4000 cubic metre water tank immediately adjacent to the existing reservoir on Lot 1 Deposited Plan (DP) 27045.

A copy of the report to the Board, dated 11 October 2021, is attached as Appendix 1.

On consideration to the Board resolved as follows:

B. Agrees to:

1. Reclassify approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123 being part of the Alexandra Town Belt/Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

2. To extend designation 20 (subject to the process under the Resource Management Act 1991) to include the newly reclassified area.

Subject to:

· Public consultation in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

· The consent of the Minister of Conservation.

· The costs being met by the Alexandra Northern Reservoir Capital Project.

· The Chief Executive approving the final tank/reservoir design and survey boundaries

Consultation

In accordance with Resolution 21.8.4 and pursuant to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, Council publicly advertised their Notice of Intention in the Central Otago News edition of 14 October 2021.

The public notice advised that a Statement of Proposal was available in hard copy at the Alexandra Council Office or online via Council’s website.

The notice invited the public to make submissions to the proposal to reclassify part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

A copy of the Notice of Intention [as advertised] is attached as Appendix 2.

A copy of the Statement of Proposal [with submission form] is attached as Appendix 3.

As noted in the advertising, submissions closed at 12.00pm Monday 15 November 2021 with no submissions either in support of, or in opposition to, the proposal being received.

Consideration of Submissions

In accordance with the “Register of Delegations to Community Boards, Portfolios, Committees and the Chief Executive Officer” dated 14 April 2020, Council has delegated the hearing of submissions to proposals to change reserve classifications to the Hearings Panel (the Panel).

Accordingly, at its meeting of 07 December 2021, the Panel considered a report detailing the proposal and the absence of submissions.

A copy of the report the Panel, dated 07 December 2021, is attached as Appendix 5.

An update on the Panel’s findings and its recommendation to the Minister of Conservation will be provided in conjunction with the presenting of this report.

3. Discussion

Due Process – Reclassification of Reserve Land

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the mechanism for changing the classification or purpose of a reserve. It also provides for the revocation of reserve status.

The proposal to reclassify 250 square metres of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve to ‘Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve’ is consistent with section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act which states that where:

the local authority within whose district a reserve is situated or the administering body of any reserve notifies the Commissioner in writing that, pursuant to a resolution of the local authority or of the administering body, as the case may be, it considers for any reason, to be stated in the resolution, that the classification or purpose of the whole or part of the reserve should be changed to another classification or purpose, or that the reservation of the whole or part of the land as a reserve should be revoked,—

then, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the Minister [of Conservation] may, in his or her discretion, by notice in the Gazette, change the classification or purpose of the whole or part of the reserve, which thereafter shall be held and administered for that changed classification or purpose, or revoke the reservation of the whole or part of the land as a reserve.

The succeeding provisions which are applicable to the proposal to reclassify part of the recreation reserve are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h). These include:

· the requirement to publicly notify the proposal to change the classification and to specify the reason or reasons for the proposal.

· the requirement to invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed reclassification to give notice in writing of his or her objections to the proposed change.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed change of classification and all objections received during the submission period.

For the purpose of confirming due process, the following steps have been undertaken in preparation of the change of reclassification are outlined below:

Step Date

1. Resolution of the Vincent Community Board 11 October 2021

2. Notice of Intention and Statement of Proposal Advertised 21 October 2021

3. Submission Period Closed 15 November 2021

4. Submission(s) heard (by Hearings Panel under Delegation) 07 December 2021

Minister of Conservation

When an administering body proposes to reclassify a reserve (or any part thereof) in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977, they must obtain the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

The role of the Minister is to ensure that the provisions of the Reserves Act are applied appropriately. Those provisions include the Minister of Conservation:

· being satisfied that the reclassification conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act,

· ensuring that due process under the Reserves Act has been followed,

· considering submissions resulting from public notification (when required).

Section 10 of the Reserves Act provides for delegation of the Minister’s consent in certain circumstances.

In the “Instrument of Delegation to Territorial Authority’s” dated 12 June 2013 the Minister delegated the following powers to Council as the administering body:

· the power to change the classification or purpose of a reserve by notice in the Gazette, and,

· the power to consider all objections received to a proposed change of classification or purpose.

Summary

In summarising the discussion points above, due process under the Reserves Act 1977 has been confirmed as being followed.

Accordingly, the Minister of Conservation’s consent may now be granted to the proposal outlined in Resolution 21.8.4, being:

1. Reclassifying approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123, being part of the Alexandra Town Belt/Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

4. Financial Considerations

Council will be required to pay the costs associated with the reclassification of the land, the surveying, and the registering of the Gazette Notices.

As noted in the report dated 11 October 2021, the costs (approximately $11,000) will form a very minor component of the greater budget associated with the Alexandra Northern Reservoir Capital Project and can be accommodated within the existing budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To grant consent (under delegated authority), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, to Council:

Reclassifying approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123, being part of the Alexandra Town Belt/Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

Advantages:

· Recognises that the proposal to reclassify part of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123 conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Recognises that due process has been followed.

· The new tank/reservoir will be able to be constructed as designed.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

To not grant consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation to the proposal outlined in Option 1.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· Does not recognise that the proposal to reclassify part of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123 conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Does not recognise that due process has been followed.

· The new tank/reservoir will not be able to be constructed as designed.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions

The Local Government Act 2002 does not apply to this decision.

The Minister of Conservation’s consent is delegated to Council in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, and the “Instrument of Delegation to Territorial Authority’s” dated 12 June 2013.

Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.

The recommended option is consistent with the Reserves Act 1977.

Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts

No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision to reclassify part of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123.

Risks Analysis

There are no risks to Council associated with the recommended option.

Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)

The proposal to reclassify part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve has already been publicly advertised and consulted upon in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

Notice of the reclassification will be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

Reclassification Works Commence: Late 2021

Construction of the new tank/reservoir: 2021/2022

Survey of the land and registration of required easements: Early 2022

Reclassification advertised in New Zealand Gazette: Mid 2022

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Copy of Report to the Board dated 30 June 2021 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Notice of Intention [as advertised] ⇩

Appendix 3 - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Appendix 4 - Copy of Report to the Panel dated 07 December 2021 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Lee Webster
Property Officer - Statutory	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
15/11/2021	25/11/2021

Council meeting

8 December 2021

21.5.14 Request for Minister of Conservation's consent to grant easements over, and to reclassify part of, the Clyde Recreation Reserve [PRO: 63-4066 and PRO: 63-4068]

Doc ID: 540489

1. Purpose of Report

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of easements over and to the reclassification of part of, the Clyde Recreation Reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to grant consent (under delegated authority), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, to Council:

1. Reclassifying part of Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde (site 1) and part of Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (site 2), being part of the Clyde Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve.

2. Granting easements containing the right to convey water, wastewater, and power over Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde and Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (as required).

3. Grant an easement, (in gross) in favour of Central Otago District Council, containing the right to convey wastewater, over Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 Block VII Town of Clyde

2. Background

Resolution 21.3.2

At its meeting of 12 April 2021, the Vincent Community Board considered a report proposing the granting of easement over, and the reclassification of two sites on the Clyde Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve.

The purpose of the proposed reclassifications is to provide for the construction of two ‘inter-stage’ pumping stations. The two ‘inter-stage’ pumping stations are integral to the construction of the Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Project.

The purpose of the proposed easements is to:

· Facilitate the connection of each pumping station to the water, wastewater, and electricity networks.

· Connect new (proposed) public toilets Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde to the new pumping station on site 1, and.

· Enable 95 Sunderland Street to be connected to the new wastewater main in O’Reilly Avenue.

A copy of the report to the Board, dated 12 April 2021, is attached as Appendix 1.

On consideration, the Board resolved (Resolution 21.3.2) as follows:

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to:

1. Reclassify part of Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde (site 1) and part of Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (site 2), being part of the Clyde Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve.

2. Grant easements containing the right to convey water, wastewater, and power over Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde and Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (as required).

3. Grant an easement, (in gross) in favour of Central Otago District Council, containing the right to convey wastewater, over Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 Block VII Town of Clyde.

Subject to:

· The Chief Executive approving the final pumping station design and survey boundaries.

· Public consultation of the proposal to reclassify sites 1 and 2 in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

· The consent of the Minister of Conservation.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Consultation

In accordance with Resolution 21.3.2 and pursuant to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, Council publicly advertised their Notice of Intention in the Central Otago News edition of 15 April 2021.

The public notice advised that a Statement of Proposal was available in hard copy at the Alexandra Council Office or online via Council’s website.

The notice invited the public to make submissions to the proposal to reclassify two sites on the Clyde Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve.

A copy of the Notice of Intention [as advertised] is attached as Appendix 2.

A copy of the Statement of Proposal [with submission form] is attached as Appendix 3.

As noted in the Statement of Proposal, submissions closed at 5pm on 17 May 2021 with one electronic submission in support of the proposal being received.

A copy of the submission as extracted from the submission portal is attached as attached as Appendix 4.

The details of that submission and an overview of the proposal were then collated into a report for Council’s Hearing Panel.

Consideration of Submissions

Accordingly, at its meeting of 08 June 2021, the Hearings Panel considered the report detailing the proposal and the submission.

A copy of the report the Hearings Panel, dated 08 June 2021, is attached as Appendix 5.

Following deliberation, the Hearings Panel resolved (Motion 21.6.1) as follows:

21.6.1 Proposal to Reclassify Two Areas of Recreation Reserve, Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde (2846127500)

A report to consider the submissions to the proposal to reclassify two sites on the Clyde Recreation Reserve as Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserves had been circulated.

Also circulated was the report of the Property Officer in relation to the proposal.

RESOLVED that the report of the Property Officer be approved.

Nixon / Jeffery

3. Discussion

Due Process – Reclassification of Reserve Land

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the mechanism for changing the classification or purpose of a reserve. It also provides for the revocation of reserve status.

The proposal to reclassify the two areas of recreation reserve to ‘Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve’ is consistent with section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act which states that where:

The succeeding provisions which are applicable to the proposal to reclassify part of the recreation reserve are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h). These include:

· the requirement to publicly notify the proposal to change the classification and to specify the reason or reasons for the proposal.

· the requirement to invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed reclassification to give notice in writing of his or her objections to the proposed change.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed change of classification and all objections received during the submission period.

For the purpose of confirming due process, the following steps have been undertaken in preparation of the change of reclassification are outlined below:

Step Date

1. Resolution of the Vincent Community Board 12 April 2021

2. Notice of Intention and Statement of Proposal Advertised 15 April 2021

3. Submission Period Closed 17 May 2021

4. Submission heard (by Hearings Panel under Delegation) 08 June 2021

Due Process – Rights of Way and other Easements over Reserve Land

Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the granting of rights of way and other easements over a reserve.

In the case of reserves vested in an administering body, the administering body may, with the consent of the Minister, grant rights of way and other easements over any part of the reserve for—

Should the Minister consent to the proposal to reclassify sites 1 and 2, an ‘inter-stage’ pumping station will be constructed on each site as part of the greater Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Project.

To connect each pumping station to the water, wastewater, and electricity networks, easements (in gross, in favour of Council) will be required over Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde and Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde, being recreation reserve.

To connect 95 Sunderland Street to the new wastewater main in O’Reilly Avenue an additional easement (also in gross, in favour of Council) will be required over Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 Block VII Town of Clyde, also being recreation reserve.

The granting of the proposed easements is consistent with section 48 of the Reserves Act as they are required to facilitate access to and the operation of the pumping station which has a public purpose.

While public notice can be required when easements or other rights are granted over a reserve, section 48(3) states that public notification is not required when:

• the reserve is vested in an administering body, and;

• is not likely to be materially altered, or permanently damaged, and;

• the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

As the services will all be located underground, they will not materially alter the reserve or affect the rights of the public. Accordingly, public consultation is not required in this instance.

Minister of Conservation

When an administering body proposes to reclassify a reserve (or any part thereof) in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977, they must obtain the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

The Minister’s must also consent to the granting an easement or other rights over recreation reserve under section 48 of the Reserves Act.

The role of the Minister is to ensure that the provisions of the Reserves Act are applied appropriately. Those provisions include the Minister of Conservation:

• being satisfied that the reclassification or easement conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act,

• ensuring that due process under the Reserves Act has been followed,

• considering submissions resulting from public notification (when required).

Section 10 of the Reserves Act provides for delegation of the Minister’s consent in certain circumstances.

In the “Instrument of Delegation to Territorial Authority’s” dated 12 June 2013 the Minister delegated the following rights to Council:

• the right to consider all objections received to a proposed change of classification or purpose to Council.

• the right to consent or refuse consent to the administering body granting rights of way and other easements over any part of a vested reserve for any of the purposes specified in section 48(1).

Summary

In summarising the discussion points above, due process under the Reserves Act 1977 has been confirmed as being followed.

Accordingly, the Minister of Conservation’s consent may now be granted to the proposal outlined in Resolution 21.3.2, being to:

2. Grant easements containing the right to convey water, wastewater, and power over Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde and Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (as required).

3. Grant an easement, (in gross) in favour of Central Otago District Council, containing the right to convey wastewater, over Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 Block VII Town of Clyde.

4. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To grant consent (under delegated authority), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, to Council:

2. Granting easements containing the right to convey water, wastewater, and power over Section 4 Block XLIX Town of Clyde and Section 34 Bock IV Town of Clyde (as required).

3. Grant an easement, (in gross) in favour of Central Otago District Council, containing the right to convey wastewater, over Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 Block VII Town of Clyde.

Advantages:

· Recognises that the proposal to reclassify sites 1 and 2 of the reserve conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Recognises that the proposal to grant easements (in gross, as required) conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Recognises that due process has been followed.

· ‘Inter-stage’ pumping stations will be able to be constructed on sites 1 and 2.

· Services connecting each ‘inter-stage’ pumping station to utility networks will be able to be installed.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

To not grant consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation to the proposal outlined in Option 1.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· Does not recognise that the proposal to reclassify sites 1 and 2 of the reserve conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Does not recognise that the proposal to grant easements (in gross, as required) conforms with the provisions of Reserves Act 1977.

· Does not recognise that due process has been followed.

· ‘Inter-stage’ pumping stations will not be able to be constructed on sites 1 and 2.

· Services connecting each ‘inter-stage’ pumping station to utility networks will not be able to be installed.

5. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	The Local Government Act 2002 does not apply to this decision. The Minister of Conservation’s consent is delegated to Council in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, and the “Instrument of Delegation to Territorial Authority’s” dated 12 June 2013.
Financial implications – Is this decision consistent with proposed activities and budgets in long term plan/annual plan?	Council will be required to pay the costs associated with the reclassification of the land and the surveying and registering of the easements. The costs (approximately $7,500) will form a very minor component of the greater budget associated with the installation of the Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Project.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommended option is consistent with the Reserves Act 1977.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision to reclassify sites 1 and 2, or to the granting of the proposed easements.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks to Council associated with the recommended option.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The proposal to reclassify part of the Clyde Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Pumping Station) Reserve has already been publicly advertised and consulted upon in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. Pursuant to section 48(3) of the Reserves Act 1977, public advertising of the intention to grant the required easements is not required in this instance.

6. Next Steps

Construction of the ‘inter-stage’ pumping stations: 2021/2022

Survey of the land and registration of required easements: Early 2022

Gazettal and completion of proposed reclassification: Early 2022

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Copy of report to the Board dated 12 April 2021

Appendix 2 - Notice of Intention (Public Notice)

Appendix 3 - Statement of Proposal

Appendix 4 - Copy of Electronic Submission

Appendix 5 - Copy of report to Hearings Panel dated 08 June 2021

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Louise van der Voort
Property Officer - Statutory	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
14/06/2021	16/06/2021

Council meeting

8 December 2021

Hearings Panel

7 December 2021

Report for Decision

PROPOSAL TO RECLASSIFY (PT) ALEXANDRA TOWN BELT RECREATION RESERVE (PRO 61-2000-00)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider the submissions to the proposal to reclassify part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve and to obtain a recommendation to Council.

BACKGROUND

A copy of the report to the Board, dated 11 October 2021, is attached as Appendix 1.

On consideration to the Board resolved (Resolution 21.8.4) as follows:

B. Agrees to:

1. Reclassify approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123 being part of the Alexandra Town Belt/Recreation Reserve, as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

2. To extend designation 20 (subject to the process under the Resource Management Act 1991) to include the newly reclassified area.

Subject to:

· Public consultation in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

· The consent of the Minister of Conservation.

· The costs being met by the Alexandra Northern Reservoir Capital Project.

· The Chief Executive approving the final tank/reservoir design and survey boundaries

STATUTORY PROCESS

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the mechanism for changing the classification or purpose of a reserve. It also provides for the revocation of reserve status.

The proposal to reclassify part of the Town Belt recreation reserve as ‘Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve’ is consistent with section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act which states that where:

The succeeding provisions which are applicable to the proposal to reclassify part of the recreation reserve are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h). These include:

· the requirement to publicly notify the proposal to change the classification and to specify the reason or reasons for the proposal.

· the requirement to invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed reclassification to give notice in writing of his or her objections to the proposed change.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed change of classification and all objections received during the submission period.

The role of the Minister of Conservation also includes:

· being satisfied that the reclassification conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act, and;

· ensuring that due process has been followed.

PROVISIONS FOR CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS

While section 24(2)(c) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides every person claiming to be affected by the proposed change of classification with a right of objection, those objections must relate specifically to the proposal to change the classification of the reserve.

Consideration should also be given to the section 24(2)(h) of the Reserves Act 1977 which specifies that:

any person who does not lodge an objection in accordance with this subsection [24(2)] shall be deemed to have assented to the change of classification or purpose or the revocation of reservation set forth in the public notification.

STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL

The public notice advised that a Statement of Proposal was available in hard copy at the Council Office or online via Council’s website.

The notice invited every person claiming to be affected to make a submission to the proposal to reclassify part of the Alexandra Town Belt Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

A copy of the Notice of Intention [as advertised] is attached as Appendix 2.

A copy of the Statement of Proposal [with submission form] is attached as Appendix 3.

As noted in the Statement of Proposal, submissions closed at 12.00pm on Monday 15 November 2021.

SUBMISSIONS

No submissions have been received in support of, or in opposition to, the proposal to reclassify the land described in the Schedule of Land and as shown below in figure 1.

CONFIRMATION OF DUE PROCESS

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides Council with the mechanism for changing the classification or purpose of a reserve or any part thereof. It also details the process and steps which must be followed to implement the change of classification.

In accordance with the provisions of section 24, and in consideration of the proposed reclassification, the following steps have been taken:

Step Date

1. Resolution of the Vincent Community Board 11 October 2021

2. Notice of Intention and Statement of Proposal Advertised 14 October 2021

3. Invitation to affected parties to make submissions 14 February 2021

4. Hearing of submissions (if any) 07 December 2021 (today)

After considering the submissions received (if any), the Hearings Panel are required to make a recommendation to the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation will then make the final determination of whether to proceed with the reclassification of the reserve.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Should the reclassification not be approved, the new tank will not be able to be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing reservoir. This means alternate options such as constructing a smaller tank or constructing the tank on an alternate site would need to be considered.

Constructing a smaller tank would not align with consumption or growth projections. It could also hinder Council’s ability to meet peak and increasing water demand.

While an alternate site could be considered, the tank would still need to be constructed somewhere in the immediate vicinity. This would require the reclassification of a much larger area of the recreation reserve. This would also result in a significant delays to the project, which could jeopardise funding and an increase in overall costs.

As noted in the report to Board dated 11 October 2021, the purpose of constructing the new tank just forward of the current boundary is to allow it to be connected to the existing infrastructure. This is not only the most practical use of the existing site, but also the most cost effective solution which will have the least impact on the surrounding reserve.

The lack of objections would seem to reflect the public’s understanding of the overall benefit of the reclassifying approximately 250 square metres of Lot 8 DP 492123 as Local Purpose (Water Reservoir) Reserve.

Therefore, in accordance with Resolution 21.3.2 and in consideration of the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, I recommend that the Hearings Panel agrees to recommend to Council that they agree to grant the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the reclassification of the land described in the Schedule of Land.

SCHEDULE OF LAND

250 square metres more or less, being part of Lot 8 Deposited Plan 492123 (as shown below in figure 1).

A picture containing text, different

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Plan of land proposed for reclassification (outlined in red).

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix 1: Report to Vincent Community Board dated 11 October 2021

(Document ID: 555091)

Appendix 2: Notice of Intention (Public Notice)

(Document ID: 555649)

Appendix 3: Statement of Proposal

(Document ID: 555646)

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:
Linda Stronach	Lee Webster
Statutory Property Officer	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
15/11/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.6 Proposal to Revoke the Reserve Status, and Dispose of part Sargood Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve

Doc ID: 558459

1. Purpose of Report

To consider revoking the reserve status of part of the Sargood Highway Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve, being part of Lot 202 Deposited Plan 359519, to facilitate its disposal to (Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency as agents of) the Crown.

Recommendations

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to:

1. Revoke the reserve status and dispose of the ‘required land’ being approximately 0.6700 hectares of Lot 202 DP 359519, (Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve), to (Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency as agents of) the Crown, for ‘Road or Use in Connection with a Road’ in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act.

2. Accept payment of $350,000 as assessed by the independent valuer in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act as compensation.

3. Use the proceeds of the disposal for the purpose of improving existing reserves under the control of Council or in, or toward, the purchase of other land for reserves within in the Cromwell Ward.

4. Notify the Minister of Conservation of Council’s intention to:

- revoke the reserve status and dispose of the ‘required land’,

- accept the payment of $350,000 as compensation,

- use the proceeds of the disposal to improve existing reserves, or to purchase land for new reserves, and to,

- request that the revocation, disposal, and use of the proceeds be approved and notified by publication of notice in the New Zealand Gazette.

2. Background

Report for Information

At their meeting of 08 March 2021, the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) received a Report for Information titled ‘Roundabout Construction - Intersection State Highways 6 and 8B’.

The purpose of the report was to inform the Board of the Crown’s intention to acquire part of the Lot 202 Deposited Plan (DP) 359519 (Lot 202). The purpose of the acquisition is to enable the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of State Highways 6, and 8B.

A copy of the report dated 08 March 2021 is attached as Appendix 1.

As noted in the report, the Crown have formally notified Council of their intention to acquire part of Lot 202 in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.

A copy of the formal notice is attached as Appendix 2.

A plan of the proposed roundabout and the land to be taken is attached as Appendix 3.

Correction

The Report for Information notes the area of land being taken as being 670 square metres. This is incorrect.

The area of the land being taken from Lot 202 DP 359519 is 6700 square metres.

Compensation

Quotable Value were engaged to assess the compensation payable for the land being taken in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act.

Quotable Value determined that the ‘before’ (current) value of the land was $750,000. They then determined that the ‘after’ value (post taking) would be $400,000. The compensation payable i the difference between the two values being $350,000.

A copy of Quotable Value’s Valuation Report dated 16 April 2021 is attached as Appendix 4.

Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981

After the land was valued, the Crown and Council entered into a Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981 (the MoA).

In extract, the MoA records the acquisition details, background, and terms of the agreement as follows:

Acquisition Details

Purpose: Road or Use in Connection with a road

Project: Cromwell Roundabout — SH6 & SH8B

Background

Council is the registered owner of the Land for an estate of freehold in possession. The Land is held for the purpose of a Local Purpose Reserve (Amenity).

The Council is a local authority as defined in Section 2 of the Public Works Act 1981.

Pursuant to Sections 20 and 50 of the Public Works Act 1981, the Land will be transferred to the

Crown for Road or Use in connection with a road.

This Agreement records the terms of the parties' agreement for the transfer of the Land from the Council to the Crown for another public work under Section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981.

Agreement

1. The Crown requires the Land for the Project.

2. The Council, being the registered owner of the Land, agrees to sell the Land to the Crown for the purposes set out on the front page, and on and subject to the conditions set out below

and in the Schedules to this agreement, and further agrees to:

(a) the Required Land being set apart for Road or Use in Connection with a Road pursuant to Section 50 the Public Works Act 1981 and being vested in the Crown free of all leases and tenancies and discharged from all encumbrances;

(b) the Required Land being acquired by Proclamation or Declaration under the Public Works Act 1981;

(c) the Crown attending to preparation and publication of the appropriate Gazette Notice taking and declaring the Land to be Road under sections 20, 50 and 114 of the Public Works Act 1981; and,

(d) accept the Compensation under this Agreement as full and final payment for the transfer and vesting of the Land in the Crown.

Description of the Land to be acquired ("Required Land")

Legal Description: Required Area:

Part Lot 202 Deposited Plan 359519 0.6700 hectares

As noted in clause 2(c) of the MoA, the required land will be transferred to the Crown in accordance with the provisions of sections 20, 50, and 114 of the Public Works Act.

Section 50 of the Public Works Act provides for the transfer of land held for public works.

The Minister (of Lands) may, by agreement, acquire land which is held by a local authority for a public work, to use for or in conjunction with, another public work, (and vice versa).

Lot 202 is a Local Purpose Reserve. By definition, a reserve is land held for a public work.

The purpose for which the land is being acquired does not have to align with the purpose for which is currently held. The land must simply be required for another public work.

Once agreed, the acquiring party must issue a notice under section 20 Public Works Act declaring the purpose for which the land is being acquired and the use to which it will be put.

In this instance, the required land is to be ‘set apart for Road or in Conjunction with a Road’. The required land will then be declared road and gazetted in accordance with section 114 of the Public Works Act.

To summarise the acquisition process, the land will be:

· transferred subject to agreement under section 50,

· following declaration (Proclamation) under section 20,

· then declared road and gazetted in accordance with section 114.

To facilitate the transfer, the reserve status must now be revoked, and the Minister of Conservation’s consent obtained.

3. Discussion

Land Status

Lot 202 DP 359519 (Lot 202) is a Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve. It is a freehold reserve held in a fee simple title subject to section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977. The reserve is commonly referred to as the Sargood Highway Amenity Reserve.

Lot 202 was vested in Council, by Council, on deposit of plan 359519. The associated resource consent application (a 28 lot commercial subdivision adjacent to Murray Terrace) records the purpose of Lot 202 as being a:

“…buffer area between the commercial allotments and State Highways 6, 8B and Sargood Road.”

The Reserves Act 1977

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the mechanism for revoking the status of a reserve. In particular, section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act states that where:

The succeeding provisions which would usually be applicable to any proposal to revoke a reservation, or any part thereof, are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h) of the Reserves Act.

These include the requirement to:

· publicly notify the proposal to revoke the status.

· invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed revocation to give notice in writing of his or her objection to the proposal.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed revocation and all objections received during the submission period.

However, as Lot 202 is a Local Purpose Reserve sections 24(2(b – (h) do not apply. Instead, it is subject to section 24(7) of the Reserves Act which states:

Subsection (2) shall not apply to any local purpose reserve, other than a reserve made on a subdivision of land under section 13 of the Land Subdivision in Counties Act 1946 or a reserve vested in the Corporation of a borough pursuant to the Municipal Corporations Act 1954 or the Corporation of a county pursuant to Part 2 of the Counties Amendment Act 1961 or section 16 of the Land Act 1924 or section 17 of the Land Laws Amendment Act 1920 or Part 20 of the Local Government Act 1974 (as enacted by section 2 of the Local Government Amendment Act 1978) or as a condition of any resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991:

provided that the Minister may, after considering such evidence as may be submitted to him or her, direct that the proposals be publicly notified, and in that case subsection (2) shall apply.

Accordingly, the requirement to public notify the intention to revoke the status will not apply unless it is required by the Minister of Conservation.

Disposals under the Reserves Act 1977

To facilitate the disposal of the land, Council should now resolve to revoke the reserve status and to dispose of the ‘required land’.

The resolution should detail the reason for the revocation and disposal, outline how the proceeds of the disposal will be spent, and then ask the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status in accordance with section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act.

4. Financial Considerations

The acquiring party is required to pay all costs associated with acquisition of the required land. This includes purchasing the land at valuation.

As the ‘required land’ is reserve land, the proceeds of the disposal must be used or applied in or toward the improvement of other reserves under the control of Council or in or toward the purchase of other land for reserves.

In this instance, as the required land is located in Cromwell, the proceeds will be used or applied in or toward the improvement or toward the purchase of other land for reserves within the Cromwell Ward.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree to:

2. Accept payment of $350,000 as assessed by the independent valuer in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act as compensation.

3. Use the proceeds of the disposal for the purpose of improving existing reserves under the control of Council or in, or toward, the purchase of other land for reserves within in the Cromwell Ward.

4. Notify the Minister of Conservation of Council’s intention to:

- revoke the reserve status and dispose of the ‘required land’,

- accept the payment of $350,000 as compensation,

- use the proceeds of the disposal to improve existing reserves, or to purchase land for new reserves, and to,

- request that the revocation, disposal, and use of the proceeds be approved and notified by publication of notice in the New Zealand Gazette.

Advantages:

· The land will be able to be transferred to (Waka Kotahi as agents of) the Crown.

· Will facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of State Highways 6 and 8B.

· The sale proceeds will be retained for the purpose of improving existing reserves or in or toward the purchase of other land for reserves.

· Recognises the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.

· Recognises the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Recognises that due process has been followed.

Disadvantages:

· There will be a loss of greenspace.

Option 2

To not agree to the proposal to revoke the reserve status and dispose of the ‘required land’ to (Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency as agents of) the Crown, for ‘Road or Use in Connection with a Road’ in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act.

Advantages:

· There will be no loss of greenspace.

Disadvantages:

· The land will not be able to be transferred to (Waka Kotahi as agents of) the Crown.

· Will not facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of State Highways 6 and 8B.

· The sale proceeds will be available for the purpose of improving existing reserves or in or toward the purchase of other land for reserves.

· Does not recognise the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.

· Does not recognise the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Does not recognise that due process has been followed.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	The Local Government Act 2002 does not apply to this decision. The required land is being taken in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981. The revocation of the reserve status and disposal of the land is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Council has no policy regarding the sale and disposal of reserve land.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability, environmental, or climate change impacts associated with the recommendation.
Risks Analysis	There is no risk associated with the recommendation which is consistent with the provisions of the Public Works and Reserves Acts.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Minister of Conservation will arrange for the notice of revocation, disposal, and use of the proceeds be to be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

· If the recommendation is approved, the Minister of Conservation will be notified in writing of the resolution and will be requested to approve the revocation, the disposal, and the use of the proceeds of sale.

· Once approved, the Minister of Conservation will tend to the publishing of the associated notice in the New Zealand Gazette.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Copy of Report to the Board dated 08 March 2021 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Copy of Formal Notice ⇩

Appendix 3 - Plan of Roundabout ⇩

Appendix 4 - Valuation Report ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Lee Webster
Statutory Property Officer	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
18/11/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.7 Consideration of contribution to Wooing Tree underpass

Doc ID: 559533

1. Purpose of Report

To consider a financial contribution to the Wooing Tree underpass.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to contribute to funding the underpass through a reduction of the remaining roading development contributions of up to $630,000.

2. Background

On 7 May 2021, the applicant, Wooing Tree, lodged an application under the Fast-Track process for the Wooing Tree Estate project. The project lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority proposed the subdivision of a 25-hectare block in Cromwell to create a medium density residential development and a small commercial precinct.

The consent was granted 29 September 2021 and compromises of:

· 360 residential lots.

· a hospitality centre compromising of a 350m² cellar door for the Wooing Tree Vineyard (and adjacent outdoor seating area of 150m²) and 500m² of retail.

· a childcare facility.

· a super lot for visitor’s accommodation.

Wooing Tree Estate is required to deliver the roundabout and pedestrian underpass before it can deliver future stages of the development.

The total cost of the infrastructure is now $4,393,000 apportioned as follows:

Roundabout $3,285,000

Underpass $1,108,000

Total: $4,393,000

The roundabout has been geometrically designed to support the broader Cromwell area and provide for future population growth. The full $3,285,000 cost of the roundabout includes an estimated additional $775,000 in costs related to futureproofing.

These costs do not account for the land required from Council and Wooing Tree Estate for both the roundabout and underpass. The land acquisition for the roundabout and underpass has been further ‘future proofed’ to accommodate growth.

The pedestrian underpass is a requirement of the Wooing Tree Estate consent. The underpass will improve pedestrian interconnectivity through Wooing Tree Estate to Lake Dunstan via McNulty Inlet. Creating a cycleway connection will support and connect cyclists to local business in the Cromwell Mall and further enhance the region’s reputation and desirability for cycle tourism. The underpass will improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists by creating a grade separated split between respective users.

In September 2021 Waka Kotahi confirmed they would not be funding any part of the roundabout or underpass.

Wooing Tree Estate have approached Council to consider either:

(a) A fair and equitable contribution to the roundabout and underpass construction costs. Wooing Tree Estate will fund the roundabout.

(b) Entering into a developer’s agreement with Wooing Tree Estate whereby costs associated with the underpass are credited against roading development contributions.

Council have committed no funding through the Long-term Plan towards the construction of the roundabout or underpass.

3. Discussion

The pedestrian underpass will provide benefit to the wider Cromwell community. The underpass will support the connectivity of the cycleway network from the lake directly with the town centre.

The development and financial contributions policy allows for Council to enter into development agreements with developers for the provision of infrastructure. The value of these works can be deducted from the relevant contribution category.

The principal basis for levying development and financial contributions against subdivisions and development is to ensure that those who create the demand for additional services and assets pay fairly and reasonably for this.

The provision of suitable infrastructure is a key strategic activity that aids in the provision of social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community. It is important to ensure that the funding of this infrastructure is fair, reasonable, and equitable. The existing community has invested in its needs and enjoys the benefits derived from those assets and services. Council considers it appropriate to use development and financial contributions where new subdivisions and development benefit from existing infrastructure, generate need for additional infrastructure and/or require infrastructure extensions.

The Wooing Tree development has been assessed for contributions under the 2018 Development and Financial Contributions policy. The roading contribution is $1,772 (excl GST) per residential lot.

Wooing Tree Estate is anticipated to yield between 340-360 residential allotments plus approximately 1,000m² of boutique retail space. To-date, titles have been issued for 32 residential allotments, therefore 308-328 residential allotments are yet to be titled and subject to contributions.

4. Financial Considerations

The total estimated roading contribution is $630,000 based on 328 remaining residential lots and 1,000m²of retail.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Waiver of up to $630,000 of roading development contributions in recognition of wider benefit in the provision of an underpass and roundabout.

Advantages:

· The underpass provides wider community benefit.

· No direct cash contribution is required.

Disadvantages:

· Reduction in development contributions income reducing available funding for other growth-related roading infrastructure.

Option 2

Provide a cash contribution to the construction of the underpass.

Advantages:

· The underpass provides wider community benefit.

Disadvantages:

· No available funding through current long term plan budgets.

Option 3

Do not contribute to the cost of the underpass.

Advantages:

· No cost to Council through either cash funding or through waiver of development contributions.

· The roundabout and underpass are a condition of the Wooing Tree Estate consent.

Disadvantages:

· Council would not be recognising the broader benefit of the underpass and roundabout through a contribution.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by providing a safe connection for pedestrians and cyclists.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, The recommendation is consistent with Council’s 2018 Policy on Development and Financial Contributions.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Yes, the provision of an underpass supports the wider pedestrian and cycling network.
Risks Analysis	The availability of roading contributions for growth related roading projects may be impacted.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with no public consultation required.

7. Next Steps

If the recommendation is accepted then a revised development contribution assessment will be undertaken on the Wooing Tree Estate development recognising the reduction in roading contributions.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
25/11/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.8 Solid Waste Contract - Level of Service

Doc ID: 560259

1. Purpose of Report

To approve the level of service options for tendering of Solid Waste Services Contract.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposed level of service for tender.

2. Background

All of Council’s contracts for waste services (kerbside rubbish and recycling collections, resource recovery centres and transfer stations) expire in June 2023, except the landfill agreement with Queenstown Lakes District Council which expires in 2029.

The way the services are delivered is due for a refresh with consideration given to trends and expectations both globally and throughout New Zealand; in particular, the growing demand for reduction of landfilled organic material.

The costs of waste disposal are continuing to increase. In June 2020, central government introduced auctioning for New Zealand Emission Units (NZUs) together with an increase on the price cap on NZUs from $25/tonne to $50/tonne. In July 2020, central government announced it will increase the Waste Disposal Levy through a progressive increase from $10/tonne to $60/tonne by July 2024.

On 11 August 2021 Council approved the ‘Have Your Say on Our Waste Services’ document for community feedback. The engagement document and survey enabled the public to provide feedback on the proposed kerbside services and their current use of council’s waste services.

There was a strong response from community with 870 surveys returned. A report for information was provided to Council on 3 November 2021 summarising feedback.

Supplier briefings were held in the week of 4 October 2021 with their feedback considered in the development of the recommended level of service.

During October 2021 Ministry for the Environment (the Ministry) released its draft Waste Strategy and Emissions Reduction Plan for consultation. The proposals for a new national Waste Strategy present the Ministry’s proposed vision and aspirations for a low-waste Aotearoa. The documents are intended to guide and direct the collective journey towards a circular economy, starting with the management the products and materials that currently go into waste disposal systems.

The proposed targets in the draft Waste Strategy for reduction of household waste by 60-70% points strongly to the requirement for comprehensive organics capture and further diversion opportunities being developed.

Table 1: Proposed waste reduction targets

Table

Description automatically generated

Queenstown Lakes District Council have indicated a desire to have their organic material considered in the proposed Central Otago District Council organics processing facility. Tenderers will be asked to provide options for a joint or Central Otago only facility. A regional may qualify for capital funding from Ministry for the Environment.

There are multiple ownership and operation options to be considered for organics processing facility. A recommendation report will be brought to Council in 2022 detailing ownership, location, and operational options.

3. Discussion

Kerbside Collection Configuration

Three options were provided for community consultation. Community feedback was split across the three options on the proposed kerbside collection configuration. All suppliers noted the importance of including food waste in possible organics processing solutions.

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

The annual costing for each option is an estimate only and will be influenced by tendered prices, volumes to landfill, landfill charges, waste levy charges, establishment and operating costs for organics processing, and emissions trading scheme costs.

Option 3 – Weekly Organics Collection (Recommended)

Option 3 introduces an 80L organics bin to collect both food and greenwaste every week. The rubbish bin will still be collected fortnightly, but residents would be moved to smaller 140L rubbish bin. As in Options 1 and 2, the 140L glass (blue) bin would be collected every four weeks and the 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would be collected fortnightly.

The estimated annual cost is approximately $430 to $500.

Chart, funnel chart

Description automatically generated

Advantages:

· Alignment to Government policies by providing a food and greenwaste service.

· Opportunity to divert up to 44% organic (food and greenwaste) content currently found in the rubbish bin.

· Smaller red bin will collected fortnightly will support reduction of waste to landfill.

· Reduction in landfill and waste levy costs with reduction in material to landfill.

· Provides the best alignment to Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

· Opportunity to deliver a regional organics facility in partnership with Queenstown Lakes District Council for processing.

· Supports Councils emissions reduction targets.

Disadvantages:

· Highest cost option after introduction of weekly organics collection.

It is proposed that a staged implementation process occurs for the recommended Option 3 as an organics processing solution will not be operational at the start of the new contract term.

Stage 1: Rubbish will continue to be collected in a 240-litre bin fortnightly. Customers will be able to opt for smaller 140L rubbish bin (at a reduced price). Glass will be changed to 140L bin collected monthly.

Stage 2: Once organics (food and green waste) collection commences, customers will be moved to a 140L bin for rubbish collected fortnightly. The price difference between the 240L and 140L rubbish bins will be greater at this time.

Option 1 – Improved Status Quo

Option 1 introduces an additional 240L bin for a four-weekly collection of greenwaste (a green lid bin). The glass (blue) bin would change to a more regular four-weekly collection, in a smaller 140L bin. This option will also allow a choice of a 240L or 140L rubbish (red) bin. The 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would move to a consistent fortnightly collection.

The estimated annual cost is approximately $350 to $400.

A picture containing text, bin, container

Description automatically generated

Advantages:

· Opportunity to divert up to 20% of rubbish bin contents through addition of greenwaste bin.

· Option of smaller rubbish bin at reduced cost.

Disadvantages:

· Not including food waste does is not aligned with Government policies.

· If Council does not meet government reduction targets it will receive less waste levy funding.

· Food waste content of up to 24% of rubbish bin contents continues to go to landfill.

· Increased costs for food waste going to landfill.

· Does not support emission reduction targets.

Option 2 – Weekly Rubbish Collection

Option 2 is an enhancement on Option 1. In addition to the four-weekly greenwaste and glass collections, this option also introduces weekly rubbish bin collections. Both the rubbish and glass bins would be a smaller 140L bin. As in Option 1, the 240L mixed recycling bin would be collected fortnightly.

The estimated annual cost is approximately $400 to $450.

A picture containing text, bin, container

Description automatically generated

Advantages:

· Opportunity to divert up to 20% of rubbish bin contents through addition of greenwaste bin.

· More frequent red bin collection provides customers with higher level of service.

Disadvantages:

· More frequent rubbish bin collections do not align with Government policies.

· Not including food waste does not align with Government policies.

· If Council does not meet government reduction targets it will receive less waste levy funding.

· Food waste content of up to 24% of rubbish bin contents continues to go to landfill.

· Increased costs for food waste going to landfill.

· Does not support emission reduction targets.

Kerbside Collection Extension

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Kerbside routes extended to include Queensberry as a mandatory collection area.

Due to distance involved all residents would need to contribute in order to provide a cost-effective service.

Advantages:

· Over 90% of the 55 survey respondents from Queensberry want a kerbside service.

· Improved environmental outcomes through availability of recycling options.

· No local rubbish or recycling options are available for the Queensberry community.

Disadvantages:

· Small proportion of the Queensberry community may not want the mandatory service.

Option 2

Kerbside routes extended to include Queensberry, Tarras and Pateaora.

Advantages:

· Over 90% of the 55 survey respondents from Queensberry want a kerbside service.

· Improved environmental outcomes through more convenient recycling options.

Disadvantages:

· Feedback indicated reluctance for collection in Tarras and Patearoa.

· Service area harder to define for Tarras and Patearoa.

· Smaller population density in Tarras and Patearoa to provide cost effective collection.

· Proportion of community may not want the opt in only service.

· Rubbish and recycling drop off already available in Tarras and Pateaora.

Option 3

No extension to the current collection routes.

Advantages:

· Rubbish drop offs are available in Tarras and Pateaora.

· Transfer stations available in Cromwell, Alexandra, Ranfurly and Roxburgh that accept bags of household waste and provide recycling options.

Disadvantages:

· Feedback indicated strong desire for kerbside collection in Queensberry.

· Potential for negative environmental outcomes where no waste and recycling service is available.

Rural Rubbish Drop Off Sites

In addition to Council’s transfer stations there are currently rubbish drop-off facilities provided in Tarras and Patearoa. These services use Council branded rubbish bags that must be purchased from a Council service centre or the Tarras Store.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Current drop-off facilities to be retained with an improved solution identified through the tender.

Advantages:

· Positive community feedback on having access to current drop-off sites.

· Opportunity for improved level of service through solutions provided as part of the tender.

· Provide local solution for waste where kerbside service is not available.

· Opportunity to locate rubbish drop off with recycling drop off for full waste and recycling solution.

· Current solution at Tarras is laborious for the user.

Disadvantages:

· Potential capital cost in providing an improved solution.

A report for decision will be brought back to Council drop-off options identified through the procurement process.

Option 2

Remove current rubbish drop-off facilities.

Advantages:

· Cost in servicing the drop offs removed.

Disadvantages:

· Lower level of service for Tarras and Patearoa residents.

· Travel required to transfer station for waste disposal.

· No kerbside service proposed for Tarras and Pateroa.

· May promote negative outcomes for waste disposal.

Bin Ownership

Currently kerbside bins are owned by the contractor with recycling drop-off containers owned by Council.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

All kerbside bins and containers owned by Council.

Advantages:

· Significantly reduced long term cost through Council ownership.

· Maintenance and servicing still provided by contractor.

Disadvantages:

· Capital investment required for purchase of bins.

Option 2

Kerbside bin ownership remains with contractor.

Advantages:

· Contractor carries the capital cost of bins.

Disadvantages:

· Long term costs of ‘rental’ are significantly higher than cost to .

Transfer stations

Transfer stations are located in Alexandra, Cromwell, Ranfurly and Roxburgh. The transfer stations accept a variety of materials including general rubbish, recycling and greenwaste.

The Alexandra and Cromwell transfer stations are open seven days per week, while the Ranfurly and Roxburgh transfer stations open in the afternoon on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday in summer and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday in winter. Survey feedback showed the majority of use of the Alexandra and Cromwell transfer stations was on the weekend.

Staff investigations of our Ranfurly and Roxburgh transfer stations show that customers are

not using these facilities often. Following the introduction of an organics collection service, this may further reduce the need to use a transfer station.

Several comments were made through the waste services survey asking for the Ranfurly transfer station not to be closed and to keep the operating hours as they are now or to extend them particularly in summer.

Overall respondents do not want to see the operating hours of any of Council’s transfer stations reduced throughout the district.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Operation of all existing transfer stations (Alexandra, Cromwell, Ranfurly and Roxburgh) to remain as is.

Advantages:

· No reduction of operating hours.

· Opportunity to review optimise operational hours in Ranfurly and Roxburgh in the future if appropriate.

· No change in level of service for the community.

Disadvantages:

· None

Option 2

Reduce operational hours at Roxburgh and Ranfurly transfer station.

Advantages:

· Small saving in operational costs.

Disadvantages:

· Community want to retain current hours.

· Reduced level of service for the rural community.

Resource Recovery Centre(s), Including Re-Use Shop

Wastebusters operate a resource recovery centre, including a re‐use shop, adjacent to the Alexandra transfer station on Boundary Road. The site is leased to Wastebusters. Council currently do not contribute financially to the operation of these sites other than the provision of land.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Resource recovery centre(s) will not form part of this procurement process.

An interactive, tailored engagement process and direct sourcing procurement process will be entered into and a specific plan for this developed separate from this procurement. A report will be brought back to Council with a proposal on the provision of resource recovery centre(s). This process will include consideration of the provision of an additional resource recovery centre at Cromwell.

Advantages:

· The support from the community for resource recovery facilities is strong.

· A tailored procurement has the ability to recognise existing community relationships and enable other interested community groups to build up the capability to also be involved in wider resource recovery initiatives.

· Community led resource recover provides a community-focused, customer-interaction approach, which positively influences people’s attitudes towards waste.

Disadvantages:

· Additional procurement process required.

Option 2

Include the provision of resource recovery centre(s), including re-use shop in solid waste service contract.

Advantages:

· One procurement process is undertaken as part of the wider waste services contract.

Disadvantages:

· The value of resource recovery centre(s) is not fully understood.

· Waste service suppliers acknowledge the benefit of resource recovery being undertaken by community focused groups.

· This is not a core service provided by waste service contractors.

· Contract of little interest to waste service suppliers.

· Risk of community focus being lost.

· Likely sub-contracted to community focused group.

4. Financial Considerations

The financial implications of the proposed level of service have been estimated and included in the options for kerbside collections. The 2023/24 Annual Plan may need to be amended depending on tendered rates for the new contract.

5. Proposed Level of Service

The proposed service configuration is summarised in the following table:

Activity	Service Configuration
Activity	Current	Proposed
Rubbish collections	240L, fortnightly kerbside collection. Contractor: All Waste Drop off facilities in Tarras and Patearoa. Contractor: All Waste	240L, fortnightly collection with the option of a smaller 140L bin. Customers will be able to opt for a smaller 140L bin at a reduced price when glass bins are swapped from 240L to 140L. Once organics (food and greenwaste) collection commences customers will be moved to a 140L bin for rubbish as waste will be diverted to the organics bin. An improved system for drop-off facilities in Tarras and Patearoa will be sought through the tender. Inclusion of Queensberry in kerbside collection area.
Mixed recycling collections	240L, fortnightly kerbside collection (except every eighth week). Contractor: All Waste Drop off points in Alexandra, Omakau, Patearoa, Poolburn, Ranfurly, Roxburgh and Tarras. Contractor: Wastebusters	240L, fortnightly kerbside collection. Recycling drop off points to be serviced under collections contract. Inclusion of Queensberry in kerbside collection area.
Glass collections	240L kerbside collection every eighth week when mixed recyclables are not collected. Contractor: All Waste Drop off points in Alexandra, Omakau, Patearoa, Poolburn, Ranfurly, Roxburgh and Tarras. Contractor: Wastebusters	140L, four-weekly kerbside collection. Drop off points to be serviced under collections contract. Inclusion of Queensberry in kerbside collection area.
Organics collections	Greenwaste drop off available at transfer stations. Contractor: All Waste	Weekly kerbside collection with the option of a 240L or 80L bin. Commencement date will be later than rubbish and recyclables collections as processing options are expected to have a longer mobilisation period. Inclusion of Queensberry in kerbside collection area.
Bin ownership	Bins for the kerbside collections are currently owned by the contractor (All Waste). Drop off point containers are owned by Council.	All bins owned by Council. Alternatives may be considered through procurement.

Transfer stations

Transfers stations are located at

Alexandra, Cromwell, Ranfurly and

Roxburgh. Owned by Council, operated by AllWaste.

The operation of all existing transfer

stations (Alexandra, Cromwell, Ranfurly and Roxburgh) to be included within his procurement with respondents required to provide an optimisation methodology for open hours of each.

Resource recovery centre(s),

including re‐use shop

Wastebusters operate a resource

recovery centre, including a re‐use shop, adjacent to the Alexandra transfer station on Boundary Road. The site is leased to Wastebusters.

Resource recovery centre(s) will not form part of this procurement process.

An interactive, tailored engagement

process and direct sourcing procurement process will be entered into and a specific plan for this developed separate from this procurement.

This process will include provision of an additional resource recovery centre at Cromwell.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring waste and resources are responsibly managed.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, this decision is consistent with Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation strategy, sustainability strategy and procurement policy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The proposed level of service provided the most sustainable solution by reducing volumes to landfill and carbon emissions.
Risks Analysis	Significant changes in waste services as a result of national initiatives and programmes is a key risk for Council. A long mobilisation period of 12 months or more is required to ensure the successful tender can establish and have mobile plant ready for the commencement date. COVID 19 impacts on freight networks may further delay delivery of mobile plant.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Community feedback was considered in the development of the level of service options.

7. Next Steps

The proposed next steps are as follows:

· Level of service included in development of tender documents

(November 2021 – January 2022)

· New level of service commencement

(1 July 2023)

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Waste Services survey.pdf ⇩

Appendix 2 - Waste Services survey feedback.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
25/11/2021	26/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.9 Tendering of Waste Services Contract

Doc ID: 559235

1. Purpose of Report

To approve the Waste Services Contract for tender, the contract type and term for tendering.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves tendering waste services using a traditional contract model.

C. Approves a contract term of eight years, with one two-year extension subject to contract performance.

2. Background

All of Council’s contracts for waste services expire in June 2023, except the landfill agreement with Queenstown Lakes District Council which expires in 2029. The current contracts are all based on a traditional contract model.

A new contract is required to be tendered and awarded before 30 June 2023. A 12-month mobilisation period is planned to enable the successful contractor enough lead-in time to procure plant and equipment before the contract commences 1 July 2023.

Council staff have undertaken a waste services review encompassing a transfer station review, feedback from the community and supplier briefings to guide the development of the services provided and the contract structure. There was a strong response from the community with 870 surveys returned. A report for information was provided to Council at the 3 November 2021 meeting summarising feedback.

Supplier briefings were held in the week of 4 October 2021. Seven suppliers participated in the online sessions as follows:

· Waste Management

· Metallic Sweepings

· Envirowaste

· Waste Co

· Smart Environmental

· All Waste (incumbent)

· Wastebusters

Suppliers highlighted:

· Importance of a comprehensive organics collection and the associated reduction benefits of Option 3 of proposed kerbside structure.

· Safety concerns surrounding collections on roads where the speed limit is in excess of 50kmph.

· Lead time for new plant/vehicles and the potential impact on start date and mobilisation.

· Benefit of community involvement in resource recovery facilities.

· Need for site visits during the tender period.

· General support for the proposed model to procure waste services as a single traditional contract.

There are also a number of national initiatives which are impacting on the waste environment. During October 2021 Ministry for the Environment (the Ministry) released its draft waste strategy and emissions reduction plan for consultation. The draft New Zealand Waste Strategy and a draft Emissions Reduction Plan propose significant waste reduction targets by 2030.

3. Discussion

Currently there are five contracts which are:

· Kerbside rubbish collections (red bin) - All Waste

· Kerbside recycling (yellow & blue bin) - All Waste

· Transfer station operations - All Waste

· Rural recycling drop-off servicing - Wastebusters

· Refuse disposal - Queenstown Lakes District Council

Combining all the solid waste services into a single contract (as far as possible) will provide streamline management functions for Council and the contractor. The preferred service bundle consisting of a single contract awarded to a main contractor will deliver clear responsibility for waste services from collection to disposal.

While the preference is for one contract, Table 1 outlines the spilt of services into bundles that will be considered as potential separate contracts all procured as part of this process.

A report for approval to award the contract will be brought back to Council following evaluation of tenders. This will include a recommendation regarding bundling based on the response from the market.

Table 1: Proposed Waste Services Contract Service Bundle

#	Service bundle	Explanation
1	Collections · Refuse · Mixed Recyclables · Glass · Organics (later starting date) Transfer station operation Drop off point servicing	The preferred approach is to award this bundle as a contract on its own, it is not expected that further services would be split out and it is possible that other service bundles are included in award of this bundle. Organics collection would be included as a separable portion with a later start date as processing options are developed.
2	Organics processing and end use	Delivery of the organics services is expected to be staged due to the need to establish a processing facility, and therefore it is beneficial to keep the option available for separate award of this service.
3	Glass processing and end use	Operation of the glass crushing plant may not be of interest to the suppliers offering proposals to the other services, and therefore it is beneficial to keep the option available for separate award of this service.
4	Mixed recyclables processing and end markets	The physical processing operation is outside the scope of this procurement. The successful Respondent will however, be responsible for handling of mixed recyclables both in the interim and long term that meets Central Otago District Council’s requirements which includes any commitments made with Queenstown Lakes District Council or other parties in the interim. Queenstown Lakes District Council have commenced the process of building a new material recovery facility in Queenstown via their own waste services contract. The new arrangement is expected to cater for Central Otago District Council’s material once the material recovery facility has been constructed (due for completion 2025). It is proposed that an agreement would be made directly between Central Otago District Council and Queenstown Lakes District Council.
5	Refuse disposal (from 2029)	The current contract arrangement for refuse disposal ends during the term of the new service configuration in 2029. Respondents will have the ability to provide alternatives to the current disposal arrangement in the period beyond 2029. Disposal in the period 2029 to the end of the collection and processing service contract(s) would be a provisional item, and therefore it is beneficial to keep the option available for separate award.

4. Financial Considerations

There may be increases to costs following tendering. This will need to be considered when awarding the contract.

5. Options

Contract Type

Option 1 – Traditional Contract Model (Recommended)

This contract model is currently used for solid waste services contracts. This contract type is made up of unit rates, lump sum items and tendered plant and labour rates.

Under this model the Council staff have a more traditional role of authorising and auditing.

Advantages:

· Scope of solid waste services is easily understood and defined.

· The likelihood of variations required through a solid waste services contract are low.

· Solid waste services are a traditional measure and value arrangement.

· A traditional contract model is regarded as the best delivery model for routine, uncomplicated works.

· The model is well known and understood by suppliers and staff.

Disadvantages:

· Contractor takes the cost risk in the operations from commencement until completion

Option 2 – Alternative Partnership/Alliance Type Contract

This is the type of contract that Council currently operates for Roading and Parks. This model involves Council staff in a planning and programming role.

partnership based model where Council staff are located within the Council office, but work collaboratively with the contractor to achieve the outcomes required. An Alliance model is a similar model, but has a more formal approach. A single team is established which is co-located and reports to an Alliance Board which is made up of senior Council and Contractor representatives.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· More suited to work where volumes and costs are unable to be accurately quantified.

· Not typically applied to contracts where the scope of services are clearly defined.

· Requires different contract management skill sets.

Contract Term

Significant investment will be required by the successful tenderer into plant and resources. The contract term needs to be sufficient to provide a return on this investment in order to attract tenderers.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Enter an eight-year contract with one two-year extension based on performance.

Advantages:

· The typical life of the vehicles is 10 years.

· Suppliers indicated eight + two contract term suitable.

· Opportunity to end at year eight based on performance.

· Appropriate length for proposed capital investment of plant and equipment.

· The scope of the contract is simple and unlikely to change over a period of ten years.

Disadvantages:

· Decision is required early (year six) if contract is to be re-tendered at year 8.

Option 2

Enter a fourteen-year (seven + seven) contract term.

Advantages:

· Long term certainty.

· Longer length of time for contractor to re-coup capital costs.

Disadvantages:

· Less exposure to competition.

· Less capacity for introducing change and retaining certainty of contract scope over time.

· Limited ability to implement technology and other improvements that may occur in the longer term.

· Unlikely to provide any price advantage for terms over ten years.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the economic and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring appropriate waste management for households and businesses and the environment.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, this decision is consistent with the existing Procurement Policy as the contract value requires going out to Market Tender.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The proposed waste services contract supports the actions of Council’s Sustainability Strategy and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.
Risks Analysis	There are minimal risks to Council in undertaking a market tender for the scale of work that is proposed. There is a risk to Council if we are unable to award a contract prior to the end of July 2022. The tender period has been timed to occur after the holiday shutdown period to enable potential tenderers appropriate time to submit quality proposals.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with no public consultation required.

7. Next Steps

The proposed next steps are as follows:

· Development of tender documents (November 2021 – January 2022)

· Tender out to market (16 January 2022)

· Tender period (January - March)

· Tender closes (11 March 2022)

· Evaluation (March – May)

· Recommendation (negotiation finalised) (6 May 2022)

· Recommendation to Council for decision (29 June 2022)

· Mobilisation period (July 2022 – June 2023)

· Service commencement (1 July 2023)

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
25/11/2021	26/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.10 Water and Wastewater Operations and Maintenance contract

Doc ID: 560032

1. Purpose of Report

To consider extending the Water Services Maintenance Contract, with revised contract conditions, payment clauses, and specification.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes responsibility for the management of water, wastewater, and stormwater operations will move to a new entity on 1 July 2024.

C. Notes that a new maintenance contract is required for two years for council to deliver the required physical works from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2024.

D. Notes that the new entity is likely to need the ability to extend existing contracts beyond 30 June 2024 until they are in a position to review and re-tender these.

E. Agrees to directly negotiate with the incumbent contractor for an initial two year contract with the ability for three one year extensions subject to the agreement of the contractor and the new water entity.

2. Background

Contract CON 05-2013-03 Water Services Maintenance Contract was let to Fulton Hogan in 2013.

The scope of the contract includes:

· The operation and maintenance of water, wastewater, and stormwater.

· Minor capital works and renewals, subject to the performance of the contractor.

· Data management and systems.

The contract payment method is a mixture of lump sums, unit rates, and hourly rates. Work is programmed up to the approved budgets. The 2021 Long Term Plan budgets for work that is within the current contract scope are shown on the table below. These will be reviewed and set by the new water entity from 2024/25.

Budget	2021/22 Current Contract	2022/23 New Contract Period	2023/24 New Contract Period
Water operating	1,380,000	1,402,000	1,425,000
Water renewals (plant and fixtures	839,000	1,011,000	1,229,000
Minor water capital works	$250,000	$900,000	$150,000
Wastewater operating	$834,000	$870,000	$870,000
Wastewater renewals	$286,000	327,000	378,000
Minor wastewater capital works	$800,000	$100,000	$360,000
Stormwater operating	$77,000	$77,000	$77,000
Stormwater capital works	$380,000	$380,000	$380,000
Total Contract Scope Value	$4,846,000	$5,067,000	$4,869,000

The current contract expires on 30 June 2022 with no further mechanism for extension.

3. Discussion

Council and Fulton Hogan staff acknowledge that there are shortfalls with the current contract that makes it difficult to manage the contract and measure performance. The contract specification and payment clauses are unclear and contradict each other in places. Some of the levels of service specified no longer meet public expectations relating to responsiveness and actions required. The payment rates reflect the lower levels of service that are specified.

The contract scope includes tasks that may be better delivered internally than outsourced. Examples of these include meter reading, testing, and consent compliance and reporting. Given changes to, and greater enforcement of statutory requirements it may be appropriate for council to take greater internal ownership of programming, monitoring, and compliance reporting.

Uncertainty regarding the potential for water reform prior has created difficulties in determining an appropriate procurement plan prior to reform being mandated on the 27 October 2021.

It is expected that there will be an increased workload on staff during the transition period which will include provision of extensive information. Large sections of the initial request for information could only be answered by the contractor who had institutional knowledge and access to data through their internal systems. It is expected that this will also be the case for future data requests during the transition period.

An 18-month lead in period is required to re-tender a contract of this type. The preparation, advertising, and evaluation of tenders will take 12 months, with a further six month lead in time required to enable a potential new contractor to establish.

At this stage there has been no advice provided by the Department of Internal Affairs regarding the ability of Council to enter into a contract for delivery of services beyond 30 June 2024. It is however expected that existing contracts will transfer to the new entities.

It is likely that the new water entity will undertake a review of contracts with a view to providing consistency and streamlining to gain cost efficiencies in delivery and management. Given the change in management responsibilities that will occur due to water reform, it is therefore considered prudent to only let a two year contract to 30 June 2024, with the ability for three one year extensions by the new entity.

It is unlikely that a new water maintenance contractor would establish within Central Otago for a two to five year contract due to the costs of establishment. Southland District Council and Dunedin City Council are extending their existing contracts rather than re-tendering due to the transition of responsibilities to a new entity on 1 July 2024.

It is proposed that a new contract be negotiated with the incumbent contractor, rather than extend the existing contract which is no longer fit for purpose. A revised specification and basis for payment can be drafted jointly between Council and Fulton Hogan. External technical support will be engaged from Morrison Low to facilitate this.

It is proposed to bring a report to the 20 April Council meeting on 20 April 2022 for approval to award the re-drafted contract.

4. Central Otago Procurement Policy

The Central Otago District Procurement Policy (the Policy) outlines objectives which are used to guide the procurement processes for council. These are:

· Value for money.

· Fair and open competition.

· Easy to do business.

· Innovation.

· Local economic development.

· Sustainability.

· Social outcomes.

The Policy states the following with regards to direct sourcing:

Direct engagement of a supplier in the absence of competition should only be used in certain circumstances when:

1. Only a single supplier has the required goods or services available in the time required.

2. Compatibility with existing equipment or services or standardisation is essential, and can only be achieved through one supplier.

3. Continuity of professional advice is required.

4. There is a legislative requirement to use one supplier.

5. The cost associated with any other form of procurement would be out of proportion to the value or the expected benefits of the procurement.

The decision to mandate water delivery reform has created a unique environment where council will be required to continue to deliver services, while preparing for and assisting in transition of these services, including contracts, staffing, data and systems, finance, and assets to a new entity. The timeline for this is the 30 June 2024, which is about 30 months from the time of this decision relating to procurement of operations and maintenance.

Under these circumstances it is believed that points 1,2,3, and 5 above apply. In the case of point 3 above, while this is not a professional services contract, the institutional knowledge of the incumbent contractor will be essential to the success of the initial transition to the new entity.

5. Financial Considerations

It is considered that the re-drafted contract will be funded through existing operational budgets that were approved as per the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

The approved budget amounts for 2022/23 and 2023/24 that relate to the scope of work in this contract are shown in a table in the background for this report.

6. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Directly negotiate a re-drafted water, wastewater and stormwater operations and maintenance contract with Fulton Hogan.

Advantages:

· Will allow a new contract to be drafted and in position by 30 June 2022.

· The continued delivery of these services by the incumbent contractor will assist in the management of workloads and provision of information during the reform transition period.

· Will provide continuity to council and Fulton Hogan staff during the reform transition period.

· Provides an opportunity to develop relevant and measurable performance measures.

· Provides an opportunity to develop improved reporting.

· Provides an opportunity to develop a more open and transparent basis of payment.

· Provides an opportunity to evaluate whether it is more advantageous to undertake some of the work within Council, for example meter reading.

· Consistent with the approach being taken by other councils in Otago and Southland.

Disadvantages:

· Has the potential to be viewed as not delivering value for money as no open tender process occurred.

Option 2

Extend the existing contract by 12 months and prepare and tender a new contract.

Advantages:

· Allows other contractors to tender for the work.

· May introduce price tension if other contractors are interested in tendering.

Disadvantages:

· The existing contract will need to be extended under the current terms for 12 months to the 30 June 2023 to provide time to prepare a new contract and undertake the tender process.

· The new contract will only be operational for 12 months under council management and will then transfer to a new entity.

· The transfer of the contract to a new entity, with a new management structure, and a potential desire for changes to contract conditions introduces uncertainty for tenderers.

· There may be limited interest from other contractors in tendering during the reform transition period.

· Will add significant workload to council and contractor staff during the reform transition period, when workloads are already expected to increase.

· Will limit the incumbent contractors capacity to provide responses to requests for information to facilitate the transition process.

· May result in the loss of institutional knowledge that will be essential for s smooth transition of operational delivery to the new entity.

7. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by providing safe and efficient water supply and wastewater services.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy, Activity Management Plans and Water Safety Plans. Within the context of water reform, the proposal meets councils’ and procurement policy requirements for direct appointment of a reformatted contract to the incumbent contractor for two to five years.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability or environmental impacts identified as a result of this decision.
Risks Analysis	There is a risk that there will be no contract arrangements in place post 1 July 2022 which would impact on Council’s ability to deliver water and wastewater services. The proposal in this report addresses that risk. There is a risk the reform transition will introduce uncertainty and if the contract was tendered there would only be one tenderer.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	As the value of the work was consulted and approved through the Long Term Plan process, engagement or consultation on the matter is therefore not required.

8. Next Steps

Subject to the proposal being accepted Morrison Low will be engaged to assist with the re-drafting of the contract. Council will then work with Fulton Hogan through a series of workshops to develop a contract framework and model. It is intended that the contract will be agreed in principle by both parties and will be brought back to Council for approval at the meeting on 30 April 2022.

9. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ian Evans	Julie Muir
Water Services Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
25/11/2021	26/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.11 Clyde Wastewater Project

Doc ID: 559348

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the budget for the Clyde Wastewater Project.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Authorises an increase in the budget for the Clyde wastewater project of $4.7 million which includes a 10% contingency on the reticulation project.

C. Authorises increased debt funding of $4.7 million to be included in the 2022/23 Annual Plan to fund the increase in cost of the Clyde Wastewater Project.

2. Background

Funding was provided in the 2018 and 2021 Long Term Plans for the Clyde wastewater reticulation project. This includes construction of Stage 1 of the reticulation which will connect approximately 190 properties, the main Clyde pump station, and the main pipeline between Clyde and Alexandra.

The main wastewater pipeline work was awarded via open tender to Fulton Hogan in May 2019 and was completed in March 2020.

The Three Waters Infrastructure Committee approved a two stage, cost reimbursement model of contract for construction of the Clyde reticulation and main Clyde pumpstation on 25 September 2019. The first stage of the contract involved early contractor involvement in the site investigation and design process, and provision of a construction estimate. This first stage was awarded to Seipp Construction Ltd.

Council reviewed the contractor’s construction cost estimate on 26 August 2020, and approved awarding the second stage of the contract for construction of the reticulation and minor pump stations to Seipp Construction Ltd. The main Clyde pumpstation was removed from the contract scope.

Council also agreed that additional funding should be included in the 2021 Long Term Plan to meet the increased project scope.

Seipp commenced physical work on Stage 1 of the Clyde wastewater reticulation in January 2021. Project work output totals as of mid-November 2021 are shown on the following table.

	Main pipeline	Manholes	Laterals public¹	Laterals private – gravity²	Laterals -low pressure³	Inter-stage pump stations⁴
Project programme total	5100m	84	1870m	4502m	946m	2
Installed to date	3579m	51	960m	505m	0m	0
% complete	70%	61%	51%	11%	0%	0%

¹ Pipeline from the main to private property boundary

²Pipeline from the private property boundary to the dwelling

³ Pipeline that cannot be convey wastewater from the dwelling to the property boundary by means of gravity

⁴ Pump stations within the reticulation network that will capture waste from large gravity-fed areas and convey to the main wastewater pumpstation adjacent to the Dunstan golf course

On 26 August 2020 Council agreed to re-tender the construction of the main pump station as a traditional measure and value contract due to the contractor’s estimate being higher than the budget. Tenders for construction of the pump station and supply of a specific pump were advertised in April 2021.

The preferred pump was selected from a request for options and quotes from six suppliers during the design process. Five responses were received and a pump from Hall Machinery Ltd was selected as the best option. During the tender period, Hall Machinery Ltd recalled the recommended pump due to over-heating issues. Consequently, the tender process was halted while a re-design was undertaken.

The pumpstation contract was subsequently re-tendered in September 2021 with a revised scope for pumping requirements. Three tenders were received with HEBs Construction Ltd being awarded the contract on the 29 October for the sum of $3,444,571.17 (excluding GST). Physical work on the pumpstation is programmed to commence in late November 2021 and be completed in July 2022.

3. Discussion

Stage 1 of the Clyde wastewater reticulation construction has proved to be challenging, and delays to the programme and increased costs have occurred due to several unforeseen issues. These are:

· Difficult ground conditions. Some of the deeper excavations for the main pipelines have struck very large boulders which have resulted in reduced productivity.

· Condition of underground services. Some water pipes near the construction works have cracked and broken creating further disruption.

· The availability of staff. The buoyant national and local construction market has reduced the availability of labor resources. This has further negatively impacted progress and cost.

· COVID-19 lockdowns. These have created disruptions to the programme with complete shutdowns under Alert Level 4 from the 17th to 31st of August 2021 and slower progress for a further week under Alert Level 3 restrictions. This has resulted in increased costs due to disestablishment and re-establishment.

· Council staff vacancies resulting in external contracted project management resourcing being required.

The pandemic has created unpredictability in the market for supply of materials and is creating price volatility. The cost re-imbursement contract model being used enables regular review of cost inputs and changes to be made to working and supply methodologies. Prices have continued to escalate throughout 2021 however.

Council adopted the cost-reimbursement model of contract for the reticulation project as it was acknowledged that the project contained risks which could not be adequately quantified at the time of tendering. If a traditional contract model had been used then many of these risks transfer to the contractor. Consequently, contractors need to price this risk into their contract rates.

Staff have reviewed the basis for the increased costs and note that had a traditional contract been used then council would still have been liable for most of the increased costs. The implications of Covid on the construction environment, the size of the boulders, and the condition of nearby water pipes could not have been reasonably foreseen and included in the contractor’s rates. These would have qualified for cost variations. If a traditional contract had been tendered then the original rates would have been higher due to the amount of risk associated with the work, in particular construction in the heritage precinct.

4. Financial Considerations

The budget left to complete the Clyde Wastewater Programme of projects is $6.64million. The increase in funding required to complete the projects is $4.7 million. This includes a 10% contingency.

The cashflow forecast for the remaining work is as follows:

November - December 2021

January – March 2022

April - June 2022

July - September 2022

$1.68million

$3.54 million

$4.88 million

$2,08 million

There is sufficient funding within the current budgets to fund work up to April 2022, which is the fourth quarter of the 2021/22 financial year. The additional funding will be required to fund work between April 2022 and September 2022.

Council has two options available to fund the remaining work. These are to increase borrowing or re-prioritise the overall capital programme and defer or reforecast this work into future years.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Increase loan funding by $4.7 million to fund the increased cost of the Clyde Wastewater project.

Advantages:

· The remaining capital programme can proceed as planned in the Long Term Plan.

· External debt will not be raised until council cashflow requires this. This may occur later than needed to fund this specific project if the overall capital programme is running behind schedule.

Disadvantages:

· $4.7 million of Council debt funding will be required to fund the cost increase.

Option 2

Re-prioritise the capital expenditure programme to re-allocate $4.7 million to the Clyde wastewater project

Advantages:

· The remaining programme of work for the Clyde wastewater project will continue

Disadvantages:

· $4.7 million of other capital expenditure works will not be undertaken in the 2022/23 programme

· Re-prioritising of capital projects may mean further delay to improving the level of service of other community wastewater supplies.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by reducing potential ground water contamination, protection of landscape and natural ecosystems, and promotes a sustainable environment for the town’s residents. The density of septic tanks in Clyde may not meet more impending discharge controls for urban areas. Clyde is unable to grow and develop further unless a reticulated wastewater system is employed.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The project will reduce environmental impacts from wastewater.
Risks Analysis	There are further risks to the timeline if there was another COVID-19 outbreak, further issues at ports, or the availability of sub-contractors to undertake work on private properties. There are potential reputational risks to council regarding the work on private properties. Residents have the option of having laterals constructed privately, or by council. Some residents may have expectations of lateral pipe alignments that are not the most cost effective alignment option. Reinstatement of private lateral trenches is limited to topsoiling and grass seed, and does not include reinstatement of hard surfaces which will be the property owners responsibility. Global and national inflation will continue to rise. There is a project contingency sum of 5% of the forecasted expenditure for the Clyde wastewater reticulation project. Risks and changes in the status of these will be monitored and reported monthly in the project status reports to the Project Governance Group.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Corporate Services Executive Manager has been consulted on the financial implications in preparing this report. Not delivering the Clyde wastewater upgrade projects would be contrary to the Long Term Plan consultation. The Clyde wastewater infrastructure is not a strategic asset under the significance policy.

7. Next Steps

· Continue with the programme of works as outlined in the report

· Report progress at each Audit and Risk Committee meeting and Project Governance Group meetings until completion of the programme of projects

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Patrick Keenan	Julie Muir
Capital Projects Programme Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
17/11/2021	26/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.12 Maniototo Bridge Updates

Doc ID: 559747

1. Purpose

To provide a further update of the three Maniototo Bridges currently closed to traffic.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

This purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the three bridges in the Maniototo that are currently closed to traffic.

The three bridges are:

· Bridge no. 121 - Scott Lane, Kyeburn River

· Bridge no. 145 - Maniototo Road (Halls Ford), Taieri River

· Bridge no. 160 - Linnburn Runs Road, Taieri River

The last report was provided at the Council meeting on 22 September 2021, and there are now further updates to report. More detailed costings and recommendations will be provided to the 26 January 2022 meeting of Council for consideration.

As discussed in the September report, Beca were engaged to undertake principal inspections on the bridges at Maniototo Road (Halls Ford) and Linnburn Runs Road. The inspections had been postponed several times due river levels and COVID-19 lockdowns, but have now been completed.

These inspections involved a thorough and detailed assessment of each bridge and its structural components, involving boat access and physical material sampling.

The aim was to determine the overall condition of these bridges and what loading (if any) each structure may be able to withstand or what would be required for reopening to traffic.

As previously discussed in the September report, the bridge at Scott Lane was damaged beyond repair during the January 2021 weather event. Cost alternative structures were being considered at this location and there are now options presented by Beca for consideration.

The updates are summarised below for each of the three bridges.

Linnburn Runs Road – Bridge no. 160

Given its age (constructed in 1955) and its current condition, Beca estimate a remaining useful life of the timber components in the range of 20-30 years. This is assuming the bridge is maintained in its current state and the recommended repairs listed below are completed.

The principal defect on this bridge is the abutment beams, which have rotted where they are in contact with the ground on each bank/abutment.

Prior to being able to reopen the bridge, Beca have recommend the following repairs are made:

· Replacement of a missing packer

· Provide additional support to the ends of the longitudinal beams at each abutment (installation of a pile on each side of the bridge deck at the abutments with a new abutment cap beam)

· Minor repairs to the handrails

The cost to complete this work will be in the order of $80,000-$100,000 and can be accommodated within existing Council roading renewal budgets. A programme for undertaking this work will be provided to the January 2022 Council meeting.

Maniototo Road (Halls Ford) – Bridge no. 145

The latest inspection by Beca has found the piles and pile caps of this bridge have reached the end of their design and useful life.

Replacement of these elements would be both difficult and expensive - it would involve one of two scenarios:

· Providing support to the superstructure whilst the work is undertaken or,

· Taking down the entire superstructure to allow the re-construction of the substructure elements.

Either of these two options would require full replacement of the deck, kerbs and handrails – essentially only the main beams (with the exception of the split beam and the rotting abutment beams) could be re-used. Given the age of the structure, incorporating these old timber structural elements into an otherwise new structure would not be prudent.

Beca therefore recommend that access to the structure is removed to prevent further unauthorised use and subsequently the bridge should be removed or replaced.

It was anticipated firm estimates could be prepared for this report on replacement options at this location, unfortunately this could not be provided by the required deadlines.

Due to the nature of the Taieri River at this location, cost-effective structures (e.g. multiple box culverts) are not considered a viable option from a consenting perspective, with the only feasible replacement option being a new replacement bridge.

Assessment to date has indicated that a replacement bridge would have a rough order cost in the range of:

Item	Cost ($)
New single span 30m bridge (design, consent, abutment construction, supply and install superstructure - 0.85 HNHO)	$395,000
Road tie ins	$10,000
Geotech and engineering investigation	$10,000
Crane pad and establishment costs ready for bridging contractor	$20,000
Removal of old timber structure	$15,000
Total	$450,000
*Contingency (20%)*	*$90,000*
TOTAL	$540,000

It is worth noting that material supply costs have significantly increased in recent times, and may continue to do so.

Council’s Roading team will prepare a detailed report with options and costings for this location for the 26 January 2022 meeting.

Scott Lane – Bridge no. 121

The 13 span Scott Lane timber bridge is 91 years old and was at the end of its economic life prior to the January weather event. It was heavily restricted to heavy vehicles prior to this event and repair of the existing bridge is not a viable option.

Beca were engaged to undertake a feasibility study on what cost-effective replacement structures could be feasible at this location.

The Kye Burn at Scott Lane is a challenging due to the following factors:

· It is a dynamic river with a constantly changing wetted channel

· Significant debris load during flood events

· Significant gravel and stone movement in river

· Apparent mudstone layer approximately 1m below gravels

· Presence of threatened fish species such as Central Otago roundhead galaxias (Galaxias anomalus) and Longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii)

· Fish passage must be provided for in line with New Zealand Fish Passage Guidelines 2018 and to be compliant with the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983

· Flood events fill the full channel of the river, approx. 80m in width

Consent for a replacement structure is governed by the following planning documents:

· Otago Regional Council – Water for Otago (Regional Plan)

· Ministry for the Environmental - National Environmental Standards for Freshwater Regulations 2020 (NES)

· Ministry for the Environment – National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS)

The feasibility study concluded the following options could be considered at this site:

1. Remove old bridge structure and maintain natural ford crossing (with minor rock improvements) to maintain future access

2. Construct battery box culvert crossing (essentially multiple box culverts) to span the riverbed.

3. Replacement with a new bridge structure

Option 2 was put forward by Beca as the most appropriate cost-effective structure that would likely meet consenting requirements. A rough order of costs for each option is as follows:

Option	Estimated Cost ($)
Option 1 – Removal of old structure and construct improved natural ford crossing	$40,000 - $50,000
Option 2 – Removal of old structure and construct battery box culvert crossing	$650,000 - 750,000 *
Option 3 – Removal of old structure and replacement with a new single lane bridge structure	$1,200,000 + *

* hydrological and engineering investigation/assessment to the order of $20,000 would be required to determine accurate costings for this option.

Firm estimates on replacement options at this location were unable to be provided for this report. Options, costs, and funding will be provided for the 26 January 2022 Council meeting.

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Beca Report on Maniototo Road and Linnburn Runs Road Bridges November 2021.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

James McCallum	Julie Muir
Roading Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
19/11/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.13 Proposed Road Stopping - Unnamed Road off Roxburgh East Road

Doc ID: 556974

1. Purpose of Report

To consider a proposal to stop part of an unnamed unformed road off Roxburgh East Road in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposal to stop the unnamed unformed road, and to legalise the existing formation of Roxburgh East Road as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan) by:

1. Stopping the parcels marked ‘C’ and ‘D’, and amalgamating these with Record of Title 61571, and;

2. Taking the parcels marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ and vesting them as legal (Roxburgh East) road.

Subject to:

- Public notification and advertising in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974.

- No objections being received within the objection period.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited being registered over the areas marked ‘A’ to ‘D’ in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan).

- Council and the applicant sharing the survey costs.

- The applicant paying for the land at valuation, and all other costs associated with the stopping.

- The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

2. Background

Roxburgh East Road starts at the Jedburgh Bridge. It runs northward to the Roxburgh Dam, which it crosses before ending at an intersection with the Fruitlands – Roxburgh Road.

Figure 1 – Overview of Roxburgh East Road (intersection with Ladysmith Road circled in red)

Just past the intersection with Ladysmith Road an unnamed unformed road (the Road) adjoins the western side of Roxburgh East Road. The Road is a short no exit ‘stub’ which protrudes into Lot 1 Deposited Plan (DP) 315688. It has an area of approximately 930 square metres.

The owner of Lot 1 DP 315688 has applied to stop the road and have it amalgamated with Record of Title 61571.

The Road, which is highlighted in red, and Lot 1 DP 315688, are shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2 – The unnamed unformed legal road off Roxburgh East Road (shown in red).

3. Discussion

Evaluation of Application

An evaluation of the proposal to stop a portion of the Road is shown in the table below.

Item	Criteria to be considered	Evaluation
District Plan	Has the road been identified in the District Plan for any specific use or as a future road corridor?	The Road is shown on District Plan Map 34. No part of the Road identified for any specific purpose or as a future road corridor.
Current Level of Use	Is the road used by members of the public for any reasons?	The Road is not used by members of the public for any reason.
	Does it provide the only or most convenient means of access to any existing lots?	The Road is surrounded by Lot 1 DP 315688 which is owned by the applicant. The applicant accesses his property from Roxburgh East Road some 260 metres to the south of the Road. No other lots can be accessed from the Road. Due to its proximity to the intersection of Roxburgh East and Ladysmith Roads, the Road is not suitable for forming.
	Will stopping the road adversely affect the viability of any commercial activity or operation?	No commercial activity is located on land adjacent to, or accessed from, the Road.
	Will any land become landlocked if the road is stopped?	No.
Future Use	Will the road be needed to service future residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural developments?	The Road is not suitable for forming due to its proximity to the intersection of Roxburgh East and Ladysmith Roads.
Future Use	Will the road be needed in the future to connect existing roads?	The Road is a no exit road. It does offer any level of connectivity to any other legal road.
Non-traffic Uses	Does the road have current or potential value for amenity functions, e.g., walkway, cycleway, recreational access, access to conservation or heritage areas, park land?	The Road does not provide access to any recreational area, conservation land, or to a heritage area. The following parties have been consulted and have provided their support of the proposal to stop the Road: · Walking Access New Zealand · Central Otago Recreational Users Forum · Fish & Game Otago · Council’s Parks & Reserves Manager
	Does the road have potential to be utilised by the Council for any other public work either now or potentially in the future?	The Road does not have the potential to be used for any public work.
	Does the road have significant landscape amenity value?	The Road does not have any significant landscape amenity value.
Access to Waterbody	Does the road provide access to a river, stream, lake or other waterbody?	The Road does not provide access to any type of waterbody.
Access to Waterbody	If so, there is a need to consider Section 345 of the Local Government Act, which requires that after stopping the land be vested in Council as an esplanade reserve	N/A (refer above).
Infrastructure	Does the road currently contain any services or other infrastructure, such as electricity, telecommunications, irrigation or other private infrastructure?	Yes. Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora) have advised that they have a power pole and a stay pole in the Road.
Infrastructure	Can the existing services or infrastructure be protected by easements?	Yes. Easements can be created to protect Aurora’s infrastructure. Aurora’s standard easement widths are 6 metres for overhead lines and associated support structure being three metres either side of the pole(s) or wires.
Traffic Safety	Does the use of motor vehicles on the road constitute a danger or hazard?	There is no danger or hazard associated with using a motor vehicle on the Road.

Roading Network

As shown in the evaluation table, the Road is not identified in the District Plan as being required for any specific use or other roading purpose. The proposal to stop the Road will have no effect on the existing roading network or other parties right of access, however.

While the application was being assessed, it was noted that Roxburgh East Road encroaches over the western boundary of Lot 1 DP 315688. The encroachment is particularly significant at the corner above the intersection with Ladysmith Road.

It was also noted that the applicant is occupying approximately 900 square metres of legal road on the southern boundary.

The encroachments, occupation, and boundary fence are shown below in figure 3.

Figure 3 – Legal boundary shown in black with the fenced boundary shown in red.

It is proposed that the existing boundary fence between points one and two be surveyed to become the new legal boundary. The applicants land on the outside of the boundary fence would then be taken for legal road. The legal road on the inside of the fence would be stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title 61571.

This would legalise both the encroachment of Roxburgh East Road and the applicant’s occupation of legal road.

A plan of the legalisation is shown below in figure 4.

Figure 4 – Legalisation Plan

Parcels ‘A’ and ‘B’, land to be taken for road, have an area of approximately 755 square metres. Parcels ‘C’ and ‘D’, the road to be stopped, have a greater area of approximately 1710 square metres.

If approved, the stopping would result in an increase to the applicant’s land holding of approximately 955 square metres. This is effectively the same as if just the Road itself were to be stopped.

Public Access

The Road does not provide access to recreational or conservation land, to a heritage area or to a waterbody.

The Road does contain infrastructure belonging to Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora). Protection for this infrastructure is discussed next.

Easements

As noted in the evaluation table, Aurora have a power pole and a stay pole in the Road. These will be surveyed and protected by registration of an easement (in gross) in favour of Aurora on the Record of Title 61571.

Aurora also have an overhead line network running through the areas marked ‘A’ and ‘B’, and a pole and a low voltage conductor in the area marked ‘D’. This infrastructure will also be surveyed and included in the aforementioned easement.

Legislation and Policy

Council’s Roading Policy determines the appropriate statutory procedure for stopping a legal road or any part thereof. The policy for selecting the correct statutory process is as follows:

The Local Government Act 1974 road stopping procedure shall be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances shall apply:

a) Where the full width of road is proposed to be stopped and public access will be removed as a result of the road being stopped; or

b) The road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

c) The road stopping has, in the judgment of the Council, the potential to be controversial; or

d) If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.

The Local Government Act process requires public notification of the proposal. This involves erecting signs at each end of the road to be stopped, sending letters to adjoining owners/occupiers and at least two public notices a week apart in the local newspaper. Members of the public have 40 days in which to object.

The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted when the following

circumstances apply:

e) Where the proposal is that a part of the road width be stopped and a width of road which provides public access will remain.

f) Where no other person, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;

g) Where other reasonable access will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the stopped road (i.e. by the construction of a new road).

As the full width of the end of the road is to be stopped and public access removed, it is proposed that Local Government Act 1974 procedure be adopted for this application.

An application to stop a road under the Local Government Act 1974 requires public consultation with the members of the public having a right to object to proposal.

Council’s Roading Policy states that:

If an objection is received then the applicant will be provided with the opportunity to consider the objection and decide if they wish to continue to meet the costs for the objection to be considered by the Council and the Environment Court.

If an objection is received and it is accepted by the Council then the process will be halted and the Council may not stop the road.

If the objection is not accepted by the Council then the road stopping proposal must be referred to the Environment Court for a decision. The applicant is responsible for meeting all costs associated with defending the Council’s decision in the Environment Court.

Financial

The applicants are required to pay all costs associated with the proposal to stop the Road. Typical costs include valuation, survey, legal, and consultancy fees. As this stopping will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974, costs will include those associated with public adverting. These include:

· having signs printed and erected at each end of the road to be stopped;

· sending letters to adjoining owners/occupiers; and,

· publishing the two public notices in a local newspaper.

As the legalisation will benefit both parties, it is proposed that the survey fees, which are estimated to be approximately $5,000 be shared between Council and the applicant.

Community Board Recommendation

A report on this matter was presented to the Teviot Valley Community Board (the Board) for consideration at their meeting of 21 October 2021.

On consideration the Board resolved (Resolution 21.8.4) to recommend to Council that they approve the proposal to stop the unnamed unformed road, and to legalise the existing formation of Roxburgh East Road as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan).

4. Financial Considerations

There are no negative financial implications associated with the recommended option. The applicants are required to pay market value for the land, and all other associated costs.

Sale of the land will cover the share of the survey costs which are payable by Council.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To approve the proposal to stop the unnamed unformed road, and to legalise the existing formation of Roxburgh East Road as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan) by:

1. Stopping the parcels marked ‘C’ and ‘D’, and amalgamating these with Record of Title 61571, and;

2. Taking the parcels marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ and vesting them as legal (Roxburgh East) road.

Subject to:

- Public notification and advertising in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974.

- No objections being received within the objection period.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited being registered over the areas marked ‘A’ to ‘D’ in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan).

- Council and the applicant sharing the survey costs.

- The applicant paying for the land at valuation, and all other costs associated with the stopping.

- The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive.

Advantages:

· The existing formation of Roxburgh East Road (as shown in figure 4) will be legalised.

· Provision has been made to protection of the existing utility networks.

· Sharing the survey costs is mutually beneficial.

· The income received will be used to address this and other public roading issues.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

To not approve to the proposal to stop the unnamed unformed road, and to legalise the existing formation of Roxburgh East Road, as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan).

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· The existing formation of Roxburgh East Road (as shown in figure 4) will not be legalised.

· An opportunity to share the cost of legalisation will be lost.

· Additional income will not be available to address other public roading issues.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions

This decision promotes the economic wellbeing of the community by generating income from the disposal of land that is held, (but not required) for roading purposes, and where it has limited other use.

Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.

Council’s Road Stopping Policy applies to this application.

Consideration of this policy has ensured that the appropriate statutory process, being to stop the road in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974, has been chosen.

Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts

No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision to stop the unnamed unformed road or to legalise the existing formation of Roxburgh East Road.

Risks Analysis

No risks to Council are associated with the recommended option.

Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)

The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.

Public notices and advertising in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 will be posted.

Notice of the completed road stopping will be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

The following steps have been / will be taken to implement the road stopping:

1. Community Board Approval October 2021

2. Council Approval December 2021

3. Survey Early 2022

4. Survey Plan Approved March/April 2022

5. Valuation April 2022

6. Public Notification Commences April 2022

7. Public Notification Period Ends May 2022

8. Gazette notice published Mid – Late 2022

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Julie Muir
Statutory Property Officer	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
29/10/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.14 Proposed Road Stopping (Partial Width) - Adjacent to 56 Ladysmith Road

Doc ID: 557002

1. Purpose of Report

To consider a proposal to stop a portion of Ladysmith Road adjacent to 56 Ladysmith Road in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposal to stop an unformed portion of Ladysmith Road, being approximately 340 square metres as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan), subject to:

- The applicant paying for the land at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act 1981.

- The applicant paying all other costs associated with the stopping.

- The land being amalgamated with the Record of Title resulting from the boundary adjustment shown in figure 2.

- The land being amalgamated with the applicant’s Record of Title.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited being registered on the applicant’s Record of Title.

- The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

2. Background

Ladysmith Road (the Road) adjoins the western side of the Roxburgh East Road, about 1.8 kilometres north of the Roxburgh township. For the majority, the road is formed and sealed with the last 200 metres being rough gravel. It is a no exit road which terminates at the Clutha River Mata-Au. An overview of the Road is shown below in figure 1.

Figure 1 – Overview of Ladysmith Road.

Lot 1 Deposited Plan (DP) 537543 (Lot 1) is located at 56 Ladysmith Road. On its southern boundary, Lot 1 has a road frontage of approximately 48 metres. It is otherwise surrounded by Lot 2 DP 537543 (Lot 2). Lot 1, which has a slightly irregularly shaped boundary, is outlined in yellow below in figure 2.

Figure 2 – Lot 1 DP 22562 outlined in yellow.

The owner of Lot 1 has an agreement to purchase 550 square metres of land from the owners of Lot 2. The two parties are in the process of effecting a boundary adjustment. Once complete the land, which contains Lot 1’s driveway, will be transferred. It will also regularise the mutual boundaries. An extract of the scheme plan showing the 550 square metres being transferred, is shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2 – Extract of Boundary Adjustment Scheme Plan.

While drafting the scheme plan the surveyor noted that approximately 15 square metres of the garage on Lot 1 is built over the property boundary and encroaches onto the legal road. He also noted that a further 175 square metres of gardens, lawns, and fencing, had been constructed over the legal road.

The total area of the encroachment, which is circled is pink below in figure 3, is approximately 200 square metres.

Figure 3 – Encroachment of garage and garden.

To resolve the encroachment, the owner of Lot 1 has applied to stop approximately 340 square metres of Ladysmith Road. A plan of the proposal is shown below in figure 4.

Figure 4 – Legalisation Plan

3. Discussion

Roading Network

As shown below in figure 5, Ladysmith Road has a legal width of approximately 22.5 metres. The formed carriageway, as shown in figure 6, is approximately 5.5 metres wide.

Figure 5 – The 22.5 metres of legal road width. Figure 6 – The 5.5 metre wide formed carriageway.

The parcel of road which the applicants propose to stop is approximately 6 metres wide. This would leave a clearance of 4 metres between the proposed new boundary and the formed carriageway. Overall, a legal road width of approximately 16.5 metres will be retained. This is sufficient for roading purposes.

Figure 7 – Legal roading corridor and formed carriageway.

Utility Networks & Provider Requirements

An electricity network passed through the parcel of road which the applicants propose to stop. The network belongs to Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora). The network infrastructure, which includes overhead lines and a power pole, are shown in red in figure 8.

Aurora have confirmed that their infrastructure can be protected by registration of an easement (in gross) in their favour on the new title.

Figure 8 – Aurora’s overhead line network and power pole.

Legislation and Policy

Council’s Roading Policy determines the appropriate statutory procedure for stopping a legal road or any part thereof. The policy for selecting the correct statutory process is outlined in section 8.5 of Council’s Roading Policy. The options are as follow:

The Local Government Act 1974 road stopping procedure shall be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances shall apply:

a) Where the full width of road is proposed to be stopped and public access will be removed as a result of the road being stopped; or

b) The road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

c) The road stopping has, in the judgment of the Council, the potential to be controversial; or

d) If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.

The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted when the following

circumstances apply:

e) Where the proposal is that a part of the road width be stopped and a width of road which provides public access will remain.

f) Where no other person, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;

g) Where other reasonable access will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the stopped road (i.e. by the construction of a new road).

It is proposed that Public Works Act 1981 procedure be adopted for this application for the following reasons:

· The proposal is to stop part of the road width only.

· Public access will not be adversely affected.

The Public Works Act 1981 further provides for legal road to be stopped, sold, and amalgamated with an adjacent title. In this instance the stopped road would be amalgamated with the applicant’s Record of Title, OT14D/652.

Community Board Recommendation

A report on this matter was presented to the Teviot Valley Community Board (the Board) for consideration at their meeting of 21 October 2021.

On consideration the Board resolved (Resolution 21.8.5) to recommend to Council that they approve the proposal to stop approximately 340 square metres Ladysmith Road as shown in the Legalisation Plan figure 4 (Legalisation Plan).

4. Financial Considerations

Council’s Roading Policy determines that the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the road stopping. This includes purchase of the land at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act 1981.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To approve the proposal to stop an unformed portion of Ladysmith Road, being approximately 340 square metres as shown in figure 4 (Legalisation Plan), subject to:

- The applicant paying for the land at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act 1981.

- The applicant paying all other costs associated with the stopping.

- The land being amalgamated with the Record of Title resulting from the boundary adjustment shown in figure 2.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited being registered on the applicant’s Record of Title.

- The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

Advantages:

· The applicant’s occupation (encroachment)of the legal road will be legalised.

· Provision has been made to protection of the existing utility networks.

· Income received will be used to address other public roading issues.

· Recognises the provisions of Council’s Roading Policy.

· The proposal is consistent with the Public Works Act 1981.

Disadvantages:

· None, as the stopping will not have any effect on the existing formation of the road, and a roading corridor approximately 16.5 metres wide will be retained.

Option 2

To not approve the proposal to stop approximately 340 square metres of Ladysmith Road.

Advantages:

· None, as the stopping will not have any effect on the existing formation of the road, and a roading corridor approximately 16.5 metres wide will be retained.

Disadvantages:

· The applicant’s occupation (encroachment) of the legal road will not be legalised.

· Additional income will not be available to address other road encroachment or access issues.

· Does not recognise the provisions of Council’s Roading Policy.

· Does not recognise that the proposal is consistent with the Public Works Act 1981.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the economic wellbeing of the community by generating income from the disposal of land that is held (but not required) for roading purposes which has limited other use.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Council’s Road Stopping Policy applies to this application. Consideration of this policy has ensured that the appropriate statutory process, being to stop the road in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision to stop this short unnamed unformed road.
Risks Analysis	No risks to Council are associated with the recommended option.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded. Notice of the completed road stopping will be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

1. Community Board approval October 2021

2. Council approval December 2021

3. Survey and LINZ Accredited Supplier engaged December 2021

4. Survey Plan approved Early 2022

5. Gazette notice published Mid 2022

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Julie Muir
Statutory Property Officer	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
29/10/2021	25/11/2021

8 December 2021

21.9.15 Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Doc ID: 558059

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the approval of the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy for public consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy for public consultation.

C. Appoints a panel of three elected members to hear submissions, if necessary.

2. Background

Section 131 of the Building Act 2004 requires each territorial authority to have a Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy, which must state:

i) The approach the territorial authority will take in performing its functions regarding dangerous and insanitary buildings, and

ii) How the policy will apply to heritage buildings

A territorial authority must review its policy every five years, however a policy does not cease to have effect if it is overdue for review or being reviewed.

The current Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy is overdue as it was due to be completed in 2018. This policy is now part of a scheduled policy review programme.

3. Discussion

Compared to the previous policy, the proposed policy provides additional details regarding its purpose and objectives, key definitions, alignment with our community outcomes and Council’s role and particularly outlines Council’s approach to:

· Identifying dangerous, insanitary and affected buildings

· The consideration of heritage buildings if affected by this policy

· Working with other agencies; and

· The enforcement approach to remedy any dangerous, insanitary or affected buildings

The proposed policy incudes the consideration of ‘affected’ buildings which are buildings adjacent to, adjoining or near a dangerous building, which is not considered in the existing policy.

It details the policy objectives and how it aligns with our desired community outcomes.

It clarifies the process in the identification of dangerous, affected or insanitary buildings, and our obligations on the disclosure of information regarding the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) requests for a property.

4. Financial Considerations

There are minor cost implications regarding the consultation requirements, which will be met out of the current budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy for public consultation.

Advantages:

· Transparency of the processes for the community and expectations of building owners

· Building owners are informed regarding their responsibilities

· Compliance with the Building Act 2004

Disadvantages:

· Some costs for the administration of the consultation process

Option 2

Decline the approval of the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy for public consultation

Advantages:

· No consultation or associated cost required

Disadvantages:

· It may be perceived as non-compliant with the Building Act 2004

Option 3

Status quo – to maintain the current Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy

Advantages:

· No consultation or associated cost required

Disadvantages:

· The policy is not considered fit for purpose

· The policy does not meet the requirements of the Building Act 2004 regarding affected buildings

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the cultural and wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring buildings in our community are safe and do not cause harm now or in the future while protecting our vast heritage.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes This decision is consentient with the Central Otago Heritage Strategy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability or environmental implications of this decision.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks identified with the decision to approve the proposed policy for consultation. There is a risk that the current policy is not fit for purpose if the decision is not to approve the proposed policy for consultation.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	While the changes to the policy are more detailed than previously, the impact of the changes are a low degree of significance when assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy. The decision to amend or replace the policy requires public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure in S.83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

7. Next Steps

If the policy is approved, this will be publicly consulted on in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

Following the completion of the consultation, there will be a hearing scheduled (as necessary) if there are any submitters that wish to speak to their submission. There will then be a further report to Council.

The proposed timelines for this process are:

· Start consultation 10 December 2021

· Final date for submissions 21 January 2022

· Hearing TBC March 2022

· Final Council Report 20 April 2022

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy Consultation Document.docx ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Lee Webster	Sanchia Jacobs
Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment	Chief Executive Officer
25/11/2021	30/11/2021

Council meeting

8 December 2021

Department:	Regulatory
Document ID:	<CentralDocs ID>
Approved by:	<Council resolution/CEO/ET and date>
Effective date:	XXXXX
Next review:	XXXXX

Purpose:

This policy has been prepared in accordance with section 131 of the Building Act 2004.

It is important that Council protects public health through a balanced risk-based approach to ensuring buildings are structurally sound, do not pose health risks and perform their function without putting the health of building users, residents or visitors at risk.

Principles and objectives:

To meet the Councils responsibilities under the Act that relate to dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings.

To clearly outline:

· Councils approach to identifying dangerous, affected or insanitary buildings.

· what authority Council can exercise when such buildings are found; and

· how Council will work with building owners to prevent buildings from remaining dangerous or insanitary, particularly where a dangerous building is affecting or potentially affecting another building.

To explain Council’s approach where the building concerned is a District Plan scheduled, or Heritage New Zealand listed heritage building or landmark.

To ensure building owners understand that the Council may exercise its authority to take remedial action on the owner's behalf and may recover any resulting costs from the owner.

Scope:

The Policy applies to all buildings within the Central Otago District. The Policy sets out:

· the approach that Council will take in performing its functions under the Building Act 2004;

· Council’s priorities in performing those functions;

· Council’s approach to dangerous, affected and insanitary heritage buildings.

Definitions:

The Act	The Building Act 2004
Dangerous Building	1. A building is dangerous for the purposes of the Act if— a. in the ordinary course of events (excluding the occurrence of an earthquake), the building is likely to cause— b. injury or death (whether by collapse or otherwise) to any persons in it or to persons on other property; or damage to other property; or c. in the event of fire, injury or death to any persons in the building or to persons on other property is likely. 2. For the purpose of determining whether a building is dangerous in terms of subsection 1 (b) above a. a territorial authority— i. may seek advice from employees, volunteers, and contractors of Fire and Emergency New Zealand who have been notified to the territorial authority by the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand as being competent to give advice; and ii. if the advice is sought, must have due regard to the advice.
Insanitary Building	1. A building is insanitary for the purposes of the Act if the building— a. is offensive or likely to be injurious to health because— i. of how it is situated or constructed; or ii. it is in a state of disrepair; or iii. does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use; or iv. does not have sanitary facilities that are adequate for its intended use.
Affected building	1. A building is an affected building for the purposes of the Act if it is adjacent to, adjoining, or nearby— a. a dangerous building as defined in section 121; or b. a dangerous dam within the meaning of section 153.
Household Unit	1. A household unit— a. means a building or group of buildings, or part of a building or group of buildings, that is— i. used, or intended to be used, only or mainly for residential purposes; and ii. occupied, or intended to be occupied, exclusively as the home or residence of not more than 1 household; but iii. does not include a hostel, boarding house, or other specialised accommodation

Policy:

1. Council acknowledges there are situations that arise from time to time across the district where buildings have become dangerous and/or insanitary for various reasons including neglect, inadequate maintenance, earthquake / fire damage or through non-compliance with the building code.

2. In such situations, Council’s first approach will be to endeavour to achieve a resolution with the building owner. However, where this fails or an immediate hazard exists Council may, at its discretion, take appropriate action to mitigate the dangerous and/or insanitary conditions to protect public safety.

3. Council has endeavoured to balance the risks posed by dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings and the broader social and economic issues involved.

4. Council will take a pragmatic approach to administering the building act and this Policy in a fair and consistent manner.

5. Council will act in accordance with the attached procedures.

6. The policy and procedures will be reviewed at least every five years.

7. Council may decide to review the policy at any time within the five-year review requirement.

8. If, following the review, or at any other time, Council decides to amend or replace the policy it must do so by using the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

9. The policy does not cease to have effect because it is due for review or is being reviewed.

Relevant legislation:

· Local Government Act 2002

· Resource Management Act 1991

· Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

· Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

· Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988

· Health Act 1956

· Mental Health Act 1992

Related documents:

The Policy supports the following Community Outcomes from the Long-term Plan:

The Policy supports the following:

Ÿ Strategic Priorities

o Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st century region.

o Informed and proactive approaches to natural hazard risks.

Ÿ Central Otago District Plan

o Heritage objectives, policies and rules.

Appendix One: Dangerous and Insanitary Building Procedure

Council’s role

1.1. A building may become dangerous, affected or insanitary due to a number of reasons, such as unauthorised alterations being made, fire, natural disaster or other external factors, or as a result of its use by an occupant.

1.2. When Council becomes aware that a building may be dangerous, affected or insanitary, it will investigate and determine whether the building is dangerous, affected or insanitary.

1.3. If a building is found to be dangerous, affected or insanitary, Council will work with the building owner(s) to remedy the building, and if necessary, use powers it has available, to ensure appropriate action is taken to make the building, its occupants and the public safe.

Working with other agencies

2.1 Council will work with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the New Zealand Police and other relevant agencies to achieve the purpose of the Building Act as outlined in section 9.2.

Approach to identifying dangerous, affected or insanitary buildings

3.1 Council will not actively inspect all buildings within the district but may from time to time undertake proactive inspections on possible dangerous, affected or insanitary buildings.

3.2 On receiving information or a complaint regarding a possible dangerous, affected or insanitary building, Council will investigate to determine the extent of any potential issues.

Heritage buildings

4.1 The Policy applies to heritage buildings in the same way it applies to all other buildings. Where Council is assessing a building that is listed on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero Council will seek advice from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga where practicable.

4.2 When considering heritage buildings under the Policy, account will be taken of:

4.2.1 the importance of recognising any special traditional or cultural aspects of the intended use of the building;

4.2.2 the need to facilitate the preservation and ongoing use of buildings and areas of significant cultural, historical, or heritage value;

4.2.3 the circumstances of each owner and each building, including whether the building has undergone any recent building work.

4.3 When considering what action to take with a listed or scheduled heritage building that is deemed dangerous or insanitary, Council will take into account the heritage values of the building in determining possible courses of action and seek to avoid demolition wherever possible. Suitably qualified professionals with heritage expertise will be engaged where necessary to advise and recommend on possible actions.

Costs

5.1 Council may issue a notice under Section 124(2)(c) of the Building Act requiring work to be carried out on a dangerous or insanitary building to reduce or remove the danger, or to prevent the building from remaining insanitary.

5.1 If work required under such a notice issued is not completed or proceeding with reasonable speed, Council may use its powers under Section 126 of the Building Act and apply to the District Court to gain authorisation to carry out the building work required in the notice.

5.2 Where Council carries out building work, under Section 126 of the Act or under a warrant issued under Section 129, it is entitled to recover costs associated with that work from the building owner.

6 Disputes

6.1 If a building owner disputes a Council decision, or proposed action, relating to the exercise of Council’s powers under sections 124 or 129 of the Building Act, the owner may apply for a determination from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment, as set out in the Building Act.

6.2 Such a determination is binding on all parties.

7 Information disclosure

7.1 The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (section 44A) requires Council to include information concerning any consent, certificate, notice, order, or requisition affecting the land or any building on the land previously issued by the territorial authority on the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) for a property.

7.2 Council will include information relating to notices that have been issued by Council regarding dangerous and insanitary conditions or affected building status that are not resolved.

7.3 Council is required (under section 216 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act) to hold a summary of any written complaint concerning alleged breaches of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and Council’s response. This information will be provided upon request, subject to the requirements of section 217.

8 December 2021

21.9.16 Earthquake Prone Buildings

Doc ID: 559873

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the approval of the earthquake prone buildings statement of proposal regarding thoroughfares and strategic routes for public consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the earthquake prone building statement of proposal of thoroughfares and strategic routes for public consultation.

C. Notes the identification of potentially earthquake prone priority buildings is required by 1 July 2022.

D. Appoints a panel of three elected members to hear submissions, if necessary.

2. Background

The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 introduced major changes to the way earthquake prone buildings are identified and managed under the Building Act.

On 1 July 2017 these changes were introduced to the Building Act 2004 (“the Act”) which changed the way territorial authorities identify potentially earthquake prone buildings and if deemed earthquake prone, how they are managed.

This provides a consistent approach and categorises New Zealand into three seismic risk areas with associated timeframes to assess and remediate any potentially earthquake prone buildings and focuses on the most vulnerable buildings in terms of public safety.

Central Otago is within a medium seismic risk area and consequently we need to identify priority buildings by 1 July 2022, and all other potentially earthquake prone buildings across the district by 1 July 2027.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has provided the earthquake prone building methodology which sets out how territorial authorities must identify potentially earthquake prone buildings and the identification of priority buildings.

Priority buildings are defined in the Act as buildings that:

a) contain “vulnerable populations” such as schools, early childhood centres

b) that have important post disaster functionality (e.g. emergency buildings used by the police, fire stations, ambulance and hospitals

c) are on routes which could impede emergency services (strategic routes)

d) have falling hazards which could endanger occupants or passers-by (this applies to falling hazards from unreinforced masonry (“URM”)

Council has considered potentially earthquake prone buildings previously through the application of the rules in place at that time. This led to a desk top assessment in 2011 and the identification of approximately 300 potentially earthquake prone buildings across the district, with building owners being advised in writing at that time.

However, with the introduction of the new system, we must now apply the current methodology to previously identified buildings, which means there are now a number that are not considered as potentially earthquake prone due to these changes.

3. Discussion

Methodology

The current earthquake prone building methodology sets out how a territorial authority must identify potentially earthquake prone buildings. This requires the identification of buildings that meet the following criteria:

Profile category

CODC - Medium seismic risk area

Category A

Unreinforced masonry buildings

Category B

Pre-1976 buildings that are either three or more storeys or 12 metres or greater in height above the lowest ground level (other than unreinforced masonry buildings in Category A)

Category C

Pre-1935 buildings that are one or two storeys (other than unreinforced masonry buildings in Category A)

There are also a number of buildings that are excluded from these profile categories that were considered through this process, these are:

i. a building that is constructed primarily of timber framing without other construction materials providing lateral support

ii. a building strengthened to at least 34% NBS (or the equivalent of this) so that the building cannot be considered earthquake prone

iii. a building that a territorial authority has previously notified the owner in writing is not earthquake prone prior to commencement

iv. a building that the territorial authority has found to be earthquake prone and for which it has issued a notice under section 124 of the building Act prior to commencement (and is therefore subject to Schedule 1AA of the Building Act)

v. a building for which the territorial authority has a previous assessment that has a %NBS (New Building Standard) reported for the building greater than 34%NBS and that meets the criteria set out in section 3.3 of this methodology

vi. buildings for which a territorial authority obtains information or a special study that shows a particular subset of buildings is not earthquake prone due to circumstances or special local characteristics, where there is robust technical basis for this information or study

Council may also identify a building as potentially prone at any time (s.133AG (3) of the Building Act) if there is a reason to suspect the building may be earthquake prone.

Non-priority potentially earthquake prone buildings are required to be identified by 1 July 2027. A further report will be provided in 2022 regarding this matter.

Priority Buildings

The current requirement is to identify priority buildings, which are buildings in high or medium seismic areas that:

a. Contain “vulnerable populations” such as schools, early childhood centres

b. That has important post disaster functionality (e.g., Emergency buildings (police, fire stations, ambulance) and hospitals.

c. Or they are on routes which could impede emergency services (strategic routes)

d. Or finally, they have falling hazards which could endanger occupants or passers-by

The impact of being a priority building is that the time frames to identify them by the Territorial Authority (“TA”) and the required remediation by the owner are halved, leaving building owners 12.5 years to undertake any works required.

The vulnerable population buildings and emergency buildings are simply factual matters, i.e. a case of identifying a buildings current use against the criteria as prescribed in the Act.

Information was sought from the Ministry of Education in relation to education buildings owned by the Government. The information provided showed there are no state-owned education buildings within the district that are in any profile categories. This was consistent with the visual inspection of the schools undertaken.

There are also some non-government school and early childhood centres in the district. However, visual inspections of these buildings also confirmed that none were in a profile category.

In regard to hospitals and other buildings providing emergency treatment, again none were found to meet the profile category criteria and therefore are not a priority building.

In terms of emergency service buildings e.g. police, none of the buildings housing these services within the district were determined to meet a profile category, nor do any of them have characteristics of buildings outside the profile categories that have significantly lower seismic performance, which were also adjusted for age. Generally, these buildings were found to be single story and conservative in design or relatively new.

This outcome is not unexpected as agencies such as Fire and Emergency and the Police have had active programmes in reducing their seismic risk through upgrading their building stock for some time.

When considering buildings used as civil defence centres there are some that are potentially earthquake prone, and are council owned buildings. In addition to this, council staff have already undertaken assessments of each council building and have programmed works to address any earthquake strengthening required, within the statutory timeframes.

In June 2020, Council considered and adopted the Council-owned Earthquake-prone Building Policy which follows Central Governments guidelines in terms of requirements for a minimum of 34% New Building Standard (NBS) rating and timeframes.

Strategic routes

Strategic routes mean the TAs have a discretion to identify certain buildings for prioritisation if there are routes that are important in the emergency service response and there are buildings that meet the profile criteria that could impede transport routes of strategic importance if they were to collapse in an earthquake.

There are a number of routes throughout the district that may be important for emergency services to provide a response in an earthquake. However, using information held on the property file and undertaking an on-site external visual inspection of buildings, it was determined that any important routes were not deemed ‘strategic routes’. A fortunate characteristic of our district is that routes that emergency services are likely to take are either:

a) No buildings meeting the methodology have been identified on potentially important routes;

b) Roads are wide and unlikely to block the movement of emergency services; or

c) There are alternative routes; or

d) A building that does meet the methodology, is single story or set back from the road.

In considering falling hazards i.e. where any part of unreinforced masonry could fall from a building in an earthquake (e.g. parapet) this aspect of the framework is about managing the life safety risks arising from people walking by or in vehicles being injured from falling hazards from Earthquake Prone Buildings. It relates to people in public spaces generally passing by and not associated with the building or its functionality e.g. walking past a church not standing outside the church following a wedding ceremony.

The key aspect of this consideration is the ’sufficiency test’, that is, are there buildings that meet profile category A i.e. unreinforced masonry, which could fall from the building in an earthquake onto a road, footpath or thoroughfare that has been identified as having sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising, and if so the TA must undertake public consultation.

There is no definition of what sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic means in the Act, only examples as shown in the tables below, taken from the MBIE priority building guidance document:

Table

Description automatically generated

The descriptions of use have been considered in the identification of roads, footpaths and throughfares during the on-site inspections, with these locations being cross referenced using traffic count data.

Consequently, some throughfares have been identified that are believed to meet these criteria and Council is required to publicly consult on these following the special consultative procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

The consultation is to determine if the community agree with the throughfares identified (or not) and to determine if there are any other locations that the community feel need to be considered, as required by the Act.

Profiling of Buildings

In 2011 a desk top assessment of potentially earthquake prone buildings was undertaken and the subsequent building owners were notified of this by letter. This notification included a recommendation to obtain an engineer’s assessment/report to determine if their building is earthquake prone or not, and if it is what remedial actions are needed.

Very few building owners have undertaken this to date. Additionally, any reports need to meet the current methodology to determine its earthquake prone status.

Following this work, we have applied the current methodology and undertaken on-site inspections of buildings previously identified, along with identifying and inspecting any other buildings that meet the new criteria, in order to identify potentially earthquake priority buildings by 1 July 2022.

The thoroughfares that have been identified that have buildings that are potentially earthquake prone with unreinforced masonry are:

· Tarbert Street, Alexandra

· Scotland Street, Roxburgh

· Charlemont Street, Ranfurly

· Historical Precinct, Cromwell

· Loop Road, St Bathans

· Earme Street and Leven Street, Nasby

· Sunderland Street, Clyde

· Harvey Street, Omakau

These are shown in maps within the public consultation document (Appendix 1) with details about what we are consulting on and information we are seeking from our community.

4. Financial Considerations

There are minor immediate budget implications from the required public notification of the consultation details. These will be met through the current budgets.

There are financial implications from seismic assessments and remedial works on Council owned buildings if determined earthquake prone. Council have previously considered these aspects with engineer reports scheduled in the current financial year and strengthening in 2022/2023 at the earliest, which are contained in the long-term plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the proposed statement of proposal for public consultation.

Advantages:

· Consistency with Central Governments guidelines and the statutory requirements.

· It provides the community with clear and consistent information regarding Council’s obligations and approach, to minimise confusion in communities.

· Reflects the minimisation of risk to our community without burdening building owners un-necessarily through being overly risk adverse.

Disadvantages:

· Some of the community may have a view that Council should be more cautious in identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings.

· Building owners on the thoroughfares identified my not agree with Councils view.

Option 2

Do not approve the proposed statement of proposal for public consultation

Advantages:

· No additional costs for public consultation.

· Potentially affected building owners may not be required to undertake remedial works on their buildings.

Disadvantages:

· This may lead to Council not meeting its statutory obligations and timeframes to identify potentially earthquake prone priority buildings.

· This may put our community at increased risk of potentially earthquake prone priority buildings not being identified and remediated as necessary.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings, strategic routes and thoroughfares, which will be remediated in accordance with statutory requirements and timeframes.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes the decision is consistent with the Council-owned Earthquake-prone Building Policy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	This decision does not impact on sustainability.
Risks Analysis	Risk from this decision is low as this will initiate the public consultation process. Council will receive a further report to consider the adoption of the routes and thoroughfares identified. While the MBIE guidance has been considered when identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings, this does not mean that all buildings have been identified. Some buildings may have previously been considered, but now following a change of use or exempt. Some parts of the community may feel Council are to risk averse and some thoroughfares are not necessary, others may believe Council should be more cautious. If consultation is delayed, there may be a risk of not identifying potentially earthquake prone priority buildings within the statutory timeframe.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This matter affects building owners and the wider community in general and requires public consultation. The matter of earthquake prone buildings will impact on the current and future social, economic, environmental and well-being of the district when considering the significance and engagement policy.

7. Next Steps

Following approval from Council, the following public consultation timeline is proposed:

· 10 December 2021 - public consultation will commence

· 21 January 2022 – final date for submissions

· March 2022 – Hearing / deliberations (actual date to be confirmed)

· 20 April 2022 – Council report to consider the adoption of the final policy.

Following confirmation of the thoroughfares and strategic routes, contact will be made with individual priority building owners to request an engineers report to enable council to determine if a building is or is not earthquake prone.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Thoroughfares and Strategic Routes Consultation Documentation.docx ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Lee Webster	Sanchia Jacobs
Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment	Chief Executive Officer
25/11/2021	30/11/2021

Council meeting

8 December 2021

What’s being proposed?

This Statement of Proposal is seeking public feedback on the identification of thoroughfares and strategic routes.

On 1 July 2017 changes were introduced to the Building Act 2004 that affect the way potentially earthquake-prone buildings are identified and, if deemed earthquake prone, how they are managed. One of the changes provides for public consultation, to assist Council in identifying the most vulnerable buildings i.e. earthquake-prone buildings on routes with high vehicular or pedestrian traffic or of strategic importance.

The Act defines these buildings as priority buildings, and the timeframes for identifying, strengthening or demolishing them are shortened. Once they have been notified by Council, owners of priority buildings have 12.5 years to strengthen or demolish them. This is a significantly shorter timeframe than the Act allows for other earthquake-prone buildings (25 years).

At its meeting on 8 December 2021 Council approved in principle the areas identified as higher traffic areas and the absence of any strategic routes. Now we’re asking our community about these routes and areas.

This Statement of Proposal forms the basis of the special consultative procedure being undertaken by Council.

Background

New Zealand is more prone to earthquake events than some other parts of the world. Events in recent years have led to a review of how we can best manage and lower the risk to public safety that is currently posed by certain buildings in the event of an earthquake.

Out of this review came the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016. This Act and its methodology introduced a consistent system across New Zealand for identifying and remediating Earthquake-Prone buildings.

The assessment of earthquake-prone buildings is based on seismic risk areas – high, medium and low. Central Otago District is contained within a medium seismic risk area.

The legislation introduces set timeframes to assess and remediate buildings. It focuses on the most vulnerable buildings in terms of public safety, primarily non-residential buildings, although it does include larger residential buildings of two or more stories containing three or more household units.

Go to Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.and search “Earthquake-prone buildings” to access relevant links to the legislation and related information.

About the consultation

What is the consultation for?

We have identified some thoroughfares with higher levels of vehicle or pedestrian traffic and need your help determining if we have these right and to identify any others.

To make our communities safer the legislation requires councils to identify what are called ‘Priority Buildings’. Priority buildings pose a high safety risk or are critical to recovery in an emergency.

Some buildings are automatically categorised as priority buildings based on their purpose (e.g. hospitals, emergency response services such as police, fire and ambulance stations) but also need to meet the profile categories set by Central Government. Other buildings may be identified as priority buildings due to their proximity to thoroughfares and strategic routes, and their potential for failure in an earthquake.

Identifying the thoroughfares and strategic routes

To identify priority buildings, we must first identify thoroughfares and strategic routes. A thoroughfare may warrant prioritising due to its high pedestrian and vehicular movements, and if it is at risk of an Unreinforced Masonry Building (URM) collapsing on it during an earthquake.

A number of thoroughfares have been identified that meet these criteria.

What is a Strategic Route?

A strategic route may warrant prioritisation if the route would be blocked should an unreinforced masonry building collapse on it during an earthquake, preventing emergency response. These strategic routes are routes for emergency services to gain access after an event, and are essential for a number of reasons, most importantly saving lives.

Buildings impeding a strategic transport route in an earthquake could delay an emergency response to the detriment of the community (i.e. loss of life if access to emergency care is not possible).

A number of important routes for emergency services have been identified, however none have been determined as strategic routes for one or more of the following reasons:

a) There are alternative routes that could be used; or

b) The potentially earthquake prone building is low level e.g single storey; or

c) The potentially earthquake prone building is set back from the road; or

d) The roads are wide, so any debris from an earthquake are unlikely to block it preventing an emergency response.

What should I do?

As part of this process, we are seeking your views on whether you believe we have identified the right routes i.e. routes you use the most when you travel in a vehicle, bike or on foot and whether there are other routes or thoroughfares you think we need to consider.

The attached maps show the areas we propose as thoroughfares (marked purple) across the Central Otago district. Please review the maps included in this document and let us know what you think by taking the short online survey at www.lets-talk.codc.govt.nz. For those without online access hard copy survey forms are available on request from our Customer Services Team on 03 440 0056.

Criteria Used for the Maps

We applied one or more of the following criteria to identify roads, footpaths or other routes that could be a thoroughfare or strategic route. The criteria is taken from the Government’s guidance on priority buildings.

1. High Pedestrian areas (people not in vehicles)

Description of use	Description of area	Example of application to small town or rural
Areas relating to social or utility activities.	Areas where shops or other services are located.	Areas such as the shopping area on the main street, the local pub, community centre.
Areas related to work.	Areas where concentrations of people move around and work.	Areas around businesses in small towns and rural areas where there is a concentration of workers in numbers larger than small shops and cafes.
Areas relating to transport.	Areas where concentrations of people access transport.	Areas around bus stops, train stations and tourist centres.

2. Areas with high vehicular traffic (people in motor vehicles/on bikes)

Description of use	Description of area	Example of application to small town or rural
Key traffic routes.	Key traffic routes regularly used by vehicles including public transport.	Well-trafficked main streets or sections of state highways, arterial routes.
Areas with concentrations of vehicles.	Areas where high concentrations of vehicles build up.	Busy intersections.

3. Emergency routes likely to be used by emergency services when:

· Transiting from their bases to areas of need in a major event or to central services such as hospitals, where there are no alternative routes available, and;

· When at least one building located on the route would impede the route if it collapsed in an earthquake.

No strategic routes have been identified following the above criteria.

Assessing Priority Buildings

Once identification of thoroughfares and strategic routes has been confirmed by Council, this will then enable us to assess any priority buildings (unreinforced masonry buildings) alongside these routes.

In the medium risk zone area, a priority building owner will be contacted, and requested to provide an engineer’s assessment of their building. If buildings are assessed below 34% of compliance with the New Building Standard, owners will be required to bring them up to standard within the following 12.5 years.

Have Your Say

Council welcomes your feedback. Any individual or organisation is welcome to make a submission on the 'Thoroughfares & Strategic Routes - Statement of Proposal' across the Central Otago district. Council will take all submissions into account when it decides on the final content.

There are a number of ways in which you can comment on the proposal:

· Visit our engagement website (www.lets-talk.codc.govt.nz) and complete a brief survey

· Request a copy of the 'Thoroughfares & Strategic Routes Feedback Form' and return once completed to a Council service centre.

You can indicate in the survey or feedback form if you wish to speak to your submission at a hearing, which is anticipated to be in March 2021. If you need assistance to provide feedback, please contact our customer services team on 03 440 0056.

Hearings Panel

Council’s hearings panel consists of a minimum of three elected members. The role of the hearings panel is to listen, ask questions and then consider all relevant information presented to it. Based on this information it will then make a recommendation to Council as the final decision maker.

Next Steps

Once the consultation period has closed a staff report will be presented to the Hearings Panel. The Hearings Panel will then consider the report, which will include a recommendation on the matters raised in submissions. The panel will also be able to listen to any submitters who have indicated they would like to speak about this proposal.

When the hearings have concluded, the Hearings Panel will make its recommendation to Council, who will make the final decision on adopting the high vehicular and pedestrian traffic areas and/ or any strategic routes for earthquake-prone buildings.

All submitters who indicate they would like to speak to their submission will receive notification about the hearing date. Details of staff recommendations and meeting dates, the recommendation from the hearing panel and the final decision will be made public on our consultation website.

Timeline

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Thoroughfare maps

Map

Description automatically generated

Technical Terms

It may be helpful to understand a few terms that are referred to here and in the legislation. The following table summarises the definitions referred to in this document and the legislation.

Term	Definition
Earthquake-Prone Building (EPB)	A building built prior to 1976 that, after an assessment by a structural engineer, is found to have a rating lower than 34% of the New Building Standard (NBS).
New Building Standard (NBS)	The %NBS figure describes the degree to which an existing building on the site would perform when compared with a new building designed to meet the seismic ratings that existed on 1 July 2017. For example, a building built in 1927 that is rated as 20%NBS, means it would meet 20% of the current seismic building standard, whereas a new building in the same place would be 100%NBS (or more).
Priority Buildings	Certain buildings in high and medium risk seismic areas are considered to be of greater risk due to their type of construction, use or location. They need to be identified and remediated in half the timeframe of other buildings, (i.e. 25 years reduced to 12.5 years in the medium risk zone). Further guidance on priority buildings is available at: https://www.building.govt.nz/managing-buildings/managing-earthquakepronebuildings/resources/
Thoroughfare	An area with high pedestrian and vehicle movements and contains buildings that have unreinforced masonry.
Remediation	When a building is assessed and found to have all or parts of the building below the minimum 34%NBS, building owners can deal with this by either strengthening those elements to exceed the minimum rating, or remove that element or all of the building.
Strategic Route	A route deemed of strategic importance which if impeded may lead to an inability to provide an emergency response.
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URM)	Generally, a building that has no additional reinforcing elements, often with parapets, facades, verandas or balconies facing a road or footpath.

Council meeting Agenda

8 December 2021

21.9.17 Adoption of the audited Annual Report 2020/21

Doc ID: 559520

1. Purpose of Report

To adopt the audited 2020/21 Annual Report.

Recommendations

A. That the Council receives the report.

B. Recommend that Council adopt the 2020/21 Annual Report subject to Audit New Zealand issuing an audit opinion, and subject to any further amendments requested by Audit New Zealand.

2. Background

Under s98 of the Local Government Act 2002, Council must prepare a report assessing its performance against the activities and intended levels of performance, indicative costs, and source of funds as set out in the Long-term Plan 2018-28 and Annual Plan 2020/21. This report will contain specific financial statements and performance targets by which performance has been judged, as well as the auditor’s report on those statements. This annual report must be adopted by 31 December 2021 if Council wishes to meet its legislative timeframe.

The draft annual report was presented to Council on 3 November 2021. Since then there have been no material changes to the Annual Report, although there have been a few amendments to notes. This includes updating the Three Waters note on page 145 of the Annual Report, reflecting Central Government’s decision to mandate Three Waters. However, the financial numbers have remained as presented to Council in November 2021.

On November 18 Audit New Zealand provided a verbal audit opinion. This means that although Audit New Zealand may make some final suggestions to amend the Annual Report, the core numbers and statements have received clearance.

3. Discussion

All Councils have been given an extension from the Office of the Auditor-General to the legislative deadline for adopting their Annual Report until 31 December 2021. The Annual Report will be made available to the public within one month after adoption and a Summary Annual Report will also be prepared subject to Audit New Zealand’s timeline.

4. Variances to the 2020/21 Annual Plan

The end of year result was a surplus of $12.323M, compared to $2.247M in the 2020/21 Annual Plan. The most significant variances in income are subsidies and grants, vested assets and land sales.

Subsidies and grants

Subsidies and grants income was $2.523M favourable against budget. The majority of the funding is due to Council receiving $1.352M more Waka Kotahi subsidies than budgeted. Additional grants were received from Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP), Three Waters Reform programme, and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE).

Vested assets

Additional revenue of $6.489M of vested assets relates to infrastructure assets that are passed on to Council from developers as part of the subdivision development process prior to the titles being issued.

Profit on sale of assets

The 2020/21 Annual Report includes a net profit on the sale of land. This is for the settlement of Cemetery Road (Harvest Road) and the sale of sections from the Gair Avenue subdivision land sales of $6.236M. After cost of sales, there is an overall profit of $2.492M (2019/20: $4.14M).

Details of all variances can be found below:

VARIANCE REPORT for the year ended 30 June 2021	2020/21 Actual $000	2020/21 Annual Plan $000	2020/21 Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) $000
Revenue from non-exchange transactions
Rates	32,561	32,105	456
Subsidies and Grants	7,626	5,103	2,523
Regulatory fees	2,285	2,150	135
User fees and other income	4,991	4,792	199
Previously unrecognised assets	-	-	-
Vested assets	6,489	-	6,489
Valuation gains / (losses)	76	-	76
Development and financial contributions	1,488	2,347	(859)
Revenue from exchange transactions
Direct charges revenue – full cost recovery	147	378	(231)
Rental revenue	476	433	43
Interest	467	401	66
Dividends	-	-	-
Profit on sale of assets	216	-	216
Land Sales	6,236	-	6,236
Gains on revaluation of investment properties	(818)	-	(818)
TOTAL REVENUE	62,240	47,709	14,531

EXPENDITURE
Water	5,181	5,190	9
Wastewater	4,243	4,562	319
Stormwater	561	611	51
Roading	9,410	8,865	(545)
Environmental Services	5,584	5,275	(310)
Planning, Regulatory and Community Development	4,762	4,995	233
Pools Parks and Cemeteries	6,559	6,505	(54)
Property and Community Halls	8,014	3,971	(4,043)
Service Centres and Libraries	1,367	1,375	7
Regional Identity, Tourism and Economic Development	3,140	2,513	(627)
Governance & Corporate Services	1,006	1,601	595
Loss on disposal of assets	90	-	(90)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE	49,917	45,463	(4,456)

NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)	12,323	2,247	10,075

Other revenue variances

Rates

As per the 2020/21 Annual Plan, the rates income has had an increase of $456k due to an increase in the 2020/21 ratepayer base along with increased income from applying penalties.

User Fees and Other Income

User fees revenue of $4.991M has a favourable variance of $199k compared to the 2020/2021 Annual Plan. Resource consent income has increased along with the planning department being more efficient in on-charging recovery costs.

Development contributions

Development contributions has an unfavourable variance of ($859k). Lower than expected contributions are linked with the timing of developments in Cromwell and Alexandra.

Expenditure

The most significant variances are property and community halls as well as roading; these details and other key details can be found below:

Three Waters

Water, wastewater and stormwater expenditure is in line with the 2020/21 Annual Plan, with an overall difference of 3.6%.

Roading

Roading expenses have increased by $545k from the Annual Plan, with an overall difference of 6.1%. At the beginning of January 2021 there was a flooding event which required repairs to the roading network. While this was an unplanned event, there was the ability to claim through Waka Kotahi for an emergency works subsidy of 51% to partially fund the event, with the remainder being received from the Council’s Emergency Event reserve.

Environmental Services

The increase in environmental services costs is largely due to the increased waste management costs, specifically transfer station operating costs and kerbside collection.

Planning, Regulatory and Community Development

There is a favourable variance of $233k. This is due to staff vacancies and reduced training costs as a result of government incentives and training being held online. There were no district plan hearings held during the year, also reducing spending during the year.

Property and Community Halls

The unfavourable variance of ($4.043M) is due to the cost of land involved in the land sales for Cemetery Road (Harvest Road) along with the land and development costs for the Gair Avenue subdivision, which is offset by the land sales, as mentioned above.

Regional Identity, Tourism and Economic Development

Regional identity, tourism and economic development have an unfavourable variance of ($627k). This is due to spending on tourism projects as a result of increased funding received from Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE).

Loss on disposal of assets

This is a small unfavourable variance of ($90k) that relates to the disposal of the Millers Flat Fire Station when the Council gave ownership to Fire and Emergency New Zealand, as well as some under depreciated vehicles at the time of disposal.

5. Capital expenditure

Capital expenditure of $24.139M is lower than the 2020/2021 Annual Plan budget of $25.175M by $1.036M. The underspend in water of $6.068M is offset by Council approved increases in property and community facilities and roading. The majority of increases relate to carry forwards from 2019/2020. Details can be found below:

2019/2020 $000	Capital Expenditure	2020/21 Annual Plan $000	2020/21 Actual $000	Variance $000
7,383	Water	8,443	2,375	6,068
6,795	Wastewater	4,180	4,088	92
73	Stormwater	604	629	(25)
4,863	Roading	6,241	7,358	(1,117)
45	Environmental Services	208	410	(202)
159	Planning, Regulatory and Community Development	115	237	(122)
608	Pools, Parks and Cemeteries	1,607	1,052	555
933	Property and Community Facilities	2,419	7,306	(4,887)
173	Service Centres and Libraries	500	151	349
34	Regional Identity, Tourism and Economic Development	-	-	-
730	Governance and Corporate Services	858	533	325
21,796		25,175	24,139	1,036

Three Waters

The favourable variance was due to the timing of construction projects. The main drivers included the Cromwell and Omakau water supply improvements and the Clyde wastewater reticulation network construction. The Lake Dunstan water supply and Clyde Wastewater Reticulation work will be carried forward with work continuing in the 2021/22 year.

Roading:

The roading increase includes a carry forward from the 2019/2020 year of $1.1M allowing additional funding in the 2020/2021 year.

Environmental Services

The variance to Annual Plan is due to the progression of the glass crushing plant project, which Council authorised as per resolution 20.7.21 in August 2020.

Pools, Parks and Cemeteries

Pools, Parks and Cemeteries were favourable to budget. This variance is driven by a mixture of the timing of project budgets and contractor’s availability to perform the work. Projects included the open spaces contract and the Cromwell pool heat pump replacement. This project is still being developed and will be carried forward to next year.

Property and Community Facilities

There is an unfavourable variance to the Annual Plan of $4.887M. Of this, $3.4M was carried forward from the 2019/2020 year.

There was no plan to purchase the Murray Terrace land at the time of setting the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Council approved this throughout the 2020/21 financial year for an additional $1.2M.

Service Centres and Libraries

The delay in the capital spend for Service Centres and Libraries is as a result decisions and design with the current library.

Governance and Corporate Services

The unfavourable variance of (325k) relates to the timing with progressing the Enterprise Resource Planning Information Systems. This will progress in 2021/22.

6. Statement of Financial Position

2019/20 Actual $000	STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION As at 30 June 2021	Notes	2020/21 Annual Plan $000	2020/21 Actual $000
	EQUITY
397,343	Accumulated funds	10	415,828	411,812
483,495	Property revaluation reserve	10	440,728	487,468
(20)	Fair value through other comprehensive income revenue reserve	10	41	(20)
80	Restricted reserves	10	-	80
880,898	Total equity		856,597	899,340
	REPRESENTED BY:
	Current assets
6,713	Cash and cash equivalents	11	9,840	5,014
10,000	Other financial assets	12	1,563	11,500
3,171	Receivables	13	3,986	4,852
1,509	Inventories	14	1,541	5,394
21,393	Total current assets		16,930	26,760
	Less current liabilities
273	Agency and deposits	15	329	256
4,706	Payables and deferred revenue	15	7,937	13,254
1,010	Employee entitlements	16	934	673
5,989	Total current liabilities		9,200	14,183
15,404	Working capital		7,730	12,577
	Non-current assets
109	Available for sale financial assets	12	169	111
333	Loans and receivables	17	391	282
862,182	Property, plant and equipment	18	845,485	878,742
845	Intangible assets	19	771	1,272
355	Forestry assets	21	437	431
1,675	Investment property	22	1,625	5,925
865,499	Total non-current assets		848,877	886,763
	Less non-current liabilities
5	Provisions	23	11	-
5	Total non-current liabilities		11	-

880,898	Net assets (assets minus liabilities)		856,597	899,340

Analysis

Current assets have increased overall by $9.830M predominantly due to an additional
$5.111M of cash and term deposits, as a consequence of the deferral of capital projects to the 2020/21 financial year. A balance of $17.159M of deferred work has been carried forward into the 2020/21 financial year.

Current liabilities have increased from the 2020/2021 Annual Plan budget, with an increase in payables and deferred revenue of $5.317M. This is mainly due to $4.1M of funding received in advance for the Three Waters stimulus funding, STAPP and MBIE.

The result is an increase of $4.847M in working capital in comparison to the 2019/2020 Annual Plan of $3.80M.

The overall result is a net asset position of $899.34M, which is $42.743M more than budgeted in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan. The most significant of this increase is an increase in property, plant and equipment of which $26M is work in progress.

Rates receivable

Rates receivable	2020/21			2019/20
	Gross	Impairment	Net	Gross	Impairment	Net
	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
Reporting year ended 30 June	517	(46)	471	431	(39)	392
Unpaid 1 year	84	(39)	45	102	(31)	71
Unpaid 2 years	48	(31)	17	63	(26)	38
Unpaid older	160	(118)	42	170	(92)	77
Total	809	(234)	575	766	(188)	578

Of the rates receivable, there are certain properties where the owners have formally or informally abandoned the land. Outstanding rates on these properties are treated as impaired. Other outstanding rates receivables are not impaired as Council has access to various powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for collection.

All overdue receivables have been assessed for impairment and appropriate provisions applied. Council holds no collateral as security or other credit enhancements over receivables that rare either past due or impaired. The impairment provision for non-rates receivables has been calculated by a review of specific debtors.

There is no concentration of credit risk with respect to receivables due to the dispersed customer base.

Sundry accounts receivable

Sundry accounts receivables includes Waka Kotahi $1.129M, J Hou $78.3k, MBIE $48.3k and NZ Cherry Corporation $43.92k, which comprises 52% of the total receivables balance.

The age of outstanding sundry accounts receivable is detailed below:

	2020/21			2019/20
	Gross	Impairment	Net	Gross	Impairment	Net
	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000	$000
Sundry Accounts receivable
Current	2,159	-	2,159	1,085	-	1,085
Unpaid 1 months	56	-	56	74	-	74
Unpaid 2 months	12	-	12	16	-	16
Unpaid 3 months and older	154	(22)	132	151	(26)	125
Total	2,381	(22)	2,359	1,326	(26)	1,300

Debtors

Of the receivables in excess of three months the following make up $136k of the $154k balance (88%). J Hou has a balance of $78.3k for development contributions and NZ Cherry Corporation $43.92k. The later one was disputed and has now been resolved. Canon Vineyard Limited balance of $14.09k was a double-up which has now been resolved. There are a further 12 outstanding debtors over $1k.

7. Additional disclosure notes

Contingent liabilities

The Council has no contingent liabilities as at 30 June 2021.

Severance agreements

Pursuant to Schedule 10 Part 3 (33) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is required to disclose the cost of any severance agreement with an employee. There were no severance payments 2020/2021.

8. Performance measures overview

As part of the ten-year long-term plan, council is required to set performance measures. Every year, as part of council’s annual budgeting process, these measures are reviewed, although council is limited in what can be changed between long-term plan cycles. This allows the community to see the intended levels of service and how these will be measured. As part of the annual report, council reports actual results achieved against these targets. Achievement of these targets is reported alongside the financial results for each activity.

8 December 2021

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

21.9.18 Financial Report For The Period Ending 30 September 2021

Doc ID: 555279

1. Purpose

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 30 September 2021.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

The presentation of the financials includes two variance analysis reports against both the financial statement and against the activities. This ensures Council can understand the variances against the ledger, and against the activities at a surplus/(deficit) value. The reason for the second variance analysis is to demonstrate the overall relationship between the income and expenditure at an activity level.

The third report details the expenditure of the capital works programme across activities. This helps track key capital projects across the year and ensures the progress of these projects remains transparent to Council.

The fourth and fifth reports detail the internal and external loans balances. The internal loans report forecasts the balance as at 30 June 2022, whereas the external loans show the year-to-date current balances due to payments throughout the year.

2021/22	3 MONTHS ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2021					2021/22
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
33,270	Rates	8,408	8,359	49	˜	33,270
7,248	Govt Grants & Subsidies	6,567	4,958	1,609	˜	16,217
7,323	User Fees & Other	1,227	1,677	(450)	˜	7,866
17,286	Land Sales	-	750	(750)	˜	14,650
2,155	Regulatory Fees	890	676	214	˜	2,155
2,104	Development Contributions	589	526	63	˜	2,104
388	Interest & Dividends	23	97	(74)	˜	388
-	Reserves Contributions	105	-	105	˜	-
55	Other Capital Contributions	40	2	38	˜	55
69,829	Total Income	17,849	17,045	804	˜	76,705

	Expenditure
13,565	Staff	2,928	3,161	233	˜	13,529
587	Members Remuneration	116	147	31	˜	587
8,904	Contracts	2,098	2,189	91	˜	9,724
2,902	Professional Fees	609	995	386	˜	3,881
9,997	Depreciation	2,499	2,499	-	˜	9,997
13,926	Costs of Sales	2	100	98	˜	7,290
3,920	Refuse & Recycling Costs	785	846	61	˜	3,920
1,723	Repairs & Maintenance	284	430	146	˜	1,739
1,410	Electricity & Fuel	316	333	17	˜	1,410
652	Grants	174	160	(14)	˜	652
1,115	Technology Costs	245	281	36	˜	1,099
303	Projects	143	302	159	˜	1,206
639	Rates Expense	432	479	47	˜	634
423	Insurance	76	98	22	˜	423
2,037	Other Costs	392	496	104	˜	2,041
62,103	Total Expenses	11,100	12,516	1,416	˜	58,132

7,726	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	6,749	4,529	2,220		18,573

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for September 2021 show an overall favourable variance of $2.22M. This is made up mainly from the timing of the Three Waters Stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year and the timing of the government grants and subsidies budget. The land sales budget and metered water revenue are behind expected budget. Operational expenditure is trending lower across all areas with larger variances in professional fees, staff costs, projects, repairs and maintenance and other costs.

Income of $17.849M against the year-to-date budget of $17.045M

Overall income has a favourable variance against the revised budget of $804k. This mainly relates to the Three Waters Stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year, offset by the timing of land sales and metered water revenue.

The key variances are:

· Government grants and subsidies revenue of $6.567M is $1.6M favourable against budget. This is made up mainly from the timing of the remaining $4.2M of Three Waters Stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year and the fall of the government grants and subsidies budget by $1.9M. This is offset by the timing of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) roading subsidy by ($704k). The subsidies are claimed for both the operational and capital roading work programmes.

· User fees and other has an unfavourable variance of ($450k). This is mainly due to delays with the water meter readings of ($321k) with extra external resources being committed by the provider to catch-up on the readings. There is also ($22k) in swimming pool admissions and ($95k) variance in other income. Other income relates to Tourism Infrastructure funding (TIF) contributing to the new Clyde toilet and the Miners Lane carpark, this is due to be claimed in October 2021 and January 2022.

· Land sales has an unfavourable variance of ($750k). This relates to land Council agreed to sell as part of the long-term planning process. This land is currently having preparation work carried out for it to be ready for sale. All other land sales revenue from subdivisions will start to come through later in the financial year, once the sales are completed.

· Regulatory fees have a favourable variance of $214k. This is predominately due to the timing of building consent revenue received of $184k.

· Interest and dividends revenue is unfavourable against budget by ($74k). Market interest rates on term deposits continue to trend lower than budget.

· Reserve contributions has a favourable variance of $105k. These contributions are dependent on developers’ timeframes and therefore difficult to gauge when setting budgets.

Expenditure of $11.1M against the year-to-date budget of $12.516M

Expenditure has a favourable variance of $1.42M. The main drivers being contracts, staff, professional fees, and other costs.

The key variances are:

· Staff costs has a favourable variance of $233k. The variance is predominantly due to vacant positions, timing of recruitment and staff training.

· Contracts has a favourable variance of $91k. Contract expenditure is determined by workflow and the time of the contract. This will mean that the phased budgets will not necessarily align with actual expenditure, meaning some work appears favourable, and some contracts spend year-to-date appear (unfavourable). Planned maintenance $181k; contracts ($128k); physical works contracts $126k, and roading contracts ($84k) are the key timing variances year-to-date. The contracts variance of ($128k) is being driven by Three Waters Stimulus operational improvements projects. This is being funded by the Three Waters Stimulus funding.

· Professional fees has a favourable variance of $386k. This is due to the timing of professional fees against budget. Major favourable variances include management consultants of $208k, engineering fees of $50k and network and asset management fees of $30k. This is similar to contract expenditure where budget and actuals do not align throughout the year but typically align by the end of the year.

· Costs of sales has a favourable variance of $98k. This relates to the timing of land sales within the Three Waters function, where at present work is being carried out to ready the land for sale.

· Repairs and maintenance have a favourable variance of $146k. This is made up of the timing of various projects still to be completed as well as the building maintenance requirements.

· Projects are also favourable at $159k. This variance relates to the phasing schedule for Tourism Central Otago projects. Additional resources have been required to deliver the projects; this is now underway.

Other costs breakdown is as below:

2021/22	Other Costs breakdown	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		2021/22
Annual Plan		YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
534	Administrative Costs	60	116	56	˜	550
691	Office Expenses	158	172	14	˜	666
234	Operating Expenses	77	67	(10)	˜	234
327	Advertising	45	77	32	˜	329
175	Valuation Services	43	44	1	˜	175
76	Retail	9	20	11	˜	87
2,037	Total Other Costs	392	496	104		2,041

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

· Other costs have been reconfigured this financial year and include only need based costs which will fluctuate against budget from time to time. There are no large variances of note to report on at present.

Profit and Loss by Activity – 30 September 2021

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

* The funding activity has been removed as this is not an operational activity.

· Infrastructure – income has a favourable variance of $63k. This variance is due to development contributions received being higher than budgeted. Contributions are linked with the timing of subdivision developments in Cromwell and Alexandra. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $94k. The credit expenditure relates to the cost recovery of internal expenditure, which is not budgeted for as this is a fully on-charged cost recovery account.

· Roading – income has an unfavourable variance of ($772k). This is mainly due to the Waka Kotahi subsidy. This subsidy moves in conjunction with the subsidised roading operating and capital work programmes. Operating expenditure is on schedule with the budget, with a small favourable variance of $27k. The capital work programme is currently behind with a favourable variance of $826k, which will ramp up over the summer season.

· Waste Management - income has an unfavourable variance of ($41k). User fee revenue is lower than budget. User fee revenue of $275k is on par with last years’ actuals of $270k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $13k.

· Parks and Recreation – income has a favourable variance of $33k. Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) responsible camping funding carried over from prior year is offsetting lower than expected swimming pool income. The pools like many council facilities were closed during August and September 2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions, reducing admissions. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $172k. Driving this favourable variance is the timing of workplans and staffing requirements with underspends in: contracts $46k; other cost of $38k; building repairs and maintenance $28k and staff costs of $24k.

· Corporate Services – income has a small favourable variance of $4k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $83k. Information Services have underspent in equipment hire. Insurance is slightly behind budget at present but is likely to be higher than budget when renewed in November 2021.

· People and Culture – income has a small unfavourable variance of ($13k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $85k. Driving this favourable variance are underspends in human resources $12k, health and safety $9k, libraries $66k and administration $4k. The libraries underspend is partially due to the timing of budget and the Kōtui and Collection HQ annual fee which is yet to be paid.

· CEO – Expenditure has a favourable variance of $213k. This is mainly due to the timing and need for consultants of $97k, staff of $60k and other costs of $17k. The wildling pines annual grant budget of $20k has not been uplifted.

· Property – has a favourable income of $112k. TIF funding of $82.5k has been received and will be used to fund new toilets in Clyde. The remaining favourable variance of $40k is MBIE funding carried forward for the completion of the Ophir Community Hall project, with additional funding due. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $143k made up of underspends in community buildings $116k, elderly persons housing $22k and airports $20k.

· Governance and Community Engagement – income has a favourable variance of $224k. This is due to the budget phasing of grants received in tourism, $365k of Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) funding has been carried forward from the previous year and $1M has been received from MBIE for Tourism Communities Support, Recovery and Re-set plan (SRR) funding. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $260k. There are underspends in promotions and tourism $149k, regional identity $36k, visitor centres $26k, governance $23k, economic development $15k and community development $8k. The promotions and tourism variance relates to the phasing schedule for Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Planning (Regulatory) – has a favourable income variance of $199k. This is mainly due to an increase in building permit revenue of $184k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $137k. Most of this variance is due to timing and needs, including: management and planning consultants of $61k; training and compliance costs of $25k and staff costs of $20k.

· Three Waters – income has a favourable variance of $913k. This is due to the timing of the $4.2M of Three Waters Stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year and the fall of the government grants and subsidies budget of $1.9M. Offset by the timing of the land sales ($750k) and metered water revenue ($341k) to budget. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $204k. Cost of sales variance of $100k relates to the land sales revenue. There is work being carried out to ready the land for sale. Water and wastewater management fees are also lower than budget by $66k overall.

Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date, 7% of the total capital spend against the full year’s revised capital budget, has been expensed.

2021/22						2021/22	Progress to date against revised budget
Annual Plan	CAPITAL EXPENDITURE	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000

6,058	Council Property and Facilities	234	3,952	3,718	˜	9,146	3%
382	Waste Management	236	384	148	˜	913	26%
-	i-SITEs	-	-	-	˜	4	0%
50	Customer Services and Administration	10	15	5	˜	62	16%
204	Vehicle Fleet	1	-	(1)	˜	256	0%
248	Planning	-	21	21	˜	348	0%
352	Information Services	57	189	132	˜	1,386	4%
164	Libraries	15	51	36	˜	512	3%
1,713	Parks and Recreation	283	700	417	˜	3,755	8%
7,420	Roading	1,161	1,987	826	˜	7,950	15%
14,243	Three Waters	2,325	9,396	7,071	˜	38,726	6%

30,834	Grand Total	4,322	16,695	12,373		63,058	7%

Council Property and Facilities $3.718M favourable against budget:

Cromwell Town Centre projects are driving the majority of this variance by $3.41M. The work programme is currently in the design phase for the Cromwell Memorial Hall and Events Centre. A request for proposal and tender evaluation process for the architectural design for demolition and construction was carried out in October and November 2021 with the contract expected to start by the end of November 2021. The Ophir Community Centre bathroom upgrade project is progressing and is due to be completed in November 2021. Work has begun on the new Clyde toilets, with toilets on order and delivery expected in December 2021.

Waste Management $148k favourable against budget:

The glass crushing plant project is behind budget by $48k. The transfer station reconfiguration projects are yet to start, contributing to $100k of the underspend.

Information Services $132k favourable against budget:

Information services projects are behind budget. Projects include Geographic Information Services $82k, enhanced customer experience digital services $16k, enterprise resource planning information services $11k and financial performance improvement $9k.

Parks and Recreation $417k favourable against budget:

Parks and recreation has a favourable variance of $417k. This variance is driven by a mixture of the timing of project budgets and contractor’s availability to perform the work. Projects include landscaping, signage and irrigation. The Cromwell pool replacement heat pump is on order and due for delivery in February 2022 with preliminary fitting work to be carried out in December 2021.

Roading $826k favourable against budget:

Subsidised roading projects are behind budget, this is mainly due to delays to the capital programme and receiving final funding allocations from Waka Kotahi. Subsidised roading projects that are behind the scheduled budget include: gravel renewals $350k; sealed road renewals $321k; and carpark renewals $252k. These works will ramp up over the summer construction season.

Three Waters is $7.071M favourable against budget:

The favourable variance is due to the timing of construction projects. The main drivers include the Clyde wastewater reticulation network construction, Alexandra northern reservoir, Alexandra pumpstation upgrades and Lake Dunstan water supply. Capital renewal programmes are being prepared and procurement plans are currently being drafted.

Internal Loans

Forecast closing balance for 30 June 2022 is $4.075M.

OWED BY	Original Loan	1 July 2021	30 June 2022 Forecast
OWED BY	Original Loan	Opening Balance	Closing Balance
Public Toilets	670,000	491,239	468,048
Tarbert St Bldg	25,868	13,067	11,574
Alex Town Centre	94,420	49,759	44,545
Alex Town Centre	186,398	91,041	79,921
Alex Town Centre	290,600	155,412	139,137
Centennial Milkbar	47,821	21,284	18,192
Vincent Grants	95,000	19,000	9,500
Pioneer Store Naseby	21,589	10,949	9,609
Water	867,000	717,829	691,212
ANZ Bank Seismic Strengthening	180,000	149,030	143,504
Molyneux Pool	650,000	571,900	539,400
Maniototo Hospital	1,873,000	1,775,142	1,723,630
Alexandra Airport	218,000	204,485	197,216
Total	5,219,695	4,270,138	4,075,488

External Loans

The total amount of external loans at the beginning of the financial year 2021/22 was $189k. As at 30 September 2021, the outstanding balance was $179k. Council has received $9.4k in principal payments and $1.8k in interest payments.

Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2021 Actual Opening Balance	Principal	Interest	30 September 2021 Actual Closing Balance
Cromwell College	400,000	130,770	5,761	1,259	125,009
Maniototo Curling	160,000	35,662	2,244	292	33,418
Oturehua water	46,471	22,623	1,418	283	21,205
Total	606,471	189,054	9,423	1,834	179,632

Reserve Funds table

· As at 30 June 2021 the Council has an unaudited closing reserve funds balance of $7.035M. This reflect the whole district’s reserves and factors in the district-wide reserves which are in deficit at ($16.7M). Refer to Appendix 1.

· Taking the 2020-21 unaudited Annual Report closing balance and adding 2021-22 income and expenditure, carry forwards and resolutions, the whole district is projected to end the 2021-22 financial year with a closing deficit of ($10.772M).

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Council Reserve Funds 2021/22 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann McDowall	Leanne Macdonald
Finance Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
17/11/2021	17/11/2021

Council meeting

8 December 2021

Meeting	Report Title	Resolution No	Resolution	Officer	Status
24/03/2021	Rural Fire Land and Buildings	21.2.6	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to dispose of the Tarras Rural Fire Depot to Fire and Emergency New Zealand subject to the following conditions: 1 The building ownership is transferred for $1 2 A ground lease is granted for an area (as outlined in Appendix) for 30 years at $1 per annum, and upon termination of the lease any improvements on the land will revert to Council 3 Fire and Emergency New Zealand covers the legal costs associated with the sale and the preparation of the lease 4 Fire and Emergency New Zealand covers the costs associated with the installation of a power supply and a septic tank system to the depot 5 Fire and Emergency New Zealand covers the costs of relocating the Tarras Domain’s access gate and the recycling station C. Agrees to dispose of the Omakau Rural Fire Depot to Fire and Emergency New Zealand on the following conditions: 1 The building ownership is transferred for $1 2 A ground lease is granted under Section 61(2) of the Reserve Act 1977 for 30 years at $1 per annum, and upon termination of the ground lease any improvements on the land will revert to Council 3 Fire and Emergency New Zealand covers the legal costs associated with the sale and the preparation of the lease D. Agrees to dispose of the Millers Flat Rural Fire Depot to Fire and Emergency New Zealand on the following conditions: 1 Council’s ground lease is terminated upon which the building’s ownership transfers to Fire and Emergency New Zealand 2 Fire and Emergency New Zealand covers the legal costs	Property and Facilities Officer (Vincent and Teviot Valley)	30 Mar 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 16 Apr 2021 Documentation for the asset transfer and ground leases are in draft and under review by both parties. 16 Jun 2021 Draft documentation is with FENZ for review. Awaiting their response. 28 Jul 2021 Millers Flat Depot - agreements executed. Tarras Depot - draft documentation under review. Omakau Depot - draft documentation under review. 08 Sep 2021 Tarras Depot - lease document with Council's lawyer to undertake a final review. Omakau Depot - awaiting FENZ's review of draft documentation. 13 Oct 2021 Tarras Depot – Final review completed. Lease document with FENZ for signing. Omakau Depot – Lease document is with Council's lawyers to review. 11 Nov 2021 Tarras Depot - agreements executed. Omakau Depot - lease document with FENZ for signing.
24/03/2021	District Plan Review Programme	21.2.10	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approve the District Plan review programme as outlined in Appendix 1	Principal Policy Planner	30 Mar 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 21 Apr 2021 Review of Industrial Chapter underway; RFP for Residential section review being drafted; GIS mapping project progressing; e-Plan contract approved 16 Jun 2021 Expert noise and transportation reports to support the Industrial Chapter review have been commissioned. RFP for the Residential section of the Plan closes 18 June. 28 Jul 2021 RFP for Residential Chapter Review released and contract awarded - initial workshop with stakeholders completed and review underway; GIS mapping plan change notified; ePlan contract awarded and operative District Plan in ePlan and being tested by planners; Industrial zone plan change for Cromwell (reflecting Cromwell Spatial Plan) being finalised; Industrial Chapter Review underway 08 Sep 2021 Issues and Options for review of Residential Chapter drafted; submissions on GIS mapping plan change closed - 3 in support so no hearing required; ePlan testing complete with mapping being updated and incorporated; engagement with affected landowners is upcoming as part of Industrial Chapter Review. 18 Oct 2021 Residential chapter being drafted; ePlan mapping underway; Industrial Zone changes to be notified. 15 Nov 2021 Cromwell Industrial zone plan changes publicly notified; Residential chapter and new map zoning progressed and to be workshopped with Council in December; decision on Plan Change 17 (GIS Mapping) made by Council and to be advertised; ePlan mapping being worked on with Isovist, who have completed the text.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	E. Agrees to the recommendation from the Cromwell Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan that staff are requested to investigate the request for a toilet from the Cromwell Bike park further and provide a report for consideration in a future annual or long-term plan.	Property and Facilities Officer (Cromwell)	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Property and Facilities Officer Cromwell. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 06 Jul 2021 Email sent to Cromwell Bike Park committee to request an extensive survey of usage be carried out to determine what toilet facility may be required in the future. 08 Sep 2021 Cromwell Bike Park committee to undertake a usage study of the toilet facilities at the site in summer to reflect peak usage. 11 Nov 2021 Committee are doing a survey of usage over the summer months to enable Council to determine type of toilet required. A reminder has been sent 11/11/2021 to ensure this is carried out and reported back to Council.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	J. Agrees to the recommendation from the Vincent Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan that staff are requested to investigate a request for an extension of the junior playground at Pioneer Park and provide a report for consideration in a future annual or long-term plan.	Parks and Recreation Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Parks and Recreation Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 28 Jul 2021 Preparatory work that will support further investigation and underpin a report for consideration is being undertaken. Funding to be considered for 2022-2023 Annual Plan. 08 Sep 2021 No further progress. 18 Oct 2021 Investigation of request for extension of junior playground at Pioneer Park and report for consideration on hold until closer to a future annual or long-term plan. ON HOLD. 11 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	K. Agrees to the recommendation from the Vincent Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan that staff provide a report regarding a request Ice Inline for future consideration.	Parks and Recreation Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Parks and Recreation Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 28 Jul 2021 Background data for report being collated. 08 Sep 2021 No further progress. 18 Oct 2021 No further progress on requested report considering IceInLine's Long-Term Plan (LTP) submission. 11 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	L. Agrees to the recommendation from the Vincent Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan that staff convene a meeting of Central Otago District Council, Central Otago Hockey Association, Central Lakes Trust and Molyneux Turf Incorporated to discuss a way forward on the proposed multi-use turf and facilities at Molyneux Park.	Parks and Recreation Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Parks and Recreation Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 28 Jul 2021 Meeting convened on 5 July 2021. Molyneux Turf Incorporated (MTI) preparing additional information. 08 Sep 2021 Additional information not yet received from MTI. 18 Oct 2021 Additional information not yet received from MTI, and unable to progress until then. ON HOLD. 11 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	N. Agrees to the recommendation from the Vincent Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan to proceed with the preferred option in the consultation document for the Omakau Hub.	Community and Engagement Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Communication and Engagement Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 29 Jul 2021 A community collective is progressing the hub project. Financial input from Council is programmed for year three of the 2021-24 of the Long-term Plan. 09 Sep 2021 No further update until July 2022, when funds are due to be released.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	P. Agrees to the recommendation from the Teviot Valley Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan to proceed with the preferred option in the consultation document for the Roxburgh Pool.	Parks and Recreation Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Parks and Recreation Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 28 Jul 2021 Funding allocated pending request from Pool Committee. 08 Sep 2021 Funding not yet requested. 18 Oct 2021 Roxburgh Pool funding request not yet received, and unable to progress until then. ON HOLD. 11 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	R. Agrees to the recommendation from the Maniototo Community Board on the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan that Council request staff to consider the suggestion of filling in the ice rink with water, add planting and creating walkways and report back to the Board.	Parks and Recreation Manager	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Parks and Recreation Manager. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 28 Jul 2021 Request under consideration. 08 Sep 2021 No further progress. 18 Oct 2021 No further progress on requested report considering filling the ice rink in the Maniototo with water and adding planting and walkways nearby. 11 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
1/06/2021	Submissions on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document	21.4.3	S. That Council requests staff progress discussions around the scope of a partnership agreement with Kā Rūnaka, via Aukaha, and report back to Council for consideration in the 2022-23 Annual Plan.	Chief Executive Officer	11 Jun 2021 Action memo sent to Chief Executive Officer. Memo sent to Executive Manager Corporate Services and Chief Advisor for information. For action following final adoption of the Long-term Plan on 30 June 2021. 29 Jul 2021 The CEO has been in correspondence with Aukaha to begin discussions. 07 Sep 2021 Due to COVID-19 alert level restrictions, the planned meeting in early September did not go ahead. Staff are currently working with Aukaha to reschedule and an update will be provided once this meeting has occurred. 13 Oct 2021 Negotiations are progressing and Aukaka will provide a first draft of an agreement following the CEO's return from medical leave. 30 November 2021 The CEO has just returned from medical leave, and this action will be followed up and updated in time for the next meeting.
30/06/2021	Cromwell Menz Shed - New Lease	21.5.12	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to lease the proposed area to the Cromwell Menz Shed C. Agrees to a lease over 1000m² (more or less) of land (shown in Figure 1) located on the Cromwell Transfer Station/Closed Landfill site, being part of Lot 3 DP526140. D. Authorise the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to this resolution.	Property and Facilities Officer (Cromwell)	05 Jul 2021 Action memo sent to Property and Facilities Officer - Cromwell. 06 Jul 2021 Cromwell Menz Shed updated on resolution., Meeting arranged between property and infrastructure for 9 July to discuss actions required. 26 Jul 2021 Meeting scheduled with Menz Shed for 30 July to review and discuss Draft Lease. 17 Aug 2021 Working alongside the Menz Shed to prepare an appropriate lease 08 Sep 2021 Lease document being finalised. 18 Oct 2021 Lease document still being finalised. 11 Nov 2021 11/11/2021 Lease document still a work in progress, as needed to identify the final lease area and water metering charges.
30/06/2021	Cromwell Aerodrome Licence to Occupy	21.5.15	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to grant a new licence to occupy to the Central Lakes Equestrian Club over a reduced area of 7.3 hectares on the Cromwell Aerodrome Reserve for a period of five 5 years commencing from 1 July 2021. C. Approves that the licence will be under the same terms and conditions as the previous licence with the following amendments and additional conditions. I. Annual rental of $525 plus GST II. Remove requirement for the Club to mow Aerodrome runways in lieu of rental. III. Allowance for either party to terminate the licence to occupy with 6 months written notice. D. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolutions.	Property Officer	05 Jul 2021 Action memo sent to Property Officer for action and finance staff for noting. 28 Jul 2021 Licence to Occupy (LTO) being prepared for Central Lakes Equestrian Club 09 Sep 2021 LTO being prepared. 18 Oct 2021 LTO sent to club for signing. 11 Nov 2021 11 Nov 2021 Letter informing Club of Council’s resolution and enclosing new Licence to Occupy (LTO) for signing sent to Club at end of September. Awaiting formal response from Club as to whether they want to proceed with the new LTO with reviewed licence fee. Property Manager advised feedback from the Club at meeting in October was that they were not happy with licence fee so has requested another meeting with Club to discuss.
30/06/2021	Roxburgh Aerodrome - Request for hangar site	21.5.16	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves a lease for a hangar only site at Roxburgh Aerodrome to Central Heliwork Ltd for 841m2 of land described as part of Lot 3 DP 8420 situated at Teviot Road, Roxburgh. C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolutions.	Property Officer	05 Jul 2021 Action memo sent to Property Officer 28 Jul 2021 Lease document being prepared for Central Heliwork Ltd. 08 Sep 2021 Applicant informed of decision. Site pegged by surveyor. Lease document being prepared. 18 Oct 2021 Lease document being prepared. 11 Nov 2021 11/11/2021 Lease document prepared and sent to Lessee for signing. Lease to commence 1 December 2021.
11/08/2021	Draft Vincent Spatial Plan Engagement Document	21.6.2	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the draft Vincent Spatial Plan preferred option. C. Directs staff to develop a preferred option engagement document for release to stakeholders	Principal Policy Planner	16 Aug 2021 Action Memo sent to report writer. 08 Sep 2021 Public consultation currently underway. 18 Oct 2021 Engagement on draft spatial plan has now closed. Feedback being considered and once complete a report on the matter will be presented to Council. 15 Nov 2021 Final Document being worked on following feedback received – intention to send Council in for approval in January.
11/08/2021	Cromwell Aerodrome - Refueling Facility	21.6.6	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees in principle to approve the issuing of a licence to occupy to RD Petroleum for refuelling facility at Cromwell Aerodrome comprising two 10,000 litre tanks for avgas and Jet A1 fuel. C. Authorises the CEO to confirm approval of final location and design of refuelling facility to include safe and secure access for all potential users. D. Authorises the CEO to approve acceptable terms and conditions for the Licence to Occupy similar to the Licence for the refuelling facility at Alexandra Airport and do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolutions.	Property Officer	16 Aug 2021 Action Memo sent to report writer. 08 Sep 2021 Applicant informed of decision. Site meeting upcoming to finalise fuel tank position. Licence to Occupy (LTO) being drafted. 18 Oct 2021 Site meeting was held with applicant to discuss fuel tank location. Applicant will provide full proposal to inform drafting of LTO. 11 Nov 2021 11/11/2021 Council Property staff met representative from RD Petroleum on site at Cromwell Aerodrome at end of September to discuss position of fuel facility. RD Petroleum confirmed they would create two separate access ways for truck to use for filling and maintenance and for other users vehicles. They will now proceed with further design and provide plans to Council in the New Year.
11/08/2021	WoolOn 2021 Event Request for Grant	21.6.7	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves a grant of $10,000 to the WoolOn Creative Fashion Society Incorporated for WoolOn creative fashion events 13 – 15 August 2021. The approved grant to be applied to venue costs, master of ceremonies, event marketing and communication only and is to be funded from district general reserves	Media and Marketing Manager	16 Aug 2021 Action Memo sent to report writer. 06 Sep 2021 Correspondence including details on discussion points, resolution, and invoicing instructions emailed 6 Sept 2021 to applicant. 14 Oct 2021 Grant not yet uplifted. Staff have emailed committee requesting written confirmation of plans - i.e. rescind / not uplift or uplift and complete report back. 24 Nov 2021 Still no further update from committee - further correspondence sent to group reinforcing requirement to confirm if the grant will be uplifted and if so when. Also discussed in person with current chair who indicated due to illness the response was tasked to someone to action. Staff will continue to seek clarification from committee - however should nothing be received prior to Council's first meeting of 2022, will advise group that the grant resolution will be rescinded and the grant will no longer be available. 24 Nov 2021 Deputy Chair of committee contacted staff to advise that grant is required. It appears that information has not been reaching the current committee members. Staff have re-supplied information and await detailed update regarding uplift of grant, report back and appointment of CODC rep to committee
11/08/2021	Naseby Water Supply	21.6.11	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to proceed with construction of a clarifier, pH correction, and flocculation tank to be funded from tranche 1 of the water stimulus funding. C. Directs staff to investigate options for an alternative water source for the Naseby water supply, including consideration of a single Maniototo water treatment site.	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services	16 Aug 2021 Action Memo sent to report writer. 09 Sep 2021 Clarifier being tendered. Investment Logic Map workshop for Maniototo water supplies scheduled for 18th October. 14 Oct 2021 No change. 24 Nov 2021 Construction of new clarifier underway with delivery in January 2022. Concrete slab construction underway, second hand clarifier due to be delivered and installed prior to Christmas. Workshop to identify options for new source held on 24 November.
11/08/2021	Rural Networks South Island rent review.	21.6.14	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to: 1. Reduce the licence fee for the Gilligans Gully site from $6,000 to $4,800 per annum plus GST. 2. Reduce the licence fees for the Clyde Lookout, Earnscleugh Road, and Sugarloaf sites from $5,000, to $1,900 per annum plus GST. 3. Reduce the rental for the Alexandra Airport site from $5,000 to $1,900 per annum plus GST, subject to the lessee continuing to provide free internet services to the Airport Terminal. 4. Charge a flat fee of $600 per annum plus GST (per tenant as applicable) for power at the Gilligans Gully and Clyde Lookout sites with that fee being subject to adjustment (increase) by 10% on renewal. 5. Backdate the revised fees and charges to the commencement of the new licences and leases being 01 July 2020. C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.	Statutory Property Officer	16 Aug 2021 Action Memo sent to report writer. 08 Sep 2021 Company invoiced in accordance with resolution. Agreements forwarded to lessee for execution. 27 Sep 2021 Majority of backdated charges since paid, license agreements being refined. 12 Oct 2021 Refinement of licence agreements almost complete. 03 Nov 2021 Licences finalised, executed, and filed. MATTER CLOSED.
22/09/2021	District Museum Function	21.7.3	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Notes eight sector-led models were considered and analysed to provide the delivery of the district museum function. C. Notes a sector-led trust model is likely to be the most effective mechanism to deliver the district museum function. D. Endorses the establishment of a new sector museum trust to deliver the district museum function. E. Approves a portion of the $50,000 allocated to this function is retained for staff to facilitate the establishment of the trust by paying legal fees to review the trust deed and establishing the new trust. F. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a performance agreement with the new entity upon which overall delivery will be measured against. G. Approves on the evidence of the establishment of the trust and the signing of the performance agreement the remaining balance of the $50,000 is transferred to this new entity. H. Approves that council will have active involvement in the trust with the appointment by the Chief Executive Officer of one staff member as a council representative on the trust. I. Approves that the district museum function will be delivered by the new trust for a trial period of two years with regular reporting to council on progress and delivery. J. Notes that any decision regarding funding beyond the two-year period will be considered under the museum investment framework soon to begin.	Senior Strategy Advisor	27 Sep 2021 Action memo sent to the Senior Policy Advisor and to Finance 18 Oct 2021 Outcome communicated to the Museum sector. Staff have contacted a lawyer and began the process of formalising the Central Otago Museums Trust. 30 November 2021 Staff have progressed the legal review of the Trust deed, and this has been recently peer reviewed pro-bono. Appointments from the respective museums to the new Trust have been confirmed and staff are in the process of facilitating the inaugural meeting of the Trust.
22/09/2021	Plan Change 18 Cromwell Industrial Resource Area Extension	21.7.12	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Recommends that Plan Change 18 be notified and processed in accordance with the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.	Principal Policy Planner	27 Sep 2021 Action memo sent to the Principal Policy Planner 18 Oct 2021 Plan Change prepared. 15 Nov 2021 Plan Change notified 28 October, submissions close December 9.
22/09/2021	Cromwell Town Centre Project Structure	21.7.14	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the project structure and programme. C. Approves appointment of recommended Cromwell Community Board member to the Advisory Group. D. Appoints Nigel McKinlay to the Advisory Group.	Property and Facilities Manager	27 Sep 2021 Action memo sent to the Property and Facilities Manager. 19 Oct 2021 Project Advisory Group (PAG) formed. Discussions continue with external stakeholder group, who will confirm their chosen representatives. 15 Nov 2021 No further update.
3/11/2021	i-SITE NZ Future Network Proposal	21.8.3	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Ranfurly and Roxburgh i-SITEs to become Tier Two centres. C. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Alexandra and Cromwell information centres to become Tier One or Two centres.	Ranfurly i-SITE Team Leader	08 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 23 Nov 2021 The Central Otago i-SITE's of Ranfurly and Roxburgh submitted a non-binding expression of interest to the i-SITE New Zealand Board to become Tier Two Centres, as authorised by the Central Otago District Council Councillors, on the 4th November., The Central Otago i-SITEs subitted a non-binding expression of interest to the i-SITE New Zealand Board on the 4th November 2021, on behalf of the Alexandra Information Centre and the Forage Information Centre. The expression of interest submission was in favour of both centres becoming Tier Two Centres., The binding expression of interest time frame of end November, as indicated in the i-SITE report, has been extended by i-SITE New Zealand. Timeframes will be confirmed during i-SITE New Zealand's Board meeting in February 2022. The Central Otago i-SITEs are waiting on further details to be supplied by the i-SITE NZ Board.
3/11/2021	Forming of Unformed Legal Road - Cambrians	21.8.2	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the request to form an unformed legal road to provide property access for the applicant, with the following conditions: (i) The road be formed to the relevant right of way subdivision standard. (ii) The road be surveyed to ensure construction occurs within the legal alignment. (iii) The survey and road construction are undertaken at no cost to Council. (iv) The applicant is responsible for maintaining the road in the future to a safe standard. If Council does not believe the condition of the road is safe and the applicant does not remedy this after notification, then Council may undertake work to make the road safe and recover this cost from the applicant. (v) The applicant acknowledges they are aware that Council does not accept any responsibility for future maintenance costs. (vi) The applicant shall not locate any improvements on the road without the prior consent of the Council. (vii) The applicant shall not impede others from using the road. (viii) All costs associated with fencing and cattle stops will be the responsibility of the applicant. (ix) As the existing track from the end of Cambrian Road is not maintained by Council, all costs associated to provide suitable access to form this section of unformed legal road will be the responsibility of the applicant (i.e. the existing track to reach this area may require metalling prior to construction being undertaken)	Roading Manager	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 23 Nov 2021 The applicant will notify council when they are ready for a formation permit. The applicant has signalled they will not construct the road extension until they work through the consenting process for the subdivision that requires the access road.
3/11/2021	Smokefree and Vapefree Policy update	21.8.4	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Adopt the updated Smokefree and Vapefree Policy	Senior Strategy Advisor	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 19 Nov 2021 Updated policy published on website. Staff have met with The Cancer Society on a communications plan. Social media postings underway.
3/11/2021	Proposal to Revoke Part of the Greenway Reserve off Waenga Drive, Cromwell	21.8.5	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees with the Hearings Panel recommendation to the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m2 (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519. C. Agrees to notify the Minister of Conservation in writing of the resolution and request the revocation be approved and notified by Gazette notice.	Parks and Recreation Manager	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 11 Nov 2021 Applicant has asked to hold off writing to the Minister of Conservation until they have secured a Resource Consent for the proposal.
3/11/2021	Plan Change 17 - GIS Mapping	21.8.6	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves Plan Change 17 without modification in accordance with Clause 10 (1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991. C. Directs that the decision to approve Plan Change 17 be publicly notified, and the Central Otago District Plan be amended.	Principal Policy Planner	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 15 Nov 2021 No further update at this stage.
3/11/2021	Options for Disinfection of Community Water Supplies	21.8.8	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Notes that current chemical deliveries arrangements result in a lack of resilience in provision of service. C. Directs staff to provide a report outlining the work required to meet Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act requirements for the delivery of chlorine to existing treatment sites. D. Agrees to the phased transition of chlorine gas disinfection as community water supplies are upgraded	Water Services Manager	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 30 November 2021 Lake Dunstan water supply design has been altered to chlorine gas and this will also be undertaken at all Council supplies when they are due to be upgraded. A hazard assessment has also recently been completed at all sites and we are expecting a report on requirements prior to Christmas.
3/11/2021	CouncilMARK programme	21.8.10	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. That the Mayor brings to the January Council meeting information from other Mayors as to the benefits or otherwise of participation in CouncilMARK.	Chief Advisor	09 Nov 2021 Action memo sent to report writer. 24 Nov 2021 The Mayor will be gathering some feedback from other councils and report back as part of his mayoral report at the January 2022 meeting.
3/11/2021	2022 Meeting Schedule	21.8.11	That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Adopts the proposed 2022 meeting schedule.	Governance Manager	09 Nov 2021 The 2022 meeting schedule was adopted by Council. MATTER CLOSED

Council meeting

8 December 2021

Status Report on Resolutions – Planning and Environment

Resolution 20.5.4 – July 2020

Lease of Kyeburn Reserve – Ratification

That the Council:

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to grant the Kyeburn Committee a lease pursuant to Section 61(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977, on the following terms:

1. Permitted use: Community Hall

2. Term: 33 years

3. Rights of Renewal: None

4. Land Description Sec 20 Blk V11 Maniototo SD

5. Area: 0.4837 hectares

6. Rent: $1.00 per annum if requested

Subject to the Kyeburn Hall Committee

1. Becoming an Incorporated Society

2. Being responsible for all outgoings, including utilities, electricity, telephone, rubbish collection, rates, insurance and ground maintenance

STATUS ON HOLD

August – On hold until meeting able to take place

July 2021 – Meeting request to the Committee for July 2021 was declined by the Committee citing workloads and health issues of committee members. The Committee will make contact when their schedule allows.

June 2021 – May meeting was postponed until July 2021

February – April 2021 – Property and Facilities Officer - Ranfurly to meet Committee in May 2021 and discuss next steps.

January 2021 – Waiting for confirmation of their status as an Incorporated Society before issuing the lease.

September – December 2020 – Kyeburn Hall Committee to follow up progress on getting their status as an Incorporated Society, in response to email sent to them September 2020.

August 2020 – Advised Kyeburn Hall Committee of Council’s resolution and waiting for confirmation of their status as an Incorporated Society before issuing the lease.

July – Action memo sent to Property and Facilities Officer – Maniototo

Resolution 17.9.9 – October 2017

Council Owned Land, Pines Plantation Area North of Molyneux Park Netball Courts, Alexandra – Consider Sale/Development by Joint Venture of Residential Land (PRO 61-2079-00)

A. RESOLVED that the report be received and the level of significance accepted.

B. AGREED to the sale of part of Lot 25 DP 3194 and part of Lot 6 DP 300663, located south of the Transpower corridor at the north end of Alexandra and adjacent to the Central Otago Rail trail.

C. APPROVED the Vincent Community Board’s recommendation for sale of the land by way of a joint venture development and sale of Lots, the minimum terms and conditions including:

• The joint venture partner funding development with no security registered over the land.

• Council receiving block value.

• Council receiving 50% of the net profit, with a minimum guaranteed of $500,000.

• Priority order of call on sales income:

First: Payment of GST on the relevant sale.

Second: Payment of any commission and selling costs on the relevant sale.

Third: Payment to the Developer of a fixed portion of the estimated Project Development Costs per lot as specified in the Initial Budget Estimate and as updated by the Development Costs Estimate breakdown.

Fourth: Payment of all of the balance settlement monies to Council until it has received a sum equivalent to the agreed block value.

Fifth: Payment of all of the balance settlement monies to Council until it has received an amount equivalent to the agreed minimum profit share to Council.

Sixth: Payment of all of the balance to the Developer for actual Project Costs incurred in accordance with this Agreement.

Seventh: Payment of all of the balance amounts (being the Profit Share) to be divided 50 / 50 (after allowance for payment of the Minimum Profit to Council.

D. AGREED to delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to select the preferred joint venture offer and negotiate “without prejudice” a joint venture agreement.

E. AGREED that the Chief Executive be authorised to do all necessary to achieve a joint venture agreement.

STATUS

November 2021- November: 224c has been issued for stage 1. Awaiting LINZ to issue Title. Stage 2 roading will be sealed week of 22^nd November.

October 2021 – Development work programme generally on track. Stage 1 is approximately 2 weeks behind schedule due to COVID-19, although Stage 2 is ahead and Stage 3 is on schedule. As of September 2021, sales figures were Stage 1 – 16 sold; Stage 2 – 13 sold, 3 unsold; Stage 3 – 10 sold, 9 unsold or under offer.

September 2021 – Construction work progressing, although slightly behind due to COVID-19 alert level restrictions.

March–July 2021 – Work progressing according to contract.

February 2021 – 3910 contract executed. Detailed update was emailed to the board separate to this Status Report.

January 2021 – Construction has commenced. Work programme to be fully finalised in coming weeks.

December 2020 – Lawyer is drafting variation to agreement for discussion with developer.

November 2020 – Due to one of the shareholders passing away in late June the developer AC/JV Holdings has been working on a succession plan which should be finalised in early November. The need to agree succession has meant recent delays to the development but Staff are in regular contact with the contractor to ensure that works begin as soon as possible.
Once succession arrangements are confirmed it will enable construction to progress and sections to be put on market as soon as possible. To further ensure this outcome a variation to the development agreement will be prepared which will confirm stages and tighten progress requirements.

September 2020 – Work expected to start on site in October for Stage 1 and some sections will be marketed. Stage 1 completion scheduled for April 2021.

May – August 2020 – Due to Covid 19, engineering design and construction start date delayed. As of May, engineering design mostly complete and work on site expected to start soon with a staged approach. Also awaiting outcome of Shovel Ready Projects application which may affect how this development progresses.

February 2020 – The developer is working on engineering design for subdivision to be approved by Council. Work expected to start on site for subdivision in approximately 6 weeks.

January 2019 – Subdivision consent granted 18 December 2019.

November 2019 – Subdivision consent was lodged on 22 November 2019.

September – October 2019 - The affected party consultation process with NZTA, Transpower and DOC for the application to connect Dunstan Road to the State Highway is almost complete. The developer is also close to finalising the subdivision plan to allow for the resource consent to be lodged.

July 2019 – Subdivision consent expected to be lodged in August.

June 2019 – Tree felling complete. Subdivision consent expected to be lodged in July or August.

May 2019 - Tree felling commenced 20 May and is expected to take up to 6 weeks to complete. Subdivision scheme plan close to being finalised before resource consent application.

April 2019 – Security fencing has been completed. Felling of trees expected to commence in the next month. Concept plan is in final draft. Next step is for the surveyor to apply for resource consent.

March 2019 – Concept plan is in final draft. Next step is for the surveyor to convert to a scheme plan and apply for resource consent. The fencer is booked in for March.

January 2019 – Development agreement was signed by AC & JV Holdings before Christmas. Subdivision plan now being developed for resource consent application and removal of trees expected to start mid to late January.

October 2018 – The development agreement is with the developer’s accountant for information. Execution imminent.

September 2018 – The development agreement is under final review.

August 2018 – Risk and Procurement Manager finalising development agreement to allow development to proceed.

June 2018 – Preferred developer approved. All interested parties being advised week of 11 June. Agreement still being finalised to enable negotiation to proceed.

March – April 2018 – Staff finalising the preferred terms of agreement.

February 2018 – Requests received. Council staff have been finalising the preferred terms of agreement to get the best outcome prior to selecting a party, including understanding tax implications.

December 2017 – Request for Proposals was advertised in major New Zealand newspapers at the end of November 2017 with proposals due by 22 December. Three complying proposals received.

November 2017 – Council solicitor has provided first draft of RFI document for staff review.

November 2017 – Action Memo sent to the Property Officer.

Vincent Community Board Minutes

16 November 2021

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE Vincent Community Board
HELD IN THE Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and live streamed on microsoft teams
ON Tuesday, 16 November 2021 COMMENCING AT 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Cr M McPherson (Chairperson), Mr R Garbutt (Deputy Chair), Dr R Browne, Cr L Claridge, Cr I Cooney, Ms A Robinson, Ms S Stirling-Lindsay

IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), L van der Voort (Acting Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), L Webster (Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), C Martin (Property and Facilities Officer – Vincent and Teviot Valley), N Aaron (Community Development Officer), D McKewen (Accountant) and W McEnteer (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Robinson

That the public minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 11 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record with the following amendment to Mr Garbutt’s Members’ Report in item 21.8.8: Attended two meetings of the Central Otago Heritage Trust.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.

Note: Dr Malcolm McPherson from Alexandra and Districts Museum Incorporated joined the meeting via Microsoft Teams for item 21.9.2.

5 Reports

21.9.2 Alexandra District Museum Inc Annual Grant Report 2020-21

To provide an accountability report on the objectives and actions of the Alexandra District Museum Inc over the 2020/21 financial year.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Stirling-Lindsay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.9.3 Clyde Museum Redevelopment - Clyde Police Lock-up

To consider approving a budget for the relocation of the Clyde Police Lock-up before the adjacent vacant section is developed.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposal to move the Clyde Police Lock-up from the rear of the Blyth Street Museum (Lot 1 Deposited Plan 27008) to a location near the Clyde Railway Station on the Railway Station Recreational Reserve (Lot 31 Deposited Plan 19044).

C. Approves the budget of $46,000 to be funded from the Vincent General Reserves (4111).

D. Agree to issue a lease to the Clyde Historical Museum Group Incorporated over approximately 30m² of the Clyde Railway Station Recreation Reserve.

This lease will be issued under the Reserves Act 1977 and is subject to the Community Leasing and Licensing Policy.

Carried

21.9.4 Alexandra Rugby Football Club Power Account

To consider a request from the Alexandra Rugby Football Club for reimbursement of a portion of historical electricity invoices.

After discussion it was agreed to let the item lie on the table pending further engagement with the Alexandra Rugby Football Club. The item would return to the February 2022 meeting.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Stirling-Lindsay

Seconded: Robinson

That the item be left to lie on the table pending further engagement with the Alexandra Rugby Football Club.

Carried

21.9.5 Vincent Financial Report for the Period Ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance overview as at 30 September 2021.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

21.9.6 MAYOR'S REPORT

His Worship the Mayor gave an update on his activities since the last meeting:

· Attended Coffee and Chat sessions.

· Attended the Dunstan High School golf tournament.

· Attended and MC’d the Eden Hore Central Otago event at the Orchard Garden. Noted that it was a very successful event.

· Noted an upcoming community meeting at Cambrians to discuss potential impacts of the Water Services Act.

· Gave an update to Members on the current issues in the Three Waters space.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That the Vincent Community Board receives the report.

Carried

7 Chair's Report

21.9.7 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended the Council meeting and gave an update on items that were presented.

· Attended recent meetings of the Hearings Panel. Noted that the meetings had become longer and more intense recently. Gave an update on topics of recent Hearings Panel meetings.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Garbutt

Seconded: Robinson

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

21.9.8 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Dr Browne reported on the following:

· Attended two Alexandra and Districts Museum Incorporated meetings.

· Attended the Alexandra and Districts Museum Incorporated AGM.

· Attended a meeting of the Central Otago Districts Arts Trust.

· Attended the Alexandra Business Breakfast.

· Attended a number of sessions of U3A.

· Attended the AGM for the Last Chance Irrigation Company.

· Attended a workshop on the Alexandra airport.

· Attended a meeting of the Creative Writers Circle.

Ms Robinson reported on the following:

· Noted the hanging baskets in Centennial Avenue hung by Keep Alexandra / Clyde Beautiful.

· Attended a strategy meeting for Alexandra Community House.

· Attended the Omakau Catchment Group forum.

· Attended the AGM for the Last Chance Irrigation Company.

Ms Stirling-Lindsay reported on the following:

· Attended a strategy meeting for Alexandra Community House.

· Attended a meeting of the Central Otago Districts Arts Trust.

· Attended a Blossom Festival meeting

· Noted the recent changes to vaping laws and noted problems with people vaping on buses.

· Noted incoming law changes for people smoking in their cars

· Noted that Alexandra hosted the Central Otago BMX Championships recently.

Councillor Claridge reported on the following:

· Noted that she was an apology for the last Council meeting.

· Attended the Dunstan High School prizegiving live stream event.

Councillor Cooney reported on the following:

· Attended the ILM workshop and museum strategy review sessions.

· Attended the Council meeting and updated Members on some of the items discussed.

· Attended a Hearings Panel meeting via Microsoft Teams.

Mr Garbutt reported on the following:

· Attended a Hospice fundraising planning meeting.

· Attended a meeting of Central Otago Heritage Trust and Promote Dunstan.

· Attended a meeting of Clyde Museum and attended the AGM.

· Attended a Dunstan Golf Club committee meeting.

· Met with Central Otago Heritage Trust to discuss the Museum Trust.

· Noted that he had been on a number of the cycles trails recently.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Stirling-Lindsay

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

21.9.9 November 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 1 February 2022.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Stirling-Lindsay

Seconded: Garbutt

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Board Meeting	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.9.10 - November 2021 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.15 pm and the meeting closed at 3.17 pm.

...................................................

CHAIR / /

Maniototo Community Board Minutes

18 November 2021

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A meeting of the Maniototo Community Board
HELD IN THE Ranfurly Service Centre, 15 Pery Street, Ranfurly and live streamed on Microsoft teams ON Thursday, 18 November 2021 commencing AT 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Mr R Hazlett (Chair), Mr M Harris (Deputy Chair), Cr S Duncan, Mr D Helm, Ms S Umbers

IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor) (via Microsoft Teams), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), L Macdonald (Executive Manager – Corporate Services), M Tohill (Communications Advisor), R Williams (Governance Manager) and W McEnteer (Governance Support Officer)

1 Public Forum

Roy Noble (Project Manager) – Transpower

Mr Noble gave an update on the Clutha and Upper Waitaki Lines Project before responding to questions.

2 Apologies

There were no apologies.

3 Condolences

The Chair referred to the deaths of Moreen Price, Ian Smith, Les Gill, Keith Edwards and Josephine Steele. Members stood for a moment’s silence as a mark of respect.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Umbers

Seconded: Helm

That the public minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 14 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.

6 Reports

21.8.2 Maniototo Financial Report for the Period Ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance overview as at 30 September 2021.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Helm

Seconded: Harris

That the report be received.

Carried

7 Mayor’s Report

21.8.3 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor reported on his activities since the last meeting:

· Attended Coffee and Chat sessions in the Maniototo.

· Attended a meeting in Cambrians with representatives of AWS Legal regarding potential impacts of the Water Services Act.

· Attended a site visit in Naseby regarding possible water sources for Naseby.

· Attended and MC’d the Eden Hore Central Otago event at the Orchard Garden. Noted that it was a very successful event.

· Attended the 100 year anniversary of the Hayes Family homestead.

· Gave an update on COVID-19 vaccination rates in the Maniototo.

· Business a business breakfast in Ranfurly.

· Noted the upcoming Maniototo Curling Incorporated meeting.

· Gave an update to Members about current issues in the Three Waters space.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Umbers

That the Maniototo Community Board receives the report.

Carried

8 Chair's Report

21.8.4 Chair's Report

The Chair will give an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Noted the pit off Goff Road, Ranfurly that is used for dirt fill. He commented that it needed to be tidied and that there could be some possible options for future use of the area.

· Noted the work on the plans to replace the John Street playground. Also noted that the flying fox for Naseby had been ordered.

· Attended a water meeting at Maniototo Stadium.

· Noted the open letter on Three Waters sent to Minister Mahuta by the Council Members.

· Noted that the swimming dam in Naseby would be filled shortly.

· Noted a trip to Naseby to look at options for other water supplies there.

· Noted the gravel that had been washed out from under the Idaburn bridge. Noted there were no detour options for trucks should there be a problem with it in the future.

· Noted that the Ranfurly pool was set to open shortly, but that a part for the heat pump was needed that needed to be shipped from Auckland.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Hazlett

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Members' Reports

21.8.5 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Ms Umbers reported on the following:

· Noted that the entrance to the Ranfurly cemetery had stone pillars to fit a gate, but that a gate had never been fitted

· Noted the fire at the old school house in Patearoa.

Mr Harris had nothing to report.

Mr Helm reported on the following:

· Noted that there was a lot of Broom in bloom at the moment.

Councillor Duncan reported on the following:

· Commented on a recent trip to Falls Dam to look at the Hawkdun scheme.

· Attended a meeting at Taumata Arowai.

· Attended a Council meeting. Gave an update to Members on some items discussed

· Noted the opening of the Eden Hore collection at the Orchard Garden.

· Noted a visit to the Idaburn bridge and mentioned that there was a lot of gravel that had come out from underneath the bridge.

· Noted an upcoming pre-agenda meeting for Council.

Note: Councillor Duncan left the meeting at 2.54 pm.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Harris

Seconded: Helm

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Status Reports

21.8.6 November 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Umbers

Seconded: Harris

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Councillor Duncan returned to the meeting at 2.55 pm.

11 Date of the Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 17 February 2022.

12 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Umbers

Seconded: Helm

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Board Meeting	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.8.7 - November 2021 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 2.55pm and the meeting closed at 2.58 pm.

Cromwell Community Board Minutes

23 November 2021

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE Cromwell Community Board HELD IN THE Cromwell Service Centre, 42 The Mall, Cromwell and live streamed on microsoft teams ON Tuesday, 23 November 2021 COMMENCING AT 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Mr W Murray (Deputy Chair), Cr N Gillespie, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Mr B Scott

IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), L van der Voort (Acting Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services, L Webster (Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), N Aaron (Community Development Officer), D Shaw (Property and Facilities Officer – Cromwell), F Somerville (Roading Administration Assistant), D McKewen (Accountant) and R Williams (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Committee Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Scott

That apologies from Ms A Harrison and Mr T Buchanan be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Ali Ballantine and Janeen Wood from the Cromwell & Districts Community Trust spoke to the Board about the flow and connection between Old Cromwell and the planned redevelopment of the Hall / Cultural centre, specifically referencing the potential building of a replica Chinatown in the area. They then responded to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Laws

Seconded: Gillespie

That the public minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 19 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.

Note: Martin Anderson and Jennifer Hay from Cromwell Museum joined the meeting for item 21.9.2

5 Reports

21.9.2 Cromwell Museum Accountability Report 2020-21

To provide a report on the objectives and actions of the Cromwell Museum Trust over the past financial year.

Mr Anderson and Ms Hay provided an overview of the Museum’s activities before responding to questions.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Scott

That the report be received.

Carried

21.9.3 Murray Tce Carparking

To consider allocating a carpark to the Cromwell Youth Trust at 5 Murray Terrace, Cromwell.

The name “Hut” was corrected to Hangout in recommendation two..

Committee Resolution

Moved: Laws

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Cromwell Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the allocation of one carpark to the Hangout for the purpose of loading, unloading, and storing their passenger van on Part Lot 47 DP 18370 as shown in green in figure 4 of the report, at no charge.

C. Authorise the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Carried

21.9.4 Central Otago Branch of the Vintage Car Club of New Zealand Incorporated request for funding

To consider a request from the Central Otago Branch of the Vintage Car Club of New Zealand Incorporated from the Club’s Fund Account. Funding to assist with the cost of sealing 1356m², being part of their total lease area of 3170m².

Committee Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Cromwell Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the request for funding from the Central Otago Vintage Car Club to assist with the cost of sealing part of their leased area.

C. Approves funding not exceeding $4,586.08 from the Cromwell Otago Vintage Car Club funds. Funds to assist with the cost of sealing part of their leased area but subject to copies of the invoices from contractors being provided at the conclusion of the project.

Carried

21.9.5 Road Name Approval Report - off Cemetery Road, Cromwell

To consider a request to name three new roads in the development off Cemetery Road, Cromwell.

The Board’s approach for naming roads and its desire to recognise those that had contributed to the community in the past, was discussed. Accordingly, it was agreed that the roads should be named Harvest Road, McBride Crescent and Proctor Way.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the Cromwell Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to approve three road names. Continuation of road one to be named Harvest Road. Road two to be named McBride Crescent and road three to be named Proctor Way.

Carried

21.9.6 Road Naming Approval Report - River Terrace Developments, Cromwell

To consider a request to name one road and one right of way in the River Terrace Development in Cromwell.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: Laws

That the Cromwell Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to approve one road name and one right of way. Road one to be named Stone Drive and right of way to be named Mason Lane.

Carried

21.9.7 Cromwell Financial Report for the Period Ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance overview as at 30 September 2021.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

21.9.8 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor gave an update on recent activities:

· Met with Otago Community Trust trustees for lunch at the Conference Centre.

· Attended Business South Advisory Group meeting at Cromwell, followed by BA5 which took the form of a seminar.

· Cromwell Business Network breakfasts have not been happening since we have been in Level 2.

· On 26/11 he will be joining Cromwell man Matt Edwards as he walks from Balclutha home to Cromwell as part of a fundraiser for Movember.

· He took part in the 4 Barrels wine walk with friends and reflected it was a great thing to do and a real attraction to the region.

· He spoke to Cromwell Rotary on 22 November about Three Waters.

· He attended the AGM of Cromwell Promotions.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Cromwell Community Board receives the report.

Carried

7 Chair's Report

21.9.9 Deputy Chair's Report

The Deputy Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended a meeting of the Museum Trust.

· Attended a meeting of the Lake Dunstan Charitable Trust on 9 November.

· Connect Cromwell held a repair café on 30 October which was well attended and the Crop Swap was back on 27 November.

· Connect Cromwell have also been working alongside the Parks team to install “pavement games” at the Big Fruit Reserve.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Murray

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

21.9.10 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Councillor Laws reported on the following:

· Attended a Historic Precinct meeting and noted the increased usage of the restrooms had resulted in twice daily cleaning and consideration of additional facilities. The Precinct’s smokefree policy would now include vapefree.

· Attended a recent Council meeting and gave an update on the issues discussed.

· Attended a meeting at Cromwell Community House.

· Attended a further meeting of the Historic Precinct where the new parking had been acknowledged and a suggestion that more would be welcomed was made.

Councillor Gillespie reported on the following:

· Attended the recent Council meeting and gave an update on issues discussed.

· Attended a recent Hearings Panel meeting.

· Attended a weekly radio interview on Radio Central.

· Provided cover for the Mayor as he took a week’s leave.

· He was a guest at Manuherikia Kilwinning Lodge’s 125th Celebration

· Attended a project governance group meeting.

Mr Scott reported on the following:

· Attended the AGM of the Cromwell Districts Community Trust on 18 October.

· Attended a meeting between the Council and Central Lakes Equestrian Club on 22 October. He noted that the club was waiting for a response from that meeting.

· Attended the AGM of the Cromwell Community Squash Club on 31 October.

· Attended a meeting of the Cromwell and Districts Promotion Group on 9 November.

· Attended a meeting of the Cromwell Golf Club who are looking at holding a Central Otago masters tournament in March with the Alexandra Golf Club.

Councillor McKinlay reported on the following:

· Attended three workshops about Three Waters in Ranfurly, Omakau and Alexandra.

· Attended the recent Council meeting and provided an update on the waste services review, the open letter sent to the Minister of Local Government and the Mayor’s appointment to the working group on representation, governance and accountability of new water services entities.

· Attended a meeting of the Hall subcommittee and Jasmax had been appointed as the architects for the project.

· He noted that the new cycleway had proven very popular over the quieter months with 40,000 clicks on the counter at Carrick.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: Gillespie

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

21.9.11 November 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

A question was raised about the usage figures for the Cromwell Bike Park toilets and an update was requested for the next meeting. A question was also raised about the Bannockburn Reserve Management Plan.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 15 February 2022.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: McKinlay

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes from Ordinary Board Meeting	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.9.12 - Gair Avenue, Cromwell	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.9.13 - Cemetery Road Industrial Subdivision Stage 2	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	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.9.14 - November 2021 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of 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 would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.09 pm and the meeting closed at 3.33 pm.

Teviot Valley Community Board Minutes

25 November 2021

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE Teviot Valley Community Board
HELD IN THE Roxburgh Service Centre, 120 Scotland Street, Roxburgh and live streamed on microsoft teams ON Thursday, 25 November 2021 COMMENCING AT 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Mr R Gunn (Chair), Ms S Feinerman (Deputy Chair), Ms C Aitchison, Mr N Dalley, Cr S Jeffery

IN ATTENDANCE: S Righarts (Chief Advisor), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), L Webster (Acting Executive Manager – Planning and Environment), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), L Stronach (Statutory Property Officer), K McCulloch (Corporate Accountant), J Whyte (Parks and Recreation Administration Officer), M Gordon (Parks Officer – Projects), M Tohill (Communications Support), R Williams (Governance Manager) and W McEnteer (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Forum

Hilary Spedding – Millers Flat Cavalcade Committee

Ms Spedding from the Millers Flat Cavalcade Committee spoke to the Board on the possible options that the committee was looking at for any profits that might be made from hosting the Cavalcade in 2022. They proposed part funding a new playground in Millers Flat and wanted to gauge initial interest in their idea. Ms Spedding then responded to questions from the Board.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Feinerman

That the public minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 21 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.

5 Reports

21.9.2 Application to Lease Local Purpose Reserve Land (PRO: 65-7027-00)

To consider an application to lease part of the Roxburgh Local Purpose (Public Utility) Reserve.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Aitchison

That the Teviot Valley Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the granting of a lease over approximately 1.2 hectares of Part Section 142 Block I Teviot Survey District (as shown in figure 1), being Local Purpose (Public Utility) Reserve, to Teviot Ag Works Limited, on the following terms and conditions:

- Term: Five (5) Years

- Rights of Renewal: Two (2) of Five (5) Years

- Commencement Date: 01 December 2021

- Rental: $1,200 per annum plus GST plus outgoings

- Rent Review Methodology: Market Rental

- Final Expiry: 30 November 2036

- Permitted Use: Industrial/Agricultural Storage Yard

Subject to:

- The applicant deer fencing the perimeter of the demised area.

- Ownership of the fencing (and any gates) transferring to Council on cancellation or expiry.

- The provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Carried

21.9.3 Roxburgh Cemetery Trustees

To consider a request from the Roxburgh Cemetery Trustees for Council to take over the management and running of the Roxburgh cemetery.

After discussion, it was agreed that for clarity resolution two would be reworded to delete “return” and add “accept” and “Central Otago District Council”.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gunn

Seconded: Feinerman

That the Teviot Valley Community Board

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to accept the administration, management and operation of the Roxburgh Cemetery from the Roxburgh Cemetery Trustees to the Central Otago District Council, subject to the land encroachment of the Cemetery being resolved.

Carried

21.9.4 Teviot Valley Financial Report for the Period Ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance overview as at 30 September 2021.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Aitchison

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

21.9.5 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor was not present at the meeting.

7 Chair's Report

21.9.6 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended a meeting for the Roxburgh Pool committee.

· Attended a Zoom meeting to investigate ways of lifting vaccination rates in the Teviot Valley.

· Attended a meeting with Energy Minister Woods and affected landowners for the proposed Lake Onslow project.

· Attended a meeting with National Party Energy spokesperson, Barbara Kuriger.

· Attended a Zoom meeting for the NZ Battery Project.

· Attended a Medical Services Trust meeting.

· Attended a meeting of the museum committee and the masonic lodge regarding the lodge building. Updated members on recent developments at the Teviot Valley museum.

· Attended a Teviot Valley rest home meeting.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Dalley

Seconded: Aitchison

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

21.9.7 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting.

Ms Aitchison reported on the following:

· Attended a discussion group on future of tourism.

· Attended a Teviot Valley Museum board meeting.

Councillor Jeffery reported on the following:

· Attended weekly meeting of the Regional Labour Chairs.

· Attended the Eden Hore Central Otago launch at Orchard Garden.

· Attended a Zoom meeting to investigate ways of lifting vaccination rates in the Teviot Valley.

· Attended the Council meeting and updated Members on topics discussed.

· Attended a meeting of the Medical Services Trust.

· Attended a meeting of the Hearings Panel.

· Attended the New Zealand Cycling Trails forum in Wellington.

· Attended a site visit to Luggate for the Hearings Panel.

· Attended a Teviot Prospects meeting.

· Attended a meeting of the Central Otago Labour Governance Group.

· Noted a proposal for a helipad behind the medical centre.

· Noted that there has been no further progress regarding the toilets at Lake Roxburgh Village and that he had been in communication with Contact Energy.

· Noted that it had been reported to him that the Roxburgh toilets were in poor repair even after they had been cleaned. A service request had been sent to staff.

Mr Dalley reported on the following:

· Attended the Teviot Valley Reast Home AGM. Noted that there were a lot of volunteers came forward for the committee.

· Attended the Roxburgh Medical Services Trust AGM.

· Attended the Entertainment Centre AGM.

· Assisted at the pop up vaccine site in Millers Flat.

Ms Feinerman reported on the following:

· Attended a Clutha Gold Trails meeting.

· Attended a Roxburgh Pool Committee meeting. Gave Members an update on current developments .

· Attended a Future of Tourism workshop.

· Attended a Teviot Prospects meeting.

· Attended a meeting of the Walkways Committee. Gave Members an update on current activities.

· Noted that she had recently walked the Commissioners Track and that it was a good walk to promote.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Dalley

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

21.9.8 November 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Aitchison

Seconded: Feinerman

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 3 February 2022.

The meeting closed at 3.38 pm.

...................................................

CHAIR / /

[1] Sport Otago is unavailable to attend the 8 December 2021 meeting date, but gave a presentation at the public forum of the 22 September 2021 Council meeting, outlining activities and outcomes of the 2020/21 financial year; a report is attached.

[2] It is acknowledged that Council’s representative on this group may change as a result of the 2022 local authority elections.

[3] Draft Trust Deed: The Eden Hore Central Otago Charitable Trust (section 3.1)

[5] It is acknowledged that the appointment may be subject to change as a result of the 2022 local authority elections.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 8 December 2021
Date:	Wednesday, 8 December 2021
Time:	10.30 am
Location:	Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra Due to COVID-19 restrictions and limitations of the physical space, public access will be available through the livestream and Microsoft Teams. The link to the livestream will be available on the Central Otago District Council’s website.
Sanchia Jacobs Chief Executive Officer

Name	Member’s Declared Interests	Spouse/Partner’s Declared Interests	Council Appointments
Tamah Alley	Manuherikia Irrigation Co-operative (shareholder) Cromwell Youth Trust (Trustee) Blue Light Central Lakes (Chair) NZ Police (Sworn Constable) Oamaru Landing Service (OLS) (family connection) Cliff Care Ltd (family connection)	Manuherikia Irrigation Co-operative Society Ltd (shareholder) Emergency Management Otago Group Controller (employee)
Tim Cadogan	Alexandra Musical Society (member) Otago Chamber of Commerce Central Otago Advisory Group member Dunstan Golf Club (member) Alexandra Squash Club (member)	Two Paddocks (employee) Blossom Festival Committee member FarmFresh (Family member sells for this entity)	Airport Reference Group Maniototo Curling International Inc Eden Hore Steering Group Tourism Central Otago Advisory Board Ministerial Working Group on Responsible Camping LGNZ Governance and Strategy Group
Shirley Calvert	Central Otago Health Services Ltd (Employee) Cromwell Rotary (member) Cromwell and District Community Trust Old Cromwell Town (subscription member)		Central Otago Wilding Conifer Group
Lynley Claridge	Affinity Funerals (Director) Central Otago Chamber of Commerce (Advisory Panel)	Affinity Funerals (Shareholder)	Alexandra Council for Social Services
Ian Cooney	Castlewood Nursing Home (Employee)		Omakau Recreation Reserve Committee Promote Alexandra
Stuart Duncan	Penvose Farms - Wedderburn Cottages and Farm at Wedderburn (shareholder) Penvose Investments - Dairy Farm at Patearoa (shareholder) Fire and Emergency New Zealand (member) JD Pat Ltd (Shareholder and Director)	Penvose Farms - Wedderburn Cottages and Farm at Wedderburn (shareholder) Penvose Investments - Dairy Farm at Patearoa (shareholder)	Otago Regional Transport Committee Patearoa Recreation Reserve Committee Design and Location of the Sun for the Interplanetary Cycle Trail Working Group
Neil Gillespie	Contact Energy (Specialist - Community Relations and Environment) Clyde & Districts Emergency Rescue Trust (Secretary and Trustee) Cromwell Volunteer Fire Brigade (Deputy Chief Fire Officer) Cromwell Bowling Club (patron) Otago Local Advisory Committee - Fire Emergency New Zealand Returned Services Association (Member)		Lowburn Hall Committee Tarras Community Plan Group Tarras Hall Committee
Stephen Jeffery	G & S Smith family Trust (Trustee) K & EM Bennett’s family Trust (Trustee) Roxburgh Gorge Trail Charitable Trust (Chair) Roxburgh and District Medical Services Trust (Trustee) Central Otago Clutha Trails Ltd (Director) Teviot Prospects (Trustee) Teviot Valley Community Development Scheme Governance Group Central Otago Queenstown Network Trust
Cheryl Laws	The Message (Director) Wishart Family Trust (Trustee) Wooing Tree (Assistant Manager - Cellar Door) Daffodil Day Cromwell Coordinator	Otago Regional Council (Deputy Chair) The Message (Director)	Cromwell Resource Centre Cromwell Historical Precinct
Nigel McKinlay	Transition To Work Trust (Board member) Gate 22 Vineyard Ltd (Director) Everyday Gourmet (Director) Central Otago Wine Association (member) Long Gully Irrigation Scheme (member)
Martin McPherson	Alexandra Blossom Festival	CODC (employee) CODC (employee) (Daughter)
Tracy Paterson	Matakanui Station (Director and shareholder) Matakanui Development Co (Director and shareholder) A and T Paterson Family Trust (trustee) A Paterson Family Trust (trustee) Central Otago Health Inc (Chair) Bob Turnbull Trust (Trustee / Chair) John McGlashan Board of Trustees (member) New Zealand Wool Classers Association (board member) Central Otago A&P Association (member)	Matakanui Station (director and shareholder) Matakanui Development Co (director and shareholder) A Paterson Family Trust (trustee) A and T Paterson Family Trust (trustee) Federated Farmers (on the executive team) Omakau Irrigation Co (director) Matakanui Combined Rugby Football Club (President) Manuherikia Catchment Group (member) Omakau Domain Board	Central Otago Health Inc Manuherikia River Group

Date	Version	Revision History	Author/Reviser	Approved (name, role)	Approved (sign/date)
4/11/2021	2.0	Initial draft	Paula Penno

Central Otago District Arts Trust	$35,000
Central Otago Heritage Trust	$40,000
Sport Otago	$41,549

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Nikki Aaron	Sanchia Jacobs
Community Development Officer	Chief Executive Officer
5/11/2021	25/11/2021

1		Background	1
2		Role of the Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group	1
3		Responsibilities of the Steering Group Chair	2
4		Responsibilities of the Steering Group Members	2
5		General	2
	5.1	Membership	2
	5.2	Term	3
	5.3	Ex-officio members	3
	5.4	Payment	3
	5.5	Quorum & decision-making	3
	5.6	Frequency of meetings	4
	5.7	Agenda, minutes and decision papers	4
	5.8	Proxies	4
6		Signatures	5

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Sanchia Jacobs
Chief Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
19/11/2021	30/11/2021

	Year to date Performance Measure Results
Group of Activities	No. of Targets	No. achieved	No. not achieved	% Achieved	2019/20 % Achieved
Water	12	7	5	58%	42%
Wastewater	7	3	4	43%	43%
Stormwater	7	7	0	100%	86%
Roading	12	8	4	67%	67%
Environmental Services	4	2	2	50%	50%
Planning, Regulatory & Community Development	7	2	5	29%	43%
Pools, Parks & Cemeteries	6	2	4	33%	33%
Property & Community Facilities	7	5	2	71%	71%
Service Centre’s & Libraries	7	3	4	43%	43%
Regional Identity, Tourism & Economic Development	1	0	1	0%	100%
Governance & Corporate Services	3	0	3	0%	0%
Totals	73	39	34	53%	52%

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Rebecca Williams	Sanchia Jacobs
Governance Manager	Chief Executive Officer
19/11/2021	29/11/2021

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Council role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to Council in 2021
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Council role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Annual Plan 2022/23
Annual Plan Executive Manager Corporate Services	Legislative requirement under the Local Government Act 2002.	Decisions required: Budget direction and decisions required on the Consultation Document (if required)/letters and key supporting documentation.												W
Vincent Spatial Plan
Vincent Spatial Plan Executive Manager: Planning & Environment	Vincent Community Board and Council priority.	Decision required: Workshops and decisions required as the work progresses.								D
Cromwell Masterplan
Cromwell Masterplan Executive Manager: Planning & Environment	Cromwell Community Board and Council priority.	Decision required: Workshops and decisions required as the work progresses.			D		D	D			D
Three waters reform
Water reform Water Services Manager/Executive Manager Infrastructure	Key central government legislative priority.	Decision required: Workshops and decisions required as the reform progresses.			D		D	W			U
Council’s role in housing
Housing Chief Advisor	Key Council priority.	Decision required: Agree council’s role in the housing.		D	W	W		D						D
District Plan review
District Plan Review Planning Manager/Executive Manager Planning & Environment	Legislative requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991.	Decision required: Workshops and decisions required as this work progresses.			D			D		D				W
Lake Dunstan Water Supply and Clyde Waste Water projects
Major projects Capital Works Programme Manager; Executive Manager Infrastructure	Key Council priority (Long-term Plan 2018-28)	Decision required: Key decisions as required as the work progresses, including approval of tenders. Regular updates will be provided via the Project Governance Group.			D		D	D			U		D
Sustainability Strategy Action Plan
Sustainability Strategy Environmental Services Manager/Executive Manager Infrastructure	Key Council priority	Decision required: Updates and decisions required as this action plan is implemented.						D