Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 26 January 2022

Council Meeting Agenda

26 January 2022

MINUTES OF A Council Meeting OF THE Central Otago District Council
HELD AT Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and livestreamed ON Wednesday, 8 December 2021 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

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

IN ATTENDANCE: S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), N Aaron (Community Development Advisor), G Bailey (Parks and Reserves Manager), L Stronach (Statutory Property Officer), Q Penniall (Environmental Engineering Manager), I Evans (Water Services Manager), P Keenan (Capital Projects Programme Manager), J McCallum (Roading Manager), L Webster (Regulatory Services Manager), M De Cort (Communications Coordinator) and R Williams (Governance Manager)

Note: Item 21.9.29 “The New COVID-19 Protection Framework and What it Means for Council Facilities and Staffing” was circulated separately to the agenda on Friday 2 December 2021.

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Forum

Duarne Lankshear - Director of Veros spoke to the Council about a potential contribution to the Wooing Tree subdivision underpass before responded to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Calvert

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 3 November 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: Cr Jeffery assumed the Chair as the Economic Development and Community Facilities Portfolio Lead.

Note: David Ritchie and Maggie Hope (Central Otago Heritage Trust) and Jan Bean and Rebekah de Jong (Central Otago District Arts Council) joined the meeting for item 21.9.2.

Note: Cr Laws left the meeting at 10.54 am and returned at 10.57 am.

Note: The Mayor left the meeting at 10.59 am and returned at 11.01 am.

5 Reports

21.9.2 Council Community Grant Accountability Reports 2020/21

To provide a report on the activity of the Central Otago District Arts Trust, the Central Otago Heritage Trust and Sport Otago over the past financial year.

Representatives of both the Central Otago District Arts Trust and the Central Otago Heritage Trust spoke to their accountability reports, providing an overview of their work for the year and thanking the Council for their ongoing support.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Calvert

That the report be received.

Carried

21.9.3 Eden Hore Central Otago Steering Group and Charitable Trust

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. Images and a video of some of the collection was shown.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Duncan

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.

Carried

Note: Cr Duncan left the meeting at 11.22 am and returned at 11.24 am.

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 11.31 am and returned at 11.33 am.

Note: Cr Cooney left the meeting at 11.34 am.

21.9.4 Responsible camping national legislative update and plans for managing the 2021/22 summer season

To provide an update on the national legislative framework development and plans for managing responsible camping in the district this season. The Mayor provided an update from the Ministerial Working Group on Responsible Camping, including recent comments from Minister Nash on responsible camping.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That the report be received.

Carried

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

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. It was noted that the Hearings Panel had met the day before to consider any submissions, and none had been received. Accordingly, the recommendation remained unchanged.

Resolution

Moved: Paterson

Seconded: Claridge

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.

Carried

Note: Cr Cooney returned to the meeting at 11.37 am.

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

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.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: McKinlay

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.

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

Note: Cr Laws declared a conflict for item 21.9.7 and withdrew from discussion and voting.

21.9.7 Consideration of contribution to Wooing Tree underpass

To consider a financial contribution to the Wooing Tree underpass.

An update was provided on issues raised during the public forum. It was noted that construction of the underpass had been included in a previous Long-term Plan, however Waka Kotahi had not approved the funding given it was a condition of consent for the Wooing Tree development. Consequently, it was removed from the Long-term Plan and this had been made clear to the developer prior to the fast track consent process.

During discussion, the wording of the resolution was changed to decline the request.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Declines the request to Council from Wooing Tree Estate to consider either:

i. A fair and equitable contribution to the roundabout and underpass construction costs, or

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

Carried on a show of hands

Note: Cr McKinlay assumed the Chair as the Three Waters and Waste Portfolio Lead.

Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 12.18 pm and returned 12.20 pm.

21.9.8 Solid Waste Contract - Level of Service

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

During discussion, the Ministry for the Environment’s draft Waste Strategy and draft Emissions Reduction Plan and the proposed waste reduction targets by 2030 were noted. It was also noted that the proposal for Queensberry would require further consultation as there would be an additional cost involved to these ratepayers if the proposed extension of service proceeded.

The wording of the resolution was changed to ensure future clarity.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Laws

That the Council

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

B. Approves the proposed level of service for tender, as follows:

i. Kerbside Collection Configuration as explained in option three of that section of the report.

ii. Kerbside Collection Extension as explained in option one of that section of the report, subject to further consultation with the Queensberry community.

iii. Rural Rubbish Drop Off Sites as explained in option one of that section of the report.

iv. Bin Ownership as explained in option one of that section of the report.

v. Transfer Stations as explained in option one of that section of the report.

vi. Resource Recovery Centre(s) as explained in option one of that section of the report.

Carried

21.9.9 Tendering of Waste Services Contract

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

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Alley

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.

Carried

21.9.10 Water and Wastewater Operations and Maintenance contract

To consider extending the Water Services Maintenance Contract, with revised contract conditions, payment clauses, and specification.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Jeffery

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.

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 1.00 pm and reconvened at 1.36 pm.

Note: Cr Claridge returned to the meeting at 1.40 pm.

21.9.11 Clyde Wastewater Project

To consider the budget for the Clyde Wastewater Project. During discussion an inconsistency was noted in the report about the contingency level and it was noted that the correct figure was 10%.

Resolution

Moved: Laws

Seconded: Paterson

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.

Carried

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

21.9.12 Maniototo Bridge Updates

To provide a further update of the three Maniototo Bridges currently closed to traffic. An update was provided on the three bridges and it was noted that the next report would have options on each for Council to consider.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.9.13 Proposed Road Stopping - Unnamed Road off Roxburgh East Road

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.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Paterson

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 nett area of land they are acquiring 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.

Carried

21.9.14 Proposed Road Stopping (Partial Width) - Adjacent to 56 Ladysmith Road

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.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Alley

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.

Carried

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

21.9.15 Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

To consider the approval of the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy for public consultation.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Laws

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 Crs Cooney, Alley and Paterson to hear submissions, if necessary.

Carried

Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 2.28 pm and returned at 2.39 pm.

Note: Cr Duncan left the meeting at 2.29 pm and returned at 2.33 pm.

21.9.16 Earthquake Prone Buildings

To consider the approval of the earthquake prone buildings statement of proposal regarding thoroughfares and strategic routes for public consultation.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: McKinlay

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 Crs Cooney, Alley and Paterson to hear submissions, if necessary.

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

21.9.17 Adoption of the audited Annual Report 2020/21

To adopt the audited 2020/21 Annual Report. It was noted that a signed opinion had been received that day, and that like every other council, Central Otago District Council had received an emphasis of matter on the Government’s three waters reform programme announcement.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council:

A. Receives the report.

B. Adopts the 2020/21 Audited Annual Report

Carried

21.9.18 Financial Report For The Period Ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 30 September 2021.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr McPherson returned to the meeting at 2.55 pm.

21.9.29 The new COVID-19 Protection Framework and what it means for council facilities and staffing

To note the decisions made on access to council facilities under the new COVID-19 Protection Framework (the traffic light system).

The CEO provided an update on activities to date before responding to questions. Following discussion, Council endorsed the decisions made to date and included a new resolution.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

A. That the report be received.

B. That Council endorses the decisions made by the CEO on access to council facilities under the new COVID-19 Protection Framework (the traffic lights system).

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

21.9.19 Mayor's Report

In speaking to his report, the Mayor reflected on the apparent lack of health board preparation for COVID-19 arriving in the Central Lakes area, including the lack of a testing centre and inadequate room space being prepared for visitors who become unwell while visiting.

He noted that he had attended one meeting of the Three Waters working group and clarified that he received no compensation as a result of his appointment, however the government did cover the costs of participation.

The Mayor thanked elected members for their work over the course of the year. In reply, Deputy Mayor thanked the Mayor for his mahi as well.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

7 Status Reports

21.9.20 December 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: Duncan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

8 Community Board Minutes

21.9.21 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 16 November 2021

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 16 November 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.9.22 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 18 November 2021

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 18 November 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.9.23 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 23 November 2021

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 23 November 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.9.24 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 25 November 2021

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 25 November 2021 be noted.

Carried

9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 26 January 2022.

10 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

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 Ordinary Council Meeting	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)(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
21.9.25 - December 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
21.9.26 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 16 November 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
21.9.27 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 18 November 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
21.9.28 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 23 November 2021	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)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 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 3.07 pm and the meeting closed at 3.10pm.

26 January 2022

5 Reports

22.1.2 Approval of Vincent Spatial Plan

Doc ID: 564369

1. Purpose of Report

To consider approval of Vincent Spatial Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the Vincent Spatial Plan

2. Background

The Vincent Spatial Plan offers a 30-year planning horizon, ensuring the district can get ahead of growth and plan for it. By taking a long-term approach, the plan will ensure our towns continue to be places that support healthy and vibrant communities. The Vincent Spatial Plan will inform future land use patterns and decisions about potential new zonings in the Central Otago District Plan. It is a high-level blueprint for the future that ensures growth can occur in a positive and sustainable way and allows consideration of growth before it happens.

The Spatial Plan is a collaboration between Central Otago District Council (CODC), the community and other stakeholders. Its development rests on key planning principles relating to our environment, the character of our place, how we manage growth in a sustainable way, accessibility, housing choice and infrastructure.

In March 2020 the Central Otago District Council approved the development of an establishment report for the Vincent Spatial plan.

Engagement with the community started with a values survey in April 2020. The feedback formed the basis of the targeted key stakeholder Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) workshop, to define the issues for the Vincent community.

In August 2020 a series of community drop-ins were held in in Omakau, Alexandra and Clyde along with facilitated workshops with community representatives that fed into the development of spatial plan options.

Three high level of options were developed and published for public feedback. A series of drop-in sessions were held, and direct engagement undertaken with various groups, between December 2020 and February 2021. From this feedback the Draft Spatial Plan was developed, and published for further community feedback in October 2021. The feedback has been considered in the development of the Vincent Spatial Plan.

3. Discussion

The Spatial Plan seeks to balance the needs of existing land users with the demands of a growing community.

Central Otago is one of New Zealand’s fastest growing regions. Growth projections for the Vincent Ward indicate that between 2020 and 2050 the urban population will increase by 5,300 people, meaning an additional 2,500 houses will be needed by 2050.

Accommodating growth in a way that protects our environment and provides for the social, economic and cultural needs of the community can be challenging. Issues such as ensuring housing affordability and availability, a lack of land suitable for future development, and the effects of residential development moving into productive rural areas need to be carefully managed. The spatial planning process provides an opportunity to step back and consider providing for growth in a managed way for the future.

The pressures of population growth are affecting our rural and urban areas. Demand for housing is driven in part by growth but also by a change in demographics, reduced household sizes and housing affordability, factors which are likely to result in greater total numbers of dwellings being built to meet the demand.

The Vincent Spatial Plan provides for a significantly greater yield than growth projections indicate will be required and allows for a variety of housing types and household sizes to meet future demand.

As the population continues to grow, demand increases for residential and lifestyle properties in areas previously only used for productive purposes. Approximately 30% of Vincent’s housing growth has occurred in rural areas over the past 10 years. This can create conflict, as residential properties are increasingly located in areas where horticultural or agricultural activities have traditionally taken place.

The Vincent Spatial Plan proposes managing growth by infilling existing residential areas around the centres of Alexandra and Clyde with; well-defined areas of greenfield expansion along the edges of the two towns; and consolidation of existing rural residential land available between Alexandra and Clyde.

With this approach to growth the proposed spatial plan would provide for a complementary mix of land uses and maintain the ability to carefully manage any conflicts, such as reverse sensitivity, that may arise. It provides for a diversity of housing types to meet future housing needs and to supports vibrant town centres. To achieve this, the plan proposes a transition from medium density residential housing through to rural lifestyle within clear urban boundaries, protecting potentially productive land. It includes more compact residential housing options where there is convenient access to town centres and community facilities.

The Vincent Spatial Plan is a blueprint for the next 30 years showing what towns could look like and how infrastructure, housing and productive land use could fit together. It is a vision of what the future could look like, offering guidance to the private and public sector, including direction for infrastructure investment and Council’s future planning.

4. Financial Considerations

The Spatial Plan is funded from existing budgets.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Adopt the Vincent Spatial Plan

Advantages:

· Enable the progression of plan changes.

· Provides land for housing for the next 30 years and beyond.

· Provides a range of housing typologies to meet demand and deliver more affordable houses (on smaller sections).

· Community confidence in process and ownership of the direction.

· Enable future infrastructure planning and modelling.

Disadvantages:

· No obvious disadvantages

Option 2

Not Adopt the Vincent Spatial Plan

Advantages:

· No obvious advantages

Disadvantages:

· Slowing down of plan change notification and release of new land.

· Potential under supply of land for housing in the future.

· Loss of community confidence in process

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social/cultural/economic/environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring growth demands can be met.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The costs associated with the publishing of the Vincent Spatial Plan will be accommodated within existing budgets.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The Vincent Spatial Plan reflects consideration of sustainability and environmental factors/constraints that will inform future land use changes.
Risks Analysis	There are not known risks associated with this decision.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The matter is significant not only to a small group of people particularly affected but also to the wider community as it will inform future decision making in terms of development of land and infrastructure investment. The Spatial Plan has been developed through an extensive community and key stakeholder engagement process. Future plan changes to the District Plan will be subject to further engagement under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.

7. Next Steps

Adopt the Vincent Spatial

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Vincent Spatial Plan (under separate cover) ⇨

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann Rodgers	Louise van der Voort
Principal Policy Planner	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
13/01/2022	13/01/2022

26 January 2022

22.1.3 Alexandra Airport Masterplan

Doc ID: 556449

1. Purpose of Report

To consider adopting the Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the proposed Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

2. Background

The Alexandra Airport Reserve land has a total area of 104.6 hectares with large areas of the reserve unused but with potential for future aviation use.

The Alexandra Airport (the Airport) currently has 25 lease sites for hangars or hangar/accommodation. Twelve of the sites have or will have ancillary residential accommodation attached to the hangar.

In 2017 to meet the demand for hangar sites, the power supply capacity to the airport was upgraded, power and water reticulation installed to all sites and 700 metres of sealed taxiways constructed. In 2018 another five sites were developed with power and water connections and an additional 300 metres of sealed taxiways constructed.

See aerial photo below showing the existing hangar precinct:

An aerial view of a small town

Description automatically generated with low confidence

The 25 leased hangar sites generate approximately $170,000 of annual income.

There are currently around 30 people on a waiting list for hangar/accommodation sites at the Airport. No further sites can be leased or developed by Council until the Alexandra town water supply is available towards the end of 2022.

Due to the continuing demand for hangar sites, staff identified a need for an Alexandra Airport Masterplan to provide direction for potential future development and where it should be located. As a starting point, workshops were held with council staff and the Airport Reference Group to discuss potential future use of the various areas at the Airport.

The Airport Reference Group is an advisory group that was formed by Council in 2015 and is comprised of locally based people who have strong connections to the Airport by virtue of their role with Council, aviation businesses or clubs based there, commercial airline users and local business development.

In 2020 council engaged Dave Park from Astral Consultants, an aviation consultant with expertise in this field, to prepare the Alexandra Airport Masterplan (the Masterplan) and consider all relevant technical and environmental factors.

As part of the process workshops were again held with the Airport Reference Group and key Council staff from the property, planning, communications and economic development teams to discuss spatial planning considerations, the Airport strategic vision and potential future use.

A final workshop was held with Council on 3 November 2021 where Dave Park provided a summary of the content of the Masterplan and elected members had an opportunity to ask questions or raise any potential issues. No issues were raised.

The Masterplan is now complete and is attached as Appendix 1.

3. Discussion

The Masterplan document was developed following the New Zealand Airports Association Masterplan template and takes into consideration all relevant aviation standards, legislation and Civil Aviation Authority requirements.

The purpose and objectives of the Masterplan are set out on page 11 of the document as follows:

a) Provide information on the spatial requirements of the airport for inclusion in the Vincent Spatial Plan currently being prepared by CODC.

b) To provide a development plan for the airport primarily to guide the location of development sites and activities consistent with CODC’s objectives.

c) To provide the CODC with guidance on the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) regulatory compliance requirements for the facility both now and with future development.

d) Ensure any investment in the airport or its facilities and capability are well directed and cost-effective.

The objective is a succinct and flexible document that provides a guide for the next 20 years and is easily adapted and updated to meet changing circumstances. In particular the Master Plan is intended to facilitate high value growth opportunities in aviation and related fields by providing a suitable location for such activities in the Central Otago area.

The Masterplan contains technical details about the Airport and airport users and also a development plan to guide the location of development sites and activities that are consistent with Council’s objectives.

The next planned stage of development at the Airport is a hangar precinct for 20-30 hangar sites. The Masterplan identifies the most appropriate location for the development of additional hangar sites, shown as area ‘D’ on the Development Plan on page 9 of the Masterplan.

Any aspects of the Masterplan which had implications for the Vincent Spatial Plan or District Plan were discussed with Council planning staff and any necessary amendments were made.

The Masterplan will provide Council with guidance for decision making and planning for future development and long-term protection of the Airport as a local aviation asset.

4. Financial Considerations

There are no financial implications for the decision to adopt the Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

A budget of $900,000 has been included in year two of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for development of a new hangar precinct including establishment of water, power and wastewater services for the sites, a new gravel accessway from Letts Gully Road, fencing and sealed taxiways. The cost will be funded by an internal loan from general reserves and repaid using rental income from the new hangar sites.

The budget is based on a high-level estimate and design of the site layout and detailed pricing of the required services and other infrastructure will be carried out over the next 12 months.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council adopts the proposed Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

Advantages:

· The Alexandra Airport Masterplan has been developed to inform decisions on the development of Alexandra Airport over the next 20 or more years.

· Aspects of the Draft Masterplan have been considered during the Vincent Spatial Plan process.

· Planning for the new hangar site precinct can proceed with Council’s approval of the Masterplan which provides guidance on the most appropriate location. Budget for this development has been included in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

Council does not adopt the proposed Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· If the Masterplan is not adopted there will be no guiding document to inform decisions on the development of Alexandra Airport into the future.

· If adopting of the Masterplan is delayed this may also delay planning for the next stage of developing a new hangar site precinct which is budgeted for in 2022/23. Some interested parties have already been waiting for around two years for new hangar sites to become available and may lose interest.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social and economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by safeguarding Alexandra Airport as a local infrastructure asset. The Airport provides an important local service (e.g. air service for hospital specialists, navigation system for helicopter rescue) and has potential to assist with economic development by: · Facilitating aviation associated business development · Providing opportunity for aviation associated land use, not common to other communities The Master Plan sets out Council’s Strategic Vision for the Alexandra Airport as follows: Alexandra Airport will be a safe, user friendly and efficient facility for aviation related businesses, aircraft operators and lease holders. The airport will provide for the growth of compatible aviation activities that support tourism, innovation, research and training opportunities in a way that meets community well-being.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The Alexandra Airport is subject to designation D194 for ‘Airport purposes’ under the Central Otago District Plan. Any activities or development proposed in the Masterplan are considered compatible with the designation.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	An environmental assessment of the Airport was carried out and taken into consideration during the preparation of the Masterplan to ensure minimal environmental impact with location of any future development. There are no further sustainability or climate change implications from this decision.
Risks Analysis	No apparent risks.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Although the Alexandra Airport is listed as a strategic asset, the decision to adopt the Alexandra Airport Masterplan does not meet any of the criteria or thresholds of the Significance and Engagement Policy. Representatives for airport users and Council departments have been consulted during the preparation of the Masterplan to ensure that any proposed development or activities are consistent with aviation requirements and Council objectives.

7. Next Steps

Council adopts the Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

Council’s Property team proceed with planning for the new hangar precinct at the Airport.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Alexandra Airport Masterplan 2021 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Tara Bates	Louise van der Voort
Property Officer	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
14/01/2022	17/01/2022

26 January 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.1.4 Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy

Doc ID: 564088

1. Purpose of Report

To renew the Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy that allows shops to trade on Easter Sunday.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the updated Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy for public consultation.

C. Appoints a panel of three elected members to hear submissions, if necessary.

2. Background

Shops are not permitted to trade on Easter Sunday, unless they have been given permission by the local authority through a policy.

This is in place due to the following pieces of legislation:

· The Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 prevents trading on Easter Sunday

· The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 allows a local authority to put in place a bylaw or policy to allow shops, as defined under the act, to open

The Amendment Act was passed in recognition of the importance of tourism-related trade to some districts. There have been no changes to legislation since the policy was implemented in 2017.

There are other exceptions to ‘no trading’ rules on Easter Sunday, including – but not limited to – garden centres, pharmacies, and shops selling only certain items (i.e. food, drink, fuel).

Alcohol sale is regulated separately through the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Central Otago has had a policy in place since January 2017 and is due to be reviewed. Under Part 2 (5C) of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016, a policy must be reviewed within 5 years of its enactment and if a review is not commenced it will be revoked 2 years after the scheduled review date. This provision means the current policy will still be in effect and valid for this coming Easter while the renewed policy moves through the required approval processes.

3. Discussion

A review of the Policy has taken place with no major changes suggested. The text has been streamlined but not materially changed. A new definition of ‘shop’ has been added and this been taken directly from the Act.

It is proposed to renew the policy for an additional five-year period.

Under the Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016, Council is required to use the special consultative procedure when deciding whether to amend, revoke, replace, or continue the policy.

4. Financial Considerations

There is no direct financial impact to Council in renewing the policy. There would be potential economic impacts for the district if the policy lapsed or was no longer in place.

There is a minor cost for advertising the special consultative process that will be met through the current budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the updated Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy for public consultation

Advantages:

· No changes or disruptions to local business planning

· Shops covered by the Shop Trading Hours Act will continue to be able to trade on Easter Sunday

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages

Option 2

Decline the updated Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy for public consultation

Advantages:

· No advantages

Disadvantages:

· Current policy will expire at the end of January

· Shops covered by the Shop Trading Hours Act will be unable to trade on Easter Sunday

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the cultural and economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by enabling communities to choose for themselves whether or not to trade on Easter Sunday
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	There is no environmental impact.
Risks Analysis	No risks have been identified in the renewal of this policy.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The special consultative process will be followed as required under legislation.

7. Next Steps

If the policy is approved for consultation, this consultation will take place in accordance with the provisions in 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 5 February 2022

· Final Date for submissions 11 March 2022

· Hearing TBC March 2022

· Final report to Council 1 June 2022

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Hours Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
22/12/2021	23/12/2021

26 January 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.1.5 Grants Policy Review

Doc ID: 564609

1. Purpose of Report

To consider updates to the Grants Policy ahead of the next funding round.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the updated Grants Policy.

2. Background

The Central Otago District supports community and local initiatives through the grants process. A comprehensive review of the grants policy took place in August 2019 (Resolution 19.7.17).

The policy was programmed for a soft review after one year in operation, and on a three yearly review cycle after that.

The soft review was undertaken in June 2021 with minor text changes to the policy only. It was decided to bring the next review forward to begin in November 2021. The review began with a series of workshops across all four community boards and with the Council.

The review identified several areas where processes can be improved. A summary document has been attached with the key issues raised through the workshops, and the plan for further discussing or addressing each issue.

As was discussed during the workshops, the long-term plan process is the appropriate forum to discuss changes with budgetary implications, and best facilitates community consultation and engagement. Several of the issues identified have been programmed for addressing through this process.

This report is focused on ensuring the right information is provided to the community and to streamline the community experience in using the policy.

3. Discussion

The previous Grants Policy consisted of one document involving the technical information required to constitute a policy, and some further detail designed to help explain the policy to the community. There is some further information on Council’s website but no single source of information for the community to refer to.

The Grants Policy has now been simplified and shortened as a technical policy document only.

A ‘Guide for the Community’ is being produced, designed to explain the policy and processes in a clear and straightforward way. A draft of this guide has been attached for information purposes only. It is still in the final stages of development and will be peer reviewed prior to finalisation.

The policy review highlighted several issues that could be changed or updated. Many of these have been programmed for discussion or action through the long-term plan process.

In the interim, it is recommended that changes are made to the policy.

The following text changes are recommended:

· Changes to layout and the order in which information is presented

· New ‘financial requirements’ section added to clarify financial requirements – these requirements were taken from the existing policy

· The principles that guide decision making have been shortened within the policy document to remove explanatory examples as to how each principle may apply. The full text has been retained in the guidance document for the community.

· The effectiveness principle has been updated to focus on the effective use of resources – the previous explanation sought effective applications, which is covered elsewhere.

The following changes to the policy itself are recommended:

Consolidation of objectives and criteria

The Grants process consists of a series of criteria or objectives for applicants to meet. This includes the objectives of the grants process, general criteria, and an ‘assessment matrix’ used by staff when assessing grant applications.

In practise, this could cause confusion as it requires applicants to have awareness of each of these different sets of objectives.

It is recommended that these are consolidated into one list of criteria for applicants to easily refer to.

An attachment to this report details how these aspects appeared in the previous policy, and how they are represented in the updated policy.

Separation of community and promotions grants

Community grants and promotions grants had the same set of criteria listed in the Grants Policy, but were assessed using an ‘assessment matrix’ unique to each grant.

It is recommended that a clear set of criteria are developed for each grants process.

Adjustments to criteria

The new criteria include assessing which of the four well-beings and three community outcomes benefit from each application. This enables a greater focus on well-being as a whole, and enables decision makers to easily see which mix of outcomes benefit from each grant funding round.

Both Council and Community Boards had a strong preference to keep criteria wide to encourage a wider variety of applicants to understand community need. The adjustments to the criteria have sought to ensure this remains in place.

Ability to agree priorities

The workshops with the four community boards highlighted the different needs of their respective communities.

The criteria have been set as a base set that apply fairly across the district to ensure equity, accountability, and fairness are maintained. The policy gives community boards the ability to agree priorities when specific areas of focus are identified.

In practise, these would likely be set at a workshop with each board each political term. They would then be added to our website, guidance documents, and other forms of communication with the community.

4. Financial Considerations

There are no changes to financial considerations as a result of these updates.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the updated Grants Policy.

Advantages:

· Applicant experience will be improved through simplification and clarification of the policy

· Financial requirements clarified

· Greater ability to assess impact on wider wellbeing

· Ability for specific Community Boards to proactively seek applicants with a particular focus if priority areas are identified

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages

Option 2

Do not approve the updated Grants Policy.

Advantages:

· No advantages

Disadvantages:

· Existing policy remains in place without taking elected member and staff feedback into account

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by growing and empowering individuals, groups, and the local environment through an effective contestable grants programme. This decision promotes the (social/cultural/economic/environmental) wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by funding specific initiatives aimed at enhancing one or more of the well-beings.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The Grants Policy is consistent with other Council plans and policies.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The Grants Policy enables communities to apply for funding toward environmental initiatives. The review enables greater focus on environmental well-being if required.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks identified in updating the policy.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Consultation is not required for this internal review. The current policy review is based on internal engagement with decision makers and relevant staff.

7. Next Steps

The next funding round will open in March 2022.

The updated policy will be published on council’s website and the guidance document will be finalised and published on council’s website.

The more complex and budget related matters raised by elected members during this review will be considered as part of the 2024-34 Long-term Plan process.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Grants Policy ⇩

Appendix 2 - Community Board and Council Grant Workshop Summary ⇩

Appendix 3 - Attachment detailing changes to criteria ⇩

Appendix 4 - Community and Promotions Fund Guidance Document for the community ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
12/01/2022	14/01/2022

26 January 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.1.6 Asset Management Policy

Doc ID: 564524

1. Purpose of Report

To consider adoption of the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

2. Background

Council’s current Asset Management Policy was adopted in 2014. The Asset Management Policy sets out key principles, responsibilities, and council’s approach to asset management.

The proposed policy has been aligned to the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment and Council’s outcomes and priorities.

The 2021 Asset Management Policy was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on December 3 2021.

The Audit and Risk Committee recommended that Council approve the 2021 Asset Management Policy with minor amendments which have been incorporated into the attached policy.

3. Discussion

The proposed 2021 Asset Management Policy (the Policy) has been updated in line with the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia’s International Infrastructure Management Manual and follows industry best practice. It is also aligned to the international asset management standard, ISO550.

This Policy applies to the following Council-owned assets and activities:

· Water Supply

· Wastewater

· Stormwater

· Transportation

· Parks and Aquatic Centres

· Property and Community Facilities

· Waste Management

The Policy provides the framework for Central Otago District Council to establish, maintain and improve its Asset Management System. It sets out Council’s commitment to managing its assets and asset-related services effectively and sustainably, to meet the needs of the community.

Figure 1 shows the scope of the planning documents in the Asset Management System (shaded) and how this interfaces with other key Council planning documents.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Scope of the Asset Management System (shaded)

The Policy sets out an improvement roadmap with key milestones identified through to December 2023. One of the key deliverables is development of draft activity management plans by June 2023 to support development of the infrastructure strategy and financial planning for the 2024-27 Long Term Plan and to support transition of three waters to a new entity.

4. Financial Considerations

Delivery of the improvement road map can be accommodated within existing Long-term Plan budgets.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council the adopts of the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

Advantages:

· Assets are managed in a sustainable, safe, cost-effective manner.

· Lifecycle costs are minimised while delivering agreed and affordable levels of service.

· Asset management activities are funded and delivered in a transparent and equitable manner.

· Asset management decision making is transparent.

· Strong collaboration between relevant staff and teams, effective working relationships, and information-sharing.

· Provides regular reporting on progress to the Audit and Risk Committee.

· Meets Audit New Zealand’s expectations and supports the annual reporting process.

Disadvantages:

· None identified.

Option 2

Council does not adopt the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· The current policy is outdated and does not align to the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment.

· Lack of more detailed framework to enhance collaboration between relevant staff.

· Lack of reporting to governance on achievement of improvement planning and development of the asset management plans.

· Risk that the management may not be consistent with best practice and Council expectations.

· Risk that asset management planning will not be undertaken in time to reliably inform the 2024 Long Term Plan, or support transition of three waters management to the new water entity.

· A potential lack of confidence by Audit New Zealand.

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 actively managing the physical infrastructure of the Council on their behalf.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The Policy is a revision of the current Asset Management Policy. The Policy maintains consistency with other Council policies and processes.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The asset management plans consider the implications to sustainability, environment and climate change impacts and enable these to be planned for.
Risks Analysis	This new policy supports best practice and mitigates financial and reputational risk by enabling robust asset management.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	No consultation is required as this decision is procedural and is not significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy

7. Next Steps

The Asset Management Working Group will be established and will begin working through the Improvement Roadmap in the Policy.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 2021 Asset Management Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
11/01/2022	13/01/2022

26 January 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.1.8 Financial Report For The Period Ending 30 November 2021

Doc ID: 562881

1. Purpose

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 30 November 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	5 MONTHS ENDING 30 NOVEMBER 2021					2021/22
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
33,270	Rates	14,380	14,315	65	˜	33,270
7,248	Govt Grants & Subsidies	7,519	7,450	69	˜	16,217
7,323	User Fees & Other	2,607	3,170	(563)	˜	7,866
17,286	Land Sales	-	4,750	(4,750)	˜	14,650
2,155	Regulatory Fees	1,406	1,143	263	˜	2,155
2,104	Development Contributions	1,046	877	169	˜	2,104
388	Interest & Dividends	41	161	(120)	˜	388
-	Reserves Contributions	135	-	135	˜	-
55	Other Capital Contributions	91	2	89	˜	55
69,829	Total Income	27,225	31,868	(4,643)	˜	76,705

	Expenditure
13,565	Staff	5,384	5,672	288	˜	13,529
587	Members Remuneration	217	245	28	˜	587
8,904	Contracts	3,752	3,665	(87)	˜	9,724
2,902	Professional Fees	1,131	1,665	534	˜	3,881
9,997	Depreciation	4,165	4,165	-	˜	9,997
13,926	Costs of Sales	2	100	98	˜	7,290
3,920	Refuse & Recycling Costs	1,368	1,417	49	˜	3,920
1,723	Repairs & Maintenance	651	717	66	˜	1,739
1,410	Electricity & Fuel	562	560	(2)	˜	1,410
652	Grants	415	380	(35)	˜	652
1,115	Technology Costs	336	473	137	˜	1,099
303	Projects	375	503	128	˜	1,206
639	Rates Expense	517	533	16	˜	634
423	Insurance	424	423	(1)	˜	423
2,037	Other Costs	651	851	200	˜	2,041
62,103	Total Expenses	19,950	21,369	1,419	˜	58,132

7,726	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	7,275	10,499	(3,224)		18,573

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for November 2021 show an overall unfavourable variance of ($3.224M). 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, technology costs and other costs.

Income of $27.225M against the year-to-date budget of $31.868M

Overall income has an unfavourable variance against the revised budget of ($4.643M). This is due to the timing of land sale revenue for the Dunstan Park subdivision and a parcel of Three Waters land with budgets not aligned to actual sales. This will be adjusted in the forecast to align budgets with adjusted timelines for sales.

The key variances are:

· Government grants and subsidies revenue of $7.519M is $69k favourable against budget. The main contributors for the variance relate to $501k Three -waters stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year and $207k for Tourism Infrastructure Funding (TIF) for the new Clyde toilet and the Miners Lane carpark. Reducing the favourable variance is ($874k) due to the timing of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) roading subsidy.

· User fees and other has an unfavourable variance of ($563k). Of this variance, ($309k) is due to the grants budget being budgeted in ‘other income’ rather than the correct place of grants and subsidies. This budget also includes the TIF funding for the new Clyde toilet and Miners Land carparks. These will be realigned when processing the February reforecast. Year-to-date revenue for this category is also down ($25k) in swimming pool admissions and ($194k) for water meter readings. The timing of water meter readings is now catching up to the budgeted timeline.

· Land sales has an unfavourable variance of ($4.75M). Dunstan Park land sales were budgeted to start coming through in November 2021. There has been a delay in issuing property titles until January or February 2022. Once the titles are issued both income and expenditure will be recognised in the financial statements. There is also some land within Three-waters, that is currently being prepared for sale.

· Regulatory fees have a favourable variance of $263k. This continues to be driven mainly by the timing of building consent revenue received, which year-to-date is $229k.

· Development contributions has a favourable timing variance of $169k. Areas ahead of budget include: District-wide roading of $83k, Alexandra wastewater $67k and Cromwell water $61k.

· Interest and dividends revenue is unfavourable against budget by ($120k). Market interest rates on term deposits continue to trend lower than budget.

· Reserve contributions has a favourable variance of $135k. These contributions are dependent on developers’ timeframes and therefore difficult to gauge when setting budgets.

Expenditure of $19.950M against the year-to-date budget of $21.369M

Expenditure has a favourable variance of $1.419M. The main drivers being staff, professional fees, technology costs, projects, and other costs.

The key variances are:

· Staff costs are favourable to budget by $288k. The is due to the timing of staff training, which is currently lagging behind the budget timeline. This includes conferences and planned attendance at workshops, travel and accommodation. Delays are due to the on-going impact of COVID-19. Recruitment expenses are also underbudget.

· Contracts have an unfavourable variance of ($87k). Contracts expenditure is determined by workflow and the time of the various activities. This means that the phased budgets will not necessarily align with actual expenditure, meaning some work appears favourable, and some activities year-to-date appear (unfavourable). Planned maintenance $144k; contracts ($193k); physical works contracts $208k, and roading contracts ($233k) are the key timing variances year-to-date. The contracts variance of ($193k) is being driven by Three-waters stimulus operational improvements projects. This is off-set by the Three-waters stimulus funding. Three-waters income and expenditure will be reflected in the February forecast.

· Professional fees have a favourable variance of $534k. This is due to timing with the major favourable variances being management consultants of $293k, engineering fees of $70k and network and asset management fees of $59k. 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 prepare the land for sale.

· Repairs and maintenance have a favourable variance of $66k. This is made up of the timing of various projects still to be completed as well as the building maintenance requirements.

· Technology costs are favourable to budget by $137k. This is mainly due to the timing of Information Services support requirements along with libraries annual Kotui subscription fee.

· Projects are also favourable at $128k. This variance relates to the phasing schedule for Tourism Central Otago projects. Additional resources have been acquired to assist with the delivery of these projects.

Other costs breakdown is as below:

2021/22		YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		2021/22
Annual Plan	Other Costs breakdown	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
534	Administrative Costs	132	216	84	˜	550
691	Office Expenses	237	289	52	˜	666
234	Operating Expenses	101	105	4	˜	234
327	Advertising	87	132	45	˜	329
175	Valuation Services	72	73	1	˜	175
76	Retail	22	36	14	˜	87
2,037	Total Other Costs	651	851	200		2,041

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

· Other costs have been configured to 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 November 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 $169k. This variance is due to development contributions received being higher than budgeted for. Contributions are linked with the timing of subdivision developments in Cromwell and Alexandra. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $61k. This department is fully on-charged as an overhead. The credit reflects lower than expected overhead expenditure.

· Roading – income has an unfavourable variance of ($854k). 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 unfavourable variance of ($66k). The capital work programme is currently behind with a favourable variance of $974k, which will ramp up over the summer season.

· Waste Management - income has an unfavourable variance of ($99k). User fee revenue of $503K is lower than budget but is on par with last years’ actuals of $509k. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($58k). Asset management costs have increased due to the development of the waste services tender. After the recent COVID-19 lockdown, Traffic management was required at the Bannockburn transfer station, to manage traffic and ensure the safety of the public accessing the site.

· 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 $190k. Driving this favourable variance is the timing of workplans and staffing requirements with underspends as follows: contracts $48k; other cost of $54k; grants $23k and staff costs of $52k.

· Corporate Services – income has a small favourable variance of $8k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $197k. There are underspends in computer maintenance and support $97k, professional fees $39k and contracts $23k. This appears to be timing.

· People and Culture – income has a small unfavourable variance of ($22k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $111k. Driving this favourable variance are underspends in human resources $41k, health and safety $19k, libraries $61k, and administration $14k. This is offset by an unfavourable variance in service centres of ($24k). Staff budgets in the Long-term Plan were consolidated into fewer cost centres. As a result, the actuals are not aligned with the budgets. This is currently being reviewed and will be corrected for the forecasts.

· CEO – has an unfavourable income variance of ($8k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $322k. This is mainly due to the timing and need for consultants of $146k, staff of $85k and other costs of $30k. The Wilding Pines annual grant budget of $20k has not been uplifted.

· Property – has an unfavourable income of ($4.049M). This is mainly due to the timing of the Dunstan Park subdivision sales that were budgeted to start in November 2021. As discussed earlier this has been delayed due the titles being issued and will now start in January and February 2022. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $118k made up of underspends in community buildings $87k, elderly persons housing $18k and airports $17k.

· Governance and Community Engagement – income has a favourable variance of $256k. This is due to the budget phasing of grants received in tourism, $365k of Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) funding and $1M from MBIE for Tourism Communities Support, Recovery and Re-set plan (SRR) funding. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $249k. There are underspends in promotions and tourism $98k, regional identity $63k, visitor centres $41k, governance $20k and economic development $10k. The promotions and tourism variance relates to the phasing schedule for Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Planning (Regulatory) – has a favourable income variance of $300k. This is mainly due to an increase in building permit revenue of $229k and resource management revenue of $52k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $179k. Most of this variance is due to timing and need-based requirements, including management and planning consultants of $61k; training and compliance costs of $45k and staff costs of $40k.

· Three Waters – income has an unfavourable variance of ($469k). This is due to the timing of the land sales ($750k) and metered water revenue ($195k) from expected budget. This is offset by the $4.2M of Three-waters stimulus funding carried over from the 2020/21 financial year combined with a reduction of the government grants and subsidies budget of $501k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $110k. Cost of sales variance of $100k relates to the land sales revenue. There is work being carried out to prepare the land for sale. Water and wastewater management fees are also lower than budget by $91k overall. Contracts has an unfavourable variance of ($90k), this is due to Three-waters stimulus operation improvements projects. These projects are being funded by the Three-waters stimulus funding.

Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date, 17% 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	419	4,691	4,272	˜	9,146	5%
382	Waste Management	274	913	639	˜	913	30%
-	i-SITEs	-	-	-	˜	4	0%
50	Customer Services and Administration	13	26	13	˜	62	21%
204	Vehicle Fleet	107	-	(107)	˜	256	42%
248	Planning	-	30	30	˜	348	0%
352	Information Services	101	343	242	˜	1,386	7%
164	Libraries	47	79	32	˜	512	9%
1,713	Parks and Recreation	501	1,509	1,008	˜	3,755	13%
7,420	Roading	2,338	3,312	974	˜	7,950	29%
14,243	Three Waters	7,183	16,208	9,025	˜	38,726	19%

30,834	Grand Total	10,983	27,111	16,128		63,058	17%

Council Property and Facilities $4.272M favourable against budget:

Cromwell Town Centre projects are driving the majority of this variance by $3.4M. Architects are currently working through the concept design stage along with workshops planned with stakeholders. This stage is due to be completed in April 2022. The work programme is currently in the design phase for the Cromwell Memorial Hall and Events Centre. The design for demolition and construction has now been awarded. Next steps include site survey and concept design workshops being held in January 2022. The Ophir Community Centre bathroom upgrade project was completed in November. The new Clyde toilets are progressing with the Lodge Lane toilets being installed and operational before the end of December. The Miners Lane toilets will not be operational until August 2022 when the Clyde wastewater reticulation system is complete.

Waste Management $639k favourable against budget:

The glass crushing plant project is behind budget by $109k. The transfer station reconfiguration projects are yet to start, contributing to $398k of the underspend.

Vehicle Fleet ($107k) unfavourable against budget:

Vehicle renewals and purchases are ahead of budget with 40% of the $256k total revised budget being already spent. The reforecast will re-align budgets with actuals.

Information Services $242k favourable against budget:

Information Services projects are behind budget. Projects include Geographic Information Services $82k, enhanced customer experience digital services $36k, enterprise resource planning information services $86k and financial performance improvement $27k.

Parks and Recreation $1.008M favourable against budget:

This favourable 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 is due for delivery in February 2022 with preliminary fitting work to be carried out in December 2021. This accounts for half of the capital budget variance.

Roading $974k favourable against budget:

Subsidised roading projects are behind budget, mainly due to delays in the capital programme and receiving the final funding allocations from Waka Kotahi. Subsidised roading projects that are behind the scheduled budget include: gravel renewals $456k; sealed road renewals $400k; and carpark renewals $353k. These works will ramp up over the summer construction season.

Three Waters is $9.025M 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.

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

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

External Loans

The total amount of external loans at the beginning of the financial year 2021/22 was $189k. As at 30 November 2021, the outstanding balance was $165k. Council has received $23k in principal payments and $4.2k in interest payments year-to-date.

Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2021 Actual Opening Balance	Principal	Interest	30 November 2021 Actual Closing Balance
Cromwell College	400,000	130,770	14,507	3,041	116,262
Maniototo Curling	160,000	35,662	5,646	696	30,015
Oturehua water	46,471	22,623	2,853	547	18,316
Total	606,471	189,054	23,006	4,284	164,593

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

Reserve Funds table

· As at 30 June 2021 the Council has an audited 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 audited 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 - Audited Council Wide Reserves 2021-22 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann McDowall	Leanne Macdonald
Finance Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
21/12/2021	21/12/2021

26 January 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.1.9 CouncilMARK programme

Doc ID: 565067

1. Purpose of Report

To provide further information on the CouncilMARK programme.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes the Mayor’s report containing the feedback received from a selection of mayors on their involvement in the programme.

C. Notes the November 2021 advice from staff remains unchanged regarding timing of participation in CouncilMARK insofar as it relates to the demand the wider reform programme is placing on the organisation.

D. If the Council was of a mind to proceed with participation in the CouncilMark Programme they direct the Chief Executive Officer to have a discussion on participation in this programme with the 2022-25 Council after a year in office (at the end of 2023/beginning of 2024).

2. Background

At the 3 November 2021 meeting, Council considered a report on the organisation participating in the CouncilMARK programme (refer to appendix 1). At the meeting councillors decided that the Mayor should seek further advice at a governance-level on the value of participating in the programme.

3. Discussion

The Mayor has since had several conversations with mayors from a range of councils (eg unitary, metro, rural) and has provided a report containing their feedback (refer to appendix 2). The feedback on the value on the programme is varied.

Officers view is that in a programme such as this, there is value if you commit the energy and resourcing to fully participate and there is a commitment to implement changes/improvements that come from it. Officers concern is not participating in the programme in itself, but adding this to an already heavy workload which the wider reform programme in particular is placing on the organisation.

Local Government New Zealand have advised that if Council were to proceed that this could be accommodated this year. However, they recommended that Council does not proceed with the programme in 2022 given it is an election year. There are two primary reasons for this. First, it binds a newly formed Council to implement actions from a review that they may not have all participated in. Second, there have been instances in the past of the results released just before an election being used as a platform during election campaigning, which detracts from the intent of the programme.

A recommended way forward could be for the Chief Executive to have a discussion with the 2022-25 Council after a year in office (at the end of 2023/beginning of 2024). By this time, the reform programme will be clearer (in particularly the review into the future for local government). In this discussion, the 2022-25 Council can discuss their appetite for the CouncilMARK programme, prioritisation of council’s work programme (what would come off or get deferred from the current work programme to enable full participation), budget and timing.

4. Financial Considerations

The direct financial cost in participate in the programme is a payment of $26,000 plus GST and disbursements. As part of the programme, Local Government New Zealand request councils to have a second review conducted three years later. This would cost a similar amount to the first review (with an inflation adjustment). There is no budget assigned for these costs in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. There will also be significant in-direct costs of staff and elected member time.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Directs the Chief Executive Officer to have a discussion on participation in this programme with the 2022-25 Council after a year in office (at the end of 2023/beginning of 2024).

Advantages:

· Enables the timing, budget and work programme adjustments that would be needed to be discussed with the 2022-25 Council.

· Does not bind the 2022-25 Council to a programme that they did not participate it and have governance oversight of.

Disadvantages:

· Does not meet the expectations from some members of the community for Council to participate in the programme in the more immediate future.

Option 2

Agrees to participate in the CouncilMARK programme and agrees to discuss budget, timing and reprioritisation of work programme commitments (or increasing staffing levels) at the March 2022 Council meeting.

Advantages:

· Meets the expectations from some members of the community for Council to participate in the programme in the more immediate future.

Disadvantages:

· There is no budget assigned for participation in the programme.

· There may be a negative perception in the community of delaying or stopping scheduled work to prioritise participation in the CouncilMARK programme.

· Binds the 2022-25 Council to oversee implementation of the outcomes of a programme that they may not have participated in.

Option 3

Agrees to not participate in the programme.

Advantages:

· All current work programmes committed to can be delivered as scheduled.

· No additional budget and resourcing required.

Disadvantages:

· Does not meet the expectations from some members of the community for Council to participate in the programme.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by considering a request for Council to conduct an organisation review by participating in the CouncilMARK programme.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommended option is not consistent with relevant plans and policies, particularly the commitments made under the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. In particular there is no budget assigned, and participation in the programme would likely delay work programmes agreed to in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no direct considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts.
Risks Analysis	There is a risk for the recommended option that it may be viewed by some members of the community as an unwillingness to partake in a review.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The recommended option does not meet the threshold of the Significance and Engagement Policy. If Council decides to progress with CouncilMARK and reprioritise or stop some projects, consultation with the community might be required dependant on what those projects are.

7. Next Steps

None required.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - CouncilMARK Report 03 Nov 2021 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Report on CouncilMARK from the Mayor ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Sanchia Jacobs
Chief Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
14/01/2022	17/01/2022

Audit and Risk Committee Minutes

3 December 2021

UNCONFIRMED

MINUTES OF Central Otago District Council
Audit and Risk Committee HELD IN Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building,

1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and livestreamed on microsoft teams
ON Friday, 3 December 2021 AT 9.30 am

PRESENT: Ms L Robertson (Chair), His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (via Microsoft Teams), Cr S Jeffery, Cr N McKinlay

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr I Cooney, S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), L Fleck (Executive Manager – People and Culture), G McFarlane (Business Risk and Procurement Manager), Q Penniall (Environmental Engineering Manager), I Evans (Water Services Manager), A McDowall (Finance Manager), A Crosbie (Senior Strategy Advisor), R Ennis (Health, Safety and Wellbeing Advisor) and R Williams (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the apology from Cr N Gillespie be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the public minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 1 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. The Mayor noted two changes to his declaration.

5 Reports

21.4.2 Policy Register

To consider the updated Policy and Strategy Register. The Committee requested that when due dates on the register changed, that this information was included on the register.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.3 Risk Register

To consider an update on the Risk Register. It was noted that the table included with the agenda was still in a work in progress and a further update would be provided at the February meeting. The committee complimented the work to date and suggested that in addition to the register presented a more high level dashboard document be developed.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.4 The Staff Delegations Manual

To receive the Staff Delegations Manual.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.5 Soft review of the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy and the Protected Disclosures (Whistle Blower) Policy

To consider the findings of the soft review of the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy and the Protected Disclosures (Whistle Blower) Policy.

During discussion a typographical error on fourth bullet point on page 4 of the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy was noted, with the word “risk” to be deleted. The committee also agreed that a statement about possible staff disciplinary action, if an investigation is found to be substantive, would be added to the policy.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Audit and Risk Committee

A. Receives the report.

B. Recommends to Council that they approve the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy with the amendments noted above.

Carried

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Audit and Risk Committee recommends to Council that they approve the Protected Disclosures (Whistle Blower) Policy.

Carried

21.4.6 Audit NZ and Internal Audit Update

To consider an update on the status of the external and internal audit programme and any outstanding actions for completed internal and external audits. It was agreed that estimated completion dates for each action would be included in future updates. The Committee also requested for the internal audit plan to be included as a standing agenda item at each meeting.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.7 Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2021

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 30 September 2021.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.8 Asset Management Policy

To review and recommend to Council that they approve the 2021 Asset Management Policy. Corrections to the document were noted, and the words “for renewal and operational parts of the Long-term Plan” were added to the Council responsibility section of table two in the policy.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Audit and Risk Committee

A. Receives the report.

B. Recommends to Council that they approve the 2021 Asset Management Policy with the above amendment.

Carried

21.4.9 Infrastructure Construction Projects Update

To consider monthly status reports for Clyde Wastewater and Lake Dunstan Water Supply projects and to provide an update on the implementation of project management software.

Staff tabled and spoke to a “Summary Status Report Dashboard” document before responding to questions.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

21.4.10 Health, Safety and Wellbeing

To provide with information on health, safety and wellbeing risks and controls at Central Otago District Council. The Chief Executive Officer provided an update on the organisation’s response and preparations under the COVID-19 protection framework.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Chair's Report

21.4.11 December 2021 Chair's Report

There was no Chair’s report.

7 Members' Reports

21.4.12 December Members' Reports

There were no members’ reports.

8 Status Reports

21.4.13 December Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, consider the Audit and Risk Committee’s forward work programme and the current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 25 February 2022.

10 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

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 of the Audit and Risk Committee	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)(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.)	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
21.4.14 - Litigation Register	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	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
21.4.15 - Otago Regional Council Issue of Abatement Notices	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	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
21.4.16 - December 2021 Confidential Governance Report	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	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 11.25 am and the meeting closed at 12.06 pm.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 26 January 2022
Date:	Wednesday, 26 January 2022
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

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Gabi McFarlane	Leanne Macdonald
Risk and Procurement Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
20/12/2021	11/01/2022

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Rebecca Williams	Sanchia Jacobs
Governance Manager	Chief Executive Officer
14/01/2022	18/01/2022