Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 9 March 2022

Council Meeting Agenda

9 March 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 microsoft teams ON Wednesday, 26 January 2022 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (Chairperson), Cr N Gillespie, Cr T Alley, Cr S Calvert (via Microsoft Teams), Cr L Claridge, 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, via Microsoft Teams), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), Q Penniall (Environmental Engineering Manager), A McDowall (Finance Manager), A Rodgers (Principal Policy Planner), T Bates (Property Officer), A Crosbie (Senior Policy Advisor), M De Cort (Communications Coordinator) and R Williams (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Jeffery

That the apology from Cr I Cooney be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Bess Carbine (Salvation Army), Pam Hughes (Central Otago Budgeting Services) and Sandra Schouten (Combined Churches Foodbank) spoke to the meeting about the services they provided and the issues being faced by the community before responding to questions.

Wayne Dixon (Central Lakes Equestrian Club) spoke to the meeting about the proposed conditions and changes to the licence to occupy the organisation had. He tabled and spoke to a document which outlined the background to the issue before responding to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: McKinlay

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 8 December 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

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

5 Reports

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

Note: Tim Church and Stephanie Griffiths from Boffa Miskell and Edward Guy from Rationale joined the meeting for item 22.1.2.

Note: The Mayor left the room at 11.53 am and returned at 11.55 am

22.1.2 Approval of Vincent Spatial Plan

To consider approval of Vincent Spatial Plan.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

B. Adopts the Vincent Spatial Plan.

Carried

22.1.3 Alexandra Airport Masterplan

To consider adopting the Alexandra Airport Masterplan. During discussion it was suggested that a business and financial strategy be developed to support the Masterplan and an additional resolution was included to give effect to this.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance

Carried

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

B. Adopts the proposed Alexandra Airport Masterplan.

C. That a business and financial strategy be developed to support the implementation of the Airport Masterplan.

Carried

22.1.4 Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy

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

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Laws

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

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12.46 pm and resumed at 1.15 pm.

Note: Cr Jeffery assumed the Chair as the Economic Development and Community Facilities Portfolio Lead.

22.1.5 Grants Policy Review

To consider updates to the Grants Policy ahead of the next funding round. During discussion minor typographical corrections were noted and it was agreed that the words “within Council’s allocated budgets” would be added to appendix four of the report.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Approves the updated Grants Policy.

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

22.1.6 Asset Management Policy

To consider adoption of the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

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

B. Approves the 2021 Asset Management Policy.

Carried

22.1.7 Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy

To consider an update to the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Recommends that Council adopt the Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy.

Carried

22.1.8 Financial Report For The Period Ending 30 November 2021

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

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Claridge

That the report be received.

Carried

22.1.9 CouncilMARK programme

To provide further information on the CouncilMARK programme. It was noted that Mr Hugh McIntyre and Mr Don Sparks had provided a written submission and further comments on this item.

There was discussion about when the item should be considered by Council following the election and the recommendation was updated from what was in the report.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

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. Directs the Chief Executive Officer to have a discussion on participation in this programme with the 2022-25 Council at the first meeting of 2023.

Carried with Crs Alley, Calvert, Claridge and Paterson voting against

6 Mayor’s Report

22.1.10 Mayor's Report

The Mayor spoke to his report, noting the impact of Covid-19. He also noted that applications for the 2022 Tuia programme were open.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

7 Status Reports

22.1.11 January 2022 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: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report.

B. Ratifies Central Otago District Council’s support for the Territorial Authorities’ Officers Forum’s submission on “Te kawe i haepapa para: Taking responsibility for our waste” consultation document.

C. Ratifies the Central Otago District Council’s submission to the Discussion Paper – Economic Regulation and Consumer Protection for Three Waters Services in New Zealand.

D. Ratifies the Central Otago District Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission on the Immigration Enquiry.

Carried

8 Committee Minutes

22.1.12 Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2021 be noted.

Carried

9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 9 March 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)(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
22.1.13 - January 2022 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
22.1.14 - Confidential Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 3 December 2021	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	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 2.28pm and the meeting closed at 2.30pm.

9 March 2022

5 Reports

22.2.2 Safer Speeds Bylaw

Doc ID: 568346

1. Purpose of Report

To consider approving the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Speed Limits Bylaw 2022 for public consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, and the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form and does not give rise to any implications under the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

C. Approves the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2022 for public consultation.

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

2. Background

Council can set speed limits under the Land Transport Act 1998 and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. There are requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 that must be met, including articulating the need for a bylaw over another mechanism and following the special consultative process.

Council adopted the current speed limit bylaw in 2007 which would be replaced by the new bylaw through this process.

There have been considerable changes in the district since speed limits were last reviewed. The high rate of growth has seen increased development and traffic on a number of rural residential roads.

Council has received a number of requests from the community, through service requests and community group feedback, to lower speed limits in particular locations, and increase safety for all road users, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Speed limits are set using methodology and guidelines developed by Waka Kotahi. This ensures speed limits are aligned across local authorities and provides consistency for road users.

The Government Policy Statement for Land Transport indicated a desire to reduce road trauma on New Zealand roads. This includes ensuring safe and appropriate speeds are in place, in addition to investing in road safety improvements.

3. Discussion

Section 155 analysis

Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to determine whether the use of a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

A bylaw is the only legal tool for implementing enforceable speed limits – it is, therefore, the appropriate mechanism for these changes.

Lowering speed limits is an appropriate response to the changing use of these streets and roads. Although lowering the speed limit will not always prevent an incident, reducing the speed reduces the consequences.

Other options have been considered, including:

· Changes to national legislation

· Changes to road condition and layout

· Behaviour-based interventions

Changes to national legislation

There are changes to national legislation proposed by Waka Kotahi through their speed review programme. These changes have a national focus, with the ability to input at a local level.

The changes are still undergoing consultation, with the extent of change and timeframes currently unclear. Given the level of uncertainty with this process, and the current and pressing safety concerns of excess speed for the changing road conditions, staff recommend proceeding with a bylaw. Council will continue to engage in the national process.

Changes to road condition, quality, and layout

Upgrading the Central Otago roads that are considered in this speed limit review to the conditions required to safely travel at higher speeds would be prohibitively expensive.

It would involve considerable physical changes to the road carriageway, and many of these roads would no longer be in keeping with the residential activity on adjoining land. The cost of such changes would greatly exceed allocated budgets with a limited impact on road safety.

Staff do not recommend pursuing extensive changes to road layout on the roads being considered to maintain current speed limits.

Behaviour-based interventions

Behaviour based interventions, managed by New Zealand Police and other safety partners, are not an adequate replacement for this bylaw.

Council works with the Police on known areas of issue and this work will continue.

The Roading team often receive complaints of perceived speeding from across the district. When investigating these complaints, typically there is high levels of compliance with the speed limits in place. These sites have then been included in the review for this bylaw.

Bill of Rights Act implications

The reduced speed limit will not restrict any of the rights or freedoms in the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Proposal process

It is proposed to introduce lower speeds in approximately 70 locations. The new speed limits would be in place from 00:01 on Thursday 1 September 2022.

The proposed locations were identified through a series of steps.

· The initial need was identified through services requests, discussions with the community, and staff consideration of the impact of growth.

· A specialist contractor, Abley Transportation, was engaged to provide expert analysis across all streets in Central Otago. Both computer modelling and field work were utilised to review road conditions in alignment with guidance from Waka Kotahi. The review process evaluated crash history, road conditions, growth, changes in the speed environment, and other factors. A series of speed limit changes were then recommended.

· Following receipt of the expert data, council’s roading team undertook a separate analysis to understand the local impact of the proposed changes. This included site visits of all locations, and changes to the proposals to take local factors and the physical environment into account.

The proposed changes were discussed with the relevant community boards. Further changes were made in response to the feedback from the community boards.

The next step is for Council to review the statement of proposal, and then community consultation.

Proposal

The bylaw proposes reducing speed limits at 70 sites – including whole streets, parts of streets, subdivisions, and the Naseby township.

Full details of the sites have been attached to this report in the Statement of Proposal: they have been listed by speed limit, by area, and illustrated in map format.

Significant changes include:

· A large portion of the changes are in rural residential areas where traffic, pedestrian, and cyclist volumes have increased due to housing growth. These roads previously had a 100km/hour speed limit.

· The Clyde Heritage Precinct is suited to a lower speed environment of 30km/h to enhance the use of space for pedestrians and cyclists. The design of improvements in this area includes traffic calming features that promote multi-modal transportation.

· In Naseby it is recommended to reduce speed to 40 km/h in the township which is consistent with a low-speed village setting. The roading in the Naseby township differs from a traditional urban environment with narrow streets, and no kerb and channel. Safety is improved by a reduction in speed in this setting.

· Reduced speed limits are proposed for two new subdivisions in Cromwell. The design of these developments suits a lower speed environment.

· Changes in Roxburgh East Road are in response to requests from the public.

An increased speed limit is on Ranfurly-Patearoa Road. The speed limit currently extends beyond the township by 200m. Moving the location of the open road speed limit to the town boundary will be consistent with other urban speed zones nationally and across the district.

School zone speed limits

Council have received requests to implement variable speed limit signs in school zones. This would limit speed limits outside schools for a maximum period of:

· 35 minutes before the start of school until the start of school

· 20 minutes at the end of school commencing no earlier than five minutes before the end of school

· 10 minutes at any other time of day when children cross the road or enter or leave vehicles at the roadside.

Under current legislation setting variable school speed limits is a lengthy process and requires approval from Waka Kotahi. Speed limits would be set to a minimum of 40 km/h.

The proposed Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2021 is under consultation and not yet operative. This is expected to be in place by mid-2022. The rule would require Council to introduce 30 km/h speed zones around schools within targeted timeframes. It would also significantly streamline the process to make the changes.

Council have received advice that these changes are expected ‘in the near future’. As a result, staff have not recommended changes to speed limits outside schools through the current bylaw process.

The documents to support consultation on a proposal for school zone speed limit changes have been prepared to enable this to be brought before Council and proceed as soon as the new speed limit rule becomes operative.

Consultative process

The special consultative process will be followed to ensure community feedback is captured and incorporated into the final Speed Limits Bylaw proposal.

Documentation will be provided to the community, including:

· A copy of the proposed bylaw

· A copy of the proposed new speed limit maps

· Copies of maps showing the existing speed limits for comparison

· Tables of all changes listed by speed limit

· Tables of all changes listed by township/area

· A statement of proposal

· A ‘frequently asked questions’ document

An engagement plan has been prepared to ensure as many members of the community as possible are aware of the consultation and have the opportunity to engage.

4. Financial Considerations

This process and any associated sign changes can be accommodated within existing budgets.

This bylaw is considered the most cost-effective approach to speed management.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the attached Statement of Proposal for consultation and appoint a hearings panel to hear submissions (if required).

The proposed bylaw reflects technical advice where appropriate speed interventions will increase public safety. It has received local input and analysis.

Advantages:

· Meets the legislative requirements

· Will increase public safety overall

· Addresses challenges to road safety posed by continued growth in the district

· Responds to community requests

· Includes expert technical analysis and local input

Disadvantages:

· There may be mixed views on whether reduced speed limits are appropriate.

Option 2

The proposed bylaw could be deferred awaiting the outcome of national legislative changes

Advantages:

· There is potential the changes could streamline the process for changing speed limits, leading to a simpler process to follow in the future

Disadvantages:

· Legislative change is likely to be slow and the extent of the changes is uncertain - the changes proposed through this bylaw are areas where expert analysis has determined change is needed in the short term.

· Safety concerns and appropriate speed limits would remain unaddressed with increased risk to the public.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by engaging with the community on proposed changes through the special consultative process. AND This decision promotes the social wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by increasing road safety and reducing associated harm.
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	No sustainability implications
Risks Analysis	The proposed bylaw seeks to reduce the risk to health and safety on the district roading network. There are no risks in the decision to send the bylaw out for consultation, other than continued compliance with relevant legislation.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Consultation is required under the Local Government Act 2002 and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

7. Next Steps

Following approval the proposed bylaw will be publicly notified following the special consultative procedure.

If a large number of submitters wish to be heard then a separate hearing will be held for this with the three nominated councillors. If there is a small number of submitters wishing to be heard then this may be able to be accommodated within the existing Council meeting schedule and submissions heard by the full Council. Staff will advise once the number of submissions is known.

The final version of the proposed bylaw will be presented to Council by 13 July 2022.

Implementation of physical changes would follow final adoption, with a tentative date of 1 August 2022 for the bylaw to come into effect.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Safe Speeds Bylaw 2022 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Central Otago Speed Limit Maps ⇩

Appendix 3 - Central Otago Speed Limit Maps with Aerial View ⇩

Appendix 4 - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Appendix 5 - Proposed and Existing Speed Limit Maps 1 ⇩

Appendix 6 - Proposed and Existing Speed Limit Maps 2 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Julie Muir
Senior Strategy Advisor	Executive Manager – Infrastructure Services
15/02/2022	25/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.3 Economic Development Work Programme Progress Report

Doc ID: 565831

1. Purpose

To provide an update on the implementation of the Economic Development Work programme for 2021/22.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Background

In August 2021, the Council received and adopted the Economic Development Work programme. The Plan outlined actions that the Council could take to support the district’s economy in a COVID-19 environment.

As part of the work programme, Council is to be updated on progress every six months. This is the first report back.

3. Discussion

Key updates

The international economy performed well in 2021 bouncing back strongly from the pandemic. However, it slowed towards the end of the year with the emergence of new COVID-19 variants. Looking forward, the World Bank expects the global economy in 2022 and 2023 to grow at slower rates than in 2021 as inflation hits consumers and governments reduce stimulus spending.

New Zealand’s economic performance was similar to the global economy: economic activity increased overall, in spite of a slowdown in the second half of the year. New Zealand’s average annual growth in GDP to September 2021 rose to 4.9%. This included the April – June quarter up 2.4% and the July – September quarter when economic activity fell by 3.7% due to the introduction of lockdowns from 18 August. The economy performed better than expected through the lockdowns with businesses better prepared second time around. October – December quarter results at time of writing are not know. However, Auckland and parts of Northland and Waikato were in lockdown over this period which will drag down the level of economic activity. Outside of geographic areas in lockdown, the economic impact has been felt more in specific sectors such as hospitality and tourism which missed Auckland visitors.

Nationally, consumer confidence is low due to the continued uncertainty regarding COVID-19, increasing interest rates and inflation. This is likely to continue as household mortgages are refixed at higher interest rates and the cost of goods remain high. Central government is looking to increase its spending in the economy as it delivers on its work programme. This combination of factors, in a market with existing capacity pressures for labour and resources, means there is a risk that inflation will increase further.

Border restrictions continue with the emergence of new COVID-19 variants. The Government is indicating there will be a staged border reopening during 2022. This will benefit employers requiring international staff and businesses dependent on international tourism. The international movement of goods by sea and air continues to be expensive and logistically difficult but there are signs of this improving.

Nationally, house prices rose 29% in 2021 and Treasury’s December economic prediction sees a 10% increase for 2022 and some major banks predicting a decrease in prices.

Westpac’s Regional Roundup December report noted that Otago as a region was still held back due to a lack of international tourism and Auckland, the region’s largest domestic market, being in lockdown. The outlook is brighter for the region moving in 2022.

Comparing card spending data in Central Otago with two years earlier (pre COVID-19) shows consumer spending over the last 12 months is at higher levels than pre-COVID-19.

Nationally, unemployment dropped to 3.4% in September 2021 and is expected to remain at a similarly low level through to 2023 and below 4% up until 2025. Labour supply is predicted to increase gradually over the next few years. Treasury expects migration numbers to remain below half pre-COVID-19 levels until 2025.

Unemployment levels in Central Otago have returned to low pre-COVID-19 levels of 1.9% in December 2021. The Ministry of Social Development’s number of registered Job Seekers in Central Otago has reduced to 81 in January 2022 from a peak of 273 during the first lockdown. Prior to COVID-19, job seeker numbers sat at around 70. It will be harder to get back to this level due to some of the eligibility criteria being relaxed, making more people eligible for the job seeker benefit.

Staff shortages are being experienced across most industries in Central Otago, both for seasonal and permanent roles. The most pronounced shortages have been felt in seasonal employment for the horticulture sector with many growers significantly short over the summer harvest. Labour supply is only expected to increase gradually over the next few years with Treasury expecting migration numbers remaining below half pre-covid levels up until 2025.

Progress on action plan

Key areas of work to date.

Workforce

Youth transitions

A collaborative working group has been established across Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes with representatives from Ministry of Education, local high schools, Ministry of Social Development, chambers of commerce, district councils, and industries. The purpose of the working group is to build a systematic approach to connecting Central Otago and Lakes District employers and the world of work with young people’s pathway to early adult life.

Horticulture and Viticulture Labour Market Survey

This report was commission by the Central Otago Labour Market Governance group and has been produced with Central Otago District Council contributing financial and project management support. The report provides an understanding of current and future seasonal and permanent labour market needs, along with planned plantings to inform future work. Key findings of the report (attached as appendix 2) included that grower provided accommodation has increased 82% over the last four years. The peak horticulture harvest period will see an increase in labour demand of 1,286 workers by 2025/26, with predicted viticulture increases for the same period of 241 workers at harvest. The report recommends raising the Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) cap; the provision of staff wellbeing workshops, advocating for continued government investment in training, and working with Ministry of Social Development to provide bespoke training programmes.

Internship programme

An internship programme is going to be established to support businesses in getting the skills and capacity they need through short term placements of tertiary students, while raising the profile of the district as a place to live. This programme of work will be progressed in 2022.

Seasonal Labour

Continued support has been provided to the horticulture and viticulture industries through involvement with industry groups, and the Spare room Spare time marketing campaign with support from Tourism Central Otago. The Spare room Spare time campaign complemented national and industry campaigns by focussing on locals as a solution to the seasonal work shortages. Locals were, if they had time, to take up seasonal work or, if they had a spare bed, to invite family members in from outside of Central Otago to come and stay and take up seasonal work. The year to date has been extremely challenging for growers competing in a much smaller pool of available workers, due to fewer backpackers being in the country and unusually low levels of unemployment.

Support for remote working

A course to support remote workers was trialled in Central Otago in August 2021. Options to support the provision of a co-working space in Central Otago to help remote workers and small businesses establish continues to be investigated.

Regional Skill Leadership group (RSLG)

The economic development manager has been appointed to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s Otago Regional Skills Leadership Group. The group is comprised of business leaders, iwi, union, and economic development representatives. The regional skills leadership groups have been established to “identify and support better ways of meeting future skills and workforce needs in our regions and cities. They are part of a joined-up approach to labour market planning which will see our workforce, education and immigration systems working together to better meet the differing skills needs across the country.” One of the key roles of this group is to create a labour market plan for Otago by mid-2022.

Teviot Valley Community Hub application

Support was provided to local horticultural employers in the Teviot Valley to apply for Ministry of Primary Industries Community Hub funding and on successful receipt of funding to support the establishment of a local group. The funding is to support resilience in rural communities and the attractiveness of the Teviot Valley as a place to live and work.

Productivity Commission’s review of immigration

The Policy and Strategy team made a submission on the Productivity Commission’s review of immigration considering the needs of council as an employer and the wider perspectives of our community and businesses.

Climate change and environment

Unlocking value from food waste

Council commissioned a report on Understanding Fruit Loss in Central Otago and published it in late 2021. The report is possibly the first of its kind for horticulture in New Zealand. It quantifies the amount of fruit loss (fruit produced that does not end up being consumed) in Central Otago. This includes unharvested and harvested fruit loss. Following the report, staff facilitated a workshop with stakeholders to establish next steps. These include understanding processing capacity and constraints in the district, identifying existing products globally that the produce could be made into, and understanding the opportunity to leverage existing brand and sales channels. Industry and private organisations have committed funds to support the next stages in this project. Further funding is being sought from central government.

Support industry to adapt to policy changes in water use

The setting of the Manuherekia Minimum flows by the Otago Regional Council has been delayed while additional science is sought, so no further work has been undertaken in this space since the last report.

Other

Otago Regional Economic Development (ORED) regional priorities

Council continues to work through this group to develop regional economic development priorities for Otago to help guide Central Government in this space and guide future collaborative work between economic development teams in Otago. Key priority action areas being explored with stakeholders are learning, food, collaboration, and lifetime value.

A detailed progress report on outstanding actions carried forward from the 2020-2021 recovery action plan is included as Appendix 1.

Next report back will be in August 2022.

4. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Economic Recovery Actions and updates ⇩

Appendix 2 - Central Otago Horticulture and Labour Survey ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Nick Lanham	Saskia Righarts
Economic Development Manager	Chief Advisor
22/02/2021	22/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.4 Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Doc ID: 565980

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the adoption of the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

2. Background

The Building Act 2004 requires each territorial authority to have a Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.

A territorial authority must review its policy every five years. However a policy does not cease to have effect if it is overdue for review or being reviewed.

On 8 December 2021, Council approved the proposed Dangerous and Insanitary Building policy for public consultation as part of this review.

3. Discussion

Following Council approval, consultation opened on 13 December 2021 and closed on 21 January 2022.

The policy was advertised in the Otago Daily Times, social media and was placed on Council’s website.

No submissions were received, consequently no hearing was required.

It is proposed that the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2022 (appendix 1) is adopted and replaces the existing policy.

4. Financial Considerations

Some minor costs were received as a result of the consultation requirements, which have been met within the current budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Adopt the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.

Advantages:

· Transparency of the processes for the community and expectations of building owners

· Building owners are informed regarding their responsibilities

· Compliance with the Building Act 2004

Disadvantages:

· Some costs for the administration of the consultation process

Option 2

Decline to adopt the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.

Advantages:

· No advantages have been identified

Disadvantages:

· The existing policy is not considered fit for purpose

· The existing policy does not meet the requirements of the Building Act 2004 regarding affected buildings

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring buildings in our community are safe and do not cause harm now or in the future while protecting our vast heritage.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes. This decision is consistent with the Central Otago Heritage Strategy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability or environmental implications of this decision identified.
Risks Analysis	There is a risk that the current policy is not fit for purpose if the policy is not adopted.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The policy provides a greater level of information for the community, with the impact of the changes being a low degree of significance when assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy.

7. Next Steps

If the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy is adopted, this decision would be advertised following the Local Government Act 2002 and placed on council’s website.

The policy would be due for a review within five years.

If the policy is not adopted, then further consultation may be required if amendments to the policy are required.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy 2022.docx ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Lee Webster	Louise van der Voort
Regulatory Services Manager	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
8/02/2022	24/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.5 Taumata Arowai Consultation January 2022

Doc ID: 571014

1. Purpose

To inform elected members of consultation documents recently circulated by Taumata Arowai.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

The Water Services Bill was passed in October 2021 with the new water regulator Taumata Arowai taking over the regulatory side of water supply from the Ministry of Health in November 2022. The Ministry of Health produced Drinking Water Standards are still in use until 1 July 2022. New draft standards and rules have been developed by Taumata Arowai, with consultation opening in January and ending on 28th March 2022. These standards and rules are largely technical in nature and are intended to provide guidance and direction around Water Safety Planning.

The documents listed below have been released for consultation. These are targeted at drinking water suppliers and the content that will guide the way safe drinking water is supplied across the country.

The documents have been developed in collaboration with sector reference groups from various supply types from across the country, along with international experts. The reference groups included representatives from Māori communities, rural agricultural water supplies and local authorities.

· Drinking Water Standards

The proposed Drinking Water Standards (the Standards) will replace the existing Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (revised 2018). These set limits for contaminants and other characteristics of drinking water.

The Standards apply to all drinking water supplies regardless of the nature of the source water and the number of people served by the supply

· Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules

The Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (the Rules) set out the requirements a drinking water supplier must comply with to ensure the drinking water they provide is safe. The Rules are ‘compliance rules’ for the purposes of the Water Services Act 2021.

To address the large variations across different kinds of drinking water supplies, the Rules are categorised into different drinking water supply types. These have different modules and complexities assigned to them.

· Drinking Water Aesthetic Values

The aesthetic values (properties) of drinking water affect its acceptability to consumers, and include its taste, odour, appearance. Consumers will often be more aware of these values than the health-related limits that influence the safety of drinking water.

Water is considered acceptable when its aesthetic values are not objectionable to most consumers.

· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Roof Water Supplies

Acceptable Solutions provide drinking water suppliers with an option to meet compliance obligations under the Water Services Act 2021. To date three Acceptable Solutions have been drafted that are currently being consulted on. Suppliers who opt to demonstrate compliance by this means may not need to submit a Water Safety Plan.

This Acceptable Solution can be used to demonstrate that certain roof water supplies comply with the requirements of the Water Services Act 2021. This Acceptable Solution may only be used where a networked community supply is not available to the buildings that will be supplied by the roof water supply.

It is estimated there are between be 10,000 – 30,000 roof water supplies in Aotearoa, including many marae.

· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Water Supplies

A number of marae, papakāinga, small communities, and camping grounds take drinking water from springs and bores and reticulate the drinking water to multiple properties. It is unknown exactly how many of these supplies exist in New Zealand.

This Acceptable Solution is designed for community water supplies where good quality spring or bore water is supplied to multiple dwellings and buildings.

· Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Water Supplies

Rural agricultural drinking water supplies primarily provide stock water or irrigation water and at least 65% of the total supply must be for this purpose. These supplies can also provide drinking water to houses connected to the stock water or irrigation supply, generally to a storage tank on the consumer’s property.

It is generally not economic to treat all water in a rural agricultural water supply at a centralised treatment plant. This Acceptable Solution provides a way of ensuring that households and other buildings supplied from a rural agricultural water supply receive water that complies with drinking water standards and is safe to drink.

It’s estimated there could be 300-500 rural agricultural water supplies in the country, with each one supplying between 10 to 2,500 people.

· Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance

The Water Services Act 2021 introduces new requirements to monitor and report on the environmental performance of certain drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater suppliers and their operators.

These requirements are designed to provide greater transparency about the performance of networks, the impacts they have on the environment and public health, and to contribute to the continuous and progressive improvement of the quality of water services.

This discussion document sets out a proposed approach for Taumata Arowai to commence monitoring the environmental performance of drinking water networks in mid-2022.

Staff are currently reviewing these documents with support from a consultant. The initial observations are:

· The proposed Drinking Water Standards have a totally different look and have been separated into standards, aesthetic values, drinking water quality assurance rules and acceptable solutions. Previously everything was in one document. This makes the documents more user friendly.

· More monitoring and proactive reporting of the data gathered will be required to Taumata Arowai. This is likely to require more resources in both staff time, and funding for capital upgrades.

· Many of the new requirements are best practice internationally and are bringing New Zealand in line with other developed countries.

· Some changes to compliance rules will require significant investment in assets which may not have been previously planned. For example, upgrading of bores, increased chlorine contact time.

· Some plants which currently comply with parts of the existing standards (e.g. bacteria compliance) will no longer be compliant from I July 2022. It is unlikely that the changes required at to comply can be achieved by 1 July 2022 as some will require investigation, trials, and purchase of specialist equipment.

· The wording in the standards has moved away from being a requirement to meet clearly set compliance rules to the water supplier ‘satisfying themselves’ that the water is always safe to drink. This shifts more risk onto the water supplier to be fully cognisant of all aspects of their water supply.

· Acceptable solutions can be used for supplies with less than 500 people. If followed, the supplier does not need to do a Water Safety Plan, but the requirements will require the supplier to ensure there is on-site treatment, storage provision, and ongoing maintenance.

· Currently three acceptable solutions have been published, however Taumata Arowai has stated that if there is demand, there could be others produced to suit. The three currently drafted cover ‘roof water supplies’, ‘trickle feed supplies’ (rural) and ‘spring and bore supplies. As mentioned, these are quite prescriptive, leaving little room for site/source specific decisions to be made by the water supplier. These documents need some refining to make them practicable for people to use.

· Some of the treatment options described for small supplies in the new assurance rules may be overly prescriptive. The options described are not considered overly practical. There is likely to be significant submissions made by councils on these rules.

· The Discussion Document describes performance measures that network suppliers need to report. While some of the items detailed are already included in council’s annual reporting there is a lot of additional information required. Some of this information will require more monitoring and extra resources to gather the data. Some of the requirements seem to be poorly thought through and will put an undue burden on council to collect this data.

A submission will be lodged by the due date of 28 March 2022. A draft of the submission will be circulated to councillors prior to this date, with ratification at the April Council meeting.

3. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ian Evans	Julie Muir
Water Services Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
22/02/2022	23/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.6 Emissions Trading Scheme Costs

Doc ID: 569989

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the cost increases associated with the Emissions Trading Scheme for 2021 and 2022.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves a budget increase of $103,000 for 2021, and $326,000 for 2022, for payment of increased emissions trading scheme costs to be funded from the sale of carbon credits.

2. Background

The purpose of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is to:

· Assist New Zealand to meet its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement.

· Help New Zealand to meet its 2050 emissions reduction target and annual emissions budgets.

The ETS helps reduce emissions by doing three main things:

I. Requiring businesses to measure and report on their greenhouse gas emissions

II. Requiring businesses to surrender one ‘emissions unit’ (known as an NZU) to the Government for each one tonne of emissions they emit

III. Limiting the number of NZUs available to emitters (i.e. that are supplied into the scheme).

Any individual or organisation can own NZUs. NZUs can be purchased directly from Government auctions or on the secondary market.

Prior to 2021, there was a fixed price at which emitters could buy NZUs from the Government. The fixed price system was replaced in 2021 by an auction system. The Government sets and reduces the number of units supplied into the scheme over time. The price for units reflects supply and demand in the scheme.

The 2021 auction system worked as follows:

· Auctions took place every 3 months in March, June, September, and December.

· Each auction had a fixed amount of 4.75 million units that could be purchased.

· There was a price floor of $20 per unit – they could not be sold for less than that amount.

· There was a cost containment reserve trigger price of $50 – if the bidding reached $50 per unit, an additional reserve of up to 7 million units (called the cost containment reserve) could be released, which was designed to meet the extra demand and reduce the price pressure.

· The clearing price is the price at which all of the units were sold. After bids were ordered from highest to lowest price, the clearing price was determined by the point at which the available auction volume was met by the quantity demanded bid volume.

The September 2021 auction saw strong demand from participants which resulted in the cost containment reserve price being triggered, and all 7 million units budgeted for 2021 in the cost containment reserve being sold. The clearing price was $53.85 per unit, up from $46 at the June auction and $36 at the March auction.

The fourth and final quarterly auction of 2021 was held on 1 December. The containment

reserve volume had been exhausted in the previous auction and was not available, limiting the available auction volume to 4.75 million NZUs. The auction clearing price in December was $68.00 per unit.

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

There is now risk in the carbon market that at the next auction on 16 March 2022, the Government’s seven million NZU cost-containment reserve for all of 2022 may be exhausted. If the reserve is exhausted in March, cost for the carbon price is likely to continue to increase, with three further auctions in 2022 under high demand due to the unavailability of any cost-containment reserve.

The NZU cost on the secondary market has also significantly increased. The price as of 18 February 2022 is $84.50 per unit.

Chart, line chart, scatter chart

Description automatically generated

3. Discussion

The Solid Waste Management Agreement with Queenstown Lakes District Council requires Central Otago District Council to pay any charges which Queenstown Lakes District Council is required to pay for waste sourced from Central Otago District Council.

The regulations for operating a disposal facility require the following formula to be used to calculate the total emissions E = (A – B) x C

A = Waste entering site (tonnes) 51,837

B = Waste diverted (tonnes) 0

C = Emissions factor 1.19

Therefore E = 61,686 tonne CO₂e

The annual submissions return for the year ending 31 December 2021 requires the surrender of 61,686 tonnes by Queenstown Lakes District Council, which includes Central Otago District Council’s contribution.

Queenstown Lakes District Council have calculated that 19.75% of the waste entering the Victoria Flats disposal facility in 2021 was attributable to the Central Otago District Council.

Central Otago District Council’s Emissions Trading Scheme obligation in 2021 is 12,183 units at an average ETS unit cost of $35.50 which is $432,439.70. The current budget is $330,335. This is $103,000 increase on budgeted cost.

Due to the significant increases in the price of units Queenstown Lakes District Council have been actively purchasing units. Queenstown Lakes District Council have secured enough units for the 2022 year. Some of the units were at a lower cost of $37.25, however, the remainder were bought at $71.15.

The estimated cost for 2022 Emissions Trading Scheme units for Central Otago’s waste, based on estimated volumes to landfill of 10,350 tonnes is 12,317 units. At an estimated average cost per unit of $53.70 the total Emissions Trading Scheme costs are $661,000. This is an increase of $326,000 over the current budget of $335,000.

The landfill gas capture and flaring system commissioned June 2021 total emissions at Victoria Flats landfill are expected to reduce. The methane from landfill is collected and combusted to produce carbon dioxide and water. After a full year of operation an assessment will be undertaken to establish a new emissions factor for the landfill. This will reduce the number of credits required by reducing the total emissions from 2023 onwards.

4. Financial Considerations

The Emissions Trading Scheme costs for 2018-2020 were:

· 2018 = $208,000

· 2019 = $260,000

· 2020 = $277,000

As the cost of purchasing units has increased significantly additional budget is required to enable payment. An additional $103,000 is required for the 2021 year and an estimated $326,000 for the 2022 year.

Council own approximately 122 hectares of commercial forestry blocks located near the townships of Roxburgh, Alexandra, Cromwell, Naseby and Ranfurly. The forests consist of predominantly Radiata Pine, along with two small areas of Corsican Pine.

Council have 11,000 carbon credits available from forestry. These are currently valued at approximately $900,000. It is proposed that the additional budget for Emissions Trading Scheme costs is funded from the sale of carbon credits. This will have no impact on the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve an unbudgeted overspend of $103,000 for the 2021 year Emission Trading Scheme costs. Increase the budget for 2022 by $326,000. The increased cost for 2021 and 2022 to be raised from the sale of carbon credits.

Advantages:

· Required to meet our obligations under the solid waste management agreement with Queenstown Lakes District Council.

· Value of carbon credits held by Central Otago District Council are worth more than credits obtained to meet ETS obligations.

Disadvantages:

· Sale of carbon credits will reduce the value of the asset

Option 2

Do not approve unbudgeted overspend of $103,000 for the 2021 year and $326,000 for the 2022 year for Emission Trading Scheme costs.

Advantages:

· None

Disadvantages:

· Non-payment to Queenstown Lakes District Council would breach waste management agreement, and could result in refusal to accept Central Otago material at Victoria Flat landfill.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by paying costs associated with CO₂ emissions.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The following Council polices were considered: · Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. · Long Term Plan
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Council’s emissions management and reduction plan projects will reduce waste to landfill and the associated emissions and disposal costs.
Risks Analysis	There is financial risk as the current approved budget for emissions trading scheme charges does not meet the actual cost.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The decision does not meet the significance threshold.

7. Next Steps

Arrange the sale of required carbon credits to meet increased Emissions Trading Scheme costs.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
25/02/2022	25/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.7 Review into the future for local government

Doc ID: 571421

1. Purpose

To consider the key questions in the interim report on the Review into the Future for Local Government and the key shifts the Panel believe are required in advance of a discussion with the Panel on 24 March 2022.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

There is significant reform currently underway in the local government sector. Proposals around the establishment of new entities to manage water are being progressed and legislation is advancing though the House to significantly reform the resource management space. Alongside these reforms in April 2021 the Minister for Local Government (the Honourable Nanaia Mahuta) announced a review into the future for local government.

The review was initiated in part by the local government sector response to the three waters reform and questions about what the sector would do to fill the vacuum once three waters is removed from its control. In addition, there were other significant drivers considered by the Minister in announcing this review. These include a significant change in demand on local government since the last significant reform in 1989, increasing funding and capability challenges in the sector, the increasing acknowledgment of local government’s responsibility under the Treaty of Waitangi, and the need to ensure the sector is fit for purpose for the next 30 years.

The Minister established an independent panel to provide her advice. Panel members include Jim Palmer, Penny Hulse, Gael Surgenor, Antoine Coffin and Brendan Boyle. Between them they have extensive senior local and central government experience. The Panel has been requested to think very broadly and imagine a future that ensures community well-being is front and centre.

Process

The process to provide their advice to the Minister is in three key stages, with the first stage completed in 2021. For the first stage they engaged with elected members and senior staff across the country to understand the current challenges and the opportunities. The Panel met with zone 5 and 6 in Dunedin on 1 July 2021. Following this engagement, the Panel produced an interim report (refer to Appendix 1). Stage two is currently underway, with the Panel engaging more broadly across the sector and with iwi. As part of this stage panel members are directly engaging with each council. Following this engagement, the Panel will release a draft report in September this year. The final stage will involve formal consultation on the draft report, with the final report due to the Minister in April 2023.

The interim report

In developing their thinking for the interim report, the Panel heard extensively from the sector around the challenges the sector faces. Some of the key challenges reported included funding challenges, unfunded mandates from central government, a lack of collaboration between local and central government, and capacity and capability challenges in the sector. The focus of the Panel is now on how the system responds to these challenges.

In September 2021 the Panel released their interim report. In their report they posed the following five priority questions:

1. How should the system of local governance be reshaped so it can adapt to future challenges and enable communities to thrive?

2.What are the future functions, roles and essential features of New Zealand’s system of local government?

3. How might a system of local governance embody authentic partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, creating conditions for shared prosperity and wellbeing?

4.What needs to change so local government and its leaders can best reflect and respond to the communities they serve?

5.What could change in local governance funding and financing to ensure viability and sustainability, fairness and equity, and maximum wellbeing?

They noted that:

“under the current system local authorities hold few of the levers that drive well-being and prosperity in their communities. Many of those levers are held by central government, the business sector, iwi or others. Future responses will require new approaches that bring together the many organisations that contribute to local well-being, to align and coordinate their responses to well-being issues.”

The five key shifts

Following the release of their interim report, the Panel has been researching and

discussing the five key questions, and have identified five key shifts they believe are required for a future system to better meet the needs of New Zealanders. These are:

1. Strengthened local democracy - from low public trust and participation in local government to renewal of local democracy that builds a foundation for the future of a strengthened and inclusive local democracy.

2. Stronger focus on wellbeing -from traditional focus on infrastructure service delivery to a focus on the complex wellbeing challenges of the 21st century, including economic and social equity and climate change action

3. Authentic relationship with hapū/iwi/māori - from relationships that are variable in understanding and commitment to an authentic relationship that enables self-determination, shared authority and prosperity

4. Genuine partnership between central government and local government -

from low trust and confidence in each other to genuine partners able to deliver

wellbeing outcomes locally

5. More equitable funding – from beneficiary-based funding principles to a funding system that equitably supports communities to thrive

Sector response to the interim report and the five key shifts

Some of the ideas from the sector to date include a new nationally funded model (or part funded), a house of mayors that sits in parliament and ensures the local impact of new legislation on local government is understood, amalgamation of some councils, shared services, shared purchasing, some professional appointments on councils, and a mentoring and a pay structure that attracts and retains elected members and encourages diversity.

It is clear, however, from their interim report and the five key shifts that the Panel is looking beyond fixed structures and roles, and is looking to design a new system built on relationships that is agile and sustainable. Their thinking is much broader than amalgamation, shared services or getting involved in new activities (e.g., housing, education); rather they are thinking about an integrated system that best delivers to the community and one in which there is true collaboration between agencies responsible for different aspects of the system.

Engagement with the Panel

On 24 March 2022, senior staff and elected members will have the opportunity to engage with members from the Panel. The Panel wish to hear views on the interim report and the five key shifts they believe are required. This is an opportunity for Central Otago District Council to have a strong constructive voice and influence the draft report due in September 2023. Following presentation of this paper at the Council meeting on 9 March, further material will be provided to facilitate a discussion on the five priority questions and shifts to prepare for the discussion with the Panel on 24 March 2022.

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Te Arotake - Future for Local Government Interim Report.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Sanchia Jacobs
Chief Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
25/02/2022	1/03/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.8 Council's role in affordable housing: Policy direction

Doc ID: 540804

1. Purpose of Report

To agree on the policy direction for Council’s role in affordable housing.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes the updated information on progressive home ownership (secure homes) and urban design innovation (promoting different housing typologies)

C. Notes that both the progressive home ownership (secure homes) and urban design innovation (promoting different housing typologies) models will likely promote affordable housing in Central Otago.

D. Agrees that council led developments should consider including provision for different housing typologies using the urban design innovation model, subject to market conditions.

E. Directs staff to produce a policy document that reflects this position.

F. Notes that the progressive home ownership model (secure homes) is not financially viable based on the current requirements of the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

G. Directs staff to apply for external funding to further explore opportunities to deliver affordable housing (such as the progressive home ownership model – secure homes).

H. Directs staff to work with sector partners in the region to build a full picture of the housing model for Central Otago and look for opportunities to collaborate to achieve better housing outcomes for the district.

2. Background

In identifying council’s role in housing, key stakeholders developed a comprehensive list of options as part of an investment logic mapping exercise in early 2020. These options included:

· Status quo

· District Plan Review - promoting infill and greater density

· Incentivise development (use of development contributions)

· Urban design innovation – increased density (promotion of different housing typologies in developments)

· Delivering affordable housing

· Progressive home ownership models (including, rent to buy, shared ownership and secure homes)

· Advocacy

· Elderly persons housing

· Transitional housing (short-term rentals)

· Abbeyfield developments

· Retirement villages

· Social housing

The outcomes of the investment logic mapping exercise were discussed with Council in March 2020. Council gave direction to investigate the following:

· District Plan Review – promoting infill and greater density

· Incentivise development (use of development contributions)

· Urban design innovation – increased density (promotion of different housing typologies in developments)

· Progressive home ownership models (including, rent to buy, shared ownership and secure homes)

At this workshop Council indicated a preference to keep the status quo for elderly persons housing (including retaining the current criteria). Council also indicated that there was not an appetite to investigate the other more socially focussed options (e.g. Abbeyfields and social housing) as these are catered for and best delivered by the social sector (i.e. Kāinga Ora).

While there was a delay agreed by Council in this project as a result of the dire economic outlook and predicted impact on the housing market of COVID-19 (which did not eventuate), the four focus areas have all been progressed since late 2020.

District Plan Review – promoting infill and greater density. This workstream has been picked up via District Plan Review work underway. Council signed off the District Plan Review work programme in March 2021. Included in this programme is development of spatial plans, which will ensure the anticipated growth is understood and land is appropriately zoned to accommodate the expected growth. Progress on the workstreams related to the housing work programme will be reported as part of this work.

Incentivise development (use of development contributions). This workstream was investigated as part of developing the Development Contributions Policy for the Long-term Plan 2021-31. On the advice received that the administrative burden would likely outweigh the benefits and that there are more effective ways to influence affordability, Council decided not to progress this option. The Development Contributions Policy was approved by Council on 30 June 2021.

Urban design innovation – increased density (promoting different housing typologies in developments). At the Council meeting in February 2021, Council received a report containing information on using urban design innovation as a mechanism to introduce more affordable housing options into the market. This information was based on the work done on the next stage of the Gair Avenue Development in Cromwell.

Progressive home ownership models (secure homes). At the same meeting in February 2021, Council heard from the Queenstown Lakes Community Affordable Housing Trust on their ‘secure homes’ model. At this meeting Council directed staff to work with the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to provide further advice on provision of an affordable homes model (such as the secure homes model) in Central Otago.

3. Discussion

Since February 2021 Council has had two workshops on housing. In March, Council was provided with further information on the operation of a ‘secure home’ model in Central Otago. In May Council received further advice on the urban design innovation – increased density option. A paper was due to be presented to the August 2021 Council meeting, but an opportunity to apply for funding to facilitate affordable housing arose via the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. The paper was deferred until the outcome of the application was known, and in late 2021 staff were advised that the application would not proceed through stage 2 due to a technical requirement that the developer fund the internal horizontal infrastructure. External funding was sought in this application to provide an avenue for the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to be established with minimal financial impact on the ratepayer.

This paper now brings together the remaining advice and suggests a policy position be developed.

Progressive home ownership models (‘secure homes’)

In March 2021, Council discussed some key considerations in provision of such a model in Central Otago and noted the context in this district is significantly different from Queenstown Lakes. The key considerations are summarised below:

Land and funding availability

To date the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust has received $30.9m worth of funding. This is comprised of $4.8m in Crown grants (15.5%), $24.4m from developers (79%) and $1.7m from Queenstown Lakes District Council (5.5%). For Central Otago there is no current mechanism to require developers to contribute to such a model. The successful Queenstown Lakes model has relied primarily on external funding, and council contributions has comprised very little of the total funding needed. Based on the Queenstown Lakes model of 5% of land (or cash equivalent) this would equate to approximately 8 homes between Gair Avenue and the Pines. The only residential zoned council land being developed is Gair Avenue in Cromwell and the Pines in Alexandra.

The Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust have indicated that in order to make it financially viable that 1/3 (1.5 hectares) of the next stage of Gair Avenue would be required to be gifted to the Trust. They require this amount of land to leverage funding to secure loans to build the houses. There is significant financial value in this land and the Cromwell Community Board is relying on land sales to help fund the Cromwell Masterplan programme of work.

The approximate bare land value of a 1/3 of Gair Avenue is $12,500,000. The value of the land will increase when horizontal infrastructure is put in. In addition to the value of the land, there would be other real costs council would face in the gifting of a parcel of land including consents, subdivision costs and horizontal infrastructure costs. None of these costs are currently budgeted for and would likely have a rates impact.

Inclusionary zoning

Historically the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust has relied on government provisions (such as being deemed a special housing area) to require contributions from developers. Developers have also provided land through the resource consenting process. Developers’ contributions comprise the greatest proportion of funding and/or land provided as detailed above. This contribution from developers has enabled the model to work. The mechanism to require Central Otago developers to provide a portion of land (or the cash equivalent) would be through inclusionary zoning provisions. No council to date in New Zealand has successfully implemented such provisions under the Resource Management Act 1991. Based on experiences of other councils, this process will require significant resource, will take an estimated minimum of two years’ time and will be costly. There is also significant risk of litigation from developers.

Problem definition, wage profile and criteria

To date Council has commissioned three market stocktakes that reveal Central Otago is on a ‘cusp’ of an affordability issue. That work has not resolved what problem a ‘secure homes’ model would be trying to solve and for whom. To understand this a needs analysis should be undertaken (currently unfunded in budgets), that includes key data such as a detailed wage profile and data on where the greatest need is (e.g., low wage workers, teachers, construction workers, lower paid health care workers). Such an analysis would then enable criteria to be developed that addressed the need. Establishment of clear criteria would be essential to ensure equity and fairness of this model and ensure transparency in the community.

Trust structure, processes and costs

Further work would need to be undertaken to understand the best Trust structure to oversee such a model, and work through some key considerations such as what the relationship with council should be and what would happen if the Trust was to be wound up. The costs, including the opportunity costs that gifting land has on other projects, needs further investigation. This costs analysis would include how the Trust is going to be staffed and funded on an ongoing basis and the funding mechanism to build the homes should Council proceed with a secure homes model.

Urban design innovation – increased density (promotion of different housing typologies in developments)

At the May Council meeting, Council was presented with a concept for promotion of different housing typologies in Council land developments. This work has its genesis in the Cromwell Masterplan programme of work. The Cromwell Masterplan work revealed that smaller and denser housing typologies are viable in the Cromwell market. Such housing developments should naturally be at a lower price point than larger homes and therefore more affordable (assuming standard construction and design). The challenge in provision of such housing to date is that it is largely untested in the market, though there has been some recent uptake. The concept is that Council leads the way, assumes the risk and develops council owned land promoting various typologies to suit the market, including more affordable options which incorporates good urban design elements (e.g. access to greenspaces, appropriate parking).

Housing types and price points

Under this proposal council land development could include a mix of four housing typologies, and the development would be staged so that plans can be amended if the market does not react as expected (ie, there is low uptake on the more affordable typologies or one of the more affordable typologies is unsuited to the area).

Detached housing – this is the typical development that currently occurs across in Central Otago. These are stand-alone dwellings that are either single or double storeyed. For a 400-450m2 lot size and a house size of 200m2 the total cost for the land and build is approximately $880,000 ($280,000 for the land and $600,000 for the house).

Semi-detached housing – these are either single or double storey dwellings that are on smaller sections (250-330m2 lot size) with an adjoining wall to a neighbouring property. For a 250m2 lot size and a house size of 130m2 the total cost is approximately $593,250 ($183,750 for the land and $409,500 for the house).

Terraced housing – these are houses that are two to three storeys on a smaller lot size than semi-detached sections (180m2 lot size) with adjoining wall(s) with neighbouring properties (100m2 house size). The total cost is approximately $463,050 ($132,300 for the land and $330,750 for the house).

Low rise apartments – these are two+ storeys approximately 80m2 on small lot sizes (60-90m2) with shared walls, and common car parking spaces and storage areas. The total cost is approximately $351,330 ($73,500 for the land and $277,830 for the house).

These above values are estimates only, and primarily due to COVID-19 construction costs are increasing at a rapid rate. Regardless of this increase, the relative difference between these difference typologies will remain (i.e., the cost of a detached house will likely remain at over three times the cost of an apartment). With a development utilising these different typologies Council would also need to consider whether to sell at cost or for a profit.

Summary

Ideas on how to deliver the urban design innovation workstream has been well developed with high-level concept plans drafted for the next stage of the Gair Avenue development. This model potentially serves as a blueprint on provision of affordable housing typologies for council-owned land developments. A policy that council-led developments should consider including provision for more affordable housing typologies would facilitate the provision of more affordable homes in the region.

In regard to progressive home ownership models, notwithstanding some of the issues to be worked through (primarily financial), the affordable homes model has been demonstrated to have had some success in Queenstown Lakes and there is merit in in this model. However, there is a significant financial hurdle to overcome. If council were to secure external funding this may make the secure homes model more viable in this region (with the remaining issues such as a needs assessment and working through the Trust structure not significant barriers to successfully progressing with the model). While council was unsuccessful in obtaining infrastructure acceleration funding, there was interest in the merits of the application and staff conversations continue to try and obtain external funding.

Housing levers across the district

In 2019 when Council agreed to progress housing work the specific focus of this work was on council’s role in housing. As part of the early investment logic mapping work, this work was framed around council’s levers and areas of current influence. Participants in this workshop included social services, members of the building industry, other funders and housing experts. While this work has not been conducted in a vacuum, there has not been significant interaction with other agencies following on from a 2020 Southern District Health Board organised housing workshop. In this workshop there was an expectation on council to invest in various initiatives and be a significant agency to help in financially ‘solving’ the issue.

In order to effectively lead a conversation with the community when these expectations exist among some, council’s position first needed working through and agreed. Pending Council direction and agreement of this policy at a future meeting, the proposed next step is to re-engage with key agencies and take a leadership position in working through what the full model looks like for the district. These conversations may lead to opportunities where partner agencies may be able to work together on solutions or otherwise facilitate more affordable housing for the district (eg advocacy). It may also be as part of this work there are other opportunities for council involvement that were not apparent in 2019 and explored as part of the investment logic mapping work. Such an approach in working on integrated solutions between local and central government and other key partners (e.g., iwi) should deliver better outcomes for the community. This approach is also consistent with the direction in the interim report released by Review in the Future for Local Government Panel.

4. Financial Considerations

Dependant on Council direction, there may be costs which will be further explored and reported back.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree that a policy be developed that states Council led developments should consider including provision for more affordable housing typologies through urban design innovation (promotion of different housing typologies) and agree external funding options are pursued to further investigate the viability of a progressive home ownership model (secure homes).

Advantages:

· Meets community expectations.

· Enables the programme of work to proceed.

· The work for the urban design innovation option has been well developed through the Cromwell Masterplan work programme and is ready to be implemented.

· Will provide affordable housing options to a number of people in the community.

· The sale of the land will result in a profit to Council and can be used to fund other projects.

· Enables external funding options to be pursued to further the investigation on the viability of a secure homes model in Central Otago.

Disadvantages:

· Does not meet the original request/expectations of the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

· There may be little market uptake (noting though there are mitigations in place if this were to occur).

· Pricing will be subject to market forces and will be on-sold at market rates

Option 2

Agree that a policy be developed that states Council led developments should consider including provision for more affordable housing typologies through urban design innovation (promotion of different housing typologies).

Advantages:

· Meets community expectations.

· Enables the programme of work to proceed.

· The work for the urban design innovation option has been well developed through the Cromwell Masterplan work programme and is ready to be implemented.

· Will provide affordable housing options to a number of people in the community.

· The sale of the land will result in a profit to Council and can be used to fund other projects.

· Enables external funding options to be pursued to further the investigation on the viability of a secure homes model in Central Otago.

Disadvantages:

· Does not meet the original request/expectations of the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

· Houses that are developed will be bought and sold on the open market.

Option 3

To agree that a policy be developed that states council led developments should consider including provision for affordable housing and that this is achieved through implementing a secure homes model.

Advantages:

· Meets expectations of the community and the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

· Will provide affordable housing to people in the community.

· Houses are retained by the Trust on sale and are not subject to market forces.

· Enables the work programme to proceed.

Disadvantages:

· There is work still to undertake and be considered before implementation (e.g. needs analysis, criteria development, inclusionary zoning work).

· The land requested is considerable to make the model viable and will come at considerable cost (or opportunity costs in other projects delayed or taken off the work programme).

· The work still to be undertaken is likely to be costly and take some time.

· The outcome is uncertain, especially in regard to the work required on inclusionary zoning and the risk of legal challenge is high.

· There will be likely ongoing operational costs for the ratepayer and opportunity costs for the gifted land (such as projects not able to proceed or increases to rates to fund these projects).

Option 4

Do not agree that council led developments should consider including provision for affordable housing using either the urban design innovation or progressive home models.

Advantages:

• None identified

Disadvantages:

• The community are likely to be dissatisfied.

• Council’s role in affordable housing will be limited to the district plan review work.

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 the provision of affordable housing options in Central Otago.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes this decision is consistent will all other council plans and policies.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no direct considerations as to sustainability as a consequence of this paper.
Risks Analysis	None identified (with the recommended option).
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	No consultation is required as a consequence of this paper. The final strategy/policy on housing is likely to require public consultation.

7. Next Steps

Dependent on Council direction staff will progress the development of the policy document for presentation to Council and inform the community boards who have developments currently underway.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Sanchia Jacobs
Chief Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
24/02/2022	28/02/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.9 William Fraser Office Renovation Project (Stage Six)

Doc ID: 560233

1. Purpose of Report

To consider additional funding of the William Fraser Office Renovation Project (stage six) to upgrade the main bathroom facilities of the building.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves additional funding of $177,000 towards the William Fraser Office Renovation Project (stage six) to upgrade the main bathroom facilities. This additional funding is to be drawn from District Reserves.

2. Background

The William Fraser Office Renovation Project (the project) was first budgeted for in 2014/15. The project aimed to address the need for additional desk space for increasing staff numbers and to provide a better work environment for staff and visitors.

The project was divided up into the following stages to enable the project to progress while staff occupied the building.

Stage	Area	Completed	Report to Council
1	Tourism Central Otago, communications, and reception	March 2019	20 March 2019
2	Planning and regulatory, and corporate services	May 2019	26 June 2019
3	Infrastructure	August 2019	25 September 2019
4	Governance	October 2019	11 March 2020
5	Staffroom	October 2020	3 February 2021
6	Main bathrooms, adjacent hallway, and emergency management office.	In progress

The previous reports to Council are attached in appendix 1.

At the end of stage five, the total cost of the construction was $1,088,359.

Stage six consists of the main bathrooms, adjacent hallway, and the office currently occupied emergency management. The hallway includes structural bracing elements required to obtain the code of compliance. The building consent is currently due to expire on 30 June 2022.

A budget of $250,000 was approved for year one of the Long-term Plan 2021/31 for stage six.

The budget was made up of:

Area	Cost Estimate	Date of cost estimate
Bathrooms	$180,000	2019
Adjacent hallway, and emergency management office.	$30,000	2020
Contingency (approximately 20%)	$40,000	2020
Total	$250,000

This budget was based upon the following concept design of a separate women’s and men’s toilet block with a shower in each, and a separate accessible toilet and shower room.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

3. Discussion

There has been a significant shift in construction costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There has also been a shift in bathroom design towards inclusive unisex as opposed to single-sex toilet designs. These points have led to three options for this project being contemplated – a review of each of the single-sex, unisex and minimal upgrade options.

Single-sex toilet design

A review of the single-sex toilet design above has been made. To provide more flexibility the urinals have been replaced with toilets in cubicles. This enables the bathrooms to switch between men's and ladies depending upon staffing levels. Current staffing is predominantly female within the building therefore the ladies would occupy the bathroom with the three toilet cubicles.

The updated cost estimate of the single-sex toilet design follows:

Area	Cost Estimate
Costs to date for design and quantity survey costs.	$12,450
Bathroom’s construction cost estimate.	$252,000
Adjacent hallway, and emergency management office.	$30,000
Contingency (approximately 20%)**	$50,550
TOTAL	$345,000

** Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost fluctuations for material and labour are unpredictable. Therefore, a high contingency remains applied to all project options

Unisex toilet design

Unisex toilets are becoming commonplace in commercial and central and local government buildings.

The advantages of a unisex bathroom design include:

· Greater flexibility to cater for fluctuations in the female vs male staff numbers.

· Unisex toilets allow for the greater inclusion of staff or visitors who identify as non-binary or transgender.

· Under the Human Rights Act 1993 it is unlawful to discriminate against anyone in New Zealand because of their sexual orientation or sex/gender identity.

· This is also consistent with Council’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Discrimination, harassment and Bullying Policy 2021, and the Health, Safety, and Well-being Policy 2020.

· Floor-to-ceiling cubicles are a compliance requirement in a unisex toilet. Floor-to-ceiling cubicles will add privacy, which makes for a make for a more comfortable user experience.

The resulting redesign and cost estimate follows:

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Item	Cost Estimate
Costs to date for design and quantity survey costs.	$12,450
Bathroom’s construction cost estimate.	$308,000
Update to engineering design	$5,000
Adjacent hallway, and emergency management office.	$30,000
Contingency (approximately 20%) **	$71,550
Total	$427,000

Additional budget of $82,000 is required to achieve a unisex toilet configuration compared with the updated cost of the single-sex configuration above.

Minimal upgrade to meet building consent requirements only

The minimal requirements of upgrade to the bathroom area to achieve code of compliance for the project are:

· The door entry from the hallway to the bathroom is upgraded to one which provides wider access.

· The two accessible toilets are upgraded to include higher toilet pans, basins within the cubicles, and replacement railings.

The cost estimate which includes repainting the bathrooms follows:

Area	Cost Estimate
Costs to date for design and quantity survey costs.	$12,450
Bathroom construction.	$51,000
Adjacent hallway, and emergency management office.	$30,000
Contingency (approximately 20%)**	$18,550
TOTAL	$112,000

4. Financial Considerations

It is proposed any additional budget is to be taken from District Reserves which is forecast be to in deficit of ($2,482,135) by the end of June 2022 due to work programme commitments made under the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. This amount excludes the proposal contained in this paper.

The William Fraser Building Investment Account is currently $328,784 in deficit. All increases in deficit incur interest, the total General Reserve is forecast to be fully in deficit by the end of 2021/22.

A FIN 105 Capex Increase Justification From in relation to this additional budget for the preferred option is attached. See Appendix 2.

5. Options

Option 1

To approve additional funding of $95,000 to achieve a single-sex toilet design. The additional funding will be taken from District Reserves, which is forecast be to in deficit of ($2,482,135) by the end of June 2022. This effect of this will be a deficit of ($2,577,135).

Advantages:

· Some flexibility to cater for fluctuations in the female versus male staff numbers.

· Less additional funding is required compared to Option 1.

· Two additional showers are achieved.

Disadvantages:

· A single-sex toilet design does not ensure all members of staff and visitors are catered for now and into the future.

· There will be some additional impact on future years for ratepayers in funding depreciation as the district reserves account is already in deficit.

Option 2 – (Recommended)

To approve additional funding of $177,000. The additional funding will be taken from District Reserves, is forecast be to in deficit of ($2,482,135) by the end of June 2022. This effect of this will be a deficit of ($2,659,135).

Advantages:

· Greatest flexibility to cater for fluctuations in the female versus male staff numbers.

· Allows for the greater inclusion of staff or visitors who identify as non-binary or transgender.

· Floor-to-ceiling cubicles will add privacy, which makes for a make for a more comfortable user experience.

· One additional shower is achieved.

Disadvantages:

· Additional costs on ratepayers compared to other options

· Additional costs increase the depreciation rate, which is used to reinstate the reserve balances over the life of the asset.

Options 3

To not approve additional funding. Upgrade to a minimal level to meet building consent conditions only.

Advantages:

· No additional costs due to increased deficits and therefore interest costs.

· No risk of extending the Council’s external debt requirements.

· No increase in depreciation costs.

· Allows for completion of the building consent.

Disadvantages:

· A minimal upgrade will leave the bathrooms dated and therefore another renovation will be required in the future.

· No additional showers for staff are achieved.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by and on behalf of communities, and promotes the social wellbeing of communities in the present and in the future, by future-proofing the redevelopment of the Alexandra Service Centre (William Fraser Building) to cater for fluctuations in female versus male staff numbers, and provide a facilitates that is welcoming to transgender and non-binary staff and visitors.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, this decision is consistent with the following Council Policies: - Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy 2021. - Health, Safety and Well-being Policy 2020.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	This decision does not impact the sustainability, environmental, and climate change of the district.
Risks Analysis	The health and safety requirements of construction will be managed by the contractor. There is currently one unisex toilet within the building. There is a risk in not accepting the recommendation of this report to create more unisex toilets that future dynamics of the workforce and staff are not well catered for and future changes to the toilet block will be required. Construction costs are currently very hard to predict. The quantity surveyor used in the preparation of this report commented “please note that currently the market is extremely volatile, and variances should be expected.”. While a high contingency has been allowed for, there is a risk that once this project has gone to market for tender that costs will be higher than the quantity surveyor has allowed for.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	None of the thresholds/criteria in Significance and Engagement Policy have been met or exceeded by the proposal and so the proposal is not considered significant.

7. Next Steps

· The additional budget is approved.

· Progress concept design to detailed design ready for building consent.

· Tender work.

· Construction.

· Code of Compliance obtained.

· Project completed.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Prior reports to Council. ⇩

Appendix 2 - FIN 105 form ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Christina Martin	Louise van der Voort
Property and Facilities Officer (Vincent and Teviot Valley)	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
13/01/2022	14/01/2022

9 March 2022

22.2.10 Application to Lease site at the Cromwell Wastewater Treatment Plant

Doc ID: 566333

1. Purpose of Report

To consider granting a lease to Climate Solutions Aotearoa Limited over part of Section 1 Survey Office Plan 20776 being part of the Cromwell Wastewater Treatment Plant land.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to grant Climate Solutions Aotearoa Limited a lease over approximately one hectare of the Cromwell Wastewater Treatment Plant land, being part of Section 1 Survey Office Plan 20776 (as shown in figure 1), for the purpose of establishing and operating an E-waste collection and material recovery business, on the following terms and conditions:

- Initial term: Five (5) Years

- Renewals: Three (3) Rights of Renewal of Five (5) Years each

- Rental: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

- Rent Reviews: On first renewal and two yearly thereafter

- Rent Review Methodology: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

- Area: Approximately 1 hectare

Subject to the Climate Solutions Aotearoa:

- Obtaining all consents and permits associated with the operation of the business.

- Erecting security (deer) fencing along the northern and eastern (internal) boundaries.

- Installing security (deer) gates to provide for access from Richards Beach Road and for exit via the unnamed road to the south of the lease area.

- Paying all costs associated with preparing the lease area for their purposes.

- Paying all costs associated with connecting the services and to utility networks.

- Not impacting on the day to day operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

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

2. Background

Climate Solutions Aotearoa Limited (the Company) is a newly registered company. The Company has developed a strategic plan for the purpose of operating in the E-waste (environmental waste) collection and material recovery industry.

The strategic plan identifies the Company’s core values as:

· Sustainability through ethical and environmental practices.

· Innovation through research and development in the renewable waste sector.

· Education by way of enhancing knowledge and skills.

· Integrity through honesty, decency, and trustworthiness.

· Diversity with respect for everyone.

The Company’s core purpose is identified in the plan as being:

“Improving soil & microbial activity utilising organic waste materials – to establish climate positive solutions”.

The Company’s 10 year goal is to create a multimillion dollar business producing worms, castings, and juice and by providing services such as education and consultation. The Company’s target market includes farmers, businesses, private individuals, retail, and councils.

Priorities at this point include finding and developing a site, obtaining the various consents and permits required to operate the business, and building brand awareness.

To operate effectively in the long term the Company require an industrial site of approximately one hectare.

A suitable site has been identified inside council’s wastewater treatment plant compound on Richard’s Beach Road. An overview of the site is shown below in figure 1.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Overview of proposed lease area on Section 1 SO 20776

3. Discussion

Site

The wastewater treatment plant is contained within Record of Title 127486. The land is described as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 20776 (Section 1) having a total area of 13.4505 hectares. The land is held in a fee simple title for the purpose of sewage treatment works.

The proposed site is on the south western corner of the treatment plant land. It is outside the operational area of the treatment plant and will not affect the day to day running of the wastewater treatment plant.

The site satisfies the criteria outlined in Company’s strategic business plan as it:

· is the required size (and there may be an opportunity to increase it in the future),

· is a secure, flat parcel of land,

· provides for heavy vehicle access,

· has services at the boundary.

An additional benefit of the proposed site is its proximity to the Otago Polytechnic’s

horticultural operation on Bannockburn Road. The Company plans to work closely with the

Polytech to educate them on the benefits of their processes.

Zoning, Permits, and Consents

Section 1 is identified on District Plan map 44 as designation 198. Designation 198 is

described in Schedule 19.2 Part B as being “Sewage Treatment and Building Line

Restriction”. The underlying zoning is rural resource area.

The building line restriction prohibits the construction of residential buildings within 150 metres of any oxidation pond or sewerage treatment facility.

As the proposed activity is a commercial venture, it does not breach the building line restriction.

The applicant is required to comply with the zoning and other provisions outlined in the District Plan. They are also responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and consents required to operate the venture at their own cost.

The Company’s Infrastructure

In addition to composting and worm farming infrastructure the Company also plan to have or construct the following on the site:

· Two 20,000 litre water tanks.

· A solar operated water pump.

· A shed/s to contain all equipment including a tractor.

· A small kiosk for retail sales of worm castings, worm juice, vegetables.

· Greenhouse(s) and/or tunnel(s) for growing vegetables.

Operational Benefits

There are many sustainability and environmental benefits associated with the Company’s operation. Aside from aligning with Council’s own waste management objectives, other benefits could/will include:

· Location – the site has separation from the township but is close to the Polytechnic.

· Education opportunities.

· Employment opportunities.

· An opportunity for Council to provide support to a new business entity.

Terms and Conditions

It is proposed that the lease be granted on the following terms:

Initial term: Five (5) Years

Renewals: Three (3) Rights of Renewal of Five (5) Years each

Rental: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

Rent Reviews: On first renewal and two yearly thereafter

Rent Review Methodology: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

Area: Approximately 1 hectare

It is further proposed that the lease be granted subject to the Company:

· Obtaining all consents and permits associated with the operation of the business.

· Erecting security (deer) fencing along the northern and eastern (internal) boundaries.

· Installing security (deer) gates to provide for access from Richards Beach Road and for exit via the unnamed road to the south of the lease area.

· Paying all costs associated with preparing the lease area for their purposes.

· Paying all costs associated with connecting the services and to utility networks.

· Not impacting on the day to day operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

4. Financial Considerations

The Company will be required to pay all costs associated with the establishment and the on-going operation of the business.

A desktop rental valuation has been requested from Quotable Value at a cost of $600 including GST. This is a standard fee associated with commercial leases. The fee has been paid for from the wastewater operational costs budgets.

The income generated (rent) will be credited to the wastewater operations account. It will be used to offset operational costs associated with the wastewater treatment plant.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree to grant Climate Solutions Aotearoa Limited a lease over approximately one hectare of the Cromwell Wastewater Treatment Plant land, being part of Section 1 Survey Office Plan 20776 (as shown in figure 1), for the purpose of establishing and operating an E-waste collection and material recovery business, on the following terms and conditions:

- Initial term: Five (5) Years

- Renewals: Three (3) Rights of Renewal of Five (5) Years each

- Rental: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

- Rent Reviews: On first renewal and two yearly thereafter

- Rent Review Methodology: Market Rental (at valuation by independent valuer)

- Area: Approximately 1 hectare

Subject to Climate Solutions Aotearoa:

- Obtaining all consents and permits associated with the operation of the business.

- Erecting security (deer) fencing along the northern and eastern (internal) boundaries.

- Installing security (deer) gates to provide for access from Richards Beach Road and for exit via the unnamed road to the south of the lease area.

- Paying all costs associated with preparing the lease area for their purposes.

- Paying all costs associated with connecting the services and to utility networks.

- Not impacting on the day to day operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

Advantages:

· Meets the requirements outlined in the Company’s strategic business plan.

· Access to the site can be granted immediately.

· The Company’s business activity aligns with Council’s waste management objectives.

· The lease area is in the immediate vicinity of the Otago Polytechnic’s horticultural operation.

· Provides for separation from residential areas.

· The operation is consistent with and will not impact on the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

· Income will be generated from the site.

Disadvantages:

· None, as the site is outside the operational area of the wastewater treatment plant.

Option 2

To not agree to grant a lease to Climate Solutions Aotearoa.

Advantages:

· The Cromwell wastewater site would remain dedicated to its current purpose.

Disadvantages:

· An opportunity to support a new business which aligns with Council’s waste management objectives would be lost.

· Income will not be generated from the site.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by assisting with the establishment of a business operation which aligns with Council’s own waste management objectives.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The lessee will be responsible for obtaining all consents and permits associated with the establishment and on-going operation of the business.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The proposed operation has many potential benefits relating to sustainability, the environment and climate change as it will manage waste which may otherwise have ended up in landfills.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks to Council are associated with the recommended option.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.

7. Next Steps

1. Lease drafted and executed: March 2022

2. Construction to commence: Immediately thereafter

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Louise van der Voort
Team Leader - Statutory Property Officer	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
24/02/2022	24/02/2022

Council meeting Agenda

9 March 2022

I. Statement of Financial Performance for the period ending 31 December 2021


2021/22	6 MONTHS ENDING 31 DECEMBER 2021					2021/22
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
33,270	Rates	17,141	17,093	48	˜	33,270
7,248	Govt Grants & Subsidies	7,911	8,710	(799)	˜	16,217
7,323	User Fees & Other	3,112	3,690	(578)	˜	7,866
17,286	Land Sales	-	4,750	(4,750)	˜	14,650
2,155	Regulatory Fees	1,585	1,175	410	˜	2,155
2,104	Development Contributions	1,063	1,052	11	˜	2,104
388	Interest & Dividends	45	194	(149)	˜	388
-	Reserves Contributions	171	-	171	˜	-
55	Other Capital Contributions	91	2	89	˜	55
69,829	Total Income	31,119	36,666	(5,547)	˜	76,705

	Expenditure
13,565	Staff	6,362	6,743	381	˜	13,529
587	Members Remuneration	260	294	34	˜	587
8,904	Contracts	4,441	5,292	851	˜	9,724
2,902	Professional Fees	1,529	1,966	437	˜	3,881
9,997	Depreciation	5,218	4,999	(219)	˜	9,997
13,926	Costs of Sales	2	100	98	˜	7,290
3,920	Refuse & Recycling Costs	1,550	1,718	168	˜	3,920
1,723	Repairs & Maintenance	763	863	100	˜	1,739
1,410	Electricity & Fuel	668	672	4	˜	1,410
-	Loss on Sale of Asset	262	-	(262)	˜	-
652	Grants	406	387	(19)	˜	652
1,115	Technology Costs	503	562	59	˜	1,099
303	Projects	473	603	130	˜	1,206
639	Rates Expense	533	532	(1)	˜	634
423	Insurance	448	423	(25)	˜	423
2,037	Other Costs	759	1,016	257	˜	2,041
62,103	Total Expenses	24,174	26,170	1,996	˜	58,132

7,726	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	6,945	10,496	(3,551)		18,573

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for December 2021 show an overall unfavourable variance of ($3.551M). The main driver is land sales with an unfavourable variance of ($4.75M). This is due to the Dunstan Park subdivision which revenue has been delayed pending the section titles being issued. Revenue has subsequently been received in January 2022.

Income of $31.119M against the year-to-date budget of $36.666M

Overall income has an unfavourable variance against the revised budget of ($5.54M). This relates to the timing of land sale revenue for the Dunstan Park subdivision as mentioned above and a parcel of Three Waters land. The budgets for these activities were loaded before the land sales timing was known. Other factors include the timing of the roading Waka Kotahi and other grants.

The main variances are:

· Government grants and subsidies revenue has an unfavourable variance of ($799k). The unfavourable variance is due to the timing of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) roading subsidy by ($968k). Subsidies are claimed for both the operational and capital roading work programmes. This is offset by revenue of $207k from Tourism Infrastructure Funding (TIF) for the new Clyde toilet and Miners Lane carparks. The budgets for these activities are included in ‘user fees and other’. This will be re-aligned in the next revision of the budget. There is a favourable variance for Tourism Central Otago funding of $166k, received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

· User fees and other has an unfavourable variance of ($578k). Of this variance, ($357k) is due to the grants budget being included in ‘other income’ rather than the correct place of ‘grants and subsidies’. This budget includes the TIF funding for the new Clyde toilet and Miners Lane carparks. As mentioned above, this will be corrected in the next revision of the budget. Year-to-date revenue for this category is also down ($25k) in swimming pool admissions and ($132k) for water meter readings. Water meter readings is believed to be a timing issue which is expected to correct as the year progresses.

· Land sales have not occurred within the budgeted timeframe. Part of this relates to land that Council agreed to sell as part of the long-term planning process. All other land sales from subdivisions will come through later in the financial year, when sold. The Dunstan Park subdivision sales will start showing in the January 2022 financials.

· Regulatory fees has a favourable variance of $410k. This variance continues to be driven by building consent revenue received, which year-to-date is $371k.

· Interest and dividends revenue is unfavourable against budget by ($149k). Interest rates received on term deposit investments are continuing to remain low, due to lower market interest rates.

· Reserves contributions has a favourable variance of $171k. These contributions are dependent on developers’ timeframes and therefore difficult to gauge when setting budgets.

Expenditure of $24.174M against the year-to-date budget of $26.17M

Expenditure has a favourable variance of $1.99M. The main drivers behind the favourable variance are contracts, staff, professional fees, and other costs. Offsetting this favourable variance is the loss on sale of assets and depreciation.

The main variances are:

· Staff costs has a favourable variance of $381k. The is due in part to the lag between staff movement and the replacement of new staff, plus the relevant recruitment costs. It also includes staff training, made up of conferences and planned attendance at workshops, travel and accommodation. Attendance and travel plans have been delayed due to the on-going impact of COVID-19.

· Contracts has a favourable variance of $851k. Contract expenditure is determined by workflow and the time of the contract. The outcome of this is that the phased budgets will not necessarily align with actual expenditure, meaning some work appears favourable, and some contracts spend year-to-date appear (unfavourable). Planned maintenance $164k; contracts $682k; physical works contract $236k; and roading contracts ($229k) are the key timing variances year-to-date. The contracts variance of $682k is being driven by the timing of the Three Waters Stimulus operational improvements projects. Three Waters income and expenditure will be reflected in the February 2022 forecast.

· Professional fees has a favourable variance of $437k. This is similar to contract expenditure where budget and actuals do not align throughout the year but typically align by the end of year. Major variances include: asset management plans and management costs ($75k); engineers fees $82k; management consultants $312k; planning consultants $82k and recoverable professional fees ($130k). The asset management plans and management costs variance of ($75k) relates to the waste services contract that is currently under review.

· Depreciation has an unfavourable variance of ($219k), mainly due to a difference between the actual and budgeted wastewater depreciation. This variance is being investigated in more depth. It is likely due to the timing of project stages and carry forwards impacting on the budget systems automation for calculating the depreciation. Wastewater also reflects the updated valuations which occurred after the Long-term Plan was approved. This will be corrected in the Annual Plan 2022/23. Areas with major variances include: libraries ($31k); information services ($33k); parks reserves recreation $226k; property $38k; wastewater ($293k); and waste management ($42k).

· Refuse and recycling costs has a favourable variance of $168k, due to the timing of waste and recycling processing costs. These will fluctuate against the budget from time to time.

· Repairs and maintenance has a favourable variance of $100k, mainly due to the timing of various projects as well as building maintenance requirements.

· Loss on sale of asset has an unfavourable variance of ($262k). This is due to the disposal of District Rural Fire building assets to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as part of Council resolution 21.2.6 dated March 2021. This includes the Omakau Fire Depot and the Tarras Fire Station.

· Projects has a favourable variance of $130k, due to the phasing schedule of Tourism Central Otago 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
535	Administrative Costs	156	265	109	˜	550
690	Office Expenses	270	341	71	˜	666
234	Operating Expenses	109	126	17	˜	234
327	Advertising	111	154	43	˜	329
175	Valuation Services	86	88	2	˜	175
76	Retail	27	42	15	˜	87
2,037	Total Other Costs	759	1,016	257		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.

II. Profit and Loss by Activity for the period ending 31 December 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 $11k. Development contributions received are higher than budgeted. Contributions are linked with the timing of subdivision developments in Cromwell and Alexandra. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $70k, giving an overall surplus of $81k. This department is fully on-charged as an overhead. The $70k credit reflects lower than expected overhead expenditure.

· Roading – income has an unfavourable variance of ($975k). This is predominately 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 ($64k). The capital work programme is currently behind with a favourable variance of $957k.

· Waste Management - income has an unfavourable variance of ($93k). User fee revenue of $558k is lower than budget, though remains on par with last years’ actuals of $542k. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($42k). Asset management costs have increased by ($96k) due to the waste services tender that is being reviewed, along with additional traffic management that was needed early in the financial year. Depreciation has also increased year-to-date by ($42k). This is offset by the timing of waste and recycling processing costs by $171k.

· Parks and Recreation – income has an unfavourable variance of ($7k). Swimming pool revenue is still trending lower than budget, this has not been helped by COVID-19 restrictions. This is offset by Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) responsible camping funding carried over from the prior year. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $427k. A large portion of this is due to depreciation being $226k lower than budget. The remaining favourable variance is due to the timing of workplans and staffing requirements with underspends in: contracts $64k; other costs $32k; grants $25k; and staff costs $55k.

· Corporate Services – income has a small favourable variance of $9k. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($150k). This is mainly due to a ($262k) loss of sale of assets from the disposal of District Rural Fire building assets to FENZ as part of Council resolution 21.2.6 dated March 2021. This includes the Omakau Fire Depot and the Tarras Fire Station. The loss is offset by underspends in computer maintenance and support $23k, professional fees $34k and contracts $31k.

· People and Culture – income has an unfavourable variance of ($26k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $93k. Driving the favourable variance are underspends in human resources $54k, health and safety $25k and libraries $44k. This is offset by an unfavourable variance in service centres of ($28k). Staff budgets in the Long-term Plan were consolidated into fewer costs centre. As a result, the actuals are not aligned with the budgets. This is currently being reviewed and will be corrected for the forecasts.

· CEO – income has a minor unfavourable variance of ($9k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $373k. This is mainly due to the timing and need for: consultants $170k, staff costs $108k and other costs $31k. Also the Wilding Pines annual grant of $20k has not been uplifted.

· Property – income has an unfavourable variance of ($4.06M). This is due to the timing of the Dunstan Park subdivision sales that were budgeted to start in November. Sales are starting to come through in January 2021 and the forecast will update the budget timeline. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $206k. This is made up of underspends in community buildings $93k, commercial and other property $75k, airports $48k and elderly person housing $41k.

· Governance and Community Engagement – income has a favourable variance of $225k. This continues to be driven by the budget phasing of tourism grants, in particular Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP), Tourism Communities Support and Recovery and Re-set plan (SRR) funding. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $307k. This is due to underspends in promotions and tourism $135k, governance $37k, community development $27k, visitor centres $38k and regional identity $67k. The promotions and tourism variance relates to the phasing schedule for the Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Planning (Regulatory) – has a favourable income variance of $466k. This is mainly due to an increase in building permit revenue of $371k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $168k. This is due to the timing and need of training and compliance costs $50k, staff costs $43k and contracts $35k.

· Three Waters – income has an unfavourable variance of ($1.16M). This is mainly due the timing of grants ($245k), metered water sales ($132k) and land sales of ($750k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $596k. Driving this favourable variance is contracts by $766k; cost of sales $100k and professional fees $94k. This is offset by higher than budgeted depreciation of ($363k).

Council meeting Agenda

9 March 2022

III. Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date, 21% of the total capital spend against the full year’s revised capital budget, has been expensed.

Due to supply chain and resource issues related to COVID-19, the capital works programme is behind the revised annual plan schedule. Staff plan to have the second budget revision for this financial year to Council in April 2022, assuming there are no significant impacts from Omicron and its effect on staffing levels within Central Otago District Council.

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	626	4,699	4,073	˜	9,146	7%
382	Waste Management	336	913	577	˜	913	37%
-	i-SITEs	-	4	4	˜	4	0%
50	Customer Services and Administration	14	31	17	˜	62	23%
204	Vehicle Fleet	107	-	(107)	˜	256	42%
248	Planning	-	35	35	˜	348	0%
352	Information Services	129	455	326	˜	1,386	9%
164	Libraries	57	93	36	˜	512	11%
1,713	Parks and Recreation	505	1,685	1,180	˜	3,755	13%
7,420	Roading	3,018	3,975	957	˜	7,950	38%
14,243	Three Waters	8,751	19,568	10,817	˜	38,726	23%

30,834	Grand Total	13,543	31,458	17,915		63,058	21%

Council Property and Facilities $4.07M favourable against budget:

Cromwell Town Centre projects are driving the majority of this variance by $3.4M. The work programme is currently in the design phase for the Cromwell Memorial Hall and Events Centre. Next steps include site survey and concept design workshops being held in January 2022. The new Clyde toilets are progressing with the Lodge Lane toilets in operation and Miners Lane toilets will be operational in August 2022 when the Clyde wastewater reticulation system is complete. Other areas behind budget include airports $20k, council offices $281k and elderly person housing $150k.

Waste Management $577k favourable against budget:

The glass crushing plant project is behind budget by $47k. 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 42% of the $256k total revised budget being already spent. The timing will balance out by end-of-year.

Information Services $326k favourable against budget:

Information Services projects are behind budget. Projects include Geographic Information Services $82k, enhanced customer experience digital services $19k, enterprise resource planning information services $150k and financial performance improvement $36k.

Parks and Recreation $1.18M 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 accounts for half of the capital budget variance. It has been ordered and is due for delivery in February 2022. The preliminary fitting work was to be carried out in December 2021.

Roading $957k favourable against budget:

Roading projects are behind, this is mainly due to the timing of the capital programme which tend to ramp up over the summer construction season. Projects include footpath renewals $70k, carpark renewals $224k, structures renewals $233k and sealed road renewals $558k.

Three Waters is $10.8M favourable against budget:

The favourable variance is due to the timing of construction projects. The main drivers include the Lake Dunstan water supply $4.2M, water treatment plant and capacity upgrades $2.6M, water supply renewals $791k and water stimulus fund projects $1.5M. The Clyde wastewater reticulation network construction is progressing well.

IV. Statement of Financial Position

The Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) is a new report which will be included in the reports to both Council and to the Audit and Risk Committee. It is included to show the comparisons between actual and budget. Below the financial position is a table summarising the reserves and the cash balances. This gives assurance that there are available funds to meet the cash financial reserve balances typically included in Council’s set of financial reports.

2020/21 Actual	2020/21 YTD December Actual	STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION	2021/22 YTD December Actual	2021/22 Revised Budget	2021/22 Annual Plan
$000	$000	for the period ended 31 December 2021	$000	$000	$000
		EQUITY
392,456	382,902	Ratepayers equity	404,206	414,890	393,593
12,321	8,492	Surplus/(Deficit)	6,945	18,491	7,644
7,035	14,442	Council Reserves	7,603	4,258	4,178
487,465	483,494	Property revaluation reserve	487,393	496,629	496,629
(17)	(20)	Investment shares fair value revaluation reserve	(17)	(20)	(20)
80	80	Restricted reserves	80	80	80
899,340	889,390	Total equity	906,210	934,328	902,104
		REPRESENTED BY:
		Current assets
6,514	9,931	Cash and cash equivalents	4,802	19,896	19,896
10,000	11,000	Other financial assets	6,000	8,000	8,000
4,852	34	Receivables	483	3,171	3,171
-	-	Non Current assets held for sale	-	-	-
5,394	1,543	Inventories	6,613	1,509	1,509
-	-	Investment Bond	-	625	625
26,760	22,508	Total current assets	17,898	33,201	33,201
		Less current liabilities
256	295	Agency and deposits	509	273	273
13,254	3,401	Payables and deferred revenue	5,126	4,705	4,705
673	654	Employee entitlements	777	1,010	1,010
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	-	-	-
14,183	4,350	Total current liabilities	6,412	5,988	5,988
12,577	18,158	Working capital	11,486	27,213	27,213
		Non-current assets
111	109	Available for sale financial assets	111	109	109
282	317	Loans and receivables	254	333	333
26,030	21,739	Work in Progress	37,400	63,058	30,834
852,712	846,195	Property, plant and equipment	849,328	864,309	864,309
1,272	845	Intangible assets	1,275	2,271	2,271
431	355	Forestry assets	431	357	357
5,925	1,675	Investment property	5,925	1,683	1,683
886,763	871,235	Total non-current assets	894,724	932,120	899,896
		Less non-current liabilities
-	3	Provisions	-	5	5
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	-	25,000	25,000
-	3	Total non-current liabilities	-	25,005	25,005

899,340	889,390	Net assets (assets minus liabilities)	906,210	934,328	902,104
* year-to-date actual values are subject to change and are only indicative of the end of year totals.

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

V. 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)

VI. External Loans

The total amount of external loans at the beginning of the financial year 2021-22 was $189k. As at 31 December 2021, the outstanding balance was $161k. Council has received $27k in principal payments and $4.9k in interest payments.

Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2021 Actual Opening Balance	Principal	Interest	30 December 2021 Actual Closing Balance
Cromwell College	400,000	130,770	17,451	3,607	113,318
Maniototo Curling	160,000	35,662	6,790	821	28,872
Oturehua Water	46,471	22,623	2,853	548	19,770
	606,471	189,055	27,094	4,976	161,960

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 reflects 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).

VII. Interim Performance Measures as at 31 December 2021

A summary of the individual interim performance measure results, as at 31 December 2021, are included below.

The details of the measures and explanations for why some targets are not predicting to be 100% complete is contained in the activity sections in the attached Appendix 2. Some of the results are identified through the annual survey scheduled for later in the financial year and this means that for the December results there is no percentage achieved. Also of note is that the results are very black and white, and there is no room to reflect the positive progress, or ‘nearly there’ results, hence the narrative in the comments field will provide the detail behind some of these results.

Activities	No. of measures	Achieved as at 31 Dec 2021	% Achieved	End of Year Forecast	% End of Year Forecast
Water	9	6	67%	8	89%
Wastewater	8	7	88%	6	75%
Stormwater	8	1	13%	8	100%
Roading	7	6	86%	6	86%
Environmental Services	4	1	25%	1	25%
Planning, Regulatory & Community Development	8	4	50%	6	75%
Pools, Parks & Cemeteries	6	2	33%	2	33%
Property & Community Facilities	6	4	67%	4	67%
Service Centres & Libraries	7	0	0%	3	43%
Regional Identity, Tourism & Economic Development	6	2	33%	4	67%
Governance & Corporate Services	4	3	75%	4	100%
	73	36	49%	52	71%

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Reserves 2021_22 .pdf ⇩

Appendix 2 - Performance Measures - Interim.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

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

9 March 2022

22.2.12 Appointments to External Bodies

Doc ID: 567871

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the Council’s appointments to external organisations.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees that the delegations register is updated to remove the Alexandra District Museum Inc. from the list of external appointments.

C. Work with the committees of Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group and the Maniototo Curling International to change its representative roles to liaison positions.

2. Background

Section 10 of the Local Government Act (the Act) sets out “the purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.”

At the beginning of each triennium, Council and each community board appoints members to external committees and organisations where the relationship has been formalised. These appointments vary from appointing the chairperson and trustees through to liaison positions.

This report follows on from a series of workshops held with Council and each board in 2021 and provides an opportunity to consider what appointments are made to external organisations, including the type of appointment.

A similar report has been presented, and approved by, each of the boards in the current meeting round.

Conflicts of Interest

The Office of the Auditor-General has provided good practice guidelines called “Managing conflicts of interest: A guide for the public sector.”

In this, the Office of the Auditor-General notes that there are different types of conflicts:

· Financial conflict of interest

· Non-financial conflicts of interest

· Conflicts of roles

· Pre-determination

The guide states that the public need to be confident that decisions of public entities (which includes Council and the community boards):

· are made impartially and for the right reasons; and

· are not influenced by personal interests or ulterior motives.

This means that the Council, and its members, need to identify and manage any conflicts of interest for each decision made.

Liaison vs Representative Positions

Liaison positions provide a formal contact from Council to external organisations. However, the function is that of liaison only. This means that the role does not have voting rights on the external organisation and although the role may attend some meetings of the external group, it is not a requirement to attend them all unless both parties consider it to be mutually beneficial. Liaison positions can generally participate in discussions and vote on topics relevant to the external organisation at council meetings without creating a conflict of interest, however members should monitor this and not participate in any item where they think a conflict may exist.

Representative positions are a formal member of the governing body of the external organisation. This means that the role should attend all meetings of the external body and has voting rights. It also means that the individual would have very limited opportunity to participate in discussions and voting relating to the external organisation at council meetings, without creating a conflict of interest.

Existing Appointments

At the beginning of the 2019-2022 triennium, the Council made the following appointments to external organisations:

· Otago Regional Transport Committee – one representative

· Central Otago Health Inc. – one representative

· Otago Museum Trust – a Clutha District Council’s nominee

· Alexandra District Museum Inc. (Central Stories) – one representative

· Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group – one representative

· Maniototo Curling International – one representative

3. Discussion

The Council has relationships with a number of external organisations and special interest groups. Over time, the Council has formalised the relationship with some of these organisations through appointing liaison or representative positions to the external organisation.

Council is also required to appoint representatives to some organisations, such as the Otago Regional Transport Committee.

Given the potential for creating conflict of interests during decision making at Council meetings, it is recommended that appointments to external organisations are generally liaison positions, rather than formal representatives, unless there is good reason not to. This would allow the formal relationships to continue, while minimising the risk of creating a conflict.

During discussion at the workshop, it was noted that there was no longer a need to have a representative on the committee for the Alexandra District Museum Inc. and that it could be removed from the list.

It was also agreed that the Council would discuss their role with the Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group and the Maniototo Curling International to suggest that these appointments become liaison positions, rather than representatives.

4. Financial Considerations

There are no financial considerations arising from this report.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

That the delegations register is updated to remove the Alexandra District Museum Inc. from the list of external appointments.

That the Council work with the committees of Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group and the Maniototo Curling International to change its representative roles to liaison positions.

Advantages:

· These changes would reduce the potential of creating conflicts of interest and would be more in line with the Office of the Auditor-General guidelines.

· Relationships with external organisations would be maintained in an appropriate manner.

Disadvantages:

· There is the potential for organisations to see the proposed changes as a “downgrading” of their relationship with the Council.

Option 2

Make no changes.

Advantages:

· Relationships would continue as they have in the past.

Disadvantages:

· Known conflicts of interest would continue to exist and require ongoing careful management.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by ensuring the Community Board fulfills its role set out in s52 of the Local Government Act. AND This decision promotes the social/cultural/economic/environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by forming appropriate relationships with organisations that work to enhance the wellbeing of the District.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommended option is consistent with all other Council plans and policies.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no implications created by the recommended option.
Risks Analysis	The recommended option aims to minimise the risk to Council of poorly managed conflicts of interest, whilst maintaining strong relationships with external organisations.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The recommended option does not meet the threshold of the Significance and Engagement Policy. If the Board agrees with the recommended option, discussion with the affected external organisations will take place.

7. Next Steps

Once a decision has been made, discussion will take place with the external organisations where changes are proposed. The list of appointments to external organisations will be updated for the new triennium.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Rebecca Williams	Sanchia Jacobs
Governance Manager	Chief Executive Officer
10/02/2022	22/02/2022


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 9 March 2022
Date:	Wednesday, 9 March 2022
Time:	10.30 am
Location:	Microsoft Teams and Live Streamed (Unless there is a move from the current Red Alert level, in which case it may be held in Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra. In both cases, due to COVID-19 restrictions and limitations of the physical space, public access will be available through a live stream of the meeting. The link to the live stream will be available on the Central Otago District Council's website.)
Sanchia Jacobs Chief Executive Officer