Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 1 June 2022

Council Meeting Agenda

1 June 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 live streamed via microsoft teams
ON Wednesday, 27 April 2022 COMMENCING AT 10.33 am

PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (via Microsoft Teams), Cr N Gillespie (Chair), Cr T Alley, Cr S Calvert (via Microsoft Teams), Cr S Duncan (via Microsoft Teams), Cr S Jeffery, Cr C Laws (via Microsoft Teams), Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson, Cr T Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE: S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), I Evans (Water Services Manager), L Stronach (Team Leader – Statutory Property), G Bailey, (Park and Reserves Manager), A Mason (Media and Marketing Manager), M Potter (TCO Marketing & Event Support), A Crosbie (Senior Strategy Advisor) (via Microsoft Teams), D Rushbrook (General Manager, Tourism Central Otago), A Longman (Destination Development & Marketing), J Remnant (Property and Facilities Officer – Māniatoto), D Shaw (Emergency Manager, Central Otago), A McDowall (Finance Manager), M De Cort (Communications Coordinator), R Williams (Community Development Advisor) and W McEnteer (Governance Manager)

Note: His Worship the Mayor attended the meeting via Microsoft Teams. In accordance with Standing Order 13.10, Cr Gillespie chaired the meeting.

1 Apologies

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That an apology from Cr Cooney and Cr Claridge and an apology for early departure from Cr Calvert be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Rachel Wesley – Chief Executive Officer, Aukaha Ltd.

Ms Wesley spoke in favour of the relationship agreement between Aukaha and Central Otago District Council that was to be considered later in the meeting. She then responded to questions.

Maxine Williams and Jamie Richards - WoolOn

Ms Williams and Ms Richards spoke to their report back from the 2021 WoolOn event. They noted that the 2022 event had been cancelled and the time would be spent rebuilding and raising funds. They then responded to questions.

Michael Singleton – Project Director, Central Otago and Shane Vuletich – Managing Director, Fresh Info

Mr Singleton and Mr Vuletich gave an update of current work on the proposed airport at Tarras. They also updated timelines on the airport proposal. They then responded to questions.

Jo Broughton - Chair, New Zealand Chinese Language Week Charitable Trust

Ms Broughton spoke to the upcoming Chinese Language Week in 2022 and reflected on the success of the 2021 event. She also mentioned that she was looking for a contact at Council in the lead up to the 2022 event. His Worship agreed to this role.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 9 March 2022 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. Cr Paterson declared an interest in item 22.3.18.

5 Reports

Note: Cr McKinlay assumed the Chair as the Three Waters and Waste portfolio lead.

22.3.2 Request for Information from Director General of Health regarding Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies

To provide an update on the Ministry of Health’s implementation for the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: McPherson

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr Paterson assumed the Chair as the Roading portfolio deputy lead.

22.3.3 Proposed Road Stopping - Unnamed Unformed Road off Poole Road (previously known as/part of Boundary Road).

To consider a proposal to stop an unnamed unformed road off Poole Road in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Approves the proposal to stop the unnamed unformed road off the northern end of Poole Road, subject to:

- The provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

- The public notification process outlined in the same Act.

- No objections being received within the public notification period.

- The Road being surveyed into three parcels as shown in figure 11 (overview of proposed stopping).

- The area marked “A” in figure 11, being stopped, classified as recreation reserve, then amalgamated with Lot 24 DP 3194 in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

- The areas marked “B” and “C” in figure 11, being stopped, classified as recreation reserve, then vested in the Central Otago District Council in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited being registered over the areas marked “A”, “B”, and “C”, as shown in figure 11 to protect the infrastructure identified in figure 13.

- The costs outlined in table 1 being paid from the Dunstan Park Development account.

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

Carried

Note: Cr Jeffery assumed the Chair as the Economic Development and Community Facilities portfolio lead.

22.3.4 Request for Minister of Conservation's Consent to the Granting of an Easement over Local Purpose Reserve [PRO: 65-7027-E1]

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of an easement (in gross) to Aurora Energy over Part Section 142 Block I Teviot Survey District being the Roxburgh Local Purpose (Public Utility) Reserve.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

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

B. Agrees grant the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of an easement (in gross) over Part Section 142 Block I Teviot Survey District to Aurora Energy Limited.

Carried

22.3.5 Request for Minister of Conservation's Consent to the Granting of an Easement over Scenic Reserve [PRO: 65-3000-E1]

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of the right to resurvey and increase the footprint of an existing easement (in gross) to Aurora Energy over Lot 7 DP 433991 being part of the Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

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

B. Agrees grant the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of the right to increase the footprint of an existing easement (in gross), to legalise the existing infrastructure, and to provide for the installation of an additional electrical cable, over Lot 7 DP 433991, being part of the Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve, to Aurora Energy Limited.

Carried

22.3.6 Alexandra Rugby Football Club Power Account

To consider a request from the Alexandra Rugby Football Club for reimbursement of a proportion of historical electricity invoices.

Resolution

Moved: Paterson

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

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

B. Approves the Alexandra Rugby Football Club’s request for compensation for historical electricity invoices of $10,000.

C. Approves $10,000 from the Molyneux Park charge account to action payment of recommendation B.

Carried

22.3.7 Grant report back - WoolOn 2021

To consider a report back from WoolOn Creative and Fashion Society Inc for a grant received to hold the WoolOn Fashion event 2021.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Alley

That the report be received.

Carried

22.3.8 Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy

To consider readopting the Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy for a further five year period.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the Easter Sunday Local Shop Trading Policy.

Carried

22.3.9 Adoption of Central Otago Destination Management Plan

To adopt the Central Otago Destination Management Plan as the agreed approach for the district to manage its’ tourism future.

It was noted that there were some typographical errors in the document and that staff would fix those errors prior to publication.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Approves the Central Otago Destination Management Plan.

C. Adopts the Central Otago Destination Management Plan.

Carried

22.3.10 Otago Museum's Draft Annual Plan 2022-2023

To present the 2022/2023 Draft Annual Plan from the Otago Museum Trust Board for review and feedback, and to consider their request for a three percent increase on the annual levy charged to this Council.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to fund the proposed levy increase of three percent in 2022/23 for the Otago Museum (an additional $1,025, which will increase the payment from $31,502 to $32,527).

C. Notes that the existing budget accommodates $630 of the increase and the remaining $395 will be funded from operational savings within the activity’s budget.

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12:34 pm and resumed at 1.05 pm.

Note: Cr Gillespie resumed the Chair.

22.3.11 Central Otago District Council's Relationship with Aukaha

To consider a draft partnership protocol with Aukaha Ltd.

After discussion it was agreed that the resolution should reflect that the funds being allocated were for the 2022/23 financial year only.

The vote was taken by a show of hands and was carried by six votes to four.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to formalise its relationship with mana whenua through a partnership protocol agreement with Aukaha Ltd.

C. Endorses the draft partnership protocol, as attached as appendix two to the report.

D. Agrees to allocate $70,000 towards the agreement in the 2022-23 financial year, with $35,000 coming from existing budgets and $35,000 included as new expenditure.

Carried with Councillors Duncan, Laws and McKinlay recording their vote against

Note: Cr Calvert left the meeting at 2.08 pm.

22.3.12 Engaging with the community over the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust's request for a gift of land to establish a 'secure homes' model

To consider the plan to engage with the community on the request from the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust for Council to gift them land to establish a ‘secure homes’ scheme in the region.

After discussion it was agreed that targeted engagement for Vincent and Cromwell wards would not occur and engagement would be district wide and through normal channels.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Agrees on the engagement plan as amended to hear the views of the community about the request from the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust for Council to gift land to enable the establishment of a ‘secure homes’ scheme.

Carried with Councillor McKinlay recording his vote against

22.3.13 Elderly Persons Housing Rent Review

To advise of the impact of the rent review for Council’s Elderly Persons Units for 2022/2023.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Paterson

That the report be received.

Carried

22.3.14 RECOMMENDATION OF APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL CIVIL DEFENCE CONTROLLER

To consider supporting a recommendation to the Otago Group Manager of Civil Defence Emergency Management to appoint Dylan Rushbrook as a local controller.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

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

B. Recommends to the Otago Civil Defence Emergency Group Manager that Dylan Rushbrook (General Manager Tourism Central Otago) be appointed as a Local Civil Defence Controller (statutory position).

Carried

22.3.15 Financial Report For The Period Ending 28 February 2022

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 28 February 2022.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the report be received.

Carried

22.3.16 Second Revision of the 2021-22 Annual Budget

To consider a second revised budget for the financial year 2021/22. The revision includes Council resolutions approved through-out the year.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Authorises the increased operational spend of $377k (Appendix 1), noting:

· Governance and Community Engagement $26k additional election expenditure from district reserves for year one of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. Year two’s annual costs will reduce by the same value, replenishing the reserve (balanced budget).

· People & Culture $13k use of district reserves arising from COVID-19 related expenditure in Health and Safety along with a slight increase in depreciation and yellow pages costs.

· Three-waters $53k is a revision phasing error and will correct by the end of the financial year and not use reserves.

· $293k increase in Waste Management, which has been approved in previous Council resolutions, and $103k of the requested district reserves will be reimbursed upon the sale of carbon credits.

· $46k use of Vincent general reserves for additional contract expenditure for the Clyde Museum as approved by the Vincent Community Board.

C. Authorises the increased capital spend of $1.89m (Appendix 2), noting:

· Council Property activity of $159k been authorised through the various community boards.

· Roading has been funded from Waka Kotahi funding.

· Three-waters net increase in expenditure of $1.569M has been approved by Council during the year.

Carried

22.3.17 Order of Candidate Names on Voting Papers for the 2022 Triennial COUNCIL Elections

To consider the order of candidate names on voting papers for local authority elections in October 2022.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

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

B. Agrees that the candidate names on voting papers for the Central Otago District Council 2022 triennial elections and any subsequent by-elections within the triennium appear in random order.

Carried

Note: Cr Paterson declared an interest in item 22.3.18. She withdrew from discussion and did not vote on the item.

22.3.18 Central Otago Health Incorporated Elections

To consider conducting and funding the elections within the Central Otago District area to elect board members for Central Otago Health Incorporated. These elections will be held in conjunction with local authority triennial elections in October of this year.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

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

B. Note that Council has supported the running of and funded the Central Otago District proportion of Central Otago Health Incorporated’s elections since 2001.

C. Recommended that Council conducts elections for the Central Otago Health Incorporated board in conjunction with its local authority elections in October 2022.

D. Recommended that the Central Otago District Council be responsible for funding the Central Otago District proportion of Central Otago Health Incorporated’s 2022 election costs.

Carried

22.3.19 Local Government New Zealand Conference 2022 and Annual General Meeting

To consider the Central Otago District Council’s involvement in the 2022 Local Government New Zealand conference in Palmerston North and to register delegates for the Annual General Meeting.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

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

B. Approves the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillor Alley to attend the 2022 Local Government New Zealand Conference in Palmerston North.

C. Approves the Mayor as the presiding delegate, and the Deputy Mayor as the alternate delegate for the Annual General Meeting.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

22.3.20 mayor's report

His Worship the Mayor spoke to his report and also noted the fall of daily COVID-19 numbers in Central Otago recently.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

7 Status Reports

22.3.21 April 2022 Governance Report

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

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

8 Community Board Minutes

22.3.22 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 22 March 2022

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Duncan

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 22 March 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.3.23 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 24 March 2022

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Duncan

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 24 March 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.3.24 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 29 March 2022

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Duncan

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 29 March 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.3.25 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 31 March 2022

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Duncan

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 31 March 2022 be noted.

Carried

9 Committee Minutes

22.3.26 Minutes of the Assessment Committee Meeting held on 22 March 2022

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Assessment Committee Meeting held on 22 March 2022 be noted.

Carried

10 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 1 June 2022.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Paterson

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)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information 7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest s7(2)(d) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(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
22.3.27 - April 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
22.3.28 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 22 March 2022	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.3.29 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 29 March 2022	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(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
22.3.30 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 31 March 2022	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.26 pm and the meeting closed at 3.28 pm.

1 June 2022

5 Reports

22.4.2 Community Grants Applications

Doc ID: 577853

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the March 2022 district wide community grant applications.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Decides the grants to be allocated to the applicants of the community grants.

2. Background

The Central Otago District Council contributes to the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the local community through the contestable grants process.

The objectives of the grants process are:

· Enhance well-being in the district (social, economic, environmental and cultural)

· Empower local communities

· Facilitate the delivery of community outcomes

· Promote our regional identity: Central Otago A World of Difference.

There are two types of grants that can be applied for, community grants and promotions grants. Each community board has grant pools available for both community grants and promotions grants and each are funded using different targeted rates, which means that one pool cannot subsidise the other. Each application must be considered on its own merit and its fit with the relevant grant criteria and available budget. District wide community grants are funded by the district general rate.

Each community board is delegated the authority to consider applications for activities and projects within its boundaries. Council considers applications for district wide community grant applications. At this stage there is no district wide promotions grant pool.

Council considers grant applications in two rounds annually. Applications for the first round closed at the end of August 2021 for a decision in September, with the second round closing at the end of March 2022 for a decision on 1 June 2022.

A comprehensive review of the grants policy took place in August 2019 with further reviews undertaken in June 2021 and January 2022. These reviews were to streamline the process and improve the community experience in using the policy.

Annually, there is $151,000 to distribute in the district wide community grants scheme. The following table illustrates the commitments already made and the amounts left to distribute.

Type of grant	2021/22	2022/23
Community Grants Budget	151,000	151,000
Less distributed 1^st Round and hardship grants	132,105	0
Balance left to distribute	18,895[1]	151,000

3. Discussion

Community Grants

Three community grant applications have been received in the current round requesting a total of $142,506 dollars. There is $18,895 to distribute in 2021/2022 and $151,000 to distribute in the 2022/2023 financial year (subject to approval of the annual plan). The details are provided in the table below:

No	Name of Organisation	Name of project / service	Purpose of funding	When does the project start	Total costs	Amount requested
1	Central Otago Heritage Trust	Central Otago Heritage Trust - Programme Coordination	Continue employment of a Heritage Coordinator	1/07/2022	$56,250	$56,250
2	Central Otago District Arts Trust	Operational costs for Central Otago District Arts Trust	To pay for salary and operational costs for the Trust	1/07/2022	$83,756	$83,756
3	Alexandra and Districts Pipe Band Inc	Hall Hire Funding	To assist with the annual hire of the Alexandra Baptist Church Hall	1/06/2022	$2,860	$2,500

Copies of the applications, supporting documentation and staff assessments are provided to Council under separate cover.

4. Financial Considerations

As detailed above, there is $18,895 to distribute for the 2021/22 Community Grants round and $151,000 to distribute in the 2022/23 financial year.

For this funding round, organisations were able to apply for the remainder of the 2021/22 financial year grants budgets, or for the 2022/23 financial year, for projects that take place in that financial year. Any funding granted for the 2022/23 financial year will need to be subject to the adoption of the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

When considering applications for a future financial year, members will need to be mindful that any approvals will decrease the grant amount available for that financial year’s funding round and may cause the perception of an uneven playing field to other applicants. However, if the Council was of a mind to commit funding for the 2022/23 financial year it would clearly signal to other applicants, the size of the grants funding pool left available.

Two of the applicants (the Central Otago Heritage Trust and Central Otago District Arts Trust) have applied for 15 months of funding. Staff are recommending that either 4 months or 16 months of funding is granted, to align their grants with the 1^st funding round and ensure that in future years, all applicants are on the same funding cycle.

As discussed in the staff assessment of the Central Otago District Arts Trust application, the alignment issue was first highlighted in a report to the 5 May 2021 Council meeting. At that time, Council was asked to consider providing a hardship grant to the Arts Trust in recognition of the change in operational timelines for Council funding rounds imposed by the new Grants Policy. This request was granted, and Council allocated $8,750 for this purpose.

However, this hardship grant amount was then deducted from the Trust’s annual grant, which meant that the operational timelines were not adjusted as anticipated. As a consequence, it is recommended that a one-off additional adjustment is paid to both the Arts and Heritage Trusts of $13,334 each – which equates to four months of funding for each organisation.

This would ensure that both organisations received the existing levels of funding from the Central Otago District Council until the first funding round of either the 2022/23 or 2023/24 financial years.

Council has two options to fund this adjustment. Funds could be committed from the 2022/223 $151,000 budget for community grants, leaving $44,332 to distribute to other organisations. When considering this option, it should be noted that Council distributed funds totalling $52,105 to organisations other than the Arts and Heritage Trusts in the first round of funding for the 2021/22 grants round as follows:

Sports Otago	$41,549
Life Education Trust	$3,000
Central Otago Health	$7,556
TOTAL	$52,105

An alternative option is that Council could consider committing the $16,395 that would be remaining in the 2021/22 grants pool (should Council decide to fund the Alexandra and District Pipe Band as recommended) and fund the remaining $10,273 from the 2022/23 grants pool. This option would see $60,727 remaining to allocate to other organisations in the 2022/23 financial year.

A table will be provided at the meeting to assist members with their decision making.

5. Options

Council is asked to consider each application and determine the appropriate level of funding. There are no other options as Council has the delegation to allocate grants from the contestable funds.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by providing a contestable funding pool that enables projects to be delivered in the community that enhance wellbeing.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, this decision is consistent with the Grants Policy, and other plans and policies that may be impacted by any of the individual grant applications.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There is no direct impact, some applications may have a positive environmental impact from time to time.
Risks Analysis	No risks have been identified in the funding applications.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The funding rounds were advertised in the local newspaper, Council’s website and Facebook page, and through combined agency community funding clinics. Discussions with departments of Council have taken place where there impacts arising from the application.

7. Next Steps

Once the Council has made a decision on the level of funding for each organisation, this will be communicated to each applicant and payments made.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Central Otago Heritage Trust Staff Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 2 - Central Otago Heritage Trust Grant Application (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 3 - Central Otago Heritage Trust Supporting Documentation (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 4 - Central Otago District Arts Trust Staff Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 5 - Central Otago District Arts Trust Grant Application (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 6 - Central Otago District Arts Trust Supporting Documentation (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 7 - Alexandra Pipe Band Staff Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 8 - Alexandra Pipe Band Grant Application (under separate cover) ⇨

Appendix 9 - Alexandra Pipe Band Supporting Documentation (under separate cover) ⇨


Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Rebecca Williams	Sanchia Jacobs
Community Development Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
10/05/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.3 Earthquake Prone Buildings

Doc ID: 568355

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the approval of the thoroughfares identified regarding priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone and to accept there are no strategic routes.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the thoroughfares identified to have priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone.

C. Accepts there are no strategic routes within Central Otago District.

2. Background

Central Otago District is within a medium seismic risk area and is required to identify priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone by 1 July 2022, and all other potentially earthquake prone buildings across the district by 1 July 2027.

On 8 December 2021 Council approved the statement of proposal (attachment 1) identifying the thoroughfares where potentially earthquake prone buildings were located and acknowledged that no strategic routes were identified across the district.

Consultation was undertaken from 13 December 2021 to 21 January 2022, with one submission received.

3. Discussion

Methodology

The current earthquake prone building methodology sets out how a territorial authority must identify potential earthquake prone buildings. This requires the identification of buildings that meet the following criteria:

Profile category

CODC - Medium seismic risk area

Category A

Unreinforced masonry buildings

Category B

Pre-1976 buildings that are either three or more storeys or 12 metres or greater in height above the lowest ground level (other than unreinforced masonry buildings in Category A)

Category C

Pre-1935 buildings that are one or two storeys (other than unreinforced masonry buildings in Category A)

Priority Buildings

The current requirement is to identify priority buildings by 1 July 2022 that:

a. Contain “vulnerable populations” such as schools, early childhood centres or the like;

b. Have important post disaster functionality (e.g., Emergency buildings (police, fire stations, ambulance) and hospitals; or

c. They are on routes which could impede emergency services (strategic routes); or

d. They have the potential of falling hazards which could endanger occupants or passers-by

The impact of being a priority building is that the timeframes to identify them by the territorial authority (“TA”) and the required remediation by the owner are halved, leaving building owners 12.5 years to undertake any works required.

The principal aspect of these considerations for the Central Otago District was identified as the risk of falling hazards which could endanger occupants or passers-by. This led to a number of thoroughfares being identified, which contained buildings that are considered priority potentially earthquake prone buildings.

Thoroughfares

The thoroughfares that were identified following the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) guidance and methodology, and contained buildings that are potentially earthquake prone with unreinforced masonry are:

· Tarbert Street, Alexandra

· Scotland Street, Roxburgh

· Charlemont Street, Ranfurly

· Historical Precinct, Cromwell

· Loop Road, St Bathans

· Earme Street and Leven Street, Nasby

· Sunderland Street, Clyde

· Harvey Street, Omakau

These were shown in maps within the public consultation document with details regarding what we are consulting on, why and the information we were seeking from our community.

No submissions were received to question the thoroughfares identified or to suggest any additional areas for consideration. Only one submission was received that supported the thoroughfares identified in Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell.

Strategic Routes

Strategic routes mean the TAs have a discretion to identify certain buildings for prioritisation if there are routes that are important in the emergency service response and there are buildings that meet the profile criteria that could impede transport routes of strategic importance if they were to collapse in an earthquake.

While there are a number of routes throughout the district that may be important for emergency services to provide a response in an earthquake, using information held on the property file and undertaking an on-site external visual inspection of buildings, it was determined that not all important routes were deemed ‘strategic routes’ for one or more of the following reasons:

a) there were no buildings meeting the methodology identified on potentially important routes; or

b) roads are wide and unlikely to block the movement of emergency services in a seismic event; or

c) there are alternative routes; or

d) a building that does meet the methodology, is single story or set back from the road.

Consequently, consultation was undertaken on this basis. In addition, key stakeholders such as the Fire Service, Police, St. John and Civil Defence were consulted directly on this matter, however no responses were received either from key stakeholders or the wider community to question the conclusion of having no strategic routes.

One submission was received to support the decision that there are no strategic routes across the district.

Consultation

Consultation was undertaken from 13 December 2021 to 21 January 2022 in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003.

During this time there were 21 ‘aware visitors’ to the consultation document i.e. they viewed at least one page of the document.

There were 10 ‘informed visitors’ in that they viewed multiple pages.

There were nine visitors that downloaded the document, and one ‘engaged visitor’ that responded to the survey.

The engaged visitor (submitter) agreed with the thoroughfares identified in Alexandra, Clyde, Cromwell and they also agreed that there were no strategic routes. However, all other questions were not answered. They also did not wish to speak at a hearing and consequently no hearing was required.

4. Financial Considerations

There were minor immediate budget implications from the required public notification of the consultation details. These have been met through the current budgets.

There are financial implications from seismic assessments and remedial works on Council owned buildings if it is determined they are earthquake prone. Council have previously considered these aspects with engineer reports scheduled in the current financial year and strengthening in 2022/2023 at the earliest, which are contained in the Long-term Plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the thoroughfares identified and accept there are no strategic routes.

Advantages:

· Consistency with Central Government’s guidelines and the statutory requirements.

· This will provide the community with clear and consistent information regarding Council’s obligations and approach, to minimise confusion in communities.

· Reflects the minimisation of risk to our community without burdening building owners un-necessarily by being overly risk adverse.

Disadvantages:

· Building owners on the thoroughfares identified may not agree with Council’s view.

Option 2

Do not approve the thoroughfares identified and accept there are no strategic routes.

Advantages:

· Potentially affected building owners may not be required to undertake remedial works on their buildings.

Disadvantages:

· This may lead to Council not meeting its statutory obligations and timeframes to identify priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone.

· This may put our community at increased risk of priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone that are not being identified and remediated as necessary.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings, strategic routes and thoroughfares, which will be remediated in accordance with statutory requirements and timeframes.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes the decision is consistent with the Council-owned Earthquake-prone Building Policy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	This decision does not impact on sustainability.
Risks Analysis	Risk from this decision is low as Council has followed the public consultation process. In addition, while the MBIE guidance has been considered when identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings, this does not mean that all buildings have been identified. Some buildings may have previously been considered potentially earthquake prone, however following a change of use of the building they cannot be considered or may be exempt. If consultation is delayed, there may be a risk of not identifying potentially earthquake prone priority buildings within the statutory timeframe.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This matter affects building owners and the wider community in general and requires public consultation. The matter of earthquake prone buildings will impact on the current and future social, economic, environmental and well-being of the district when considering the significance and engagement policy.

7. Next Steps

Following approval from Council, staff will contact individual building owners, where a building has been identified on the agreed thoroughfares and is considered a priority building.

Building owners will be required to provide council an engineer’s report to enable council to determine if a building is, or is not, earthquake prone.

Following receipt of this information, any buildings confirmed as earthquake-prone, will be recorded on the MBIE register for earthquake-prone buildings and a notice issued.

The notices inform building users and the public about a building’s (or part of a building’s) potential seismic performance in a moderate earthquake compared to a new building on the same site.

The notice must be attached to a prominent place on, or adjacent to, the building.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 8 December 2021 Council Report.docx ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Lee Webster	Saskia Righarts
Regulatory Services Manager	Chief Advisor
20/04/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.4 Plan Change 19 - Residential Chapter Review and Re-Zoning

Doc ID: 580146

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the public notification of proposed Plan Change 19 in accordance with Clause 5 of the first Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

To consider the release of the Medium Density Residential guidelines for public consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Directs that Plan Change 19 be notified in accordance with Clause 5 of the first Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

C. Approves the release of the draft Medium Density Residential Guidelines for public consultation.

2. Background

The operative Central Otago District Plan was publicly notified on 18 July 1998 and was amended by decisions on submissions on 1 July 2000. The Central Otago District Plan became operative on 1 April 2008 after references to the Environment Court were settled.

The Residential chapter of the Central Otago District Plan has not been subject to a full review since it was originally drafted in 1998. Only minor alterations have been made as a result of private plan change requests.

Plan Change 19 (PC 19) has been driven by and is intended to implement the direction set out in the Vincent and Cromwell Spatial Plans, in relation to the District’s residential areas. The spatial plans have been prepared by the Council to respond to demand for residential land and housing affordability concerns in the District, and in order to plan for the anticipated growth over the next 30 years.

PC19, in implementing the direction set out in the two spatial plans, involves rezoning new land for residential use, identifying some areas for future growth, aligning existing residential zoning with the proposed new zones, and includes new provisions for managing land use and subdivision within the residential zones.

PC19 does not propose to alter the zoning or framework in relation to the rural, business or industrial resource areas or rural settlements zone, in order to give effect to the spatial plans

3. Discussion

Plan Change 19 (PC 19) proposes to make a complete and comprehensive suite of changes to the way the District’s residential areas are zoned and managed. The proposed plan change can be found in Appendix 1 and the new residential zone chapter in Appendix 2 to this report.

PC 19 proposes to:

· Replace the current Section 7 Residential Resource Area of the Plan with` a new Residential Zone Section, comprising:

o a Large Lot Residential Zone chapter;

o a Low Density Residential Zone chapter;

o a Medium Density Residential Zone chapter; and

o a Residential Subdivision chapter; and

· Amend the planning maps to rezone land in general accordance with what has been identified in the Vincent and Cromwell Spatial Plans and to reflect the new zone names above; and

· Amend Section 18 definitions to insert new definitions that apply in the Residential Zones chapter and make consequential amendments to existing definitions to clarify the sections of the Plan where they apply; and

· Make consequential changes to other sections of the Plan to reflect the proposed new zones.

PC19 proposes to rationalise the current provisions where appropriate, and in particular those related to Residential Resource Areas 1-13 to simplify the variations in standards and densities where those variations are no longer considered necessary to achieve the outcomes sought. Further updates to the provisions are also proposed to align with current best planning practice. Where changes to the current approach are not considered necessary to achieve the outcomes sought for residential areas, the current provisions are proposed to be rolled over into the new residential zone chapters.

In determining the appropriate residential zones and drafting new provisions, the National Planning Standards have been implemented to the extent that it has been possible to do so ahead of the full District Plan Review; including the adoption of the Zone Framework Standard and Format Standards for the new Residential Zones and Residential chapter, and the adoption of definitions insofar as they apply to the provisions proposed in the Residential chapter.

The three main typologies proposed are large lot, low density and medium density as described below:

· The Large Lot Residential Zone is located in some of the outer residential areas within the townships of Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell. The density within this zone is the lowest of all residential zones, providing for detached dwellings on large sites and maintaining a high open space to build from ratio.

Note: Three large lot residential zone precincts are also proposed which provide for slightly higher or lower densities in particular areas, reflecting and seeking to retain the existing character of these areas.

· The Low Density Residential Zone is the largest residential zone in the District covering the majority of residential areas in all townships. The zone is intended to provide for traditional suburban housing, comprised of predominantly detached house on sections with generous on-site open space and setback from boundaries. The proposed density within this zone is a minimum lot size of 500m².

· The Medium Density Residential Zone anticipates the highest density of development in all of the residential zones. It is intended that this zone develops over time to provide for a range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of the community, with more intense development helping to support commercial and community facilities.

The proposed density within this zone is a minimum lot size of 200m². However, a pathway is also provided for comprehensive residential development, which would allow consideration of development of larger sites at greater densities, where it achieves good urban design outcomes.

Any development of more than two residential units within this zone will require consideration through a resource consent process, which allows for consideration of how the design and layout achieves good urban design outcomes.

Medium Density Residential Guidelines have been developed to work with the new provisions and assist anyone undertaking a residential development within the Medium Density Residential Zone in Central Otago District. The guideline will help achieve good quality housing that respects neighbours and is well integrated into the neighbourhood. The guideline is attached to this report in Appendix 3.

A future growth overlay has also been applied to areas identified for residential development in stages 2 and 3 of the Vincent Spatial Plan. The overlay does not alter the existing zoning, but signals areas where future growth is anticipated to be accommodated, subject to future plan changes and more detailed consideration, particularly in terms of servicing.

4. Financial Considerations

The development of and progressing of Plan Change 19 through the statutory process is funded from the existing District Plan review budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve notification of Plan Change 19 in accordance with Clause 5 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 and approve the release of the Medium Density Guidelines for public consultation.

Advantages:

· PC 19 is a long overdue review of the residential provisions in the operative Central Otago District Plan which are no longer considered fit for purpose.

· The proposed changes reflect the feedback received from the community through the spatial plan and feedback received.

· PC 19 will provide for the release of new residential zoned land in a range of typologies (including medium density) to assist with availability, affordability and housing choice.

· The development of medium density guidelines will help achieve good quality housing that respects neighbours and is well integrated into the neighbourhood

Disadvantages:

· No obvious disadvantages.

Option 2

Not approve notification of Plan Change 19 in accordance with Clause 5 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 and approve the release of the Medium Density Guidelines for public consultation.

Advantages:

· No obvious advantages.

Disadvantages:

· There are currently limited options in terms of developable land, particularly in Alexandra and Cromwell.

· The operative District Plan provisions are no longer fit for purpose and are not achieving the outcomes the community has indicated that they want through the spatial planning processes.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by the Central Otago District Council. The Council has functions under the RMA to carry out these functions. The plan change process under the Resource Management Act is a democratic public process and requires an assessment of the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes – the Central Otago District Plan The proposed plan change makes amendments to the operative Central Otago District Plan
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The plan change process does not impact on these matters and the merits of the plan change are considered against the RMA framework.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks associated with this request
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The plan change will be publicly notified in accordance with the First Schedule to the RMA, which provides a right of submission and further submission.

7. Next Steps

The Plan Change and section 32 analysis will be finalised for release to Schedule 1 parties and publicly notified in accordance Clause 5 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Plan Change 19.docx ⇩

Appendix 2 - Plan Change 19 Appendix 2 - Residential Chapter Provisions.docx ⇩

Appendix 3 - Draft_Medium_Density_Guidelines.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann Rodgers	Saskia Righarts
Principal Policy Planner	Chief Advisor
20/05/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.5 Teviot Valley Spatial Plan - Approval of Project Plan

Doc ID: 580145

1. Purpose of Report

To seek approval to undertake an integrated planning approach to the future planning of Roxburgh, Roxburgh Hydro Village, Ettrick, Millers Flat and the surrounding areas, including the development of a Teviot Valley Spatial Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to the development of the Teviot Valley Spatial Plan for the Teviot Valley.

2. Background

A spatial plan is an evidence-based, future-focused strategy to outline a vision and direction for an area for the next 30 years and beyond. It allows us to consider growth before it happens and identify key improvements to support a vibrant, connected, and desirable place to live.

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

The Teviot Valley Spatial Plan will be the third spatial planning exercise undertaken by the Central Otago District Council (CODC). The Cromwell Spatial Plan was adopted in 2019 and the Vincent Spatial Plan was adopted in 2022.

The development of spatial plans creates the opportunity to ensure potential development can occur in a sustainable, sympathetic manner, which protects the aesthetics, heritage and environment that make this area special. At the same time, the spatial plan seeks to balance the needs of existing land uses with the demands of a growing community.

The spatial plan provides a blueprint for what our towns could look like and how infrastructure, housing and productive land use could fit together, offering guidance to the private and public sector, including direction for infrastructure investment and Council’s future planning.

3. Discussion

The Teviot Valley is the southernmost ward of the Central Otago district, home to farms, orchards, and townships alongside the Mata-au Clutha River. The area has a rich history from goldmining to pastoral farming to horticulture and now tourism. Significant built heritage is still present in the townships and wider rural area.

More recently active tourism has been on the increase in relation to the development of the Roxburgh Gorge trail. This is likely to continue to increase particularly, considering a recent resource consent granted that will enable cyclists to ride from Alexandra to Roxburgh on the trail, (once constructed), without the need to take a boat for part of the journey. This will provide a key link to a network of cycle trails running through Central Otago, Queenstown Lakes, and Clutha Districts.

The study area is the whole of the Teviot Valley ward with particular focus on Roxburgh township, Lake Roxburgh Village, Ettrick and Millers Flat. As of 2021 the Teviot Valley has a resident population of approximately 1,900 people. Around 50% of residents live in one of the four towns in the valley, the other half live in small settlements or rurally as shown in Figure 1 below.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 - Population

Employment

Agriculture remains the major component of the Teviot Valley economy, providing 56% of employment in the area with over half of all jobs in the agricultural industry, making it by far the most important sector for employment in the ward. The rest is split equitably by various other industries as shown in Figure 2.

Chart, sunburst chart

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 – Employment

In the rural area, growth can put pressure on the landscape values and pressure for housing development can compete for productive land resource and result in reverse sensitivity effects. This is particularly relevant for the Teviot Valley where productive land uses play a significant role economically and in terms of employment.

The Teviot valley is experiencing growth pressures with lack of land available for future development creating a shift in housing affordability. It is appropriate to understand growth and ensure it is accommodated appropriately in a way that protects what is special to communities.

Planning for infrastructure is integral to planning for growth. Whilst the provision of infrastructure enables development it is necessary to ensure growth is accommodated in an integrated and sustainable manner.

The development of the Teviot Valley Spatial Plan will address accommodation of growth and land use in the Teviot Valley and the provision of infrastructure to accommodate future growth.

The spatial plan will provide direction for growth and development for next thirty years. The community and key stakeholders will be given many opportunities to engage in the process and share their views through surveys, meetings and drop-in sessions, and specific stakeholder meetings will be held to gather understanding of the issues.

The spatial plan will also identify areas for rezoning of land in the Operative Central Otago District Plan.

The Teviot Valley Spatial Plan Project Plan (attached as Appendix 1) details the process and timeline of the Vincent Spatial Plan, the programme governance, procurement approach and the communication and engagement plan.

4. Financial Considerations

Consultancy costs associated with the development of the spatial plan is estimated to be $190,000 for planning and urban design, community, and key stakeholder engagement. These costs will be funded from existing district plan review budget.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Agree to the development of a Teviot Valley Spatial Plan

Advantages:

· A spatial plan will enable holistic and integrated planning for the next thirty years.

· A spatial plan will result in changes to the Operative Central Otago District Plan which will enable growth and development in a sustainable manner.

· The spatial plan will inform the district plan review and infrastructure planning.

· The process will provide communities and stakeholders many opportunities to engage in planning for their future

Disadvantages:

· No obvious disadvantages

Option 2

Do not agree to the development of a Teviot Valley Spatial Plan

Advantages:

· District Plan budget could be spent elsewhere.

Disadvantages:

· There may be a shortage of land for business and residential opportunities resulting in diminished development opportunities and affordability issues through lack of supply.

· Loss of opportunity to inform the District Plan review and future infrastructure planning.

· Risk of inappropriate development occurring

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of the community, in the present and for the future by enabling integrated and holistic planning for the future of communities
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes- An outcome of spatial planning is to integrate other plans and policies relating to infrastructure, and the district plan review.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The spatial plan provides sustainable planning for the future of communities
Risks Analysis	A risk may be lack of engagement from the community resulting in an outcome they do not own.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The spatial plan is a cross organisation exercise so will involve engagement with infrastructure, planning, property, and communications teams. Significant engagement will occur with community and all as part of the process. Any plan changes will be subject to the Schedule 1 process in the Resource Management Act 1991.

7. Next Steps

The spatial plan will progress in general accordance with the timeline identified in the project plan.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Teviot Spatial Plan - Project Plan FINAL DRAFT.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann Rodgers	Saskia Righarts
Principal Policy Planner	Chief Advisor
20/05/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

22.4.6 Ripponvale Water Supply Scheme Deliberations

Doc ID: 579731

1. Purpose of Report

To deliberate and decide on the payment options for the affected members of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes the consultation results and based on this that the members of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme (Appendix 4) be offered two payment options.

C. Resolves to offer the 73 (or there-abouts) existing Ripponvale community ratepayers (former members of the Ripponvale water scheme – Appendix 4) an option to opt into a one-off payment for the scheme for the Ripponvale water scheme upgrade by way of a one-off capital contribution of $4,726 including GST. This will be payable either by a single instalment due August 2022, or over four quarterly instalments during the 2022-23 rating year (August 2022, November 2022, February 2023, and May 2023); and

D. Resolves to set a ten-year targeted rate to the existing 73 (or there-abouts) Ripponvale ratepayers (former members of the Ripponvale water scheme – Appendix 4). This rate will be a fixed rate of $602.57 including GST for each of the ten-years. The targeted ten-year rate is the default position of all existing Ripponvale community that do not elect to accept the opportunity to pay the $4,726 during the 2022-23 rating year (as outlined in option C above).

2. Background

In November 2020 Council agreed to take over responsibility for the ownership and operation of the Ripponvale Community Water Supply scheme. During the meeting the following resolutions were agreed -

1. Agrees that properties on the Ripponvale Community Water Scheme pay half the $600,000 plus GST costs of upgrading the Ripponvale network to meet the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards, and minimum engineering standard requirements.

2. Agrees that existing properties on the Ripponvale Community Water Scheme will have the option of paying their share of the $300,000 plus GST, by either a lump sum payment in the year one of the scheme or as a targeted rate.

As a result of Council’s decision, a letter (refer Appendix 1) was sent to members of the scheme in July 2021 advising them that -

I. Management and operation of scheme has transferred to Council.

II. Scheme members would be rated for uniform annual water rate and metered volume from 1 July 2021.

III. Council had taken over the scheme on the basis that properties pay for half costs to upgrade, and the cost is expected to be $3,000 to $4,000 per property through an additional targeted rate.

IV. Consultation on the targeted rate to occur in early 2022 and would be applied on 1 July 2022.

3. Discussion

· Recent history and scheme summary

The Ripponvale water supply has been run as a private network for many years. The network is supplied water via an 80mm bulk meter on Waenga Drive. A booster pump takes water from the supply main and boosts it up to three tanks on private land. These tanks provide water pressure to much of the scheme (main pressure zone). A second small booster pumpstation provides water to tanks on a hill on the western edge of Ripponvale and this supplies water to about 10-15 properties (upper pressure zone). The whole scheme is a trickle feed supply, meaning that all connections have a restrictor in place before private tanks. The scheme operators handed over responsibility of the scheme to Central Otago District Council in March 2021.

As part of the 2022-23 Annual Plan process, Council commenced a targeted consultation process with the properties that were part of this scheme.

· Consultation results:

Seventy-three consultation letters (Appendix 2) were issued to the affected Ripponvale residents advising them of the improvements that would take place and how these improvements would benefit the community. The letter advised that there were three payment options for how the targeted charge could be applied. These are outlined in the table below; a 10-year targeted rate; a five-year targeted rate and; a one-year lump sum payment. The letter also included a capital funding plan and frequently asked questions (Appendix 3).

Options	Option 1 10 Years	Option 2 Five Years	Option 3 One Year lump sum
Estimated annual cost per ratepayer per year (based on 73 rate payers) Made up of:	$602.57	$1,086.99	$4,726.00
· Principal	$472.60	$945.21	$4,726.00
· Interest	$129.97	$141.78	$ -

Of the 73 letters sent out, 41 responded (56%). Twenty-one of these respondents selected an option and 20 respondents did not select an option but offered feedback.

· 21 responses were as follows:

o 6 selected Option 1 – being a targeted rate over a ten-year period

o 3 selected option 2 – being a targeted rate over a five-year period and

o 12 selected the option to pay a one-year lump sum – either payable by a single invoice or payable over four quarterly instalments within the 12-month period.

· The key issues raised by the 20 respondents who did not select an option included:

o Questions around the history of the scheme ownership

o Further information is required about what the upgrade entails and how it will benefit residents

o Belief that as the asset is owned by Council, Council is therefore responsible for funding any upgrades

o The respondents felt more community consultation was required before decisions can be made.

4. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Based on the consultation results it is recommended to offer the affected Ripponvale community two payment options:

1. A targeted rate over ten years of $602.57 (including GST) per year, which includes $129.97 per year of interest. This will be invoiced as part of the annual rates, and

2. A lump sum capital contribution payment of $4,726 (including GST) of which there is no interest charged. This payment will be invoiced separate to the rates invoice and will be due for payment in one lump sum payment 18 August 2022, or payable over four quarterly instalments during the 2022-23 financial year with quarterly payments due:

18 August 2022 17 November 2022 6 February 2023 17 May 2023

These four instalments will also be invoiced separately to the rates invoice and will also
contain no interest charges.

The Ripponvale community can either elect to accept the Council’s offer of a capital contribution payment, or by default they will be included in the ten-year targeted rate of $602.57 per year, per property.

Advantages:

· Reflects the majority preference of the Ripponvale community that responded to the targeted consultation.

· Allows the community the option of paying up-front and not incurring any interest costs or paying their share of the upgrade over a ten-year period.

· Ensures the cost is allocated to the key contributors and not borne by the district-wide rate payers.

· Meets the intention of Council’s resolution from November 2020.

Disadvantages:

· Some of the Ripponvale community will be unhappy with this decision.

· Ten-years is a longer period of time for Council to recoup the capital outlay.

Option 2- (Not Recommended)

1. A targeted rate over five years of $1,087 (including GST) per year, which includes $141.78 per year of interest, which will be invoiced as part of the annual rates, and

18 August 2022 17 November 2022 16 February 2023 17 May 2023

These four instalments will also be invoiced separately to the rates invoice and will also
contain no interest charges.

          The Ripponvale community can either elect to accept the Councils offer of a one-off capital
          contribution payment or by default will be included in the five-year targeted rate of $1,087 per
          year, per property.

Advantages:

· Meets the majority response of the community that selected the one-off payment, although, reflects the lesser preferred targeted rate option.

· Allows the community the option of paying up-front and not incurring any interest costs or paying the for their share over a five-year period.

· Ensures the cost is allocated to the key exasperators and not borne by the district-wide rate payers.

· Meets the intention of Council’s resolution from November 2020.

· Council recoups the capital outlay quicker than option 1.

Disadvantages:

· Some of the Ripponvale community will be unhappy with this decision.

Option 3- (Not Recommended)

A hybrid of option one or two. Either only have a targeted rate, or only offer a one-off annual payment.

Advantages:

· Less complexity for the modelling and managing the scheme funding.

· An annual one-off payment will ensure a prompt end to the scheme and unlikely to be impacted by the water reform programme.

· An annual one-off payment will assist Council’s cash-flow and mitigate the potential need for external debt.

Disadvantages:

· Does not reflect the Ripponvale communities’ preference.

· Does not honour the intentions of the consultation.

· Some of the Ripponvale community will be unhappy with this decision.

· An option of a lump sum payment only may be detrimental to some rate payer’s ability to meet the payment, forcing them into arrears.

5. 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 ensuring the supply of safe drinking water. Targeted rates meet the rating legislation where those that create the burden of costs, where possible should fund the costs.
Financial implications – Is this decision consistent with proposed activities and budgets in long term plan/annual plan?	The decision has financial implications outlined in previous reports. These costs are included in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. Funding the Council share from a combination of water stimulus funding and rating/invoicing of the Ripponvale community ensures these costs are not borne by the rate payers outside of this water scheme.
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	Meets Council’s objectives for affordable and equitable provision of services to promote wellbeing and appropriate infrastructure.
Risks Analysis	The decision to not take over the Ripponvale scheme has risk implications as highlighted in previous reports. Undertaking the currently proposed work is seen as a step towards mitigating those risks.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Council carried out a targeted consultation with the directly impacted Ripponvale community.

6. Next Steps

· Finalise the Capital Funding Plan which will be included with the letter of invite for the Ripponvale Community to opt into a one-off capital contribution payment.

· Finalise and send out a letter of invite to the Ripponvale community, seeking its return ahead by 25 June 2022 in time to strike the rates.

· Those that do not accept the letter of offer will be default be included in the targeted scheme for a five-year or ten-year period, depending on Council’s resolution.

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Ripponvale Community Water Scheme Introductory letter - information for residents ⇩

Appendix 2 - Ripponvale Water Scheme Consultation Letter ⇩

Appendix 3 - Ripponvale Water Scheme - Capital Funding Plan ⇩

Appendix 4 - Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme map ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Leanne Macdonald	Sanchia Jacobs
Executive Manager – Corporate Services	Chief Executive Officer
9/05/2022	18/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.7 Adoption of the 2022/23 Annual Plan and the 2022-23 Rates Resolution

Doc ID: 578900

1. Purpose of Report

To adopt the 2022-23 Annual Plan, and two capital funding plans, along with the 2022-23 fees and charges schedule. Also to resolve the setting of the rates, due dates and penalties for rates during the 2022-23 financial year.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Acknowledges the submissions and deliberations process from the Ripponvale Water Supply Upgrade consultation process.

C. Adopts the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme Capital Funding Plan, in accordance with Section 117B(3) of Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as detailed in Appendix 1.

D. Resolves, as part of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme Capital Funding Plan, to offer the members of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme (Appendix 7) the opportunity to opt into a one-off capital contribution of $4,726 (including GST), payable either in one instalment due August 2022, or over four equal instalments, due August 2022, November 2022, February 2023 and May 2023; and

E. Resolves, as part of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme Capital Funding Plan, to set a ten-year targeted rate for the members of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme (Appendix 7), that do not accept the Council offer of a one-off capital contribution, as detailed in E above. This targeted rate will be a fixed annual charge of $602.57 per year, per rateable property, for a ten-year period. The targeted ten-year rate is the default position of all existing Ripponvale community that do not elect to accept the opportunity to pay the $4,726 during the 2022-23 rating year (as outlined in option E above).

F. Adopts the Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Scheme – Capital Funding Plan, in accordance with Section 117B(3) of Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as detailed in Appendix 2.

G. Adopts the 2022-23 Annual Plan in accordance with Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002, as detailed in Appendix 3.

H. Sets the 2022-23 Fees and Charges as detailed in Appendix 4.

I. Adopts the Liability Management Policy, as detailed in Appendix 5, and included in the Annual Plan.

J. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare the final 2022-23 Annual Plan for publication.

K. Requests the Chief Executive Officer to formally advise the submitters of Council’s decisions, addressing the individual items raised by submitters in their written submissions.

It is Recommended, for the setting of rates, that the Council:

L. Acknowledges that the rates, the subject of this report, relate to the financial year 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, and are all GST inclusive.

M. Sets the rates for 2022-23, for the year commencing 1 July 2022, as detailed in Appendix 6 – Rating Policy, as included in the Annual Plan 2022-23 in accordance with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

N. Resolves that the rates for 2022-23 (other than for metered water) be payable in four equal instalments on the dates as detailed below:

• 22 August 2022

• 21 November 2022

• 21 February 2023

• 22 May 2023

O. Resolves to add penalties to unpaid rates (other than for metered water):

• 10% on any outstanding amount of any instalment not paid by the due date.

• The penalty will be applied on 29 August 2022, 28 November 2022, 28 February 2023 and 29 May 2023 respectively for each instalment;

• 10% on amounts outstanding from earlier years, such penalty being applied on 1 October and 1 April.

• Requests for waiver of penalties should be sent, in writing, to the Rates Officer as per Council Remission of Penalties Policy.

P. Sets the due dates for metered water billing as follows:

Bannockburn, Ranfurly, Naseby, Patearoa, Omakau, Clyde and Roxburgh:

• 20 October 2022, reading taken in September 2022

• 20 April 2023, reading taken in March 2023

Cromwell and Pisa Moorings:

• 22 December 2022, reading taken in November 2022

• 22 June 2023, reading taken in May 2023

Alexandra:

• 24 November 2022, reading taken in October 2022

• 25 May 2023, reading taken in April 2023

Q. Resolves set penalties for 2022-23 under sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on unpaid metered water rates as follows:

· A charge of 10% on any metered water rates unpaid after the due date. The penalty will be applied on the date below for the respective instalments:

Bannockburn, Ranfurly, Naseby, Patearoa, Omakau, Clyde and Roxburgh

· 27 October 2022 and 27 April 2023

Cromwell and Pisa Moorings

· 20 January 2023 and 29 June 2023

Alexandra

· 1 December 2022 and 1 June 2023

· Requests for waiver of penalties on water accounts should be sent, in writing, to the Water Billing Officer, in accordance with the Council’s Remission of Penalties Policy.

2. Background

Each year following the adoption of the long-term plan Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to prepare and adopt an annual plan and the setting of the rates.

The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 requires that rates be set by resolution of Council (Section 23), that due dates be set by resolution of Council (Section 24) and that penalties be set by resolution of Council (Sections 57 and 58).

The preparation of the Annual Plan 2022-23 has been in progress since October 2021. The focus has been on following through with commitments made in year two of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan and identifying changes as a result of rising costs, the impact of growth in the district and changes in legislation. There were no significant changes other than what has been consulted on as part of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. Council received updates of the proposed Annual Plan budgets in January and March 2022.

The draft Annual Plan budgets 2022-23, along with the proposed 2022-23 Fees and Charges schedule were presented to all four community boards in February 2022, with a final of each presented to the community boards in May 2022. All four wards agreed to their budgets and recommended that Council include the budgets into their 2022-23 Annual Plan.

All four wards also agreed to the 2022-23 Fees and Charges and recommended Council include these in these also into the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

In addition, a targeted consultation was carried out with the existing ratepayers of the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme (Appendix 7), community, regarding their contribution to the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme.

At the time of writing this report, Council have yet to deliberate on the outcome of this consultation.

The options are:

I. Pay a five-year targeted rate of $1,086.99 each year, which includes interest cost of 5%.

II. Pay a ten-year targeted rate of 602.57 each year, which also includes an interest cost of 5%.

III. Pay a lump sum payment of $4,726.00 with no interest costs. This payment can be paid in one full instalment in August 2022, or over four equal instalments payable in August 2022, November 2022, February 2023, and May 2023.

The attached Annual Plan 2022-23 (Appendix 3) contains the proposed annual budget and funding impact statements for the 2022-23 financial year, the two capital funding plans for the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme and Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Scheme (Appendices 1 and 2), the fees and charges for the 2022-23 financial year (Appendix 4) and the Rating Policy (Appendix 6).

Finally, in preparation for the transition of the three-waters assets and liabilities in July 2024, the Liability Management Policy (Appendix 5) had to have minor updates in clauses 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 to exclude three waters from the core debt calculation, interest rate parameters and refinancing calculations. Clauses 3.1.6, 3.2.3 and 5.1 had minor changes to tighten the core debt risk controls (3.1.6) extending the definition of liquidity, (3.1.7) and tidy up the definition of the liquidity limit (5.1). This policy is also included in the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

3. Discussion

The approach to the 2022-232 Annual Plan process was to continue with the programme of work as agreed by the community the 2021-31 Long-term Plan consultation process (year two). This has largely happened, noting there have been changes in costs in some areas and reductions in costs in other areas. Overall, however, the plan to keep rates to 7.8% or below has been adhered to, with the average rates increase for the 2022-23 year being 7.5%. The rates, due dates, amounts and matters for differential rating have all been included in Council’s 2022-23 Annual Plan. The resolution to set rates permits Council to charge the rates planned in the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

With Council electing to stay within the agreed programmes of work contained in year two of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan Council was not required to go back out to consultation with the wider community, although a small, targeted consultation did occur for the existing Ripponvale ratepayers.

4. Financial Considerations

This decision is in-line with the overall plans and budgets of the 2022-23 financial year. It also ensures compliance of the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

The financial impact of adopting this plan and any amendments (if applicable) are significant as it determines the operational and capital expenditure for the 2022-23 financial year and how these are funded from rates, activity revenue, reserves and loans.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

That Council adopts the two capital funding plans – being the Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme and the Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Scheme. Council also adopts the 2022-23 Annual Plan, which includes the amended Liability Management Policy and sets the fees and charges for the 2022-23 financial year. Council also sets the rates for 2022-23 financial year, including setting the instalment dates, application of penalties and the interest rate to be applied to the penalties.

Advantages:

· Meets legislative requirements

· Allows Council to assess and collect rates for 2022-23.

· Allows Council to collect the relevant fees and charges.

· Allows Council to offer to the specific communities (Ripponvale and Clyde – stage one ratepayers) an opportunity to pay a one-off capital contribution payment for their respective capital programmes. For the Ripponvale Community 2022-23 or for the Clyde rate-payers in stage one it is 2023-2024 rating year. This is as opposed to being locked into a ten-year targeted rate, which includes an interest cost.

· Continues with the programme of work contained within the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

That Council does not adopt the 2022-23 Annual Plan, set the fees and charges for the 2022-23 financial year, adopts the Liability Management Policy and sets the rates for 2022-23 financial year, including setting the instalment dates, application of penalties and the interest rate to be applied to the penalties.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· Breach of Local Government Act 2002, section 95(3) “An annual plan must be adopted before the commencement of the year to which it relates”.

· Does not allow Council to assess and collect rates for 2022-23 which would result in significant financial implications for council.

· Does not allow Council to collect the relevant fees and charges.

· Does not reflect the communities preferences as a result of the Long-term Plan consultation and the results from the Ripponvale targeted consultation.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	Section 95(1) says a council must prepare and adopt an annual plan for each financial year. The resolution to set rates, due dates and penalties is a direct result of Council’s adherence to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 2002. This has been supported by a consultation process which enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of the community. AND This decision promotes the (social/cultural/economic/environmental) wellbeing of the community, in the present and for the future by having consideration to the communities preference for their district included in the 2022-23 Annual Plan.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	This decision is consistent with council’s plans and policies in particular the 2021-31 Long-term Plan, Revenue and Financing Policy and Rating Policy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no implications. These have all been considered as part of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.
Risks Analysis	There is no risk in considering this report. The risk is if Council does not consider the setting of the rates in conjunction with the annual plan 2022-23. A failure to set the rates by resolution would result in Council not being able to set and collect rates or penalties for 2022-23.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The decision to adopt this report is significant as adoption will approve the 2022-23 Annual Plan; the consequential setting of the 2022-23 rates, and the confirmation of the 2022-23 fees and charges. The 2022-23 Annual Plan is following the year two of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan, as this annual plan does not otherwise materially differ from year two of the long-term plan further consultation with the community was not required.. However, targeted consultation was undertaken with affected Ripponvale Water Scheme residents.

7. Next Steps

The Annual Plan will come into effect on 1 July 2022 and will be used as the primary financial and non-financial performance plan for the 2022-23 year.

Rates assessments and invoices will be provided to ratepayers from July 2022 onwards, as required in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

The Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme - Capital Funding Plan and the Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Scheme - Capital Funding Plan will be made available on the Council website and included in the letter of offer sent to members of each scheme as appropriate.

The Liability Management Policy will be made available on the Council website.

The Rating Policy will be made available on the Council website, along with Council’s resolution from this report.

Once the Annual Plan has been adopted it will be published on our website and a notice placed in Council’s Noticeboard in The News.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme - Capital Funding Plan ⇩

Appendix 2 - Clyde Wastewater Reticulation Scheme - Capital Funding Plan ⇩

Appendix 3 - Draft Annual Plan 2022-23 ⇩

Appendix 4 - Fees and Charges 2022-23 ⇩

Appendix 5 - Liability Management Policy ⇩

Appendix 6 - Rating Policy 2022-23 ⇩

Appendix 7 - Ripponvale Water Upgrade Scheme map ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann McDowall	Leanne Macdonald
Finance Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
18/05/2022	18/05/2022

Council meeting Agenda

1 June 2022

I. Statement of Financial Performance for the period ending 31 March 2022

2021/22	9 MONTHS ENDING 31 MARCH 2022					2021/22
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
33,270	Rates	25,215	25,180	35	˜	33,270
7,248	Govt Grants & Subsidies	12,084	12,190	(106)	˜	16,890
7,323	User Fees & Other	5,003	5,353	(350)	˜	7,737
17,286	Land Sales	4,769	4,767	2	˜	14,739
2,155	Regulatory Fees	2,033	1,893	140	˜	2,157
2,104	Development Contributions	2,505	1,538	967	˜	2,114
388	Interest & Dividends	57	186	(129)	˜	392
-	Reserves Contributions	293	196	97	˜	196
-	Profit on Sale of Assets	14	-	14	˜	-
55	Other Capital Contributions	95	117	(22)	˜	150
69,829	Total Income	52,068	51,420	648	˜	77,645

	Expenditure
13,565	Staff	9,317	9,620	303	˜	13,482
587	Members Remuneration	378	413	35	˜	587
8,904	Contracts	6,532	6,888	356	˜	9,811
2,902	Professional Fees	2,279	2,570	291	˜	3,869
9,997	Depreciation	7,881	7,806	(75)	˜	10,383
13,926	Costs of Sales	1,964	860	(1,104)	˜	7,229
3,920	Refuse & Recycling Costs	2,971	3,037	66	˜	4,029
-	Cost Allocations	(9)	(2)	7	˜	(2)
1,723	Repairs & Maintenance	1,149	1,266	117	˜	1,940
1,410	Electricity & Fuel	1,031	1,042	11	˜	1,419
-	Loss on Sale of Asset	262	262	0	˜	262
652	Grants	461	496	35	˜	631
1,115	Technology Costs	704	760	56	˜	1,100
303	Projects	704	851	147	˜	1,231
639	Rates Expense	555	605	50	˜	712
423	Insurance	451	450	(1)	˜	455
2,037	Other Costs	1,056	1,388	332	˜	2,087
62,103	Total Expenses	37,686	38,312	626	˜	59,225

7,726	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	14,382	13,108	1,274		18,420

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for March 2022 show an overall favourable variance of $1.274M. Development contributions are higher than budget by $967k. Offsetting this are unfavourable variances in grants and subsidies, interest and dividends, and user fees and charges. Cost of sales of $1.964M have come through for stage one of the Dunstan Park subdivision. The budgets for subdivision cost of sales are recognised in June.

Income of $52.068M against the year-to-date budget of $51,420M

Overall income has a favourable variance against the revised budget by $648k. This is being driven by the timing of development contributions with a favourable variance of $967k. This variance is offset by the timing of water meter readings and Waka Kotahi subsidies.

The main variances are:

· Government grants and subsidies revenue has an unfavourable variance of ($106k). This is mainly due to the timing of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) roading subsidy contributing an unfavourable variance of ($264k). Subsidies are claimed for both the operational and capital roading work programmes and fluctuate based on the work programme. This unfavourable variance is offset by Tourism Infrastructure funding (TIF) of $165k for the Clyde Historic Precinct toilet upgrades. The budget for this is recognised in other income, however this funding has been correctly recognised in grants and subsidies.

· User fees and other has an unfavourable variance of ($350k). This is being driven by the timing of the water meter reading, with a variance of ($286k). There is another water meter read due before the end of the financial year. Other income has a variance of ($56k). This 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.

· Regulatory fees has a favourable variance of $140k. This variance continues to be driven by building consent revenue received, which year-to-date is $158k ahead of budget.

· Development Contributions has a favourable variance of $967k. This variance relates to the timing of development contributions which are dependent on the resource consent process and developer timeframes. Cromwell development contributions in wastewater, water and roading are higher than budgeted.

· Interest and dividends revenue is unfavourable against budget by ($129k). Interest rates received on term deposit investments are continuing to remain low, due to low market interest rates. Large project costs are also being managed with current cashflows while waiting for income to be received. This includes subdivision development costs. This results in less cash available to be invested and reduces the length of time term deposits can be locked in for. The current investment with Kiwibank is only returning 0.7% interest.

Expenditure of $37.686M against the year-to-date budget of $38.312M

Expenditure has a favourable variance of $626k. The main drivers behind the favourable variance are contracts, staff, professional fees, and other costs. Offsetting this favourable variance is the cost of sales from stage 1 of the Dunstan Park subdivision, along with depreciation.

The main variances are:

· Staff costs have a favourable variance of $303k. 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 $356k. 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 $147k; contracts $187k; and roading contracts $31k are the key timing variances year-to-date. The contracts variance of $187k is being driven by the timing of the Three Waters Stimulus operational improvements projects.

· Professional fees has a favourable variance of $291k. 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, engineers’ fees $76k; management consultants $178k; planning consultants $112k and recoverable professional fees ($178k).

· Depreciation has an unfavourable variance of ($75k). This is mainly due to a difference between the actual and budgeted wastewater depreciation. Wastewater assets reflect the updated valuations which occurred after the 2021-31 Long-term Plan was approved. The depreciation budget has been brought into alignment for the 2022-23 Annual Plan. Areas with major variances include parks and reserves recreation $213k; roading $64k; and wastewater ($234k).

· Costs of sales has an unfavourable variance of ($1.104M). This is due to the costs incurred for stage 1 of the Dunstan Park subdivision and is offset by land sales revenue of $3.7M received for the first stage of this development. The costs of sales budget have had 50% expenditure in April and 50% in June. Development costs from Cemetery Road for stage 1 have not yet been finalised and allocated to cost of sales. The subdivision development costs are held on the balance sheet in property intended for sale until each stage is complete and land sales are received.

· Repairs and maintenance has a favourable variance of $117k, mainly due to the timing of various projects as well as building maintenance requirements. Weed control of $33k, buildings repairs and maintenance $44k and equipment hire $27k are the key timing variances.

· Projects has a favourable variance of $147k, due to the phasing schedule of Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Other costs has a favourable variance of $332k. A detailed breakdown for other costs is tabled below.

Other costs breakdown:

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	232	344	112	˜	562
690	Office Expenses	371	448	77	˜	655
234	Operating Expenses	154	178	24	˜	234
327	Advertising	135	229	94	˜	374
175	Valuation Services	123	134	11	˜	175
76	Retail	41	55	14	˜	87
2,037	Total Other Costs	1,056	1,388	332		2,087

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 significant variances of note to report at present.

II. Profit and Loss by Activity for the period ending 31 March 2022

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 $967k. This is due to the timing of development contribution revenue. Cromwell development contributions in wastewater, water and roading are higher than budgeted. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($113k). This department is fully on-charged as an overhead. This variance is due to the timing of staff salaries being charged out to capital projects and will correct by the end of the year.

· Roading – income has an unfavourable variance of ($316k). 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 favourable variance of $149k. The capital work programme is currently ahead of budget with a year-to-date variance of ($1.6M).

· Waste Management - income has an unfavourable variance of ($3k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $91k. This is due to the waste and recycling costs, which fluctuate based on the volume of waste being processed.

· Parks and Recreation – income has an unfavourable variance of ($43k). This is mainly due to user fees and other income being ($33k) lower than revised. This is made up of admissions ($17k), other sales ($11k) and other income ($8k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $421k. A large portion of this is due to depreciation being $314k lower than budget. The remaining favourable variance is due to the timing of workplans and staffing requirements with underspends in contracts $43k and other costs $18k.

· Corporate Services – income has a small favourable variance of $1k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $114k. This is mainly due to underspends in computer maintenance and support $27k, other expenses $27k, and office expenses $17k.

· People and Culture – income has an unfavourable variance of ($27k). Impacting this variance, is the loss of the shared services arrangement with the Otago Regional Council by ($12k) and the timing of grant funding received for New Zealand Libraries Partnership Programme ($14k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $114k. Driving these variances are underspends in human resources $29k, health and safety $14k and libraries $59k.

· CEO – income has an unfavourable variance of ($7k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $242k. This is mainly due to the timing and need for, consultants $127k; staff costs $90k and other costs $25k.

· Property – income has an unfavourable variance of ($4k). Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($815k). This is mainly due to the costs of sales from stage one of the Dunstan Park subdivision of $1.9M. As discussed above, the budget for the costs of sales will come through in June. This is offset by underspends in community buildings $134k, commercial and other property $139k, airports $37k and elderly person housing $19k.

· Governance and Community Engagement – income has a favourable variance of $42k. This continues to be driven by the budget phasing of tourism grants. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $397k. This is due to underspends in promotions and tourism $152k, governance $61k, community development $76k, visitor centres $25k and regional identity $66k. The promotions and tourism variance relates to the phasing schedule for the Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Planning (Regulatory) – has a favourable income variance of $270k. This is mainly due to an increase in building permit revenue of $157k and professional fee recoveries $107k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $195k. This is due to the timing and need of training and compliance costs $36k, staff costs $76k and contracts $53k.

· Three Waters – income has an unfavourable variance of ($296k). This is mainly due the timing of metered water sales ($286k), with water meters being read in April and May 2022. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($167k). Driving this unfavourable variance is depreciation costs ($290k). This is offset by underspends in contracts by $55k; professional fees $48k and other costs $42k. The depreciation variance of ($290k) is being driven by wastewater ($235k), stormwater ($31k) ad water ($24k).

III. Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date, 41% 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.

2021/22 Annual Plan	CAPITAL EXPENDITURE	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		2021/22 Revised Budget	Progress to date against revised budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000	Progress to date against revised budget
6,058	Council Property and Facilities	1,088	3,464	2,376	˜	9,305	12%
382	Waste Management	384	571	187	˜	913	42%
-	i-SITEs	-	1	1	˜	4	0%
50	Customer Services and Administration	15	33	18	˜	62	24%
204	Vehicle Fleet	139	167	28	˜	256	54%
248	Planning	-	139	139	˜	348	0%
352	Information Services	193	354	161	˜	1,369	14%
164	Libraries	98	248	150	˜	512	19%
1,713	Parks and Recreation	729	1,801	1,072	˜	3,755	19%
7,420	Roading	5,289	3,650	(1,639)	˜	8,129	65%
14,243	Three Waters	18,444	20,546	2,102	˜	40,295	46%
30,834	Grand Total	26,379	30,974	4,595		64,948	41%

Council Property and Facilities $2.376M favourable against budget:

This is mainly due to the timing of the Cromwell Town Centre Projects currently underspent by $1.954M. This includes the Memorial Hall project, Cromwell Administration Buildings projects and grounds, paths and fences around the Town Centre. Other areas behind budget include community buildings $379k, council offices $162k and elderly person housing $17k.

1 Waste Management $187k favourable against budget:

The transfer station reconfiguration projects are contributing to $192k of the underspend. Some of this work is underway but not all work will be completed this year.

Vehicle Fleet $28k favourable against budget:

Vehicle renewals and purchases are under budget with 54% of the $256k total revised budget being spent.

Information Services $161k favourable against budget:

Information Services projects are behind budget. Projects include enhanced customer experience digital services $22k, enterprise resource planning information services $16k, financial performance improvement $89k and information and records management $24k.

Libraries $150k favourable against budget:

This favourable variance is due to the timing of the Alexandra Library building upgrade. Currently this project is in the design phase.

Parks and Recreation $1.072M 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. The work on installing the heat pump is well underway and is expected to be completed in late June.

Roading ($1.639) unfavourable against budget:

This unfavourable variance is due to the timing of the budget and work programme. Year-to-date $1.226M of the $1.365M annual revised budget has been spent. There is currently no budget allocated year-to-date March 2022, with the budget being allocated out over April, May and June. Other roading projects include footpath renewals $127k, carpark renewals $161k, structures renewals $173k, sealed road renewals ($584k), gravel road renewals ($206k) and drainage renewals ($50k). These variances are due to the timing of budgets and the work programme.

Three Waters is $2.1M favourable against budget:

The favourable variance is due to the timing of construction projects. The main drivers include the Lake Dunstan water supply $1.062M, water treatment plant and capacity upgrades $2.3M, wastewater improvements $135k and water stimulus fund projects $383k.

IV. Statement of Financial Position

The Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) is to show the comparisons between actual and budget for control accounts. Comparing the assets, liabilities and equity to the prior financial year actuals and the current year-to-date actuals, along with the full year revised budget and Annual Plan.

Council meeting Agenda

1 June 2022

2020/21 Full Year Actual	2020/21 YTD March Actual	STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION	2021/22 YTD March Actual	2021/22 Full Year Revised Budget	2021/22 Full Year Annual Plan
$000	$000	for the period ended 31 March 2022	$000	$000	$000
		EQUITY
392,499	382,751	Ratepayers equity	404,031	410,719	389,661
12,318	10,009	Surplus/(Deficit)	14,382	18,420	7,726
7,035	14,638	Council Reserves	7,905	4,176	4,177
487,476	483,506	Property revaluation reserve	487,404	496,640	496,629
(17)	(20)	Investment shares fair value revaluation reserve	(17)	(20)	(20)
80	80	Restricted reserves	80	80	80
899,391	890,964	Total equity	913,785	930,015	898,253
		REPRESENTED BY:
		Current assets
6,514	15,051	Cash and cash equivalents	3,594	19,896	19,896
10,000	5,000	Other financial assets	5,000	8,000	8,000
4,852	1,054	Receivables	3,078	3,171	3,171
-	-	Non Current assets held for sale	-	-	-
5,394	2,342	Inventories	6,988	(815)	1,509
-	-	Investment Bond	-	625	625
26,760	23,447	Total current assets	18,660	30,877	33,201
		Less current liabilities
256	495	Agency and deposits	259	273	273
13,254	4,078	Payables and deferred revenue	8,900	4,705	4,705
673	581	Employee entitlements	697	1,010	1,010
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	-	-	-
14,183	5,154	Total current liabilities	9,856	5,988	5,988
12,577	18,293	Working capital	8,804	24,889	27,213
		Non-current assets
111	109	Available for sale financial assets	111	109	109
282	295	Loans and receivables	241	333	333
26,030	22,830	Work in Progress	47,424	60,961	26,929
852,766	846,563	Property, plant and equipment	849,599	864,417	864,363
1,272	845	Intangible assets	1,250	2,271
431	355	Forestry assets	431	357	357
5,925	1,675	Investment property	5,925	1,683	1,683
886,817	872,672	Total non-current assets	904,981	930,131	896,045
		Less non-current liabilities
-	1	Provisions	-	5	5
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	-	25,000	25,000
-	1	Total non-current liabilities	-	25,005	25,005

899,394	890,964	Net assets (assets minus liabilities)	913,785	930,015	898,253

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
Māniōtoto 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 March 2022, the outstanding balance was $148k. Council has received $40.9k in principal payments and $7.1k in interest payments.

Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2021 Actual Opening Balance	Principal	Interest	31 March 2022 Actual Closing Balance
Cromwell College	400,000	130,770	26,369	5,218	104,400
Māniōtoto Curling	160,000	35,662	10,248	1,167	25,413
Oturehua Water	46,471	22,623	4,307	795	18,316
	606,471	189,055	40,924	7,180	148,129

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 ($12.825M).

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Council Wide Reserve Funds 2021-2022.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann McDowall	Leanne Macdonald
Finance Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
16/05/2022	17/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.9 Recommendation to Adopt the Otago Civil Defence Emergency Management Agreement

Doc ID: 577816

1. Purpose of Report

To seek approval of the partnership arrangement between Otago Regional Council and the five territorial authorities of Otago for the delivery of Civil Defence and Emergency Management responsibilities.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes that the proposed agreement has been endorsed by the Otago Civil Defence and Emergency Management Coordinating Executive Group.

C. Endorses the proposed Otago Civil Defence and Emergency Management Partnership Agreement

D. Agrees that the Mayor should sign the document on behalf of the Central Otago District Council.

2. Background

Emergency Management Otago, as it exists in its current form, was created in 2016 following a review in 2015. The purpose of this review was to assess Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) arrangements and to investigate options for ensuring appropriate readiness and the delivery of an effective response in the Otago region.

CDEM operates as a collaborative arrangement by the councils within the Otago region to manage the responsibilities under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002.

Although the formation of Emergency Management Otago (EMO) was supported at the time by a resolution of the Joint Committee, this was not ratified with the signing of a formal agreement that outlined the roles and responsibilities of each party.

In 2019 the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG) again sought an independent review of CDEM arrangements in Otago. Bruce Robertson was engaged and submitted a formal review document in January 2020.

Three of the eight core findings directly spoke to problems arising out of a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities.

The following exerts were contained within his report:

The role of ORC as the administering authority needs to be better defined. It is either assuming, or expected to assume, a role that is more than supporting the work of the Joint Committee and the CEG. This is compounded by a lack of clarity about the funding arrangements through the regionally collected CDEM targeted rate and how it is determined. The uncertainty around the role of the administering authority diverts focus from the primacy of Joint Committee and CEG working with the EMO to provide effective CDEM services.

Associated with defining the role of the administering authority, it would be beneficial to also define what ORC does to meet its own CDEM responsibilities. This would assist the relationship – professionally and administratively – between ORC and EMO and, also, between ORC and its fellow group partners.

A corollary to better definition of ORC’s roles (as an administering authority and as a regional council) is also greater clarity on the individual territorial authorities’ responsibilities, their activities and level of funding.

Bruce Robertson went on to recommend the following

The review recommends that C.E.G.:

Notes the current structural arrangements are fit for purpose; however, those arrangements would be enhanced by:

• Developing a detailed description of roles of EMO, ORC as the administering authority, ORC as an authority in its right and in terms of its regional responsibilities and the constituent territorial authorities

Otago’s arrangement is also supported by an August 2018 parliamentary report in response to a 2017 CDEM sector Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) review commissioned by Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee – CDEM Minister.

‘Delivering better responses to natural disasters and other emergencies – Government response to the Technical Advisory Group’s recommendations.

Require Groups to take a regional approach consistent with the intent of the CDEM Act (2.1).

We support a strengthened regional approach to emergency management while still providing flexibility for local delivery to suit local needs and characteristics.

We intend to amend the CDEM Act so that the CDEM Group and member local authorities have clear and separate responsibilities for emergency management. Groups (local authorities collectively) would continue to be responsible for planning and providing for emergency management. Groups would have an explicit function to coordinate emergency management activity across the region through the Group Plan, work programme, and shared emergency management service agreement. Local authority members would be required to give effect to the decisions of the Group, including to resource the decisions of the Group.

We intend to also provide more flexibility for Joint Committee Groups to agree which member local authority will act as the Group’s statutory administering authority. The regional council remains as a default unless the Group agrees otherwise. This reinforces the current intent of the CDEM Act that the regional council does not have any greater governance role than any other member. We intend to also enable Group members, in an emergency when an urgent decision is required, to attend a Group (Joint Committee) meeting by audio/audio-visual link, rather than having to be physically present, in order to achieve a quorum. This has been an issue in the past for Group leadership in an emergency.

From this, we expect increased economies of scale, capability, capacity, and interoperability between regions to deliver better emergency management services across the 4Rs. There is still flexibility to tailor activities to suit local needs and characteristics. Emergency management personnel can be embedded in local authorities to take account of the needs of, and maintain connections with, local communities.

The attached agreement (Appendix 1) is a representation of roles and responsibilities as they currently exist in Otago. It is not envisaged that any of the material contained in the document will add additional burden to parties in excess of activity that should have been occurring to date.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1, The Otago CDEM Group area

3. Discussion

The 2016 reorganisation of CDEM arrangements in Otago has achieved its intent. However, clarity of roles and responsibilities that are prescribed in a manner to remove doubt from all parties is advantageous.

The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) are actively consulting on sector reform (TRIFECTA). This reform is in response to a National Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) review into CDEM arrangements in New Zealand.

The government’s response to this review has been referenced earlier in this document confirming that the joint approach to CDEM activities in Otago is seen as an exemplar.

This agreement clearly defines roles and responsibilities as defined in Section 17 and 64 of the CDEM Act 2002.

4. Financial Considerations

As defined in Schedule B of the Partnership Agreement, there is nan integrated planning cycle that fits with the Regional Council’s annual and long-term planning calendars.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Endorse the proposed agreement accepting the roles and responsibilities as documented.

Advantages:

· A consistent regional approach rationalised and strengthened

· Roles and responsibilities of all parties clearly defined

· Better interoperability between and across councils and boundaries

· Clarity around funding and funding cycles

· Better alignment with council operational activities

Disadvantages:

· The duration of the agreement should the council wish to withdraw (due to Group Plan and annual planning cycles)

· Ambiguity around funding and funding cycles

· Inconsistent response from councils, possibly to the same event

Option 2

Status Quo. Continue to deliver in absence of a formal agreement

Advantages:

· Council not being committed to a formal, region-wide agreement

Disadvantages:

· A haphazard approach across the Otago region

· Lack of definition and clarity around roles and responsibilities of any parties

· Less clarification around funding in both the short and long terms

· A disconnect within council operating functions

· Potential exposure to adverse events

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by giving a clear pathway for future interaction between Emergency Management Otago and the Central Otago District Council. AND/OR This decision promotes the (social/cultural/economic) wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by outlining the roles and responsibilities of all the parties for the benefit of the wider community.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	This agreement is purported to be entirely consistent with the planning and strategy of the Central Otago District Council.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There is no negative impact on these aspects from this proposal.
Risks Analysis	The relevant legislation allows the arrangement. There is no legislative requirement to have a written agreement however an agreement is good practice and reduces risk for all parties by ensuring responsibilities etc are clear.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This is formalising a current arrangement, no further engagement other that the consultation completed to date is required.

7. Next Steps

That Joint Committee ratify the partnership agreement by having all mayors sign it as representatives of the Otago Emergency Management Group.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Otago CDEM Partnership Agreement ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Derek Shaw	Sanchia Jacobs
Emergency Manager - Central Otago	Chief Executive Officer
20/05/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.10 Waka Kotahi Proposed Closure of MuttonTown Road/State Highway 8 Intersection

Doc ID: 581546

1. Purpose of Report

To consider Waka Kotahi’s proposed closure of Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 intersection.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves to submit to Waka Kotahi supporting the proposal to close Mutton Town Road, but request a ‘left turn in’ option be investigated.

2. Background

Mutton Town Road (the Road) adjoins the western side of the Clyde-Alexandra Road, about 5.5 kilometres north of the Alexandra township. The Road is a sealed road being approximately 1.3 kilometres long. At its northern end the Road intersects Hospital Street then joins Sunderland Street. An overview of the Road is shown below in figure 1.

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 - Overview of Mutton Town Road.

3. Discussion

Council officers have been notified by Waka Kotahi that they will be consulting with the public (and adjoining affected landowners) on the proposed closure of the Muttontown Road / SH8 Clyde-Alexandra Road intersection.

Waka Kotahi have signalled that safety is the main driver of this proposal to permanently close the intersection. Safety deficiencies make this intersection unsuitable to manage anticipated traffic increases from known (and possible future) land development changes that will impact this intersection.

The permanent closure of the SH8 Clyde-Alexandra Road/Mutton Town Road Intersection is the preferred option of Waka Kotahi. The consultation is an opportunity for the community to provide feedback to Waka Kotahi on the proposal.

Chart

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Figure 2 - Location of the proposed closure.

Although Muttontown Road is a local road, this intersection is within road corridor that is controlled by Waka Kotahi and not Council. Therefore, the decision and consultation process related to a potential closure is the responsibility of Waka Kotahi.

Although Council do not have delegated authority to make this decision, it is important that Council provide feedback to this proposal. The Vincent Community Board were informally updated on this proposal at their last meeting by Council roading officers (which was before a final public notice was provided by Waka Kotahi).

Council officers understand the Waka Kotahi approach to a full closure but believe there could be merit for a ‘left in’ alternative approach to managing this intersection.

The ‘left in’ approach would close the intersection to all users except traffic turning left into Mutton Town Road, when travelling along State Highway 8 toward Clyde from the Alexandra township.

This option may address the safety concern, whilst maintaining connectivity for residents and reducing pressure on alternative routes. The ability of being able to provide the alternative ‘left in’ would need to be investigated by Waka Kotahi to ensure it could be provided safely.

Waka Kotahi will be out for public consultation on the proposed closure between 1 June to 1 July 2022.

A copy of Waka Kotahi’s consultation public notice is attached for reference.

4. Financial Considerations

There are no costs associated with providing feedback on the proposal.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Submit to Waka Kotahi on the proposal to close the Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 in support of the proposal but requesting a ‘left turn in’ option be investigated.

The submission would support full closure if the outcome of the investigation of the ‘left turn in’ option revealed safety risks.

Advantages:

· Addresses safety concerns with the current intersection layout.

· Maintains a point of access on Mutton Town Road for users travelling from Alexandra to Clyde.

Disadvantages:

· Requires investigation by Waka Kotahi and may not be a viable option.

Option 2

Submit to Waka Kotahi on the proposal to close the Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 in support of the proposal.

The submission would not request a ‘left turn in’ option be investigated.

Advantages:

· Addresses safety concerns with the current intersection layout.

Disadvantages:

· Potential to increase travel time users of Mutton Town Road and reduce connectivity.

Option 3

Submit to Waka Kotahi on the proposal to close the Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 intersection against the proposal.

Advantages:

· No change to intersection layouts.

· No reduction to current travel time for users of Mutton Town Road.

Disadvantages:

· There are safety concerns with the current intersection layout.

Option 4

Do not submit to Waka Kotahi on the proposal to close the Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 intersection.

Advantages:

· No advantages.

Disadvantages:

· Council’s view on the closure of the Mutton Town Road / State Highway 8 intersection would not be considered.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring safe transportation networks are provided for the community.
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	Yes
Risks Analysis	There is no risk to Council. This intersection is the responsibility of Waka Kotahi. Council are providing feedback, however, do not make the final decision.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This does not meet the significance, consultation, and engagement threshold.

7. Next Steps

Following the meeting feedback will be provided to Waka Kotahi.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 22-157 SH8 Intersection Public notice Ad 200x137 v5 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Sanchia Jacobs
Infrastructure Manager	Chief Executive Officer
20/05/2022	24/05/2022

1 June 2022

22.4.11 2021-24 NLTP Roading Improvements Programme

Doc ID: 556917

1. Purpose of Report

To consider approving an unsubsidised roading improvement programme from Long Term Plan projects Waka Kotahi did not approve as part of the subsidised programme.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves construction of the following road improvement projects for 2021-24:

C. Approves the following unsubsidised improvement projects identified for the 2021-24 period:

· $400,000 for the Cornish Point Road seal extension

· $500,000 for the Bendigo Loop Road seal extension

· $134,390 to begin Māori Point Road design and investigation phase

2. Background

Council approved a $6,452,000 roading improvement programme in the 2021-24 Long Term Plan to be subsidised from the Waka Kotahi low cost low risk work category. The expectation was that Waka Kotahi would provide a subsidy of 51% ($3,290,520) with Council funding the remaining 49% ($3,162,480).

Projects under this work category are required to meet the criteria for funding and be approved by Waka Kotahi before proceeding.

On 7 September 2021 Waka Kotahi advised that they had approved a roading improvements programme with total value of $4,341,000 for the 2021-24 period. This is $2,111,000 less than included in the 2021 Long Term Plan.

The projects that were approved for funding by Waka Kotahi are as follows:

Project	Phase	Value
Clyde Heritage Precinct (stage 2 + 3)	Construction	$2,965,000
Alexandra Bridge cycle clip on	Investigation/design	$220,000
Clyde Bridge Traffic Lights	Construction	$400,000
Sargood Road/Murray Terrace Roundabout	Investigation/design	$100,000
Realignment of Murray Terrace investigation/design	Investigation/design	$85,000
Barry Avenue/Waenga Drive Roundabout	Investigation/design	$75,000
Development of Link Lane and other lane improvements	Investigation/design	$50,000
Speed Limit Signs	Construction	$250,000
Small Safety Improvements (Muttontown Road/Shortcut Road)	Construction	$195,000
Total		$4,340,000

Projects that were included in the Long Term Plan for the 2021-24 period, but were not approved by Waka Kotahi are as follows:

Project	Phase	Value Requested
Barry Avenue/Murray Terrace Intersection Improvements	Investigation/design	$20,000
Waenga Drive/Murray Terrace Intersection Improvements	Investigation/design	$20,000
Kerb Cutdown/Crossing Improvements ($50K/year)	Construction	$150,000
Seal extensions at Intersections ($100K/year)	Construction	$300,000
Small Safety Projects	Construction	$105,000
Cycle Trail River/Lake crossing at Clyde	Investigation/design	$100,000
New Footpaths/Cycleways ($100K/year)	Construction	$300,000
Neplusultra Street Path Improvements	Construction	$900,000
Māori Point Road Seal Extension	Investigation/design	$217,000
Total		$2,112,000

If Council were to proceed with the work programme included in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan then it would need to fully fund the work that was declined for Waka Kotahi funding. The shortfall in subsidy funding is $1,076,610. If Council did not proceed with the work then there would be $1,034,390 of local share funding not spent.

Work is now proceeding with the projects that were included in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan and have been approved for subsidy by Waka Kotahi.

A decision is required as to what to do with the remaining local share funding and work programme.

3. Discussion

Investigation and design of the Barry Avenue and Waenga Drive intersections with Murray Terrace is required to progress the Cromwell Masterplan work programme. Construction work for the upgrades is currently programmed in the 2024- 2027 period. Staff believe that the $40,000 cost of the investigation and design work for these two intersections may be able to be accommodated within a $310,000 package of design work that has been approved for other Cromwell intersections.

The kerb cutdown/footpath crossing project and seal extensions at intersections project were added to the program following the Waka Kotahi technical audit. This work was recommended in the audit report, but has subsequently not been approved for subsidy. This may be approved in future funding applications.

Council requested $300,000 for small safety projects. The intention was to use this to address small safety deficiencies that arise as a consequence of growth or change in network use. Two projects were specifically identified, traffic calming on Shortcut Road, and Muttontown Road/State Highway 8 intersection, with the remaining funding to be used for issues that arise over the three year period. The two identified projects have been funded with the additional funding allocation not approved.

Funding of $400,000 was approved to install traffic lights on the Clyde Bridge. This was intended as a temporary measure to manage vehicle and cycle traffic across the bridge until a more permanent separate cycle bridge or crossing point was investigated, designed, and constructed.

The remaining projects which have no subsidy allocated are:

New Footpaths/Cycleways ($100K/year)	Construction	$300,000
Neplusultra Street Path Improvements	Construction	$900,000
Māori Point Road Seal Extension	Investigation/design	$217,000

As Waka Kotahi did not approve all of the requested programme, this leaves a local share (49%) that could be used for unsubsidised improvements to a total value of $1,034,880.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 1 June 2022
Date:	Wednesday, 1 June 2022
Time:	10.30 am
Location:	Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra (Due to COVID-19 restrictions and limitations of the physical space, public access will be available through 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