Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 6 July 2022

Council Meeting Agenda

6 July 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, 1 June 2022 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

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

IN ATTENDANCE: S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services and Water Services Lead), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), A Rodgers (Principal Policy Planner), L Webster (Regulatory Services Manager), A McDowall (Finance Manager), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), M Alley (Manager/Group Controller - Emergency Management Otago), J Harris (Governance Support Officer) and W McEnteer (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Apology

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the apology received from Cr Gillespie be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Rebekah de Jong – Central Otago Districts Arts Trust

Ms de Jong spoke in support of the grant application for the Central Otago District Arts Trust.

David Ritchie and Maggie Hope - Central Otago Heritage Trust

Mr Ritchie and Ms Hope spoke in support of the grant application for the Central Otago Heritage Trust before responding to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Paterson

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 April 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 Jeffery declared an interest in item 22.4.11. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item. Cr McPherson declared an interest in the Alexandra and Districts Pipe Band portion of item 22.4.2. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on that portion of the item.

5 Reports

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

Note: Cr McPherson declared an interest in the Alexandra and Districts Pipe Band portion of item 22.4.2. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on that portion of the item.

22.4.2 Community Grants Applications

To consider the March 2022 district wide community grant applications.

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Alley

B. Allocates $2,500 to the Alexandra and Districts Pipe Band Inc towards hall hire, from the 2021/22 grants budget.

Carried

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

C. Agrees to fund a one-off adjustment to the Central Otago District Arts Trust and the Central Otago Heritage Trust of $13,334 each ($26,668 in total), to ensure existing levels of funding to both organisations until 1 November 2022.

D. That the one-off adjustment to the Central Otago District Arts Trust and the Central Otago Heritage Trust is paid for by committing the remaining $16,395 from the 2021/22 district wide grants budget to this purpose and $10,273 to be paid for from the 2022/23 district wide grants budget.

E. Allocates $40,000 to the Central Otago Heritage Trust for programme coordination in the 2022/23 financial year.

F. Allocates $40,000 to the Central Otago District Arts Trust for operational costs in the 2022/23 financial year.

Carried

Note: Cr Cooney assumed the Chair as the Planning and Regulatory portfolio deputy lead.

Note: Cr McKinlay left the meeting at 11:00 am and returned at 11:04 am.

22.4.3 Earthquake Prone Buildings

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

After discussion it was agreed that staff should be in contact directly with owners of effected buildings.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Cadogan

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Cadogan

B. Approves the thoroughfares identified to have priority buildings that are potentially earthquake prone and directs staff to contact individual owners.

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

Carried

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

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

A number of typographical errors were noted. Staff would fix those errors before releasing the document for consultation.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

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.

Carried

22.4.5 Teviot Valley Spatial Plan - Approval of Project Plan

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.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Duncan

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.

Carried

Note: His Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.

Note: With the permission of the meeting, items 22.4.8, 22.4.10 and items 22.4.13-22.4.19 were moved forward.

Note: Cr Cooney left the meeting at 11.41 am and returned at 11.42 am.

Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 11.41 am and returned at 11.42 am.

22.4.8 Financial Report For The Period Ending 31 March 2022

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 31 March 2022.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.4.13 Updated 2022 Meeting Schedule

To approve an updated schedule of meetings for 2022.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the updated 2022 meeting schedule.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

22.4.14 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor spoke to his report before responding to questions.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

7 Status Reports

22.4.15 June 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 status report updates.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

8 Community Board Minutes

22.4.16 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 May 2022

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 May 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.4.17 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 5 May 2022

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 5 May 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.4.18 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 9 May 2022

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 9 May 2022 be noted.

Carried

22.4.19 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 May 2022

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 May 2022 be noted.

Carried

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

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

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

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Laws

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

Carried

Note: His Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.

22.4.6 Ripponvale Water Supply Scheme Deliberations

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

Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Laws

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 of the report) 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 of the report) 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 of the report). 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).

Carried

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

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.

Some typographical errors were noted. Staff would amend those errors before releasing the finalised document.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

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 of the report.

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 of the report) 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 D 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 D 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 of the report.

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

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

I. Adopts the Liability Management Policy, as detailed in Appendix 5 of the report, 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.

Carried

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 12:33 pm.

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12:33 pm and resumed at 1.06 pm.

22.4.9 Recommendation to Adopt the Otago Civil Defence Emergency Management Agreement

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.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Paterson

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.

Carried

Note: Cr Duncan assumed the Chair Roading portfolio lead.

Note: Cr Jeffery declared an interest in item 22.4.11. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item.

Note: Cr McKinlay left the meeting at 1.12 pm and returned at 1.13 pm.

22.4.11 2021-24 NLTP Roading Improvements Programme

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

After discussion it was decided that at this stage only the Cornish Point Road work should go ahead but that the decision could be revisited in June 2023.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

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

Carried

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Paterson

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

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

C. Reconsider the remaining parts of the unsubsidised improvements programme for 2023/24 in June 2023.

Carried

22.4.12 2021-24 Bridge Strategy Proposal

To consider the extent of bridge work required, and prioritisation of available funding for the 2022-24 period. To consider the development of a bridge strategy to support the funding application for the 2024 National Land Transport Fund, and the 2024 Long Term Plan.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Jeffery

That the Council

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

B. Notes that extent of high priority bridge work required, and replacements of existing bridges which are either closed, or at risk of closure will significantly exceed the budget available in the 2021-24 period.

C. Agrees to the appointment of a dedicated project manager to manage all bridge investigation, customer liaison, physical works, work programme development, and strategy delivery.

D. Approves funding the project management costs from the existing bridge structural renewals budget.

E. Directs staff to investigate and report back at the July 2022 meeting on options and costs for a temporary bailey bridge to be installed at the location Māniatoto Road/Taeiri River (Bridge 145), including opportunities for cost share with the adjacent affected landowner.

F. Directs staff to report back to Council with a prioritised list of renewal work to be undertaken in 2022/23 from remaining budgets on 9 November 2022.

G. Approves the engagement of specialist bridge engineering expertise to complete the remaining inspections, and prepare work methodologies for renewals, options for bridge replacements, and supporting cost estimates, to be completed by February 2023.

H. Approves funding the specialist bridge engineer from the remaining bridge inspection budget and then from the bridge structural renewals budget.

I. Approves the engagement of Fulton Hogan (as the incumbent roading physical works contractor) to provide early contractor involvement in the development of work methodologies and cost estimates with the specialist bridge engineer.

J. Directs staff to consider a range of options for replacement of bridges, including replacement with lower cost structures which provide different levels of service.

K. Directs staff to consider a range of options for funding future bridge capital work, with associated rating implications.

L. Agrees that no further bridge replacement be undertaken until a prioritised list of work, with implications of deferral for each structure is available for Council consideration in February 2023.

Carried

Note: His Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.

9 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 6 July 2022.

10 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

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

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
22.4.20 - Water and Wastewater Operations and Maintenance contract	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
22.4.21 - Award of Solid Waste Services Contract	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
22.4.22 - June 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
22.4.23 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 May 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
22.4.24 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 9 May 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
22.4.25 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 May 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

Carried

The public were excluded at 2.07 pm and the meeting closed at 2.51 pm.

6 July 2022

5 Reports

22.5.2 Provision of a temporary bridge structure

Doc ID: 585292

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the installation of a temporary Bailey bridge at Maniototo Road/Taieri River (Bridge 145) until a permanent structure can be considered as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves installation of a temporary bridge structure at the location Maniototo Road/Taieri River (Bridge 145) funded from the existing bridge maintenance funding budget on condition that the adjoining landowner funds half the cost of hire (monthly rental) for a 3 year period.

C. Directs staff to formalise the cost share arrangement with the adjoining landowner for the rental of the temporary bridge structure.

2. Background

Council has had 187 structural inspections undertaken on bridge structures in the past 15 months. The first round of inspections of 17 structures was undertaken in January 2021 following extensive flooding in the Māniatoto area.

The Maniototo Road/Taieri River bridge (Bridge 145) is a single-lane, four-span bridge with a timber deck and timber beams. There is a large longitudinal crack in the beam, beams have rotated and warped, and the transverse beams have bowed. Multiple deck planks have failed and fractured, with moderate decay in others. There are large cracks in the abutment piles and beam hold-down bolts have typically corroded. All piles have cracks ranging from mild to severe and bracing has failed or detached. There is also severe decay in the kerbs.

Figure 1 shows the common bridge structure components described above.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Common bridge components

Following inspection from a bridging engineer the bridge was deemed unsafe for continued use and was closed in January 2021. The added journey length of the alternative route is approximately 16km.

A report presented at the 1 June 2022 Council meeting directed staff to investigate and report back at the July 2022 meeting on options and costs for a temporary Bailey bridge to be installed at the location, Maniototo Road/Taieri River (Bridge 145), including opportunities for a cost share with the adjacent affected landowner. The report with all recommendations adopted by Council can be found in Appendix 1: 2021-24 Bridge Strategy Proposal.

3. Discussion

A Bailey bridge is a modular form bridge system that is versatile and relatively quick to erect and dismantle. It provides single-lane vehicle access for temporary or semi-permanent use. The basic component of a Bailey bridge is a three-metre long truss panel. This can be configured to provide variable span lengths and cater for a range of loads.

Developed by the British during the Second World War, Bailey bridges remain a cost-effective system, being versatile and relatively quick and easy to build and dismantle.

Bailey bridges have been used around the world for the past 70 years for uses such as:

· replacing collapsed bridges

· restoring access to roads washed out in storms

· providing cost-effective temporary structures for roading projects

· providing minor stream crossings for movie locations and other non-emergency situations

Figure 2 shows an example of an installed Bailey bridge.

A picture containing outdoor, ground, mountain, nature

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Bailey bridge example

Installation of the temporary Bailey bridge would allow the route to be re-opened in the short term, this will provide time and better distribute available funding across the bridge network allowing the assessment of all Central Otago District Council’s bridges and the development of a strategy for renewal work to be undertaken in 2022/23 along with the Waka Kotahi funding application in 2024.

Waka Kotahi currently has the structure components available to be shipped to the location within two weeks. Taking into account site preparation works and engineering it’s reasonable to expect the bridge to be completed around 8 weeks from ordering.

4. Financial Considerations

Multiple options for the hire of a Bailey bridge have been explored. It has been determined that Bailey bridge hire service offered by Waka Kotahi is the most suitable option in terms of cost and level of service provided.

All hirers are required to pay for Bailey bridge transport, construction and dismantling, monthly hire and inspections. The service is run on a not-for-profit basis, with hire charges used to pay for the components' storage and maintenance.

The total one-off cost for bridge establishment and disestablishment is approximately $200,000. This includes geotechnical investigation and design, preparation of launch pad, abutments, approaches, transportation to location, erection of the bridge, installation of running planks and dismantling costs.

The on-going hire of the temporary Bailey bridge is $4,400 per month ($52,800 per annum). The adjoining landowner has agreed to a 50% cost share for the period of 3 years for the on-going monthly hire of the temporary Bailey bridge.

The total cost to Council for the 3-year period is $279,200 with $79,200 being met by the adjoining landowner. The total cost of hire for 3 years is $358,400.

The one off establishment, disestablishment and on-going hire of the temporary Bailey bridge can be accommodated within existing bridging budgets until a permanent structure and can be considered as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Defer permanent replacement of Maniototo Road/ Taieri River (Bridge 145), through installation of a temporary Bailey bridge until a permanent structure and can be considered as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan.

Advantages:

· A temporary bridge will be installed to enable the Maniototo Road/ Taieri River (Bridge 145) route to be re-opened.

· Funding of the 2021-24 Bridge Strategy can progress within bridging budgets.

· Remaining bridging budget is available to enable high priority work to be undertaken in the 2022-23 period, resulting in less bridges being restricted in the short term.

· An adjoining landowner is willing to contribute 50% of the hire costs (monthly rental) of the temporary Bailey bridge for a period of 3 years.

Disadvantages:

· Lease costs of approximately $2,200/month ($26,400 per annum) for the Bailey Bridge will need to be funded from existing bridge maintenance funding (Work Category 114).

· One-off costs of $200,000 will be required for the geotechnical design, preparation of launch pad, abutments, approaches, transportation, erection, running planks and disestablishment of the temporary Bailey bridge.

· A precedent may be set for provision of temporary bridges on low volume roads.

Option 2

Do not provide a temporary Bailey bridge at the Maniototo Road/ Taieri River (Bridge 145).

Advantages:

· Funding could be allocated to other bridging work.

Disadvantages:

· Maniototo Road/ Taieri River (Bridge 145) will remain closed until at least 2025.

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 enabling temporary access to land until consideration of the entire bridge network can be considered as part of Council’s 2024-34 Long Term Plan.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The expenditure proposed is consistent with the 2021 Long Term Plan and allows for the 2021 – 24 Bridging Strategy to progress.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The provision of a temporary bridge will result in lower fuel use for users of the bridge.
Risks Analysis	There is risk of raising expectations for users at other locations, and of setting a precedent.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.

7. Next Steps

· Formalise cost share arrangement with adjoining landowner. (July)

· Engage a geotechnical engineer to confirm to foundation suitability. (July)

· Arrange hire and installation of the temporary Bailey bridge (August – September)

· Open route to the public. (September)

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 2021-24 BRIDGE STRATEGY PROPOSAL ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Sanchia Jacobs
Infrastructure Manager	Chief Executive Officer
23/06/2022	29/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.3 Internal Road Stoppings

Doc ID: 584808

1. Purpose of Report

To consider whether the costs associated with internally initiated road stoppings, which are for the specific benefit of Council, should be considered on a case by case basis.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees that when a road stopping is initiated internally, for the specific benefit of Council, that the matters relating to the costs be considered on a case by case basis, with the overall purpose of the stopping determining whether payment for the land is required.

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

2. Background

Proposed Stopping of Part Melmore Terrace

At their meeting of 29 March 2022, the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) considered a report proposing the stopping of part of Melmore Terrace.

The purpose of the proposed stopping was to facilitate the transfer of a large block of legal road to Council to maximise the design options and overall development of the new Cromwell Memorial Hall/Events Centre.

The area of the parcel of legal road proposed for stopping was approximately 1640 square metres. Quotable Value have valued the parcel at $550,000 plus GST (if any). Other costs associated with the stopping, (valuation, survey, and gazettal) were estimated to be approximately $10,000.

A copy of the report to the Board dated 29 March 2022, is attached as Appendix 1.

While the Board agreed to the stopping in principle, they also raised a number of concerns regarding the value of the land, and the impact the purchase would have on the Memorial Hall/Events Centre budget.

On consideration, the Board resolved to leave the report to lie on the table.

Request from Board Chair

On 30 May 2022, the Chair of the Board contacted Council’s Chief Executive to discuss the matter and its being left to lie on the table. Specific points raised by the Chair of the Board included:

- The existing [Hall] site being quite limited and challenging,

- The benefits of purchasing the road reserve in front of the hall to increase the size of building platform,

- Why the Board is required to pay for land when they cannot own it, and;

- That the Board would effectively be buying Council land as the Council from the Council.

The Chair of the Board then asked if it were possible for Council to consider transferring the stopped road to the Board for $1.00 and if the matter could be expedited so as not to cause additional delays to the project.

Ward Based and Distritised Activities

Roading is a distritised activity.

Land ownership is a ward based activity, however.

As noted by the Chair of the Board in her email of 30 May 2022, Community Boards have no delegated authority under which they can own land. Instead, all land is held by Council as the owner or on behalf of the various Community Boards.

3. Discussion

Legislation and Policy

Road Stoppings can be affected in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 or the Local Government Act 1974.

The procedure for selecting the correct statutory (stopping) process (Act) is outlined in Section 8 of Council’s Roading Policy. Council’s Roading Policy also stipulates that the applicant is required to pay all costs associated with the stopping, including purchase of the land at market valuation, as shown in the following extract of section 8.5 of the Roading Policy:

Road Stopping Costs and Fees

Where a road stopping is initiated by the Council, the costs and expenses associated with the road stopping (including Council staff time) are to be funded from the Business Unit initiating the road stopping.

Where any other person applies to stop a road, then that person shall be responsible for meeting all costs and expenses associated with the road stopping process as determined by the Council (including Council staff time).

The Council may, in its discretion, determine that there is an element of public benefit to the proposed road stopping, and may agree that the costs associated with the road stopping should be shared between the applicant and the Council in such proportions as the Council shall determine. This will normally only be considered in the situation where a section of formed road is located on private property, and a road stopping process is being undertaken in tandem with legalising the existing road alignment.

As noted in the policy extract, the Council may in its discretion determine that there is an element of public benefit associated with the proposed stopping and may agree that the costs associated with the road stopping be shared between the applicant and the Council.

The purpose of Council’s Roading Policy as it relates to Road Stoppings, is outlined in section 8.1 of the Policy.

8.1 Purpose

To manage requests from the public to stop sections of legal road.

Road stopping is the term given to removing the legal road status road and providing a freehold title for that section of land. This then enables the sale of that section of the land to the adjoining landowner.

The first sentence of the purpose states that the Policy relates to requests (applications) from the public. On that basis it is suggested that the Policy does not apply to this decision, with Council having the option to exercise the discretion referred to in section 8.5 of the Policy.

In this instance, the application is not from the public, but from one department of Council to another, and as such, special consideration should be given to the last two objectives of the Policy, which are outlined in Section 8.2, and in extract below:

8.2 Objective

The objective of this policy is to:

- outline the criteria Council may consider when determining if a road should be stopped or not

- identify which statutory process should be used for different situations

- identify the responsibility for costs of road stopping

- outline the method by which the land will be valued.

Historic Examples of Discretion being Exercised

In the past, Council has approved a number of road stoppings in which discretion has been exercised. These include the following examples:

1. Adjacent to 24 Ferris Road

In this instance, the applicants had had built their house very close to the boundary of the legal road, then later constructed their garage and driveway on the legal road.

As Council had approved and signed off both building consents it was determined that the stopping should be approved with the land being transferred at nil consideration.

2. Off Tarras – Cromwell Road

The house on the property at 2093 Tarras – Cromwell Road is almost fully constructed on legal road. This was an historic encroachment which had gone unnoticed for some time.

The encroachment was identified by the Central Otago Queenstown Cycle Trail Trust who were negotiating an easement (in favour of the Trust) over the property, to assist with the construction of one of the Trust’s trails.

On consideration, the Council resolved to give approximately 430 square metres of stopped road to the property owner, in recognition of his gifting the Trust the easement required to construct the cycle trail.

3. Cheviot Street Roxburgh (adjacent to the Pool)

In September 2019, Council approved the stopping of approximately 83 square metres of Cheviot Street, adjacent to the Roxburgh Community Pool.

The purpose of the stopping was identified in the report as being to:

…enable the pool group to demolish the existing facility and rebuild on a single council- owned title,

The report did not make any recommendation regarding payment for the land (road), which was amalgamated with the existing Council owned pool title.

The other costs associated with the stopping (approximately $7,000) were paid from the Teviot Valley Community Board’s general reserves fund.

A copy of the report dated 25 September 2019 is attached as Appendix 2.

4. Financial Considerations

The proceeds of the sale of stopped roads are credited to the Roading Administration Unsubsidised Land Under Road Account. From there it is used to address public roading issues such as the encroachment of (public) roads onto private property.

Quotable Value valued the (Melmore Terrace) road to be stopped at $550,000 plus GST (if any).

While $550,000 would be a significant increase to the Roading Administration Unsubsidised Land Under Road Account, the Policy also states that these matters will be addressed as and when funds are available.

This is because resolving public roading issues, such as the encroachment of roads onto private property is not budgeted for.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree that when a road stopping is initiated internally, for the specific benefit of Council, that the matters relating to the costs be considered on a case by case basis, with the overall purpose of the stopping determining whether payment for the land is required.

Advantages:

· Acknowledges the discretion provided for in Council’s Roading Policy.

· Recognises that internal road stoppings often have a greater public benefit.

· Will allow land under roads to be transferred for a sum other than market valuation.

· Will not impact on associated departmental budgets.

· Could eliminate the requirement and cost of having the land valued.

· Provides staff with the direction required to make robust recommendations.

Disadvantages:

· Will allow land under roads to be transferred for a sum other than market valuation.

· May impact Council’s ability to resolve other public roading matters.

Option 2

To not agree that when a road stopping is initiated internally, for the specific benefit of Council, that the matters relating to the costs be considered on a case by case basis, with the overall purpose of the stopping determining whether payment for the land is required.

Advantages:

· Will allow land under roads to be transferred for a sum other than market valuation.

· May impact Council’s ability to resolve other public roading matters.

Disadvantages:

· Does not acknowledge the discretion provided for in Council’s Roading Policy.

· Does not recognise that internal road stoppings often have a greater public benefit.

· Will not impact on associated departmental budgets.

· Will not provide staff with the direction required to make robust recommendations.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by clarifying how Council’s Roading Policy relates to road stoppings which are initiated internally for the specific benefit of Council or a particular department of Council.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommendation is consistent which the provisions of Section 8 of the Council’s 2015 Roading Policy which relates to Road Stoppings.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There is no sustainability, environmental, or climate change impacts associated with the recommendation.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks to Council associated with the recommendation.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.

7. Next Steps

Resolution implemented on its release.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Copy of Report to the Board Dated 29 March 2022 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Copy of the Report to Council Dated 25 September 2019 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Quinton Penniall
Team Leader - Statutory Property	Infrastructure Manager
20/06/2022	29/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.4 Proposal to stop Flora Street

Doc ID: 584753

1. Purpose of Report

To consider stopping the remaining section of Flora Street in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974, then vesting the land in Council as a Local Purpose (Public Amenity) Reserve, in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

B. Approves the proposal to stop approximately 0.6447 hectares of unformed legal road (shown as in Section 3 SO 517704 in figure 3) being Flora Street, subject to:

- The provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

- The public notification process as outlined in the same Act.

- No objections being received within the public notification period.

- The consent of the Minister of Lands.

- The stopped road being classified as Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve, then vested in Council in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) the Central Otago District Council being registered over all of Section 3 SO 517704.

- Easements (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited, and Chorus New Zealand Limited, being created, and registered on the resulting title.

- District Plan designation (‘D97’) being updated to Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve.

- The costs being paid from the final stage of the Gair Avenue Development project.

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

2. Background

Flora Street (the Road) is an unformed legal road. The Road runs southward from Gair Avenue to Smitham Drive adjacent to Council’s residential development off Gair Avenue.

The Road is recorded on Map 15 in the Operative District Plan. It is designated ‘D97’ which is “Road to be Stopped”. The underlying designation is residential.

The Road is shown below in figure 1 in an extract of District Plan Map 15.

Figure 1 – Extract of District Plan Map 15 Figure 2 – GIS Overview (Pre-greenway development)

At their meeting of September 2017, the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) considered a then confidential report proposing an amendment to the partnership development subdivision plan. The same report proposed that the Board agree to develop Flora Street as a greenway.

On consideration the Board agreed to the greenway development and resolved (Resolution 17.7.8) as follows:

D. AGREED to development of all of the Flora Street greenway and greenway on the north boundary of stage 5.

McKinlay / Dicey

In accordance with Resolution 17.1.8 D, the Road has since been developed as a greenway.

A path has been constructed over the Road with plantings and irrigation also installed. An aerial of the Road (pre-development of the greenway) is shown above in figure 2.

At their meeting of January 2018, the Council considered a report proposing the stopping of two portions of Flora Street. A plan of the proposed stopping (Survey Office Plan (SO) 517704) was appended to the report as Appendix 2. An extract of SO Plan 517704 is shown below in figure 3.

Figure 3 – Extract of SO 517704 (Appendix 2)

The purpose of the proposed stopping was to enable the development of the Flora Street greenway, while improving legal road access to an adjacent (privately owned) residential development.

On consideration, the Council agreed to the proposal and resolved (Resolution 18.1.3) as follows:

B. RESOLVED that a notice be issued pursuant to sections 116, 117 and 120(3) of the Public Works Act declaring that, subject to all existing encumbrances:

The two portions of road described in the First Schedule be stopped and amalgamated with the adjoining land.

First Schedule: Otago Land District

Road to be stopped and amalgamated:

1. Appendix 2 – Portion 2 [being Section 2 SO 517704]

Adjoining: LOT 4 DP 493016 [and] LOT 1 DP 493497

Area: Approximately 463m2

2. Appendix 2 – Portion 4 [being Section 1 SO 517704]

Adjoining: LOT 4 DP 493016 [and] LOT 1 DP 493497

Area: Approximately 45m2

Gillespie / Wills

To give effect to the designation in the District Plan, it is now proposed that the balance of Flora Street, (Section 3 SO 517704), also be stopped, then vested in the Central Otago District Council, as a Local Purpose (Public Amenity) Reserve.

3. Discussion

Evaluation of Application

An evaluation of the proposal to stop the Road is shown in the table below.

Item	Criteria to be considered	Evaluation
District Plan	Has the road been identified in the District Plan for any specific use or as a future road corridor?	The Road is shown on District Plan Map15. It is identified as Designation 97 – ‘Road to be Stopped’.
Current Level of Use	Is the road used by members of the public for any reasons?	The Road has been developed into greenway in accordance with Resolution 17.1.8. It is a public space openly accessible to the public for pedestrian and recreational purposes.
	Does it provide the only or most convenient means of access to any existing lots?	No. Other formed roads provide access to all lots adjoining the Road.
	Will stopping the road adversely affect the viability of any commercial activity or operation?	No. The (well established) commercial activity (motel complex) adjacent to the northern end of the Road is accessed from Gair Avenue.
	Will any land become landlocked if the road is stopped?	No.
Future Use	Will the road be needed to service future residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural developments?	No. The land identified in figure 2 as ‘Future Development’ will be access via other roads which will be constructed in conjunction with the development.
Future Use	Will the road be needed in the future to connect existing roads?	No.
Non-traffic Uses	Does the road have current or potential value for amenity functions, e.g., walkway, cycleway, recreational access, access to conservation or heritage areas, park land?	The proposed stopping and vesting as a reserve recognises its current use and value and will protect the amenity value.
	Does the road have potential to be utilised by the Council for any other public work either now or potentially in the future?	N/A (refer above).
	Does the road have significant landscape amenity value?	The Road has been developed in greenway which has significant landscape amenity value.
Access to Waterbody	Does the road provide access to a river, stream, lake or other waterbody?	The Road does not provide access to any type of waterbody.
Access to Waterbody	If so, there is a need to consider Section 345 of the Local Government Act, which requires that after stopping the land be vested in Council as an esplanade reserve	N/A (refer above).
Infrastructure	Does the road currently contain any services or other infrastructure, such as electricity, telecommunications, irrigation, or other private infrastructure?	Yes. The Central Otago District Council, Chorus New Zealand Limited, and Aroura Energy Limited, all have infrastructure in the Road.
Infrastructure	Can the existing services or infrastructure be protected by easements?	Yes. Easements can be created to protect the infrastructure that is situated in the legal road.
Traffic Safety	Does the use of motor vehicles on the road constitute a danger or hazard?	As the Road has been developed into a greenway for recreational purposes the use of a motor vehicle on the road could constitute a significant danger or hazard.

Roading Network and Public Access

As shown in the evaluation table, the Road is identified in the District Plan as ‘Road to be Stopped’. The proposal to stop the Road is consistent with that designation.

The proposal to vest the stopped road in Council as a Local Purpose (Walkway) Reserve (and to amend the designation) gives effect to Resolution 17.1.18. It will also secure and maintain the public’s ongoing right of access.

The Road does not provide access to a waterbody or to any land that cannot otherwise be accessed via other formed roads.

The Road contains infrastructure belonging to the Central Otago District Council, Aurora Energy Limited, and Chorus New Zealand Limited. Protection for this infrastructure is discussed next.

Easements

The Central Otago District Council have water (blue), wastewater (red), and stormwater (green) mains in the Road. A plan of their infrastructure is shown below in figure 4.

To protect Council’s infrastructure, it is recommended that an easement (in gross, in favour) of Council be registered over all of Section 3 SO 517704.

Figure 4 – Council Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure in Flora Street.

Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora) have infrastructure running through the intersection of Gavan and Flora Streets. This infrastructure, which is circled in green below in figure 5, includes a fuse pillar box, a low voltage cable, and street lighting cables. Aurora have agreed to support the proposed stopping if an easement (in gross, in Aurora’s favour) is registered on the resulting title.

Aurora also have an 11kV power cable and a street lighting cable running through the intersection of Gair Avenue and Flora Street. If any part of either of these cables, which are circled in yellow below in figure 5, are located in Flora Street, Aurora will also require an easement (in gross, in Aurora’s favour) be registered on the resulting title to protect this infrastructure.

Graphical user interface, diagram, application

Description automatically generated

Figure 5 – Plan of Aurora’s Infrastructure as Extracted from Aurora’s Mapping System.

Chorus New Zealand Limited (Chorus) have cables in the Road. The first Chorus cable, a fibre cable, comes into the southern of Flora Street from Smitham Drive. The cable runs up the inside of the eastern boundary of Flora Street, then out into Derry Street.

Chorus have also agreed to support the proposed stopping providing an easement (in gross, in Chorus’s favour) is registered on the resulting title. The span of cables which need to be protected is highlighted in yellow below in figure 6.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 6 – Chorus’s Fibre Cable as it runs from Smitham Drive to Derry Street via Flora Street.

Chorus also have:

· A high capacity fibre (orange) cable running through the intersection of Gair Avenue and Flora Street, (circled in yellow below in figure 7),

· A telecommunications (blue) service cable running across the western end of Gavan Street, (circled in green below in figure 7), and,

· A telecommunications (blue) service cable running across the western end of Derry Street, (circled in pink below in figure 7).

If any part of any of these cables are located in Flora Street, Chorus will also require an easement (in gross, in Chorus’s favour) be registered on the resulting title to protect these cables.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 7 – Chorus’s High Capacity Fibre and Service Cables which may require Easements.

Legislation and Policy

Road stopping is the process of changing legal road land into fee simple land so it can be sold to an adjoining owner.

A landowner can apply to the Council to undertake a road stopping process in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 or the Public Works Act 1981. Council’s Roading Policy determines the appropriate statutory procedure for stopping a legal road or any part thereof.

The policy for selecting the correct statutory process is as follows:

The Local Government Act 1974 road stopping procedure shall be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances shall apply:

a) Where the full width of road is proposed to be stopped and public access will be removed as a result of the road being stopped; or

b) The road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

c) The road stopping has, in the judgment of the Council, the potential to be controversial; or

d) If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.

The Local Government Act process requires public notification of the proposal. This involves erecting signs at each end of the road to be stopped, sending letters to adjoining owners/occupiers and at least two public notices a week apart in the local newspaper. Members of the public have 40 days in which to object.

The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted when the following

circumstances apply:

e) Where the proposal is that a part of the road width be stopped and a width of road which provides public access will remain.

f) Where no other person, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;

g) Where other reasonable access will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the stopped road (i.e. by the construction of a new road).

As the full width of the road is to be stopped it is proposed that Local Government Act 1974 procedure be adopted for this application.

An application to stop a road under the Local Government Act 1974 requires public consultation with the members of the public having the right to object to proposal.

Council’s Roading Policy states that:

If an objection is received then the applicant will be provided with the opportunity to consider the objection and decide if they wish to continue to meet the costs for the objection to be considered by the Council and the Environment Court.

If an objection is received and it is accepted by the Council then the process will be halted and the Council may not stop the road.

If the objection is not accepted by the Council then the road stopping proposal must be referred to the Environment Court for a decision. The applicant is responsible for meeting all costs associated with defending the Council’s decision in the Environment Court.

Community Board Recommendation

A report on this matter was presented to the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) for consideration at their meeting of 20 June 2022.

On consideration the Board resolved (Resolution 22.4.6) to recommend to Council that they agree to the proposal to stop approximately 0.6447 hectares of unformed legal road (described as Section 3 SO 517714 being Flora Street), and to vesting the of the land in Council as a Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve.

4. Financial Considerations

Legislation and Policy determines that all costs associated with a stopping are payable by the applicant. Costs would usually include:

· Survey and Land Information New Zealand fees.

· Purchasing the land at valuation (along with the valuer’s fees).

· Public advertising.

· Gazettal.

· Legal fees.

In 2018, Flora Street was surveyed to facilitate the stopping and disposal of Section 2 Survey Office Plan (SO) 517704 (as shown above in figure 3). As SO 517704 has been approved by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), it can also be used to facilitate the stopping of Section 3.

This means that the only surveying that is required is the creation of the easement diagram.

As the purpose of the stopping is to allow the land to be vested in Council as reserve, it is not proposed that the Road be valued or sold in this instance.

The remaining costs including, public advertising, and the gazettal and legal fees. An estimate of those costs (excluding GST) are outlined in the table below:

Description: Cost Estimate:

Surveying of Easements $ 2,000.00

Public Advertising $ 350.00

Gazettal $ 4,250.00

Legal Fees $ 1,850.00

Total Cost Estimate: $ 8,450.00

Table 1 – Estimate of Costs Associated with the Proposed Stopping.

All costs associated with the proposed stopping will be paid as part of the final stage of the Gair Avenue Development project.

This means the costs associated with the stopping and vesting of the land will be offset by income from the sale of sections in the development.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To approve the proposal to stop approximately 0.6447 hectares of unformed legal road (shown as in Section 3 SO 517704 in figure 3) being Flora Street, subject to:

- The provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

- The public notification process as outlined in the same Act.

- No objections being received within the public notification period.

- The consent of the Minister of Lands.

- The stopped road being classified as Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve, then vested in Council in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

- An easement (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) the Central Otago District Council being registered over all of Section 3 SO 517704.

- Easements (in gross) in favour of (and as approved by) Aurora Energy Limited, and Chorus New Zealand Limited, being created, and registered on the resulting title.

- District Plan designation (‘D97’) being updated to Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve.

- The costs being paid from the final stage of the Gair Avenue Development project.

Advantages:

· Gives effect to Resolution 17.7.8 and to Designation 97.

· The proposal provides for the protection of the existing infrastructure.

· Vesting the land as a reserve will protect its amenity value and maintain public access.

· Recognises the provisions of the:

- Local Government Act 1974,

- Reserves Act 1977,

- Electricity Act 1992,

- Council’s Operative District Plan; and,

- Council’s Roading Policy Bylaw.

· The designation will be updated to reflect the existing use of the land.

Disadvantages:

· Aside from the financial implication, there are no disadvantages associated with this recommendation.

Option 2

To not approve the proposal to stop approximately 0.6447 hectares of unformed legal road (shown as in Section 3 SO 517704 in figure 3) being Flora Street.

Advantages:

· There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation.

Disadvantages:

· Does not give effect to Resolution 17.7.8 or to Designation 97.

· Does not protect the amenity value of the land or maintain public access as intended under Resolution 17.7.8 or Designation 97.

· The designation will not be updated to reflect the existing use of the land.

· Does not recognise the provisions of the:

- Local Government Act 1974,

- Reserves Act 1977,

- Electricity Act 1992,

- Council’s Operative District Plan; and,

- Council’s Roading Policy Bylaw.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	The provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 have been considered and will be met by this proposal. The recommendation supports the democratic decision-making process by giving effect to the intentions of Resolution 17.7.8 and to Designation 97. The proposed vesting of the resulting title will secure ongoing public access and will protect the amenity value of the land.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Council’s Road Stopping Policy applies to this application. Consideration of this policy has ensured that the appropriate statutory process has been chosen. The proposal is also consistent with the Local Government Act 1974, the Reserves Act 1977 and with the provisions of Council’s District Plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision.
Risks Analysis	There are not risks to Council are associated with the recommended option. However, while Flora Street remains legal road, there is risk that a request for it to be formed could be made in conjunction with a future development.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded. The proposal to stop the road is subject to the public consultation. The public consultation process prescribed in Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974. The consultation process includes: 1. Onsite advertising of the proposal to stop the road (at each end of the road to be stopped). 2. Publicly advertising notice of the proposal in (a) local newspaper(s) 3. Serving the same notice on all occupiers of land adjoining the road to be stopped. 4. Publishing notice of the completed stopping in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

The following steps have been/will be taken to implement the stopping of the road and the vesting of the land:

1. Community Board approval 21 June 2022

2. Council approval 6 July 2022

3. (Stopping to run in conjunction with the final stage of the Gair Avenue development)

7. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Linda Stronach	Quinton Penniall
Team Leader - Statutory Property	Infrastructure Manager
18/06/2022	23/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.5 Speed Limit changes

Doc ID: 582900

1. Purpose of Report

To consider changes to speed limits in Central Otago, including updates made through consultation. To consider transferring from the current bylaw process to the new National Land Speed Register process.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Directs a transfer from the bylaw process to the National Land Speed Register process as the legal mechanism for making speed limit changes as of 1 August 2022.

C. Repeals the Speed Limit Bylaw 2007 as of 1 August 2022.

D. Notes the level of engagement and thanks all submitters for their contribution.

E. Approves speed limit changes to be made as consulted on in the Speed Limit Bylaw Statement of Proposal in full, with the following changes:

· Conroys Road, Alexandra to have a single 80km speed limit for the entire street with a new curve advisory sign to be installed

· Crawford Hills Road and Galloway Road, Galloway to remain at 100km.

· Updates to speed limits on Roxburgh East Road to 40km over the Roxburgh Dam and 100km on the approaches as outlined in Map 6.

· Radford Road, Lowburn to reduce to 80km.

· Cornish Point Road to have a speed limit of 60km for its entirety.

· Hall Road, Bannockburn (in the portion outlined in Map 13) and Pipeclay Gully Road (entire road) in Bannockburn to reduce to 50km

· Richards Beach Road to have a speed limit of 50km for its entirety.

· A 50km speed zone to be retained for the Naseby Urban Area.

· Swimming Dam Road in Naseby to have a speed limit of 30km from the campground to the dam, as outlined on Map 17.

· The approaches to Naseby to retain present speed limits as outlined on Map 17.

· Goff Road, Naseby to remain at the present speed limit.

· Pearson Road and Sandflat Road, Cromwell to remain at 100km, with further consultation planned

· Earnscleugh Road, Clyde 50km zone extended to Hawksburn Road as outlined on Map 5.

· Little Valley Road speed limit reduced to 80km as outlined on Map 3.

F. Recommends the following roads be subject to further consultation on their speed limits:

· Gilligan’s Gully, Alexandra, subject to further data from traffic counting.

· Letts Gully Road, Alexandra.

· Fruitgrowers Road, Clyde.

· Lauder Road, Lauder.

· Bannockburn Road from Bannockburn Bridge to the Cromwell Urban Zone.

· Pearson Road, Cromwell.

· Sandflat Road, Cromwell.

· Cambrians Road, Cambrians, with specific request for an indication of preferred speed between 50km, 40km, and 30km.

· St Bathans Urban Area, with specific request for an indication of preferred speed between 50 km, 40km, and 30km.

· Clark Road, Pisa Moorings, for consideration at 80km along its entirety.

2. Background

Council approved a Statement of Proposal for the proposed Speed Limit Bylaw 2022 for consultation on 9 March 2022 (Resolution 22.2.2). A Hearings Panel was appointed consisting of Cr Stuart Duncan, Cr Tracy Paterson, and Cr Tamah Alley.

Consultation was open from 11 March - 12 April 2022. The campaign had a good level of engagement with:

· 1,879 aware participants (those who viewed the information on the project page of the consultation website),

· 1,469 informed participants (those who viewed the project page, downloaded a document and/or read an FAQ),

· 191 engaged participants who completed the survey online.

In total, 207 submissions were received. This was made up of:

· 191 completed online via Council’s Let’s Talk consultation website.

· 11 hard copies.

· 5 submissions received via email.

The results from all submissions included:

· 37% of respondents support the proposal.

· 20% of respondents do not support the proposal.

· 43% of respondents support the proposal in part.

Attachments to this report detail the engagement undertaken, submission themes and results, and demographic data.

In written submissions, 37 submitters indicated they would like to speak at a panel. All were contacted to ensure they were able to speak, if still interested.

The Hearing was held on 7 June 2022. All submissions were considered, including all written submissions, and a total of 19 submitters spoke (including individuals, pairs, and organisations).

The Hearings Panel considered all submissions received through the deliberations – including both oral and written submissions.

A copy of specific streets or areas discussed has been attached. Deliberations also included discussion of all maps in full.

Submitter feedback on specific streets broadly fell in the following categories:

· Support for a reduction at specific streets.

· Request for a reduction in speed limits at a new location not consulted on.

· Request for a further reduction in speed at a location consulted on, to a lower level than the limit consulted on.

· Opposition to a reduction in speed at a specific location.

Although the new speed locations have been suggested through consultation, the community has not had an opportunity to consider the merits and impacts of each. Subsequently, many of the new speed locations proposed would require a further round of consultation to be carried out.

Advice on the consultative requirement of each new speed limit location request was provided. Some efficiency may be achieved by combining this consultation with the future School Speed Zone changes.

It was noted to the panel that a request would come to this meeting to transfer from the bylaw process to the new National Speed Limit Register process.

3. Discussion

National Land Speed Register

A transfer in process from the Speed Limit Bylaw 2022 to a new process is recommended.

The new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 came into force on 19 May 2022.

Under the former rule, a bylaw was the legal mechanism for speed limit changes. The new rule provides a new process, the National Speed Limit Register, as the legal mechanism for speed limit changes.

The new rule had been signalled and consulted on but delayed on several occasions. Given the risk of further delay, and the need to update a number of speed limit settings, Council chose to proceed with a Speed Limit Bylaw under the existing rule; with an intention to transfer to the new rule if it came into force during the process.

As the new rule is now in place, it is recommended that the Speed Limit changes now transfer from the bylaw process to the National Speed Limit Register.

The implications of the change in process are not expected to impact the community. They involve technical adjustments to the way speed limits are managed and administered and will be managed entirely by staff. There are technical efficiencies and benefits to be made by transferring to the new process, including measures simplifying the compliance process.

Consultation remains a vital part of the process when setting speed limits and the consultative process was carried out with the knowledge this change was likely.

The new speed limits will still go into force at 00.01 on 1 August 2022.

Repeal of existing bylaw

The existing Speed Limit Bylaw 2007 is now out of date and out of alignment with the changes made through the current process.

It is recommended to repeal the existing Speed Limit Bylaw 2007 as of 00.01 on 1 August 2022 to facilitate the transfer to the National Land Speed Register as the new legal mechanism for managing speed limits in Central Otago.

Panel recommendations

Recommendations from the panel include updates to 23 streets or areas as a result of submitter feedback. This is made up of:

· 14 changes to the current proposal as a direct result of submitter feedback.

· 2 further changes to the current proposal as a result of technical adjustments – one of which was also requested through submitter feedback.

· 8 further changes requested through feedback have been recommended for community consultation.

The 14 changes to the current proposal are:

Conroys Road, Alexandra

Conroys Road is currently a 100km speed zone.

The consultation document proposed three speed areas, with two 80km speed zones and one 60km speed zone.

The panel recommend a single 80km speed zone for Conroys Road.

Crawford Hills Road, Galloway

Crawford Hills Road is currently a 100km speed zone.

The consultation document proposed a reduction to 80km for the entire street.

The panel recommend the 100km speed limit be retained for Crawford Hills Road.

Galloway Road, Galloway

Galloway Road is currently a 100km speed zone.

The consultation document proposed a reduction to 80km for the entire street.

The panel recommend the 100km speed limit be retained for Galloway Road.

Roxburgh East Road, Roxburgh

Roxburgh East Road is currently a 100km speed zone with a limit over the dam.

The consultation document proposed five speed zones ranging from 40-100km.

The panel recommended adjustments to these speed zones outlined on Map 6 (attached).

Radford Road, Lowburn

Radford Road is currently a 100km speed zone.

A request was received to reduce the speed zone to 80km to align with changes on Swann Road.

The panel recommend this adjustment take place.

Cornish Point Road, Bannockburn

Cairnmuir Road in Bannockburn becomes Cornish Point Road. The existing speed limit is 70km.

A 60km speed zone was proposed, dropping to 50km at the end of Cornish Point Road.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend Cornish Point Road remain at 60km for its entirety.

Richards Beach Road, Cromwell

Richards Beach Road has a 100km speed zone.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 50km in the sealed section, with the unsealed section to retain a 100km speed zone.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend a 50km speed limit for the entirety of Richards Beach Road.

Naseby Urban Area

The Naseby Urban Area has a 50km speed zone.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 40km throughout the urban area.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend the 50km speed limit remain in place in Naseby.

The panel recommend a reduction to 30km for Swimming Dam Road in Naseby in the portion between the campground and the dam. This is outlined on Map 17 (attached).

Approaches to Naseby Urban Area

Reductions in speed were proposed to the approaches to the Naseby Urban Area.

A reduction from 70km to 60km was proposed for Ranfurly-Naseby Road, and from 100 to 60 for a portion of Danseys Pass Road.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend the original speed settings of 70km and 100km be retained. This is outlined on Map 17 (attached).

Goff Road, Ranfurly

Goff Road has a 100km speed limit in the area between Ranfurly Wedderburn Road and Northland Street.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 80km.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend the 100km speed limit be retained.

Pearson Road, Bannockburn

Pearson Road has a speed limit of 100km.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 80km.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend the 100km speed limit be retained while further consultation is carried out in the portion of Bannockburn covering Pearson Road, Sandflat Road, and a section of Bannockburn Road (between the Pearson Road intersection and Cromwell Urban Speed Zone).

Sandflat Road, Bannockburn

Sandflat Road has a speed limit of 100km.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 80km.

Earnscleugh Road, Clyde

Earnscleugh Road changes from 100km to 50km under current settings in the portion encompassing the Paulin Road and Fruitgrowers Road intersections, outlined on Map 5.

It was proposed to reduce the speed limit to 50km in this area.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend extending the 50km zone further to Hawksburn Road.

Little Valley Road, Alexandra

Little Valley Road has varied speed zones.

It was proposed to reduce a portion of the road to 60km, with a remaining portion retaining a 100km speed limit.

In response to feedback, the panel recommend a further reduction from 100km to 80km for the remaining portion.

The two further changes recommended are:

Hall Road, Bannockburn

An extension of the urban traffic zone has been recommended for a portion of Hall Road included in Map 13 in response to feedback and technical adjustment.

Pipeclay Gully Road, Bannockburn

It is recommended to extend the 50km urban traffic zone into Pipeclay Gully Road for consistency with the Hall Road proposal.

The panel recommends the following roads be subject to further consultation on their speed limits as a result of feedback:

· Gilligans Gully, Alexandra

· Letts Gully Road, Alexandra

· Fruitgrowers Road, Clyde

· Lauder Road, Lauder

· Bannockburn Road, Bannockburn – portion from Bannockburn Bridge to current 50km zone. Further consultation on Pearson Road and Sandflat Road to be undertaken concurrently.

· Cambrians Road, Cambrians

· Clark Road, Pisa Moorings

· St Bathans urban area

A formal proposal will be put together on these locations for formal consultation, returning to a future meeting.

School speed zones

Although not related to current decision making, it is noted that the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 includes changes to the way school speed zones are managed.

Council chose not to consult on school speed zones until the new rule was in force.

Now the new rule is in place, the school speed zones work will be developed and presented to council for permission to consult.

There is an opportunity to achieve efficiency by combining school speed zone consultation with the new round recommended by the Hearings Panel.

4. Financial Considerations

All physical changes, including signage and other works, have been accounted for under current budgets.

There would be a small cost incurred by retaining the bylaw process, as new updated maps would need to be created at Council’s expense. Digital mapping updates would form part of the National Speed Limit Register process.

Further consultation can be accommodated. Some efficiency can be achieved by combining the consultation with the pending School Speed Zones consultation.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the updated speed limit change proposal as recommended by the Hearings Panel and transfer from the bylaw process to the National Speed Limit Register process.

Advantages:

· Safety risks with current speed settings are addressed and more appropriate settings put in place.

· Follows due process as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

· Decision making is aligned with community feedback and expectations.

· Speed management more easily complies with new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022.

· Efficiencies in future management of speed limit settings can be achieved under the National Speed Limit Register process.

Disadvantages:

· Minimal initial cost associated with physical works and communications.

Option 2

Approve all recommendations from the Hearings Panel and retain the bylaw process as the legal mechanism for making changes.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· Extra costs related with updating maps and more complex bylaw process

· More technically complex process for future updates to speed settings.

· Further complexity in complying with the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022.

· Speed limit data will still need to be provided to Waka Kotahi and continual updates maintained.

Option 3

Do not approve recommendations from the Hearings Panel under either process. Speed limit changes would be made as listed in the Statement of Proposal.

Advantages:

· Some updates to speed limit settings would take place and safety risks with current speed settings addressed.

Disadvantages:

· Not responsive to community consultation and out of alignment with community expectations.

Option 4

Adjustments could be made to the recommendations from the Hearings Panel.

Advantages:

· Enables discussion of concerns relating to specific locations and may further inform future consultative processes.

Disadvantages:

· Current recommendations balance community feedback, technical advice, and legal considerations. Adjustments would change the risk balance in these areas.

Option 5

Do not approve any changes. No speed limit updates to be made and existing settings retained.

Advantages:

· None.

· Minimal initial cost savings.

Disadvantages:

· Unsafe speed settings are retained.

· Does not meet community expectations.

· Speed settings are inappropriate for the level of growth in Central Otago.

· Speed limit data will still need to be provided to Waka Kotahi.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by making changes to the proposal as a direct result of community consultation.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The decision is consistent with other Council plans and policies. The decision is consistent with guidance and direction from Waka Kotahi.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Sustainability and climate change impacts have been raised in submissions, including greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of speed limits on walking, cycling, and other active modes of transport.
Risks Analysis	The proposal seeks to reduce the risk to health and safety on the district roading network. There is some risk in health and safety settings when recommending higher speed limits. Technical consideration has been given to mitigate these risks. Some submissions have requested lower speed limits be considered on streets that were not included in the original bylaw proposal. There is some risk in making changes at locations where sufficient consultation has not taken place with all affected parties. Advice was given on each suggested change to mitigate this risk.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The hearing took place as part of the consultation process under the Local Government Act 2002 and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Some further decision making will require additional consultation under both the Act and the Policy.

7. Next Steps

The new speed limits will go into force at 00.01am on 1 August 2022.

Arrangements are in place to ensure all signage is updated.

A communications plan will be developed to update the community of the new speed limits.

The areas proposed for further consultation will undertake technical evaluation and return as a full proposal in either the fourth quarter 2022 or first quarter 2023, as other business allows.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Updated Speed Limit Maps [aerial view] ⇩

Appendix 2 - Speed Limit Bylaw Statement of Proposal ⇩

Appendix 3 - Speed Limit Draft Bylaw as published during consultation ⇩

Appendix 4 - Consultation Engagement Report ⇩

Appendix 5 - Consultation Feedback Report ⇩

Appendix 6 - Consultation Demographic Data ⇩

Appendix 7 - Summary of specific streets raised in submitter feedback with panel recommendations ⇩

Appendix 8 - Technical adjustments considered by the panel ⇩

Appendix 9 - Written submissions ⇩

Appendix 10 - Supporting information provided by Michael Hope ⇩

Appendix 11 - Supporting information provided by Brian Kirk ⇩

Appendix 12 - Supporting information provided by Amanda Beaumont ⇩

Appendix 13 - Supporting information provided by Public Health South ⇩

Appendix 14 - Supporting information provided by Julie Cairns ⇩

Appendix 15 - Petition received regarding Little Valley Road [1] ⇩

Appendix 16 - Petition received regarding Little Valley Road [2] ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
9/06/2022	14/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.6 Requests to take over private water supplies

Doc ID: 584109

1. Purpose of Report

To agree a protocol for responding to requests for Central Otago District Council to take over ownership, management and operation of private water supplies prior to 30 June 2024.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to draft a letter to the Chief Executive of Taumata Arowai requesting the use of the tools at their disposal in the Act, to deter suppliers from ceasing supply.

C. Notes the requirements on Council under the Local Government Act 2002 as amended by the Water Services Act 2021 to assess private water supplies and work collaboratively with a supplier, the consumers, and Taumata Arowai to find a solution.

D. Notes that transition of Council’s three waters asset ownership, management, and operations will create increased workload on an existing workforce that has no available capacity.

E. Notes that any work to assess private supplies, and work with Taumata Arowai will require engagement of external resources to undertake this work.

F. Agrees that costs for external suppliers to either undertake the water assessments and liaison with Taumata Arowai and community, or to backfill existing staff undertaking this work, are to be recovered from the private supplier, as provided in the Water Services Act 2021.

G. Agrees that private suppliers are encouraged to self-manage and engage commercial water supply and treatment companies to support them until new water entities are established, or they are required to be registered in 2025.

H. Approves the engagement of registered water carriers to provide drinking water on a cost recovery basis, in the event that Taumata Arowai direct Council as the supplier.

2. Background

Council has received several requests to take over the ownership, management, and operation of private water supplies within the district. Typically this has been in the form of an initial request, and staff have discussed the difficulties of Council doing this at this time due to resourcing challenges, and water reform. In one case Council has been advised that the current private supplier will no longer undertake this role from October 2022, and Council will need to do this.

With increased regulation and water quality compliance requirements, there may be an increase in requests for Council to take ownership of private schemes that may not meet the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. Concerns have also been raised about the potential for private water suppliers to cease supply to its consumers.

The Water Services Act 2021 provides clear obligations to ensure a water supply continues to be provided. Section 25 of the Act requires a sufficient quantity of drinking water to be provided and for that supply to continue. The Act provides no option for a supplier to walk away from a drinking water supply.

Alongside the strong duties on the operator, is a wider responsibility for Council under the changes to the Local Government Act 2002 (Sections 124-127 LGA 2002) relating to drinking water services. Council has an obligation to carry out an assessment where a drinking water supply is at risk of ceasing to provide a service. The Council has a duty in that circumstance to work collaboratively with a supplier, the consumers, and Taumata Arowai to assess a solution.

If a solution is not readily available or agreed and the supplier is unable to continue, then Taumata Arowai may direct Council as the provider of last resort. This is to be done within a time frame determined by Taumata Arowai.

The Act provides a number of enforcement/compliance options for the regulator, Taumata Arowai, in the event that a drinking water supplier fails to comply with its obligations. These are set out in part three of the Act and carry a range of options:

· Providing directions

· Obtaining information

· Issuing compliance orders

· Carrying out remedial action

· Appointing an operator to take over the running of this supply.

The Act also allows for formal enforcement including infringement fines and potential prosecution.

Given the Council obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 it is considered prudent for Council to develop a default position when advised that private water suppliers are intending to cease supply.

3. Discussion

Te Mana o te Wai is a key objective of the Water Services Act, focusing on restoring and preserving the balance between water (wai), the wider community (taiao), and people (tangata), now and in the future. Stewardship is one of six principles of Te Mana o te Wai, stating that all New Zealanders have a role to manage freshwater in a way that ensures it sustains present and future generations.

Notification to Taumata Arowai is one of the requirements on Council if an assessment of a private water supply finds that the supplier is failing to meet their statutory obligations or are at risk of doing so, there is an absence or deficiency of service, or the supplier is at risk of ceasing to provide a service. At this stage it is noted that such assessments will only be undertaken on those suppliers that directly approach Council and provide any scheme related information.

On 18 November 2020 Council considered a report outlining issues and risks associated with taking ownership of private water schemes. The report outlined the significant work and level of resource and expertise required to assess private schemes adequately. At that time Council resolved that requests from suppliers should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Assessment of Supply and Notification to Taumata Arowai

In the interests of working collaboratively with suppliers and consumers, staff have developed a template outlining information required to be provided by the supplier. The information requested will provide a starting point for a supply assessment. This includes the contact details of all consumers to ensure direct engagement can be facilitated for all parties involved. Other information requested include financial information, current management and maintenance arrangements and information on the number and condition of assets.

This information will help form any required notification to Taumata Arowai as well as the communities involved.

In January 2022, Council notified Taumata Arowai of an unregistered private supply drawing water from an open source and no known treatment. This scheme has approached Council a number of times in recent years requesting the supply be taken over as they felt unable to meet the requirements of current standards.

Response from Taumata Arowai on the notification, deemed that the situation did not meet their threshold for direct involvement as it was a long-term risk that the supplier would not be able to meet its statutory obligations by 2028, unless the water becomes unsafe in the interim.

The advice from Taumata Arowai at the time was that there was sufficient time for Council, the supplier, and the consumer to work together to reach a solution.

Compliance Timeframes

The new Drinking Water Standards and Drinking Water Aesthetic Values were set in June 2022, with the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules currently being finalised by Taumata Arowai.

Timeframes to meet the new standards and rules differ between registered and unregistered supplies. For a registered supply, the requirement to comply with the new rules and standards will come into effect on 14 November 2022. Unregistered supplies have until November 2025 to register and a further three years to comply with the standards.

Section 50 of the Water Services Act 2021 provides that Taumata Arowai may develop Acceptable Solutions. Acceptable Solutions offer ways for small suppliers to ensure they are providing safe drinking water in a practical and cost-effective way.

As a result of recent consultation on Acceptable Solutions, Taumata Arowai has indicated additional work is required on some of these drafts to help ensure smaller communities achieve compliance.

Working Collaboratively to Find a Solution

While there could be an assumption that the best solution is for Council to take ownership and management of a private supply, in many cases this will not be the most cost-effective solution. This is particularly the case for supplies servicing less than 30 dwellings. Emphasis should be placed around the empowerment of small communities to retain or take responsibility of their own water supplies until they are required to register in 2025.

Central Otago District Council Community Development Strategy 2021 focuses on Community-led development, which includes empowering communities to be more engaged and involved with their place. To achieve this Council aims to remove barriers, provide support, connect people and groups to others, and help to create solutions that protect and enhance communities’ values.

Council has a small three waters team, which is still building local experience and knowledge. Increased regulatory requirements in the three waters activities has resulted in an increased workload on this team. There will also be significantly increased workload required to support the transition of the ownership, management and operations of water, wastewater, and stormwater to the new water entities. There is no capacity within the existing council resources to undertake assessments of private water supplies.

In the first instance private suppliers could be encouraged to self-manage and engage commercial water supply and treatment companies to support them until new water entities are established.

Provider of Last Resort

In an instance where no solution can be found, Taumata Arowai may appoint Central Otago District Council as the provider. The legislation states that a territorial authority is not obliged to provide a reticulated network and they may consider a range of options to ensure drinking water is provided if the supplier is unable to meet the statutory requirements.

If this were to occur, the provision of water through a registered water carrier, on a consumer cost recovery basis, would be deemed to meet Council requirements and provide for the immediate needs of the community.

Consideration of water storage will need to be made either on individual properties or a more centralised location.

4. Financial Considerations

Rural properties that are not connected to council water supplies do not contribute to funding councils water services staffing, or contracts. Where local communities are unwilling to manage their networks then it is proposed that all costs to provide a supply to a private network until 30 June 2024 be met by properties on that supply.

Potential associated costs	Estimated costs
Purchase of a tank to leave on a central site or if required per individual propertyproperty	$20,000 for a 5,000L tank
Cost to maintain a Council-owned tank on a central site	$1,000 per week
Cost for water delivery by a commercial registered water carrier	$500 - $800 per delivery dependant on location (approx. 12,000L per load)
Commercial water carrier to leave central tank on site and maintain	$400 per day

It is noted that these costs are relatively consistent with other areas within Otago and Southland.

Water New Zealand’s national performance review found the average water usage in New Zealand is approximately 227L per person per day. Based on that assumption, a family of 5 would require a water delivery approximately every 10 days.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Staff will notify Taumata Arowai of any suppliers of drinking water services that approach Council and are not meeting statutory requirements or are at risk of doing so.

Council engages a consultant to work with Taumata Arowai, the supplier and the affected community, with these costs to be recovered from the consumers on the private supply.

In the event that Taumata Arowai direct Council to intervene as the supplier of drinking water this will be done through tankering water to those communities on a cost recovery basis.

Advantages:

· Meets council’s obligations under the Local Government Act

· Provides clarity for communities

· Collaboration seeks to support and empower communities to identify the best solution for the supply consumers.

· Water carrier managed through council may provide some discount to the consumer

· Supports Community Development Strategy outcomes

Disadvantages:

If providing water via a carrier was required:

· Resourcing and servicing of multiple water tankers is likely to be difficult, expensive and stretch resources

· Lack of local water carriers may leave consumers without water for periods. There are currently only two commercial registered water carriers within the district.

· Impact to the community through inconvenient access to water with additional impact to vulnerable people

· Potential high cost on supply consumers

Option 2

Council funds a resource to provide immediate support and full assessment of the private supply with the intent of taking ownership and management of the supply.

Advantages:

· Meets council’s obligations under the Local Government Act

· Provides clarity and support for communities

Disadvantages:

· No funding has been included within the current Long Term Plan budgets

· Unlikely to be able to secure staff with the required level of knowledge, particularly during the water reform transition period

· There will be significant costs in upgrading small private supplies to meet the New Zealand Drinking water standards, and to enable these to be able to be efficiently operated using councils current operational contract resources.

· Stretching of contractor resources to include small supplies could impact on the compliance of the larger existing council supplies.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by supporting small communities to more cost effectively manage their own supplies until they are required to register in 2025.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes - Community Development Strategy 2021
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The transportation of water through a carrier will have a negative impact on Council carbon emissions.
Risks Analysis	· Potential for Council to not fully meet obligations under the Local Government Act. · Costs that have not been funded for · Tankering water is likely to be an unpopular response to the provision of drinking water.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This decision does not trigger Council’s significance and engagement threshold.

7. Next Steps

· Request information from private water suppliers who approach Council to initiate an assessment of the supply

· Provide notification to Taumata Arowai where required

· Communicate with effected supply consumers encourage them to self-manage and engage commercial water supply and treatment companies to support them until new water entities are established, or they are required to be registered in 2025.

· Advise private suppliers that request council take over their supplies that consultants will be engaged to undertake the required drinking water assessments, and these costs will be required to be met by the private supply.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Philippa Bain	Julie Muir
Water Services Team Leader	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services and Water Reform Lead
27/06/2022	28/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.7 Status of Water Stimulus Work Programme

Doc ID: 585272

1. Purpose

To provide elected members with an update regarding the Water Stimulus Work Programme.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

Council considered a report on 26 August 2020 to agree the work programme which would be undertaken using the Government’s water stimulus funding. Central Otago District Council was provided an allocation of $9.46 million in stimulus funding.

The priority for the stimulus funding was drinking water and wastewater investment, followed by stormwater. The funding was required to be applied to work that was not funded in Council’s 202/21 Annual Plan. Expenditure needed to commence before 31 March 2021 and was required to be completed before 31 March 2022. Following the second national lockdown in 2021, the completion date was extended by three months to 30 June 2022.

Crown Infrastructure Partners has provided programme management and oversight of the water stimulus work programme for the Department of Internal Affairs. Quarterly reports have been required to be provided to Crown Infrastructure Partners, who also undertake site visits to monitor progress.

In August 2020 Council approved the following program of water stimulus projects up to the value of $9.46 million:

· Separating Alexandra pump station and new Manuherekia river crossing.

· Cromwell pump station capacity and resilience upgrades.

· Falling water main replacements.

· Omakau water pressure upgrade.

· Flood protection of Roxburgh water treatment plant.

· Additional Alexandra water reservoir.

· Data collection.

· Additional staff to deliver the program.

· Regional work program contributions.

The Omakau water pressure upgrade was subsequently removed from the programme following further investigation into design of the new Omakau water treatment plant. This identified that the previously identified solution was unlikely to provide the environmental, cultural, and water security improvements that had been assumed.

Following a tender process, the new pipeline across the Manuherekia River was also removed from the programme. No tenders were received for this work due to the short timeframe to complete the work, and high risk associated with working within the waterway. An alternative solution was developed which involves storage upgrades at two Alexandra pumpstations. The first of these projects was progressed instead of the piped river crossing, and work at the Wrightson pumpstation in the Linger and Die area is now nearing completion.

A contingency list of projects was also included in the original funding application to Crown Infrastructure Partners to enable pre-approved work to be brought into the programme to manage the risk of projects being delayed or deferred. This list was approved by Department of Internal Affairs as part of the original approval process which has made overall management of the programme more efficient and effective. The contingency projects were largely projects that were in later years of the Long-term Plan but could be brought forward quickly if required. The contingency projects were:

· Ripponvale Community Water Supply Upgrade.

· Generators for wastewater sites.

· Wastewater pumpstation flow meters.

· Naseby water supply clarifier.

· Wastewater influent and effluent monitoring.

· Wastewater treatment screens.

· Water valves upgrades and flow meters.

In November 2020, funding of $300,000 was brought forward into the stimulus work programme to fund 50% of the work required on the Ripponvale water reticulation network.

All the remaining contingency projects have subsequently been progressed, except for the wastewater generator project. These were progressed to:

· Meet the difference in costs of work forecast to be delivered and the available stimulus funding.

· Provide back-up work to manage any risk of committed projects not being completed by 30 June due to delays in key materials.

· Provide back-up work to manage any risk of the actual cost at completion being less than the forecast cost at completion.

The contingency projects are all programmed in year 2 or 3 of the current Long-term Plan, and the budgets provided for these can be re-allocated to enable any outstanding, minor items of work from stimulus projects to be completed. If all work is completed by the 30 June 2022, and the cost exceeds the available stimulus funding, then the difference will be funded from a forecast underspend on the 2021/22 water and wastewater renewals programmes. This underspend will otherwise be carried forward to 2022/23.

On 31 May $8,514,375 of stimulus funded work had been completed, with $945,625 of stimulus budget remaining.

At the time of writing this report final claims for June were still to be received. Staff are confident that the final claim will meet the full value of the stimulus funding available. A verbal update on final claimed amounts on 30 June 2022, and the value of any outstanding work will be provided at the 6 July Council meeting.

The table below provides the expenditure by project on 31 May 2022.

Project	Expenditure to 31 May	Status
Request For Information	$57,821	Complete
Regional Collaboration	$52,304	Complete
Roxburgh Treatment Plant Scour Protection	$162,303	Complete
Operational Improvements	$821,073	Complete
Site Asset Data Collection	$93,120	Complete
Cromwell Pumpstation Upgrades	$666,113	Complete
Naseby Water Treatment Plant Upgrades and Clarifier	$468,936
Wastewater influent and effluent monitoring	$276,528	Budgeted in Year 3 of LTP, brought into stimulus program to increase spend to match available funding
Ripponvale	$275,166
Falling Mains	$1,844,266
Alexandra Northern Reservoir	$2,249,888
Wrightsons Pumpstation Upgrade	$1,025,480
Wastewater Screens Materials only Naseby, Ranfurly, Roxburgh, Cromwell	$367,586	Budgeted in Year 2 of LTP, brought into stimulus program to increase spend to match available funding
Water valves and flowmeters, and wastewater pumpstation flowmeters	$153,791	Budgeted in Year 3 of LTP, brought into stimulus program to increase spend to match available funding
Total Spent to 31 May	$8,514,375
Total stimulus budget remaining June 2022	$945,625

3. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Julie Muir	Sanchia Jacobs
Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services and Water Reform Lead	Chief Executive Officer
26/06/2022	30/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.8 Water Services Capital Works Programme 2022-24

Doc ID: 585256

1. Purpose of Report

To consider oversight of the Water Services (water, wastewater and stormwater) Capital Works Programme for 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees that the capital funding plan for water services provided in the 2021 Long-term Plan and 2022/23 Annual Plan is to be fully spent on water services capital work prior to 30 June 2024.

C. Agrees that projects which are programmed in 2024/25 and 2025/26 may be accelerated to fully spend the budgets approved in the 2021 Long-term Plan and 2022/23 Annual Plan.

D. Authorises the Major Project Governance Group to provide oversight of the 2023/24 and 2024/25 Water Services capital work programme.

E. Directs staff to provide the Entity D Transition Team with details of any projects that were programmed in the 2021 Long-term Plan that are deferred or not completed by 30 June 2024 for re-programming into the Entity D Asset Management Plan and Funding Plan.

2. Background

Council has approved budgets in the 2021 Long-term Plan, and 2021/22 Annual Plan for capital expenditure on renewals and specific improvement projects on water, wastewater, and stormwater assets.

These budgets are set based on the estimated cashflow each year required to fund these projects, which often span several years. Often actual expenditure on projects differs to the cashflow provided in the Long Term and Annual Plans. This is due to resourcing, issues that arise during investigation and design phases, supply chain issues, and consenting requirements.

Council manages these changes in cashflow requirements by approving carry forwards for work that is delayed, or alternatively approving increases in funding for increased costs.

Responsibility for the delivery of water services is expected to transfer from Council to a new Water Services Entity (Entity D) on 1 July 2024. It is expected that remaining balances in the water services cost centres, and any associated debt will also transfer to Entity D at this time.

3. Discussion

Due to the change in responsibility on 1 July 2024, it would be desirable for Council to have fully spent the capital funding that has been allocated in the 2021 Long-term Plan for water services work in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 period.

Staff have reviewed the 2021 Long-term Plan work programme and have identified projects which are unlikely to be completed during this period. It is likely that some projects that do proceed will not be fully completed by 30 June 2024 and will partially carry forward into 2024/25. Funding for this work will need to be provided in the 2024 Activity Management Plan, Infrastructure Strategy, and Funding and Pricing Plan prepared by Entity D.

Projects that have been funded from either carry forward of budgets from previous years, or in 2022-24 that may be delayed are water treatment upgrades at Omakau, Patearoa, and Ranfurly, and design of the Alexandra wastewater treatment plant upgrade. These projects are likely to have significant scope increases to meet environmental requirements. Business cases are currently being prepared for these projects which are considering different solutions to those initially proposed. These projects will be more complex and costly than initially assumed, and will not be able to be completed before June 2024. Work is now focussing on ensuring that robust information is available to hand over to Entity D to progress these projects.

Construction on the Cromwell water treatment upgrade is expected to commence within the next two years, but this may still be in progress on 30 June 2024. Completion of this may also transfer to Entity D.

Delays or deferral of work programmed in the 2021-24 period in the Long-term Plan would result in a lower level of capital expenditure for Council in this period. There are several projects in the 2024-26 period which could be accelerated to enable this funding to be spent prior to transition. These are:

Activity	Project	Amount
Water	Bannockburn Pipeline	$1,000,000
Water	Cromwell Rising Main	$2,200,000
Water	Water Demand Management (irrigation separation from treated supplies)	$ 950,000
Water	Fencing, bypass tanks, and generators	$1,150,000
Wastewater	Pumpstation storage upgrades	$3,610,000
Wastewater	Ranfurly sludge drying bed improvements	$200,000

4. Financial Considerations

These will be no financial impacts as work will only be accelerated if required to balance forecast under expenditure on existing budgets due to programmed work being delayed, or if actual costs are lower than budgets.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

All capital funding that has been provided for Water Services capital work in Years 1-3 of the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan is spent prior to transition occurring on 30 June 2024. Accelerate work programmed in 2024-26 of the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan where necessary up to the total approved funding provided for 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Business case preparation, and options investigation is undertaken for currently programmed projects that cannot be completed due to significant scope change due to environmental considerations.

Operational oversight of the Water Services capital work program be provided by the Major Projects Governance Group

Advantages:

· Ensures that all funding that has been provided by the Central Otago District ratepayers and developers in the 2021 Long-term Plan is spent on projects that have been previously identified as being of benefit to the Central Otago community prior to transition on 30 June 2024.

· Ensures that projects required to meet environmental and growth needs are progressed where possible.

· Provides robust information to support increased future expenditure to meet the domestic water supply needs for communities in the Manuherekia catchment, and in the Māniatoto, and for alternative discharge options for Alexandra/Clyde and Omakau wastewater networks. Compliance with New Zealand Drinking Water Standards and resource consent requirements is likely to be a high priority for the new water entities. The projects which have been delayed due to scope change are expected to continue to be a high priority for investment by Entity D

· Debt funding planned in the 2021 Long-term Plan and 2022 Annual Plan will be transferred to Entity D on 1 July 2024.

Disadvantages:

· Less debt and potential positive balances will transfer to Entity D on 1 July 2024.

Option 2

Do not accelerate projects where delays or deferral of planned projects occurs.

Advantages:

· Less debt will transfer to Entity D on 1 July 2024.

Disadvantages:

· Funding that has been provided for capital work in the 2021 Long-term Plan and 2022 Annual Plan may not be spent prior to transition on 1 July 2024.

· Projects to meet growth and capacity requirements will not progress as early as they could.

· Entity D may have different priorities for investment resulting in these projects being delayed.

· Potential positive balances for some activities will transfer to Entity D on 1 July 2024.

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 ensuring that the funding identified as being required, and provided for investment in water services in Central Otago continues to be spent during the transition period.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes – this decision is consistent with the funding provided in the 2021 Long Term Plan and 2022 Annual Plan, and progresses projects already identified in these plans.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The projects that may be accelerated will result in improved water demand management, and improved environmental outcomes by reducing risk of wastewater overflows to waterways.
Risks Analysis	Oversight will be provided by the Major Projects Governance Group, with reporting to the Audit and Risk Committee.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This decision does not trigger Council’s significance and engagement threshold.

7. Next Steps

Council staff will continue to manage the capital works program with oversight from the Major Projects Group, with regular reporting to the Audit and Risk Committee.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Julie Muir	Sanchia Jacobs
Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services and Water Reform Lead	Chief Executive Officer
28/06/2022	30/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.9 Alexandra Library Renovation Project

Doc ID: 584112

1. Purpose of Report

To consider ratifying the Vincent Community Board's resolution concerning the Library Renovation Project.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the Alexandra Library Renovation Project concept plan on the condition that the Council is successful in the application to cover the $611,500 budget shortfall from the Three Waters Better Off Support Package.

C. Approves Council staff to progress the concept plan through the detailed design, construction partner, and construction quotes project phases while awaiting the outcome of the Three Waters Better Off Support Package application.

D. Agrees that if the funding application to the Three Waters Better Off Support Package is not successful, the concept plan is not approved. Council staff to progress with a cosmetic upgrade budgeted for.

2. Background

The Alexandra Library (the Library) is located within a Council building at 41 Tarbert Street. A project plan to renovate the Library was approved in August 2021.

The library activity for the region is district-funded. However, under the Register of Delegations 2021, “Community Boards will be asked to advise Council in relation to the provision of library services within their ward(s).”

The Vincent Community Board (the Board), at their meeting on 13 June 2022, considered the concept design and made the following resolution.

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

B. Recommends to Council to approve the Alexandra Library Renovation Project concept plan on the condition that Council is successful in the application to cover the $611,500 budget shortfall from the Three Waters Better Off Support Package.

C. Recommends to Council that if the funding application to the Three Waters Better Off Support Package is not successful, the concept plan is not approved. Council staff to progress with a cosmetic upgrade budgeted for.

See appendix 1 for a copy of the report to the Board.

3. Discussion

Concept Design

Through the project planning stage, it was identified that a change of scope would deliver a more fit for purpose environment. Additional items to be included were internal toilets, a separate staff room, and double glazing.

See appendix 1 for the concept plan.

When the project team considered the concept plan, the group paid particular attention to ensuring that the design provided flexibility within the current building and if the Library moved. For example, if the Library moves, the library furniture can be relocated, and the fixtures that remain are attractive to a new commercial tenant.

4. Financial Considerations

Estimated Construction Costs

At the end of the concept design phase, the estimated project cost is $1,035,000. There are several reasons why this project’s cost has escalated higher than the budget.

A significant cost component of this concept design is the addition of internal toilets and a separate staff room (which were beyond the initial 2015/16 budget scope). The public toilets are currently external to the Library in Thompson Street, and the staffroom is a basic kitchenette at the end of the work/office area. In the 2016 public survey asking what the public would like to see in the upcoming refurbishment and within the 2018 Central Stories Feasibility Study, a key outcome the public wanted was a toilet within the library building. In addition, feedback from library staff identified a lack of an adequate kitchen and separate staffroom was vital to improving their working environment.

A 30% contingency has been allowed for because of the current volatile conditions of the construction market due to the pandemic and given this cost estimate is at the concept design phase of the project.

Another financial consideration is that 2015 $330,000 budget set for the Library refurbishment has not increased in line with inflation. If the budget were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the budget would be $480,000.

The Three Water Better Off Funding

As per the resolution above the Board recommendeds to Council that the additional funding of $611,500 is funded externally by Tranche 1 of the Three Waters Better Off Support Package (the Better Off Package). If the funding application to the Three Waters Better Off Support Package is not successful, the concept plan is not approved. Council staff to progress with a cosmetic upgrade budgeted for.

The Three Waters Better Off Support Package:

• An investment by the Crown into the future for local government and community wellbeing; and

• In recognition of the significance to the local government sector (and the communities they serve) of the transfer of responsibility for water service delivery.

The use of this funding supports councils to transition to their new role post-reform through meeting some or all of the following criteria, as laid out in the Heads of Agreement:

• Supporting communities to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy, including by building resilience to climate change and natural hazards.

• Delivery of infrastructure and/or services that support local place-making and improvements in community wellbeing.

• Delivery of infrastructure and/or services that enable housing development and growth, with a focus on brownfield and infill development opportunities where those are available.

Funding proposals must be for:

• new initiatives/projects; and/or

• to accelerate, scale-up and/or enhance the quality of planned investment

Central Otago District Council will receive $12.84 million from the Better Off Package. This funding is allocated in two tranches.

Tranche 1

$3.21 million

Applications submitted before 30 September 2022.

Funding will be available when the application is approved.

Estimated to be one month.

Tranche 2

$9.63 million

Applications date to be advised.

Funding will be available after 1 July 2024.

A report recommending projects for inclusion in the trance one funding submission will be provided to Council for consideration at the July Council meeting.

Project Programme

Due to the pandemic, the project is currently running approximately 3 months behind schedule. To avoid further project delays, it is prudent for the Council to consider whether to approve the project's progress while the funding application is processed.

The submissions for Tranche 1 funding are due before 30 September, and the decision is estimated to take one month.

When consulting with the Library staff, a construction start date in February would be ideal. However, this construction start date is only achievable if the project progresses while processing the funding application.

The project stages which can be progressed while the funding application is in progress are:

· Stage 4 – Construction partner.

· Stage 5 – Detailed design.

· Stage 6 – Construction quoted.

The estimated time for these three stages is four and a half months. The design cost to progress these three stages is $27,100.

If the project progresses but the funding is not approved, the risk to the Council is that some of the design work paid for will not be utilised.

Projects funded by the Three Water Better Off Support Package must be completed on or before 30 June 2027. This deadline will be achieved regardless of whether or not the project is progressing while the outcome of the funding application is determined.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council approves the Alexandra Library Renovation Project concept plan on the condition that Council is successful in the application to cover the $611,500 budget shortfall from the Three Waters Better Off Support Package.

If the funding application is unsuccessful agree to progress with a cosmetic upgrade only of repaint, recarpet, and shelving within budget.

Advantages:

· Supports the Board’s reccomendation.

· The concept plan allows for an increased level of service, which is widely expected from library users and staff.

· Toilet facilities within the Library are achieved. This improves all visitor’s safety and security as they do not need to exit the building to go to the toilet.

· Improvement of staff morale as working conditions improve.

· The increased level of service will help activate Tarbert Street.

· The potential future relocation of the Library is factored into the design. Fittings can be reused and building improvements will help to attract prospective commercial tenants.

· The Tarbert Street building is brought up to current building standards. For example, fire and accessibility standards.

· If external funding is declined, the project's scope is reduced to being within budget only.

Disadvantages:

· None.

Option 2

To not approve the concept plan and instruct staff to proceed with a cosmetic upgrade only of repaint, recarpet, and new shelving to be within budget.

Advantages:

· No additional funding is required.

Disadvantages:

· Does not support the Board’s recommendation.

· This option does not take advantage of the opportunity to secure additional external funding to increase the level of service, which is widely expected from library users and staff.

· Outcomes of the Central Otago District Council’s Sustainability Strategy 2019-2024 will not be achieved.

· Minimum cosmetic upgrade only achieved.

· Minimum improvement to the level of service for library users and staff.

· Minimum improvement to the activation of Tarbert Street.

· Minimum improvement to staff morale.

· Toilet within the Library not achieved.

· The Tarbert Street building will not be bought up to current building standards as building consent will not be required.

Option 3

To not approve the concept plan or the cosmetic upgrade, the project goes back on hold.

Advantages:

· No additional funding is required.

· The remaining budget is unspent.

Disadvantages:

· Does not support the Boards recommendation.

· Library refurbishment will continue to be on hold.

· The current lower level of service remains for library users and staff.

· The environment staff is currently working in is not fit for purpose.

· Toilet facilities within the Library are not achieved.

· This option does not help activate Tarbert Street.

· The Tarbert Street building is not bought up to current building standards.

Option 4 – (Recommended)

Approves Council staff to progress the concept plan through the detailed design, construction partner, and construction quotes project phases while awaiting the outcome of the funding application to the Three Water Better Off Support Package.

Advantages:

· The project can progress without delay.

· Construction can potentially occur from February, which the Library staff has directed to be the best time of year for the construction to occur.

Disadvantages:

· If the project progresses, but the funding is not approved, the risk to the Council is that some of the design work paid for will not be utilised.

· The risk is that the $27,100 spent on design work is not entirely required.

Option 5

Do not approve Council staff to progress the project until the outcome of the funding application to the Three Water Better Off Support Package is known.

Advantages:

· Potential savings of up to $27,100 in design costs if the funding is not approved.

Disadvantages:

· The project will incur a further four-month delay while awaiting the funding decision.

· The construction period will be outside that which the Library staff recommends.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities in the present and the future by approving and providing funding for the proposed concept design for the Alexandra Library Refurbishment. This concept design caters to an increased level of service, which is expected from a modern library. The design future proofs the building to be attractive to a new commercial tenant if the Library was to move and also provides economic activation of the surrounding area. The concept design includes charging stations for electric bikes and double glazing to improve the community's energy consumption.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, this decision gives effect to the Council's Register of Delegations 2021, the Long-term Plan 2021/31, and the Sustainability Strategy 2019- 2024.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The concept design factors in a charging station for electric bikes and double glazing to improve the community's energy consumption.
Risks Analysis	The contractor will manage the health and safety requirements of construction. If a do-minimal or do-nothing option is selected, there is a risk of declining staff morale and user satisfaction. The risk when considering whether to progress the project while awaiting the funding decision is outlined in the discussion above.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	None of the thresholds/criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy have been met or exceeded, so the proposal is not considered significant.

7. Next Steps

· The funding application is made.

· Project Stage 4 – Construction Partner is completed.

· Project Stage 5 – Detailed Design is completed.

· Project Stage 6 – Construction Quoted is completed.

· The results of the funding application are known.

· Project progress as per the resolution.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Vincent Community Board Report (13 June 2022) ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Christina Martin	Louise van der Voort
Property and Facilities Officer (Vincent and Teviot Valley)	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
21/06/2022	23/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.10 Community Leasing and Licensing Policy review

Doc ID: 583591

1. Purpose of Report

To consider adjustments to the Community Leasing and Licensing Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the revised Community Leasing and Licensing Policy.

2. Background

The Community Leasing and Licensing Policy became operational in February 2021 (Resolution 21.1.3).

The intention of the policy is to provide a fair, clear, consistent, and equitable framework for community leases and licences of council-owned property and facilities to eligible community groups.

3. Discussion

A review of the policy was undertaken after one year in operation. The aim of the review was to identify and address any issues or challenges that have been identified through the practical application of the policy.

The following areas for adjustment were identified through this process:

· Subscription fees

· Groups with no membership but commercial gains

· Simplifying the process for an adjacent landowner seeking a licence to occupy

· Some text changes to clarify information, including amending definition of ‘affiliation fees’ to clarify these can be paid both by and to a particular group.

It was also noted that there had been instances of decision making under the Community Leasing and Licencing Policy that did not comply with other Council policies, including Reserve Management Plans. Further work will be undertaken outside of this policy review to ensure clear advice is provided to members on these conflicts to minimise examples in the future.

Subscription fees

Community leases and licences are offered at a concessional rate, set significantly below potential market rent.

This significantly reduced rate enables Council to support community groups, and aids in achieving Council’s community outcomes.

The difference between the concessional rate charged and standard market rent is effectively a subsidy provided by Council to enable these vital community functions.

There are, however, significant costs associated with the properties. These costs are offset by the concessional rate charged.

The concessional rate is calculated as an annual rental of 2.5% of income less any affiliation fees paid by the group or club. As a percentage of income, the fee is only charged when groups are receiving income.

The policy used ‘subscription fees’ to define income. This has led to confusion, with discussion what types of ‘income’ are considered ‘subscription fees’.

There have been groups classifying income under various brackets, including: facility entry, facility hire (in whole or in part), income from events and tournaments, and other similar fees.

The review has found the term ‘subscription fees’ could be amended to provide clarity. Rather than calculating ‘subscriptions’ the policy now defines ‘income’ derived from use of the facility by the group.

Groups with no membership but commercial gains

The previous definition of ‘subscription fees’ effectively meant groups without members were not charged any fees for use of the facility – as they did not have any ‘subscriptions’. The adjustment to the definition of income allows the policy to be applied fairly across all community lease and licence holders.

Simplified process for minor leases

Through the operation of the policy, staff have identified a small number of instances where a different process for minor leases may be beneficial.

This should be limited to adjacent landowners who lease land from Council for a fee and maintain it, in return for grazing space or other such uses.

These are mutually beneficial arrangements where the maintenance costs would otherwise need to be met by Council.

A simplified process has been introduced in the policy for these circumstances only - when it remains beneficial to the public interest to do so.

Community Board feedback

A series of workshops were held with the Teviot Valley, Cromwell, and Maniototo Community Boards. A memo was sent to the Vincent Community Board seeking feedback.

Feedback in these workshops was generally supportive of the changes, indicating a preference for simplicity in the application of the policy. Feedback prioritised treating community groups fairly and ensuring they were not unfairly disadvantaged by the updates.

Following the workshops, decisions under the policy were taken to both the Teviot Valley and Cromwell Community Boards. Concerns were raised around the equitability of the policy when groups are investing money or volunteer time. An additional clause has been added to the revised policy to address these concerns.

4. Financial Considerations

There is a potential minor increase in fees received by Council due to a small number of groups who have no members/subscriptions but generate an income. The review has sought to increase the fairness of settings and address confusion, it has not sought to increase revenue.

Although outside scope for the current review, any major changes to the way fees are set would have a financial impact as Council provide a significant investment into the community through the Community Leasing and Licensing programme.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the revised Community Leasing and Licensing Policy for a further three-year period.

Advantages:

· Operational issues identified through practical application are addressed

· Information is clarified for community groups in question, including the way fees are calculated

· Minor adjustments to the fee calculation portion of the policy will increase fairness

Disadvantages:

· The adjustment to the subscription/income definition will result in charges for a small number groups with no members who derive an income through the use of a council facility. Although increasing fairness overall, this will be seen as a disadvantage by the groups involved.

Option 2

Do not approve the revised Community Leasing and Licensing Policy. The previous policy will remain in operation.

Advantages:

· The new policy brings consistency with charges for the previously exempt small number of groups with no members who receive an income from the use of a facility. These groups may see advantages with the previous policy settings.

Disadvantages:

· Fee settings have reduced fairness

· Fee settings have reduced clarity

· Operational issues identified through the practical application of the policy are not addressed

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 ensuring a robust and fair process is in place to enhance community outcomes through the operation of the Community Leasing and Licensing Policy. It includes assessment criteria that seek to enhance all four well-beings.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No specific considerations. The assessment criteria include considerations of the environmental impact of any lease or licence.
Risks Analysis	No risks identified.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Consultation was undertaken in 2020 on the policy. Further consultation is not required as the decision making through the review seeks to tighten the definitions consulted on through this process, rather than introduce new ones.

7. Next Steps

If approved, the new policy will be updated on our website and to all lease and licence holders. It will continue to apply to replace other historic agreements as they are renewed.

It will be reviewed after three years.

If not approved, the existing policy will remain in place until February 2024.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Community Leasing and Licensing Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
9/06/2022	15/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.11 Museum Investment Strategy

Doc ID: 582898

1. Purpose of Report

To provide a summary of museum investment workshops held to date and to consider progressing the work to investigate a district funding model for museum investment.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes discussions held to date on the Museum Investment Strategy.

C. Agrees to progress the work on investigating a model for the districtisation of museum funding.

D. Approves financial modelling be carried out on the operational and capital funding impacts of a district funding model.

2. Background

Council began reviewing its role in the museum space in late 2019. Two work streams were identified. The first was the development of a sector strategy, and to support greater collaboration across the sector. This aspect was considered in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan, and a new Central Otago Museum’s Trust has now been established to support the work of the sector. This Trust is operational and has recently employed a part-time coordinator.

The second workstream was to develop a framework to guide council’s investment in the sector. This work to date has involved the development of an investment logic map and a series of workshops with councillors. These are detailed below.

Investment Logic Map

An Investment Logic Map was undertaken with representatives from the museum network, elected members, and council staff on 14 October 2021.

Four key problems were identified:

· Failure to deliver services that locals and visitors make use of, meaning opportunities are missed to improve economic, social and cultural outcomes

· Significant negative pressures on people, property and funding means the delivery of the museum activity is deteriorating and unsustainable

· Predominantly static, traditional European collections, means the museum activity is incomplete, reducing significance and diminishing demand

· The museums activity lacks district coordination, diminishing the ability to adopt an interconnected network approach and attract funding.

The reasons behind these problems are complex and are not unique to Central Otago. They do not reflect on the willingness of the museum network and other interested parties (such as council and other key funders) to address these issues.

The Investment Logic Map identified several responses and benefits relating to these problems, including:

· Improved social, cultural, and environmental benefits

· Increased utilisation of museum services, improving financial sustainability and economic benefits

· Enhancing the quality of the services delivered.

Potential options were identified as potential responses, including:

· Maintain the status quo

· Minimal improvements

· Enhanced levels of support, with various capital and operational grants toward building and collections details

· Investment in a district museum, with various options identified

· Investment in two or three key museums, with various options identified

The weighting in the Investment Logic Map process did not identify a clear preferred option – with less than a 2% difference in ranking between the top seven options.

It is clear that the sector faces immense financial challenges that are complex in nature, many of which are also felt by the museum sector internationally. Many require complex or new solutions, rather than continued funding of older models.

Although there is clear support and willingness from Council to support our museum network, with a small ratepayer base and various competing challenges, the ‘gap’ between available funds from Council and the funding Museums require is much larger than Council is able to fill.

Following the development of the Investment Logic Map, a series of workshops were held with councillors to develop the Museum Investment Strategy.

Workshop One

The first workshop, held 26 January 2022, outlined the Investment Logic Map process and the options identified. Feedback was sought, identifying a preference for a network model that supported the direction set by the sector/Central Otago Museums Trust, and concern with the high cost of some options.

Topics canvassed at the first workshop included:

· Discussion how the feedback from the community through the long-term plan and Cromwell Masterplan processes will feed into the Investment Strategy

· Direction from councillors to ensure the sector-led Museum Strategy is considered throughout the Investment Strategy

· Discussion around why Council invests in museums and what benefits are delivered as a result. The discussion highlighted benefits for heritage, educational opportunities and community connection. Environmental and economic considerations were ranked lower.

Workshop Two

The second workshop on 9 March 2022 included developing an initial vision and objectives for the investment strategy. This strategy is intended to complement the five-year Central Otago District Museum Strategy developed by the sector and includes continuing to support investment in the network beyond the life of the current strategy.

The draft strategy includes:

Vision: Preserve and share a sense of place that values our rich heritage

Objectives: Museums continue to be relevant

Celebrate our diverse heritage

Bring people together and define who we are

Accessible educational opportunities that inspire

Build places for people, reflecting our story

Topics canvassed at the second workshop included:

· Discussion of the outcomes and conclusions derived from discussions in the first workshop

· Council priorities in the ‘Value Discipline Model’ of product leadership (aiming for new or innovative products), operational excellence (a focus on high quality systems and processes), or customer intimacy (a focus on customer experience). There was a strong preference to focus on the customer experience and the value museums give to the community.

· Discussion of the principle behind resource distribution to and within the museum sector. Historically, resources had been allocated by looking for a fair model of distribution between competing parties, regardless of the outcome of that investment. There was a clear preference for a shift to a model that priorities achieving outcomes from ratepayer investment.

· The various groups and ‘target markets’ attracted to Central Otago museum offerings and the importance of each when allocating funding. Councillors expressed a preference to focus on offerings for local and national visitors, and on providing educational experiences.

· The different aspects of collections that may be considered by councillors if further funding were to be provided as an option. Councillors expressed the strongest interest in preserving existing collections and in researching or telling the story of these taonga.

· What Council’s role and or/responsibility could be, if any, in increasing accessibility.

· The function of existing buildings.

· Discussion around the role of smaller museums and their importance to small communities.

Workshop Three

The third workshop was held on 17 April 2022.

The workshop presented data that attempted to benchmark Council’s current level of investment against other district councils.

Benchmarking has been difficult as staff have been unable to locate national research into funding, outside advice provided by the Office of the Auditor General in 2006 that included bundled figures. Museums Aotearoa were also unable to provide figures for comparison.

Referring to individual council documents has also presented challenges as investment into museums is often split between several council functions – including property considerations, grants and other such funds, and in house staffing or other operational funding sources. Each of these separate functions is often bundled in council’s Long-term Plan, Annual Plan, and budget documents – for instance, property funding may be bundled with other physical assets whilst specific museum functions are bundled with arts, heritage, culture, or community. The processes used varies between councils.

Approaching individual councils directly had mixed levels of success, as many councils had not specifically accounted their museum funding distinctly – again bundled and split amongst the different functions.

The information that was received, however, has Central Otago at the higher end of investment by a council into museums per head of population, likely due to the higher related costs of the level of property investment.

The workshop also included a discussion on national funding issues facing museums across New Zealand. The lack of national funding was discussed.

The final item discussed at the third workshop was the current funding model within Council. Museums are funded from both ward and district sources, including funding toward buildings, operations and administration. Funding toward collections has been identified as a fourth area that could be funded.

The various opportunities and challenges of both ward and district funding were discussed relating to each area of funding. There was a clear preference to investigate how districtising museum funding may benefit the community.

Key themes emerging from the third workshop discussion with councillors included:

· Achieving equity and fairness across the museum network

· Consideration of affordability for ratepayers

· A preference to districtise Council museum funding sources

3. Discussion

Council’s current financial structure is split across ward and district funding that contribute toward different aspects of museum funding. Alterations to these models may have an impact on both capital and operational expenditure.

The next step proposed is to undertake financial modelling on a district funding model – against the current model and any potential hybrid models. The modelling would provide a clear understanding of the rating impact of any proposed change, whether positive or negative.

A decision would then be made on whether or not to proceed with the proposal. Any new model that impacts on rates or delegations to the boards will need to be consulted on. The process and the timelines for this will be presented alongside the financial modelling.

4. Financial Considerations

The work to undertake financial modelling can be accommodated under existing budgets.

The modelling will assist in the understanding of the financial implications of progressing with the district model funding proposal.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Proceed with financial modelling of the rating impacts of a district funding model for museums.

Advantages:

· Provide a full understanding of the rating impact of any potential change

· Increase quality of information provided to inform decision making

Disadvantages:

· Although it can be accommodated, there is a cost involved with producing the financial modelling and it will take time

Option 2

Do not proceed with financial modelling of the rating of a district funding model for museums and do not progress with the proposal to investigate districtisation of museum funding.

Advantages:

· Cost saving with no need for financial modelling

Disadvantages:

· Decision making remains at ward level resulting in challenges in developing a district-wide funding model

· Further discussions will be required with councillors as to process to develop a district-wide model, leading to delays.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by enhancing the outcome of investment into the museum sector.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes – including the community owned Museum Strategy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no direct environmental, sustainability, or climate change related considerations by the decision to request financial modelling. There are sustainability implications from the age and condition of many related buildings.
Risks Analysis	This proposal seeks to reduce the risks presented by changes to financial models, by increasing the understanding of the financial impact before the final decision is made.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Central Otago Museums Trust and wider museum sector will be interested in this matter. They have been notified by the liaison to the trust. The wider community will be interested in the outcome of the financial modelling and any related decision making is likely to reach ‘significance’ and require consultation at that stage.

7. Next Steps

Financial modelling on the impacts to ratepayers across the different wards will be carried out.

The modelling will be presented to Council in late 2022 for a decision whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

Consultation will be required, with further decision making from Council on how this will be carried out, including considerations of both the Annual Plan 2023 and Long-term Plan 2024 processes.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
1/06/2022	28/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.12 Affordable Housing Survey Results

Doc ID: 584260

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the results of the survey on affordable housing decide whether or not to endorse the request to gift land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to develop a secure homes model in the region.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes the results of the consultation.

C. Agrees whether or not to endorse the proposal to gift land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to set up a secure homes model in Central Otago.

2. Background

Council has been considering its role in housing, including whether or not it has a role in the provision of affordable housing. From the initial work conducted in 2019, one area of investigation remains for Council decision. This area is whether Council supports the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to establish a secure homes model in the region by gifting them land.

At the Council meeting on 9 March 2022, a paper was presented that recommended Council do not give up land given the significant financial ramifications it would have. Council resolved at this meeting to seek feedback from the community prior to any decision on whether or not to proceed with the request from the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

At the Council meeting on 27 April 2022, Council considered the engagement plan and the online survey questions. Council approved the plan, with the amendment that the proposed mailbox drop in Vincent and Cromwell not occur and instead widespread promotion occur across the whole district.

3. Discussion

The consultation was open from 11 May to 5 June 2022. It was promoted through all council communication channels including:

• Onelan screens (in council service centres, libraries and pools)

• Posters

• Hard copies of the survey and consultation material at service centres and libraries

• Central App banner – week of 22 May

• ODT and Southland Times adverts – 14 May

• Radio advertising – late May (Radio Central – tied in with ‘home’ + ‘house’ themed songs) and also sent to Burn; plus

• Mayor Tim mentioned and discussed in interviews on air

• The Noticeboard in The News – each week during the consultation period

• Cromwell Bulletin – 2 June (full page advert)

• Teviot Bulletin – 2 June

• Media release – 30 May (survey closing in a week)

• Facebook promotion – Facebook banner and posts x4 and tagged community pages/shared to groups

• Mayor Tim’s Facebook live sessions

• LinkedIn promotion – x2 posts

• Website – home page spotlight throughout consultation period

• Intranet – shared story and encouraged staff to spread the word

• Elected members encouraged to spread the word via email

The community was asked if they agreed to Council supporting the development of affordable housing in the district, and also whether they agreed with Council contributing land (and associated profit) to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust worth the equivalent of $16m to establish a secure homes model in the region. Some demographic questions such as age, where they live and whether they currently own or rent property in the district were also asked.

In total 480 responses were received. Two of which were hard copies which provided comments but did not provide answers to the specific questions asked in the consultation. These two responses have been included in the high-level themes provided in this report.

Data Analysis

The data analysis and graphs that follow reflect the 478 online responses.

Do you agree to Council supporting the development of affordable housing in Central Otago?

Do you agree with Council contributing land worth the equivalent of $8m ($4m each from Cromwell and Vincent wards) to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to establish a secure homes model in this region? (Note this would equate to a loss of return on developing the land of $16m - $8m worth of land value and $8m worth of net profit).

Age:

Responses came from a good spread across all age brackets. It is of note that there was strong engagement from those in the 20 – 29, 30 – 39 and 40 – 49 age brackets.

The graphs below provide a breakdown of responses to the two key questions in the consultation by age.

Living situation:

The majority of respondents (73%) live in their own home in Central Otago. Twenty-two percent of respondents live in a rental property in the district.

Ten respondents do not live in Central Otago but have an interest in affordable housing. These 10 respondents all agreed with Council supporting the development of affordable housing in the district and only two did not support the contribution of land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

Ward:

Just over half of all respondents are based in Cromwell Ward (55%) with 35% based in Vincent Ward. Much smaller responses were received from Teviot Valley and Māniatoto wards (both 3%), which is unsurprising given the land discussed for this consultation is in Cromwell and Alexandra.

In the meeting there will be further presentation on the results which will include analyses such as ward break-downs.

Comments – high-level themes

Two-hundred and seventy-three comments were received.

One-hundred and fifty-one comments were received from those who agreed with Council supporting affordable housing in the district and contributing land to the Trust.

The key themes from these comments included:

The most common theme in the comments was general support of the initiative, with comments such as ‘it is time’, ‘I think it’s the responsibility of council to ensure affordable housing is made available’, ‘We need affordable housing, anything we can to do to make this happen is vital’ and ‘This needs to happen for young couples to get anywhere’.

Suggestions around eligibility criteria was also a common theme, with respondents mentioning first home buyers; senior citizens who can no longer afford to live here and may need to downsize; skilled workers who may otherwise have to leave; young people and families as those who could benefit from this initiative.

They felt it would support the local economy through retaining and attracting skilled workforce and members of the community, keeping people in the district and creating a vibrant and diverse community.

Respondents also felt that affordable housing helped address inequality in our community by helping those into a home who otherwise may not be able to afford it, encouraging inclusion and supporting community well-being.

Respondents said it would be important that affordable homes are good quality buildings/homes that are also affordable to live in. It should be housing that is realistically affordable, high standard and mixed designs, energy efficient, smaller, warmer homes with minimum maintenance and that meet carbon zero climate change objectives.

Small section sizes were a concern for some but a suggestion from others. Some felt having affordable housing scattered through existing developments rather than all in one block was preferable.

There were positive comments about the Queenstown Lakes Affordable Housing initiative, that this initiative is working and that the same could work in Central Otago.

There was some concern about the impact on ratepayers and the potential for rates to increase. Some respondents questioned the definition of ‘affordable’ and what an ‘affordable home’ really means – there were some concerns about rising building costs, and whether a property would continue to be affordable in the future. ‘What is ideal, may not be practical’.

Council supporting affordable rental options was mentioned as a potential alternative as was more Council housing/flats. Some respondents suggested prioritising a retirement village.

Respondents felt there was more information needed to understand conditions and processes i.e. what happens when the house gets sold? What happens if the Trust winds up?

Eighty-six comments were received from people who did not agree with Council supporting affordable housing or contributing land to the Trust.

The key themes from these comments included:

Overwhelmingly the most common theme was that it is not council’s role to play a part in affordable housing. Many felt it was a function of central government and council should not be subsidising housing at the expense of the rate payer. Respondents felt council should focus on core business and invest in infrastructure first.

Respondents suggested it was important to understand the problem fully before providing a solution and that more information was required before they could agree to support this initiative.

There was some concern that 'affordable housing' may become a slum and that this could erode the value of current ratepayer’s properties.

Suggestions that there is plenty of land in other areas of the district that could be used for affordable housing e.g. Omakau.

Comments such as ‘no’, ‘stay away’, ‘should not support’, ‘not at the expense of the ratepayer’, ‘hard fact that Central Otago is expensive place to live’ were common from these respondents who in principle did not agree with council supporting the development of affordable housing.

Thirty-five comments received from people who agreed with council supporting affordable housing in the district but disagreed with council contributing land to the Trust.

The key themes from these comments included:

The most common theme was that council should support affordable housing in the district but that it is not council’s role to fund it, ‘support it doesn't mean you fund it’, ‘I agree with supporting it but not sure financial support in this way sits with local government’. These respondents felt affordable housing is important for the district, but that council should focus on core services, ‘council should make sure their core business such as infrastructure should be done first. It is not the community’s responsibility to fund affordable housing’.

There was some concern about the potential impact on ratepayers with comments about people struggling with the increased costs of living. They felt the interests of all ratepayers should be the priority, not a select few.

Some respondents suggested considering a different approach to address the affordable housing issue including Kāinga Ora, rent-to-own, leasehold and co-ownership.

These respondents also thought more information was needed about criteria, the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust and processes.

One respondent disagreed with council supporting affordable housing in the district but agreed with council contributing land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust.

Process if Council endorses the request from the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to gift the land.

If Council decides to gift the land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust, and therefore remove an asset from community ownership, there would be possible financial implications that would need to be considered. These would cover the impact on other projects across the wards and a potential impact on debt levels. For this reason, the appropriate mechanism to consider this proposal in its entirety would be through the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

The financial impacts of this decision are such, that outside of the 2024-34 Long-term Plan process, the only other viable mechanism would be through an amended long-term plan in 2023-24 (replacing the 2023-24 Annual Plan). This involves considerable cost to the organisation, and given the competing demands on staff time with the reform programme in particular, this option is not advised.

4. Financial Considerations

If the proposal were to proceed, there are a number of other pieces of work that would need to be undertaken. These are detailed below and would help to inform the final shape of any proposal and the in-depth consultation that could then be had with the community.

The cost of this proposal ($16m) has been a high-level estimate. Before proceeding, detailed financial modelling would be required to ensure accuracy of this initial estimate and to take into account other expenditure planned at the district level. For example, this proposal may result in some future projects not going ahead or further borrowing occurring beyond what was already planned. If, for example, council borrowed the equivalent of $8m to fund other projects (which is the overall net profit foregone) this would equate to a yearly rate increase of 2.2% for Vincent ratepayers and 2.3% for Cromwell ratepayers (per year over the course of a 25-year loan).

Consideration would also need to be given to this project alongside three waters’ transition in 2024 and what impacts this has on council’s overall debt ceiling and borrowing ability. Council has three covenants that need adhered to:

· External debt as a percentage of total value of assets <10%

· External debt as a percentage of total revenue <175%

· External interest as a percentage of total revenue <20%

These covenants as listed in the Liability Management Policy may come close to being breached, and will require detailed modelling to be undertaken.

A needs assessment should be conducted to understand who should benefit from a secure home which would in turn assist in specific criteria being developed. Given the small number of homes that would be available a broader criterion like that used in Queenstown Lakes may not be suitable in Central Otago. Consideration should also be given to Central Otago’s own unique demographics and industry profile. There is also not the same ability to grow the model as in Queenstown Lakes, who had access to central government funding and developer’s contributions. The needs assessment would cost approximately $200,000 and could form part of the 2023/24 Annual Plan considerations (or three waters better off funding being considered by Council in a separate paper at this meeting).

Further discussions would need to occur with the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to ascertain other foreseen costs (e.g. who will pay the interest on the Trust’s potential borrowings while the houses are being built and who will be underwriting the funding risk) and how will the Trust will fund ongoing operational costs (such as administration costs). If ratepayer money would be required, these costs would also need to be presented as part of financial modelling in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Decides whether or not to endorse with the proposal to gift a portion of council owned land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust enable the development of a secure homes model in Central Otago.

Advantages:

· Gives the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust some certainty about next steps

· Enables staff to consider this proposal in their work planning alongside other commitments

Disadvantages:

· No apparent disadvantages.

Option 2

Does not decide whether or not to endorse with the proposal to gift a portion of council owned land to the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to enable the development of a secure homes model in Central Otago.

Advantages:

· No apparent advantages.

Disadvantages:

· Leaves the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust uncertain as to the future of their proposal.

· Potential dissatisfaction from the respondents to the survey that there was no clear outcome.

· Creates some uncertainty in future capital projects and financial planning.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by considering public feedback on a proposal to promote affordable housing to some members of the community.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The proposal is inconsistent with the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan, and would require detailed financial modelling to be undertaken to ascertain the impact on debt and other projects. The appropriate mechanism for this financial modelling would be in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	This paper has no immediate consideration to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts. If the proposal is to proceed, future papers may wish to consider these factors.
Risks Analysis	There are no immediate risks in considering the public’s initial feedback on the proposal.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Any decision to gift land would require formal public consultation using the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act. Given the significance of the decision this would either be under an amended Long-Term Plan in 2023/34 (replacing the 2023/24 Annual Plan) or through the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

7. Next Steps

Staff advise the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust of Council’s decision and if the decision is to proceed initiates the work that will be required as part of the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Sanchia Jacobs
Chief Advisor	Chief Executive Officer
20/06/2022	29/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.13 Wilding Conifer Control Policy

Doc ID: 583516

1. Purpose of Report

To consider adopting a policy for controlling wilding conifers on Council owned or managed land.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the Wilding Conifer Control Policy.

2. Background

Over the years Council has received numerous approaches by members of the community and community groups requesting that the issue of wilding pines be addressed in the district. Approaches have been made through annual and long-term plan submission processes and also in meetings with senior staff explaining the extent of the problem and requesting that Council get involved in tree removal.

The issue of wilding conifers has been known for a number of years, with increasing awareness of the threat of wildings to landscapes, rural productivity, water yield, indigenous biodiversity and dangerous wildfire. Whilst the matter at its broadest sense sits within a regional council mandate, Central Otago District Council has committed to addressing the issue on its own land through the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

Of the more than 2500 non-native plant species naturalised in New Zealand, “wilding conifers” (invasive trees) in the family Pinaceae, particularly Pinus contorta, P. nigra, P. radiata, P. mugo, Larix decidua and Pseudotsuga menziesii) are amongst the most problematic (Brandt et al., 2021). In the absence of management, some estimates suggest that wilding conifers could spread to 7.46 million hectares over the next 15 - 30-year period, or approximately 28% of New Zealand's land area, albeit at variable abundance (Wyatt, 2018).

Wilding conifer invasions particularly threaten tussock grasslands, frost flats, and alpine areas (Campbell, 1984; Smale, 1990), where the invasion of fast-growing trees into treeless or low-statured vegetation causes fundamental shifts in almost every aspect of these ecosystems.

Wilding conifer management first began in the 1960s but has accelerated over the past 15 years. In 2020, Central Government announced a four-year investment of $100 million. Substantial additional control costs are borne by landowners, industry, and local community groups. Economic analysis suggests the high level of investment is worthwhile, achieving an outstanding benefit: cost ratio of 38:1 (Wyatt, 2018). This reflects the relatively high potential cost of wilding conifer impacts on water resources and grazing land if invasions are not controlled.

Biodiversity is also under a high level of threat from wilding conifers but is more difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

To take into account all of these issues and ensure Council is able to make consistent decision relating to wilding conifers on its own land, adoption of a district wide wilding conifer control policy is proposed.

National Context

An independent report commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) on behalf of the New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Group, addressed the status of wilding conifers in New Zealand. As a result of the independent report ‘The right tree in the right place: New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015-2030’ (the national strategy) was developed. The strategy identifies that wilding conifers are a serious and pressing established pest in New Zealand, and that they reduce the productivity of primary industry, and damage the environmental values that New Zealand is renowned for.

Under the strategy, key participants in wilding conifer management governance are identified as MPI, regional councils, Department of Conservation. territorial authorities, the Ministry of Defence, Land Information New Zealand, land occupiers, and voluntary initiatives. The national strategy clarifies roles and responsibilities of central government, regional councils and territorial local authorities. These roles include leadership, wilding conifer control and management along with developing appropriate wilding conifer control rules. It also references land occupier’s roles in the management of wilding conifers.

For reference the National Wilding Conifer Management Strategy can be found on the following website: www.wildingconifers.org.nz.

The strategy has objectives of gaining funding for early intervention for both Crown and private land occupiers in wilding conifer control, and for fair allocation of costs through cost sharing.

The Government has allocated $100m over four years for regional councils to distribute towards the control of wilding conifers. A typical application of this funding is an 80/20 funding split, where the Government, via the regional council, contributes 80% and the landowner contributes 20% of the cost. The National Wilding Conifer Control Programme provides the framework for stakeholders to work together to reduce the negative impacts of wilding conifers. The National Wilding Conifer Control Programme can be found on the following website: www.wildingconifers.org.nz.

Otago Regional Council

The strategy and control programmes are supported by the Otago Regional Council (ORC) where wilding conifers are identified as plant pest species in the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019 – 2029, (the Plan).

Under the Plan the ORC strongly supports activities that align with their progressive containment objectives for wilding conifers. The Plan provides the framework for stakeholders to work together to reduce the negative impacts of wilding conifers upon the landscape.

Some of these negative effects include:

· Loss of landscape and aesthetic values.

· Impacts on conservation values, including loss of indigenous biodiversity unique to the Central Otago area.

· Loss of productive land.

· Impacts on hydrological values.

· Dangerous wildfires.

Modelling by the ORC and others shows that wilding conifer seed has been recorded to be dispersed 40kms from the seed source but are primarily recorded up to 10kms from the parent trees. Eliminating the seed source would protect the investment spent on those properties undertaking conifer control, and begin to control effects on landscape, rural productivity, indigenous biodiversity and water yield as detailed above.

ORC have estimated that if the wilding conifers are not controlled until 2041, the cost to control them will be estimated 10 to 100 times more than the initial cost to control them in 2021/2022.

Central Otago District Council

Planting of wilding conifers is not a permitted activity in the Central Otago District Plan, and rules require that resource consent must be applied for and granted, to permit planting of a number of conifer species including: Douglas Fir, European Larch, Ponderosa Pine, Bishops Pine, Maritime Pine, Radiata Pine, and Corsican Pine. The reason cited in the district plan is that tree planting with species that have spreading vigour has the potential for adverse effects upon amenity and ecological values in terms of wilding spread.

Planting of Lodgepole Pine is a prohibited activity in the district plan recognising that this is the species with the greatest vigour, and therefore this species cannot be planted anywhere in the district, and nor can consent be applied for.

The Central Otago District Tree Policy 2020 contains an objective of avoiding planting trees on Council land that have the potential for invasive growth, or planting any plants designated as “pests” by the Otago Regional Council, or with propensity to become a wilding tree. The development of the Wilding Conifer Control Policy is therefore consistent with existing policy in Central Otago.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

In November 2021, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, released a report titled “Space Invaders, a Review on how New Zealand Manages Weeds that Threaten Native Ecosystems”.

The report references the cost of wilding pines to the economy and states that if not managed is estimated to be more than $5 billion. It sites negative effects of wilding conifers, including farmers losing grazing land, houses threatened by wildfire, and habitats and water yield being lost. The report cites the Ohau fire where 50 homes were lost and 1600 hectares of DOC land were burnt, and the Twizel fire where 3500 hectares of land containing wilding pines and scrub was burned. The Commissioner notes in the report that whilst $100 million is being set aside by the Government, he believes it will cost significantly more to get the problem of wilding pines under control. He also noted that not unsurprisingly it is no longer possible to get carbon credits for wilding trees.

Iwi

The Kāi Tahu ki Otago Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 specifies the spread of exotic wilding trees and other woody weeds as an issue that adversely affects cultural landscapes.

Aukaha has advised that Kāi Tahu are broadly supportive of wilding pine removal for a number of reasons, including their effects on water yield and water quality; effects on indigenous biodiversity; and their adverse effects on landscapes, particularly where this affects cultural sites and landscapes (wāhi tūpuna).

The Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group

In 2013 the Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group (COWCCG) was formed to respond to the mounting concerns about the impact and spread of wilding conifers on the Central Otago landscape.

COWCCG have developed a strategy titled ‘The Central Otago Wilding Conifer Strategy 2020 -2025’ which is contained in Appendix 1. The group’s vision is: “Central Otago natural landscapes, areas of ecological significance and productive pastoral lands are protected from the impacts of wilding conifer”’.

The COWCCG receive funding through several different funding streams, including a targeted ORC rate and a $20,000 grant from Council, the latter to cover administrative costs. This group is made up of community representatives who coordinate the wilding conifer control efforts and obligations of agencies and landowners. They identify sites of concern and assist with the engagement of contractors and the contribution of costs from various parties to enable the removal of wilding conifers.

The Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Funding Diagram is attached as Appendix 2.

Over the years Council has provided support to the group with funding and staff support in administrative roles. A Councillor has been appointed to the COWCCG as a liaison person since 2019.

3. Discussion

In more recent years members of the COWCCG have had a number of meetings with Council staff to discuss the extent of the problem of wilding conifers, including on Council-owned land. They have provided information demonstrating that the Central Otago climatic conditions are perfect for seed dispersal which has resulted in prolific spread of wilding conifers. The group emphasised that conifers on Council owned land are contributing to spread on nearby farmland making any efforts to control wilding conifers on those properties less effective. The group encouraged Council to show leadership and take landowner responsibility by committing to the removal of wilding conifers from Council land. The areas identified by the group across the district include the Half Mile Recreation Reserve, Boot Hill, Lower Manorburn Recreation Reserve and Alexandra Airport all in the Vincent ward, and the Sugar Loaf Scenic Reserve in the Cromwell ward, as well as smaller areas in the Teviot and Māniatoto wards.

Council has no district wide policy for wilding conifer control. Each ward determines where funding priorities are allocated. To give effect to the funding allocated for wilding conifer control in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan there is a need for a district wide wilding conifer control policy.

The adoption of a Wilding Conifer Control Policy would provide clear direction on Council’s intention for controlling of wilding conifers on land owned or managed by Council, with the exception of Council owned commercial forestry areas which would be managed within the scope of the District Plan. The policy is attached as Appendix 3.

4. Financial Considerations

Council agreed to include ward-based funding in the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan for a period of 3 years to address wilding pines on identified Council owned properties. $150,000 was approved over three years on the understanding that most of the cost of removal would be funded by the national programme.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

That Council adopts the Wilding Conifer Control Policy.

Advantages:

· There is a consistent district wide approach to wilding conifer removal.

· Council shows leadership and responsibility as a landowner by controlling wilding conifers.

· Reduction of the risk of wildfire to neighbouring properties.

· Council can work with community groups and volunteers to develop areas where wildings have been removed.

· New plantings if appropriate will enhance biodiversity over time.

· Wilding conifers are removed as a seed source to neighbouring properties.

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages are identified.

Option 2

That Council does not adopt the Wilding Conifer Control Policy.

Advantages:

· Wilding conifer control decisions are made at a ward level.

Disadvantages:

· There is no district wide consistency in controlling wilding conifers.

· Inconsistent decision making on the removal of wilding conifers could occur.

· Potential to improve sites following the removal of wildings is lost.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions

This decision promotes the (social /cultural/economic / environmental) wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by removing a recognised weed pest and enhancing the area for greater community enjoyment.

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

This decision is consistent with the Central Otago District Council Long-term Plan 2021 – 2031.

Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts

Wilding conifers are a recognised weed tree, their removal over time will enhance the sustainability and ecological environment of Council owned land across the district. Wilding conifers are not eligible for carbon credits.

Risks Analysis

Risks identified if the wilding conifers remain include, wildfire threat, cost of control increases over time due to continue seed dispersal to neighbouring properties.

Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)

This policy gives effect to funding allocated for this purpose through the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan. Additional consultation is not required.

7. Next Steps

The next steps include:

· Council adopts the Wilding Conifer Control Policy.

· The policy is implemented.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - COWCCG Wilding Conifer Strategy ⇩

Appendix 2 - COWCCG Funding Diagram ⇩

Appendix 3 - Wilding Conifer Control Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Gordon Bailey	Louise van der Voort
Parks and Recreation Manager	Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
17/06/2022	22/06/2022

Council meeting Agenda

6 July 2022

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

2021/22	11 MONTHS ENDING 31 MAY 2022					2021/22
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
33,270	Rates	30,646	30,618	28	˜	33,270
7,248	Govt Grants & Subsidies	14,742	16,116	(1,374)	˜	16,890
7,323	User Fees & Other	6,809	6,942	(133)	˜	7,737
17,286	Land Sales	10,556	9,378	1,178	˜	14,739
2,155	Regulatory Fees	2,444	2,069	375	˜	2,157
2,104	Development Contributions	2,617	1,922	695	˜	2,114
388	Interest & Dividends	70	324	(254)	˜	392
-	Reserves Contributions	327	196	131	˜	196
-	Profit on Sale of Assets	27	-	27	˜	-
55	Other Capital Contributions	95	139	(44)	˜	150
69,829	Total Income	68,333	67,704	629	˜	77,645

	Expenditure
13,565	Staff	11,384	12,195	811	˜	13,482
587	Members Remuneration	454	529	75	˜	587
8,904	Contracts	7,947	8,835	888	˜	9,811
2,902	Professional Fees	2,826	3,440	614	˜	3,869
9,997	Depreciation	9,687	9,524	(163)	˜	10,383
13,926	Costs of Sales	4,874	3,995	(879)	˜	7,229
3,920	Refuse & Recycling Costs	3,532	3,699	167	˜	4,029
-	Cost Allocations	(10)	(2)	8	˜	(2)
1,723	Repairs & Maintenance	1,418	1,640	222	˜	1,940
1,410	Electricity & Fuel	1,255	1,294	39	˜	1,419
-	Loss on Sale of Asset	262	262	-	˜	262
652	Grants	559	586	27	˜	631
1,115	Technology Costs	891	986	95	˜	1,100
303	Projects	779	1,071	292	˜	1,231
639	Rates Expense	584	676	92	˜	712
423	Insurance	454	453	(1)	˜	455
2,037	Other Costs	1,258	1,854	596	˜	2,087
62,103	Total Expenses	48,154	51,037	2,883	˜	59,225

7,726	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	20,179	16,667	3,512		18,420

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for May 2022 show an overall favourable variance of $3.512M. Land sales are higher than budget by $1.17M, along with development contributions by $695k. Offsetting this are unfavourable variances in grants and subsidies, interest and dividends, and user fees and charges. Cost of sales of $4,874 have come through for stage one of the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions. This has created an unfavourable variance of ($879k) due to the timing of the budget which is currently offset by underspends in staff costs $811k and contracts $888k.

Income of $68.333M against the year-to-date budget of $67.704M

Overall income has a favourable variance against the revised budget by $629k. This is being driven by the timing of land sales with a variance of $1.178M (F), offset by the timing of Three Waters Stimulus funding and Waka Kotahi subsidies (U).

The main variances are:

· Government grants and subsidies ($1.37M) U - This is mainly due to the timing of the Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) roading subsidy contributing an unfavourable variance of ($1.2M). Subsidies are claimed for both the operational and capital roading work programmes and fluctuate based on the work programme. There is an unfavourable variance of ($473k) in Three Waters relating stimulus funding, which will be caught up in the last funding claim of the financial year and 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 ($133k) U - Other income has a variance of ($191k). 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. Metered water revenue has a favourable variance of $61k. Water meter readings have been completed for the financial year.

· Land sales $1.178M F - This is due to the timing of land sales for the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions. Dunstan Park has released the titles for stage one and two of the subdivision. Cemetery road stage one sections have all sold.

· Regulatory fees $375k F - This continues to be driven by building consent revenue received, which year-to-date is $412k ahead of budget. This is offset by other regulatory fees which are behind budget: enforcement registration fees ($24k) and the subdivision consents deposit account ($39k).

· Development Contributions $695k F - 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 ($254k) U - Large project costs are being managed within current cashflows rather that uplifting additional loan funding, including subdivision development costs. This results in less cash available to be invested. At present there are no term deposits earning interest.

· Reserves contributions $131k F - These are difficult to gauge when setting budgets and are dependent on developers’ timeframes.

Expenditure of $48.154M against the year-to-date budget of $51.037M

Expenditure has a favourable variance of $2.88M. The main drivers behind this are contracts, staff, professional fees, and other costs. Offsetting this favourable variance is the cost of sales from stage one of the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions, along with depreciation.

The main variances are:

· Staff costs $811k F - 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 $888k F - 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 $320k; contracts $426k; and roading contracts $136k are the key timing variances year-to-date. Of the contracts variance, $358k is being driven by the timing of the Three Waters Stimulus operational improvements projects.

· Professional fees $614k F - 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 $154k; management consultants $324k; planning consultants $274k and recoverable professional fees ($306k). It is expected that June will see a number of costs recognised as programmes of work reach completion for the year.

· Depreciation ($163k) U - This is 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 $429k; roading $106k; and wastewater ($470k).

· Costs of sales ($879M) U - Costs of sales is linked to the land sales mentioned earlier and reflect the development costs for stage one of both the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions. The development costs for stage two of the Dunstan Park subdivision are still coming in and will be released from property intended for sale in June. Stage one of the Cemetery Road subdivision has been completed, with a deficit balance of ($654k). This is due in part to civil works connections that have been installed for the full development of the Cemetery Road subdivision. Another contributing factor is the Murray Terrace land purchase and Cemetery Road land swap (resolution 20.4.3), where a premium was paid to secure the Murray Terrace land for the Cromwell Masterplan. 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.

· Refuse and recycling costs $167k F – The waste management activity can fluctuate depending on the amount of waste being managed.

· Repairs and maintenance $222k F - This is due to the timing of various projects as well as building maintenance requirements. Weed control of $62k, buildings repairs and maintenance $78k, boiler and filter maintenance $15k and equipment hire $15k are the key timing variances.

· Projects $292k F - This is due to the phasing schedule of Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Other costs $596k F - 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	289	488	199	˜	562
690	Office Expenses	457	586	129	˜	655
234	Operating Expenses	176	216	40	˜	234
327	Advertising	162	326	164	˜	374
175	Valuation Services	127	162	35	˜	175
76	Retail	47	76	29	˜	87
2,037	Total Other Costs	1,258	1,854	596		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 have been a number of savings this year in the administration space, some of this due to COVID-19 costs and some due to business changes. Armour Guard costs is an example of this, the cost of cash pick-ups has reduced due to less cash on site and pick-ups were not happening during lock-down.

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

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

* The funding activity has been removed as this is not an operational activity.

· Infrastructure $665 F – income has a favourable variance of $709k. 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 ($44k). 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 should correct by the end of the year.

· Roading ($660k) U– income has an unfavourable variance of ($1.028M). 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 has a favourable variance of $368k. This is mainly due to contracts $139k and depreciation $106k. The capital work programme has a year-to-date variance of $243k.

· Waste Management ($67k) U - income has an unfavourable variance of ($103k). User fees and charges are behind budget, these fluctuate based on transfer station users. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $36k. This is due to the waste and recycling costs, which fluctuate based on the volume of waste being processed.

· Parks and Recreation $735k F – income has an unfavourable variance of ($92k). This is mainly due to user fees and other income being ($88k) lower than revised. This is made up of admissions ($41k), other sales ($22k) and other income ($19k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $827k. A large portion of this is due to depreciation being $429k lower than budget. The remaining favourable variance is due to the timing of workplans and staffing requirements with underspends in contracts $176k and other costs $68k.

· Corporate Services $241k F – income has a small favourable variance of $12k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $229k. This is mainly due to underspends in staff costs $91k, computer maintenance and support $74k, rating valuation services $33k, other costs $15k, and office expenses $20k.

· People and Culture $200k F – income has an unfavourable variance of ($42k). The loss of the shared services arrangement with the Otago Regional Council is impacting this variance ($20k) and the timing of grant funding received for New Zealand Libraries Partnership Programme ($25k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $242k. Driving these variances are underspends in human resources $73k, health and safety $37k, service centre $34k and libraries $81k.

· CEO $509k F – income has an unfavourable variance of ($14k). Expenditure has a favourable variance of $523k. This is mainly due to the timing and need for; consultants $256k; staff costs $179k and other costs $49k.

· Property $801k F – income has a favourable variance of $1.089M from the timing of land sales for the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions. Dunstan Park has released the titles for stage one and two of the subdivision. Cemetery Road stage one is now completed. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($288k) due to the timing of the costs of sales for stage one of the Dunstan Park and Cemetery Road subdivisions. This variance is offset by underspends in community buildings $248k, airports $73k and Council offices $62k.

· Governance and Community Engagement $714k F – income has a favourable variance of $23k. This continues to be driven by the budget phasing of tourism grants. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $691k. This is due to underspends in promotions and tourism $298k, governance $123k, community development $113k and regional identity $118k. The promotions and tourism variance relates to the phasing schedule for the Tourism Central Otago projects.

· Planning (Regulatory) $956k F – has a favourable income variance of $537k. This is mainly due to an increase in building permits revenue of $412k and professional fee recoveries $135k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $419k. This is due to the timing and need of training and compliance costs $73k, staff costs $156k and contracts $113k.

· Three Waters ($568k) U – income has an unfavourable variance of ($440k) due the timing of grants and subsidies budget and the final Three Water Stimulus funding which will be caught up by year end. Metered water sales has re-aligned with budget, with a favourable variance of $60k. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($128k). Driving this unfavourable variance is depreciation costs ($581k). This is offset by underspends in contracts by $266k; professional fees $90k and other costs $84k. The depreciation variance of ($581k) is being driven by wastewater ($470k), stormwater ($63k) and water ($48k).

III. Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date, 51% 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						2021/22	Progress to date against revised budget
Annual Plan	CAPITAL EXPENDITURE	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000

6,058	Council Property and Facilities	1,305	6,610	5,305	˜	9,305	14%
382	Waste Management	407	799	392	˜	913	45%
-	i-SITEs	-	3	3	˜	4	0%
50	Customer Services and Administration	15	52	37	˜	62	24%
204	Vehicle Fleet	141	227	86	˜	256	55%
248	Planning	-	279	279	˜	348	0%
352	Information Services	236	709	473	˜	1,369	17%
164	Libraries	144	424	280	˜	512	28%
1,713	Parks and Recreation	1,696	3,051	1,355	˜	3,755	45%
7,420	Roading	5,718	5,961	243	˜	8,129	70%
14,243	Three Waters	23,712	30,418	6,706	˜	40,295	59%

30,834	Grand Total	33,374	48,533	15,159		64,948	51%

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

Council Property and Facilities $5.30M F - This is mainly due to the timing of the Cromwell Town Centre Projects which is currently underspent by $3.998M. 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 $531k, council offices $525k, public toilets $53k and elderly person housing $65k.

Waste Management $392k F - The transfer station reconfiguration projects are contributing to $283k of the underspend. Some of this work is underway but not all work will be completed this year.

Vehicle Fleet $86k F - Vehicle renewals and purchases are under budget with 54% of the $256k total revised budget being spent. The timing will result in a carry forward into the 2022-23 financial year.

Planning $279k F - This is relates to the timing of the dog pounds and dog registration software projects. These will be carried forward into the 2022/23 financial year.

Information Services $473k F - Information Services projects are behind budget. Projects include enhanced customer experience projects $91k, enterprise resource planning information services $24k, financial performance improvement $201k, internet and network $84k and information and records management $80k. Projects that are across multiple years, such as the financial improvement project, will result in carry forwards being presented to council, so that this work can continue.

Libraries $280k F - This is due to the timing of the Alexandra Library building upgrade. Currently this project is in the design phase.

Parks and Recreation $1.35M F - This 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 $252k of the variance. The work on installing the heat pump is well underway and is expected to be completed in June. The $500k contribution towards the development of the Roxburgh Community Pool upgrade will be carried forward into the next financial year.

Roading $243k F - This is due to the timing of the budget and work programme. Roading projects include footpath renewals $196k, carpark renewals $391k, structures renewals $308k, minor improvements ($392k), sealed road renewals ($175k), gravel road renewals ($46) and drainage renewals ($46k).

Three Waters $6.7M F - This is due to the timing of construction projects. The main drivers include the Lake Dunstan water supply $2.53M, water treatment plant and capacity upgrades $2.3M, Clyde wastewater improvements $1.04M and water stimulus fund projects $519k.

IV. Statement of Financial Position

The Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) is intended to show the comparisons between actual and budget for control accounts. It compares 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.

You will note our cash balance appears favourable in comparison to a year ago, however, you will also note under non-current liabilities that Council has now drawn down its first tranche of debt. This is further reflected in the reduced reserves currently being forecast.

Council meeting Agenda

6 July 2022

2020/21 Full Year Actual	2020/21 YTD May Actual	STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION	2021/22 YTD May Actual	2021/22 Full Year Revised Budget	2021/22 Full Year Annual Plan
$000	$000	for the period ended 31 May 2022	$000	$000	$000
		EQUITY
392,454	382,265	Ratepayers equity	403,939	410,719	389,661
12,323	11,660	Surplus/(Deficit)	20,179	18,420	7,726
7,035	15,090	Council Reserves	7,996	4,176	4,177
487,465	491,446	Property revaluation reserve	487,393	496,640	496,629
(17)	(20)	Investment shares fair value revaluation reserve	(17)	(20)	(20)
80	80	Restricted reserves	80	80	80
899,340	900,521	Total equity	919,570	930,015	898,253
		REPRESENTED BY:
		Current assets
5,014	10,153	Cash and cash equivalents	14,587	19,896	19,896
11,500	10,000	Other financial assets	-	8,000	8,000
4,852	3,680	Receivables	3,085	3,171	3,171
-	-	Non Current assets held for sale	-	-	-
5,394	2,622	Inventories	6,722	(815)	1,509
-	-	Investment Bond	-	625	625
26,760	26,455	Total current assets	24,394	30,877	33,201
		Less current liabilities
256	190	Agency and deposits	360	273	273
13,254	7,395	Payables and deferred revenue	8,303	4,705	4,705
673	599	Employee entitlements	741	1,010	1,010
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	-	-	-
14,183	8,184	Total current liabilities	9,404	5,988	5,988
12,577	18,271	Working capital	14,990	24,889	27,213
		Non-current assets
111	109	Available for sale financial assets	111	109	109
282	285	Loans and receivables	231	333	333
26,030	16,448	Work in Progress	51,432	60,961	26,929
852,712	862,390	Property, plant and equipment	850,209	864,417	864,363
1,272	986	Intangible assets	1,237	2,271
431	355	Forestry assets	431	357	357
5,925	1,675	Investment property	5,929	1,683	1,683
886,763	882,248	Total non-current assets	909,580	930,131	896,045
		Less non-current liabilities
-	-	Provisions	-	5	5
-	-	Borrowings and other financial liabilities	5,000	25,000	25,000
-	-	Total non-current liabilities	5,000	25,005	25,005

899,340	900,519	Net assets (assets minus liabilities)	919,570	930,015	898,253

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

V. Internal Loans

Forecast closing balance for 30 June 2022 is $4.075M.

OWED BY	Original Loan	1 July 2021	30 June 2022 Forecast
OWED BY	Original Loan	Opening Balance	Closing Balance
Public Toilets	670,000	491,239	468,048
Tarbert St Bldg	25,868	13,067	11,574
Alex Town Centre	94,420	49,759	44,545
Alex Town Centre	186,398	91,041	79,921
Alex Town Centre	290,600	155,412	139,137
Centennial Milkbar	47,821	21,284	18,192
Vincent Grants	95,000	19,000	9,500
Pioneer Store Naseby	21,589	10,949	9,609
Water	867,000	717,829	691,212
ANZ Bank Seismic Strengthening	180,000	149,030	143,504
Molyneux Pool	650,000	571,900	539,400
Maniototo Hospital	1,873,000	1,775,142	1,723,630
Alexandra Airport	218,000	204,485	197,216
Total	5,219,695	4,270,138	4,075,488

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

VI. External Loans

The total amount of external loans at the beginning of the financial year 2021-22 was $189k. As at 31 May 2022, the outstanding balance was $138k. Council has received $50.7k in principal payments and $8.6k in interest payments.

Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2021 Actual Opening Balance	Principal	Interest	31 May 2022 Actual Closing Balance
Cromwell College	400,000	130,770	32,387	6,220	98,382
Maniototo Curling	160,000	35,662	12,578	1,375	23,083
Oturehua Water	46,471	22,623	5,779	1,024	16,845
	606,471	189,055	50,745	8,619	138,310

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

Reserve Funds table

· As at 30 June 2021 the Council had 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). This is dependent of all capital funding being expensed, and based on year-to-date and current comments, this is not a realistic expectation, meaning the reserves should finish with a more favourable result than currently forecast.

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Council Wide Reserve Funds 2021-2022 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann McDowall	Leanne Macdonald
Finance Manager	Executive Manager - Corporate Services
20/06/2022	22/06/2022

6 July 2022

22.5.15 Remuneration Authority Determination 2022

Doc ID: 583557

1. Purpose of Report

To provide an update from the Remuneration Authority regarding the 2022/23 Local Government Members Determination and to consider changes to the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes the Local Government Members (2022/23) Determination 2022 which took effect from 1 July 2022.

C. Approves the changes to the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy as attached as Appendix 2 of the report.

2. Discussion

The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) sets the remuneration for elected members. The Authority has made the Local Government Members (2022/23) Determination 2022. The new determination is attached as Appendix 1.

The determination is divided into two parts. Part one is from 1 July 2022 until the local body elections in October 2022. Part two will take effect following the local body elections. The allocation of funds in part two will be worked out once the makeup of the new Council and its committee structure are known.

There are increases in remuneration for councillors and community board members. The remuneration and any increases are mandated and Council must accept the amounts determined by the Authority.

The 2022 determination also makes some changes to the allowances that are able to be received. These include changes to the information and technology allowances, a clarification of when vehicle mileage is calculated should a member reside outside of the district and a clarification that costs will be paid upon approval of receipts. There has also been an increase per hour for reimbursement for travel time.

Changes to the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy are recommended to reflect these as shown in Appendix 2.

The Determination came into force on 1 July 2022 and was gazetted on Thursday 9 June 2022.

3. Financial Considerations

The decisions of the Remuneration Authority are final and are unable to be disputed. A significant increase has been indicated for the 2022/23 financial year. This will require a reforecast of budgets in the second half of the financial year from what has been allocated already.

There will be two increases in the year, one from 1 July 2022 until the triennial election in October. This initial increase will be approximately 2%.

Following the election there will be a further increase in both mayoral and councillor salary. The mayoral salary will increase to $120,841 per annum and the minimum allowance for a councillor will be $27,182 per annum. There will be total remuneration pool of $362,213 per annum for councillors, the allocation of which will be determined after the election.

4. Options

Council must accept the amounts determined by the Authority. However, Council does have options on changes to the wording of the policy on the reimbursement of expenses.

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council changes the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy as recommended.

Advantages:

· The policy is in line with the 2022 Determination.

Disadvantages:

· None identified

Option 2

Council does not update the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy.

Advantages:

· None identified.

Disadvantages:

· Council’s policy is out of date and inconsistent with the determination.

5. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by ensuring elected members are received the remuneration and reimbursements they are entitled to.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no impacts resulting from this decision.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks identified in the preferred option.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Elected members have been sent a copy of the determination.

6. Next Steps

The remuneration change will be made and backdated from 1 July 2022. If agreed, the policy will be updated.

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Local Government Members (2022/23) Determination 2022 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Draft Update of the Elected Members’ Allowances and Reimbursement Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Wayne McEnteer	Sanchia Jacobs
Governance Manager	Chief Executive Officer
23/06/2022	28/06/2022

6 July 2022

6 Mayor’s Report

22.5.16 Mayor's Report

Doc ID: 585634

1. Purpose

To consider an update from His Worship the Mayor.

Recommendations

That the Council receives the report.

Last month I attended (with the CEO) the LGNZ Rural and Provincial Sector meeting, the first face-to-face on we have had in approximately a year.

We had a very good range of presentations including:

- Minister Mahuta who spoke on the 3 Waters and other reforms. Of particular concern to me was that the Water Services Entity Bill has no mention of standardisation or even harmonisation of pricing within the entities. One of the claims of the government in these contentious reforms is that smaller councils will benefit from the scale provided by the populations of the metros. This was the premise behind our own distritisation of the Three Waters in 2015. The Minister advised that there is an economic regulation Bill to come in the near future that will address pricing, but she would not confirm that standardisation or harmonisation would be part of that or would be left to individual entity constitutions to handle. To my mind, not having this issue addressed in the legislation and left up to individual entities is an utterly unacceptable situation. We have seen how that can pan out with the pricing structure for another utility, being Aurora. The Customised Price Path that has so penalised Central Otago people was confirmed by the Electricity Authority to be able to be based on a “costs falling where they lie” philosophy, forcing charges far higher on us than Dunedin folk. That decision is based on a philosophy in one monopolised utility industry and there can be no opportunity for the same philosophy to apply to pricing for water and connections. I intend to continue to raise this point with both Minister Mahuta and Commerce Minister David Parker as the drafting of the economic regulation legislation continues. My view is that it will be an easier thing to get expectations as to standardisation or harmonisation into the proposed Bill than to try to have it added through the Select Committee process.

- Minster Parker spoke on the reforms to the Resource Management Act which, while not being at the forefront of the public’s consciousness as much as the Three Waters reforms, have the potential to be more impactful on local decision and place-making than those reforms will be. I raised with the Minister concerns that membership of the Regional Planning Committees may be limited to currently elected members, as my view is that it would be preferable for councils to be able to appoint someone from outside of themselves if that’s where the best person for the job is to be found. The Minister confirmed an intention for that choice to be available. In a later conversation post-conference, I was also able to make progress toward councils being able to utilise infringement notices on people who continually and significantly mix recycling by putting the wrong things in the wrong bins, without the need to bring in a by-law. I recall some time ago we had many months where our blue glass bins were so contaminated by other products being put in them that the glass regularly went to land fill, at significant cost to both ratepayers and the environment. Presently our only enforcement measure is the very blunt instrument of taking wheelie bins off repeated offenders so the ability to use infringement notices would be very useful. I would envisage if council were to do this in future (once any law change is made), it would be made after significant efforts at individual education as to why correct recycling is important to us all.

- Simon Watts, the Opposition spokesperson on Local Government gave a very informed and polished presentation. He has only been in the role for around six months and yet spoke very well without recourse to notes. His talk covered all the topics that would be expected, and of note was that National will “repeal and replace” the Three Waters legislation if it becomes Government next year. This is in line with the party previously agreeing that the status quo cannot apply. He outlined at a high level how National would deal with councils that cannot afford the necessary upgrade, being some form of Central Government financial input (I’m unclear if that was as a loan or direct payment). As with the current Government proposal, this is not particularly attractive to a Council such as ours that has done well by and large with its water assets while maintaining a zero or limited debt balance. I can’t get excited at taxpayers’ money that we all pay toward being used to bail out councils that have invested in things other than basic infrastructure. Should there be a change of government next year and the current reforms are repealed, I will endeavour to work as hard with the new Government to get the best outcome for Central Otago as I have with the current one.

Lawyer Mathew Lawson and Wairoa Mayor Craig Little spoke on a rates review High Court case that Wairoa Council has just successfully defended. It is always dangerous to try to capture a complex legal battle in a few words, but at a high level, this case involved Wairoa Council overhauling its rating policy to move to capital value rates and away from fixed charges. This resulted in changes to the rates payable by high-value properties, including forestry interests. The fixed charges included increased roading costs, as about 25% of the council’s entire budget is spent maintaining rural roads and the Council sought to take into account the impact on these roads from forestry traffic. This case has come at significant cost to a small Council serving only approximately 9,000 residents and I raised at the meeting that, given the implications of this case to other councils, LGNZ should be considering assisting with some of these costs.

I attended the Air New Zealand Stakeholders meeting in Auckland in early June. This is a meeting that formerly was limited to Territorial Authorities that had airports Air New Zealand uses but in the last 3 years it has included Central Otago amongst a small number of other TA’s seen as vital to the New Zealand tourism offering. The meeting outlined where Air New Zealand is at and where it is going and in these very changeable times it was very useful to be in attendance and get the first-hand intelligence on those points. Presentations included topics such as sustainability and the growth in routes as New Zealand opens up to the world.

I have held coffee and chats in Alexandra, Clyde, Cromwell, Bannockburn, Tarras, Ranfurly, rurally at the Little Red Coffee Shed, Ettrick, Millers Flat and Roxburgh with moderate turn outs. It is not unusual for numbers to lower a bit during winter and with the amount of illness in the community, I am not surprised to see a few less people attend.

I also attended a day with the Lindis Catchment group and several members of the Otago Regional Council looking at the great work that the group has done in the removal of willows that are sucking huge amounts of water out of the Lindis River every day and looking at the best way to utilise the wood waste. It was really good to get on the ground with Regional Councillors to view the great work of this group. The work this group has done will be a trailblazer for others across the district.

I have enjoyed the ease that the two roundabouts that have opened in Cromwell have created. The construction period has not been easy and of course isn’t finished yet, but Cromwell folk need commended for the patience shown during the process and I am sure the benefits are now making the hassle worthwhile.

Like many across the district and the country, I attended my first Matariki ceremony and, like all I have talked to who attended such events, I found it really rewarding. Standing in a circle at dawn thinking and talking of people I have lost over the last year and then contemplating and vocalising plans and dreams for the year ahead was a slightly uncomfortable but ultimately rewarding experience. I am really glad that this new national day hasn’t been commercialised like every other public holiday has and long may that be the case.

Linda and I attended a brilliant dinner at the end of Matariki weekend prepared by NiVan men who have been learning cooking skills under the Vakameasina programme. This translates to "treasures we carry together” and is an education and development programme for RSE workers, funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the New Zealand Aid Programme. It was a great night with great food and to the enthusiastic accompaniment of a string band. It is impossible to feel gloomy when a string band play and it occurred to me that it has been a long time since I have heard one play locally. This is a great shame as I used to enjoy hearing these joyful sounds regularly outside the Alexandra Post Office amongst other places. I really hope that we start to see this again as this is just one part of the sharing of cultures with people who have become an integral and welcome part of our Central Otago community.

2. Attachments

Nil

Report author:

Tim Cadogan

Mayor

29/06/2022

Vincent Community Board Minutes

13 June 2022

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE
Vincent Community Board
HELD IN THE Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and live streamed via microsoft teams
ON Monday, 13 June 2022 COMMENCING AT 2.01 pm

PRESENT: Cr M McPherson (Chairperson), Dr R Browne, Cr L Claridge, Cr I Cooney, Ms A Robinson

IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), C Martin (Property and Facilities Officer – Vincent and Teviot Valley), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), D McKewen (Accountant), W McEnteer (Governance Manager) and J Harris (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That the apology received from Ms Stirling-Lindsay be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Hugh McIntyre – IceInline

Mr McIntyre spoke to the agenda item regarding a roof for the IceInline facility in Alexandra. He then responded to questions.

Malcolm McPherson – Alexandra and Districts Museum Incorporated

Dr McPherson spoke in support of the grant application for Alexandra and Districts Incorporated before responding to questions.

Ken Churchill – Survey on the trees at the Half Mile

Mr Churchill spoke against the survey that was currently being conducted regarding the pines at the Half Mile. He then responded to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Browne

That the public minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 May 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. Dr Browne noted that his membership of the Central Otago District Arts Trust was missing from the declarations of interest.

5 Reports

Note: With the permission of the meeting, items 22.4.12 and 22.4.3 were moved forward.

Note: In accordance with Standing Order 9.12, item 22.4.12 was added to the agenda as an item that could not be delayed until the next meeting.

22.4.12 Vincent Community Board Extraordinary Vacancy

To consider whether to fill the extraordinary vacancy created by the resignation of Russell Garbutt.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Browne

Seconded: Robinson

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees that the extraordinary vacancy for the Vincent Community Board will not be filled.

Carried

22.4.3 IceinLine Ice Rink Roof Funding Application

To consider an application from IceinLine Central Incorporated for a funding grant towards the construction of a roof over their existing ice rink at Molyneux Park.

After discussion it was agreed that in order for IceInline to apply for grants the Board should agree in principle. It was noted, however, that it would be subject to consultation as part of the 2023/24 Annual Plan.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees in principle to fund IceinLine Central Incorporated’s request for $400,000 towards the construction of a roof over the existing ice rink at Molyneux Park, subject to consultation in the 2023/24 Annual Plan.

Carried

22.4.2 Alexandra Library Renovation Project

To consider the concept plan and recommend to Council that the additional budget required to proceed with the Alexandra Library Renovation Project is funded externally by the Three Waters Better Off Support Package.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cooney

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

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

Carried

22.4.4 Alexandra District Museum Inc. 2022/23 Grant Application

To consider a funding application from the Alexandra District Museum Incorporated.

After discussion it was agreed that the Alexandra and Districts Museum Incorporated should get the full amount they had applied for. It was also agreed that the money for the one-off adjustment should come from the general reserves.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees to accept the grant application from the Alexandra District Museum Incorporated outside of the formal grant round funding, due to exceptional circumstances.

C. Agrees to fund a one-off adjustment to the Alexandra District Museum Incorporated of $26,667 to ensure existing levels of funding to the organisation until 1 November 2022.

D. Agrees that the one-off adjustment to the Alexandra District Museum Incorporated is paid for from the Vincent Community Board general reserve fund (2111).

E. Allocates $82,000 to the Alexandra District Museum Incorporated for Central Stories Museum and Art Gallery annual operating costs in the 2022/23 financial year.

Carried

Note: Cr Claridge left the meeting at 2.58 pm.

22.4.5 Vincent Financial Report for the Period Ending 31 March 2022

To consider the financial performance overview as at 31 March 2022.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr Claridge returned to the meeting at 3.02 pm.

6 Mayor’s Report

22.4.6 MAYOR'S REPORT

His Worship the Mayor gave an apology to Mr Garbutt in regards to the recent Code of Conduct complaint. He also discussed his recent activities in the Vincent ward.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Robinson

That the Vincent Community Board receives the report.

Carried

7 Chair's Report

22.4.7 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended the June Council meeting and updated members on issued discussed at the meeting.

· Updated members on recent Hearings panel meetings.

· Noted the recent building projects in Alexandra.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

22.4.8 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Dr Browne reported on the following:

· Attended a number of meetings, including the Creative Writing Circle, the Central Otago REAP board meeting and the meeting of the Alexandra and Districts Museums Incorporated.

· Attended the Groundswell meeting in Alexandra. Noted there was no comment about rural water schemes at the meeting.

· Attended a meeting with Ms Robinson and staff to discuss how community groups may be able to work together to cover administration tasks.

· Noted Aurora’s scheduled outages and the current work that has been carried out.

Ms Robinson reported on the following:

· Attended a Vallance Cottage Working Group meeting and noted the Perspex panels that had been installed.

· Attended a meeting of Alexandra Community House.

· Noted the meeting with Dr Browne and staff regarding possible joint roles for the administration of community groups.

· Noted a recent visit of the Catchment Group to the Lindis River. The group had received money for removing problem Willow trees in the area.

Councillor Claridge reported on the following:

· Noted the recent burial of unknown gold miner.

· Attended the June Council meeting and updated members on some of the topics discussed.

Councillor Cooney reported on the following:

· Attended the Planning and Regulatory pre-agenda meeting for Council.

· Attended the June Council meeting.

· Noted an outbreak of Covid-19 at the Castlewood rest home.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

22.4.9 June 2022 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the status report updates.

Cr McPherson queried the status of the proposed hockey turf at Molyneux Park. It was noted that staff would follow up with the committee.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Robinson

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Date of The Next Meeting

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

Note: The Vincent Community Board wished to thank Russell Garbutt for his contribution to the Board over the past six years.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Board Meeting	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.4.10 - Clyde Holiday Park Financial Report	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.4.11 - June 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

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.16 pm and the meeting closed at 3.26 pm.

Teviot Valley Community Board Minutes

16 June 2022

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE Teviot Valley Community Board
HELD IN THE Roxburgh Service Centre, 120 Scotland Street, Roxburgh and live streamed via microsoft teams
ON Thursday, 16 June 2022 COMMENCING AT 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Mr R Gunn (Chair), Ms S Feinerman (Deputy Chair), Mr N Dalley, Cr S Jeffery

IN ATTENDANCE: L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), C Martin (Properties and Facilities Officer – Vincent and Teviot Valley), L Stronach (Team Leader – Statutory Property), N Aaron (Parks Officer – Strategy/Planning), P Penno (Community and Engagement Manager), K McCullough (Corporate Accountant), W McEnteer (Governance Manager) and J Harris (Governance Support Officer)

Note: The Chair referred to the death of Cliff Parker, former Teviot Valley Community Board member. The meeting stood for a moment’s silence as a mark of respect.

1 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Dalley

That the apology received from Ms Aitchison be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Norman Marsh – Roxburgh and Millers Flat RSA

Mr Marsh spoke to their current lease review and a request from the RSA to waive rent on the RSA room at the Roxburgh Service Centre. He then responded to questions.

Richie McNeish – Roxburgh Golf Club

Mr McNeish spoke to the current rent review for the Roxburgh Golf Club that was before the Board at this meeting. He advocated the removal of rent as the club took care of weeds and pest control on what is a council reserve. He then responded to questions.

Prue Brenssell – Roxburgh Golf Club

Ms Brenssell spoke to a request before the Board for permission to allow overnight camping in the golf course carpark. She then responded to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Dalley

Seconded: Feinerman

That the public minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 5 May 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. There were no further declarations of interest.

5 Reports

22.4.2 Roxburgh - Millers Flat Returned and Services' Association Incorporated - Lease Renewal

To consider granting a lease to the Roxburgh – Millers Flat Returned and Services' Association Incorporated.

After discussion it was agreed that the RSA should have free access to their room for the entirety of their lease and should not be subject to a rent review.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Gunn

That the Teviot Valley Community Board

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

Carried

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Gunn

B. Agrees to grant a lease of approximately 49m², as outlined in the report, over the Roxburgh Service Centre, Lot 2 Deposited Plan 4309, to the Roxburgh – Millers Flat Returned and Services' Association Incorporated.

This lease is subject to the Community Leasing and Licensing Policy. The general terms and conditions are as follows:

Commencement Date:	14 August 2021.
Term:	Fifteen years.
Rights of Renewal:	One of fifteen years.
Final Expiry Date:	13 August 2051.
Annual Rent:	$1 per annum (if collected).
Permitted Use:	RSA Meeting room.
Special Conditions:	The landlord reserves the right to terminate the agreement with six months' notice if it requires part or whole of the occupied area for other activities. The tenant reserves the right to terminate the agreement with six months' notice if they do not require part or whole of the occupied areas for the purposes of theatre storage. Should the Memorial Hall complex ever be removed or destroyed, the Council would not be liable for providing the RSA with new premises. However, should the complex be rebuilt, provision will be made for an RSA room. Should the RSA not continue to exist, then the Council (or its successor) will be advised of the RSA's nominated successor to use the room. The Association would have to identify the group to be its successor, and this group would be required to have direct links to the RSA (e.g. Women's Division of the RSA) rather than an unrelated group. The Council would require the successor to be identified by the RSA and meet the approval of the Roxburgh Community Board. If there is no apparent successor for using the room will revert to the control of the Council.

Carried

22.4.3 Roxburgh Golf Club Lease - Rent Review

To consider the Roxburgh Golf Club Lease rent review and a request for additional land incorporated into the Lease.

After discussion it was agreed that the lease could not be finalised until the review of the Leasing and Licensing policy was completed.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gunn

Seconded: Jeffery

That the item is left on the table pending the finalisation of the Leasing and Licensing policy review

Carried

22.4.4 Roxburgh Golf Club Camping Proposal

To consider a request from the Roxburgh Golf Club to allow paid camping at the Roxburgh Recreation Reserve carpark.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Dalley

That the Teviot Valley Community Board:

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

B. Declines a request from the Roxburgh Golf Club to allow regular paid camping on the carpark used by the club.

Carried

22.4.5 New banners for Roxburgh's main street

To consider options for the development of new street banners for Roxburgh’s main street.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Dalley

That the Teviot Valley Community Board

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

B. Directs staff to talk with community groups to discuss community grant options.

C. Agrees in principle, subject to further work and support from Council staff, for community representatives to proceed with the design and manufacture of street banners for the main street of Roxburgh.

D. Investigates increasing its annual funding allocation for street banner replacements through Council’s annual and long-term planning process.

Carried

22.4.6 Teviot Valley Financial Report for the Period Ending 31 March 2022

To consider the financial performance overview as at 31 March 2022.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Gunn

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

22.4.7 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor was not present at this meeting.

7 Chair's Report

22.4.8 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended Medical Services Trust meetings.

· Attended Teviot Valley Rest Home meeting.

· Attended Swimming Pool meeting.

· Attended Combined Community Board meeting with Teviot Prospects to discuss options for further community consultation for the Preliminary Social Impact assessment for the Lake Onslow project.

· Had a site visit to old Health camp with Neville Hills from Forest Management Ltd to discuss access and potential for firewood for the Community.

· Attended several Zoom meetings with the Project Reference Group for the Lake Onslow project.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Jeffery

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

22.4.9 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Ms Feinerman gave an update on the following:

· Attended a meeting to discuss Teviot prospects.

· Attended a pool fundraising meeting

· Attended an interview of a candidate for the Teviot Valley Community Hub.

· Attended a Teviot Walkways meeting

· Attended a meeting of the Swimming Pool committee.

· Attended a meeting with the Board and Teviot Prospects regarding proposed work at Lake Onslow.

· Attended a Ministry of Primary Industries grant meeting.

· Attended a meeting with Bill Kaye-Blake regarding extra support for an Ministry of Primary Industries grant.

Cr Jeffery gave an update on the following:

· Has attended multiple meetings of the Medical Services Trust.

· Attended a meeting regarding aquatic weed control in Lake Dunstan.

· Attended a meeting of the Careers Progression Managers Governance group.

· Attended and spoke at Cliff Parker’s funeral.

· Attended Central Otago Labour Market Governance Group meeting.

· Attended the June Council meeting.

· Attended the Audit and Risk meeting.

Mr Dalley gave an update on the following:

· Attended multiple meetings of the Teviot Valley Rest Home.

· Met with Ngāi Tahu to discuss a retirement village that they have at the feasibility stage currently.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Gunn

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

22.4.10 June 2022 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Feinerman

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 28 July 2022.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Jeffery

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

1. 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
22.4.11 - Proposal to Mine Section 92 Block VIII Benger Survey District being the Millers Flat Green Waste Site. (PRO: 65-7023-00)	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

2. That Simon Johnstone from Hawkswood Mining is permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded because of his knowledge of the mining proposal at Millers Flat.

Carried

The public were excluded at 4.20 pm and the meeting closed at 4.53 pm.

Maniototo Community Board Minutes

23 June 2022

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF A meeting of the Maniototo Community Board
HELD IN THE Ranfurly Service Centre, 15 Pery Street, Ranfurly and live streamed on microsoft teams
ON Thursday, 23 June 2022 commencing AT 2.01 pm

PRESENT: Mr R Hazlett (Chair), Mr M Harris (Deputy Chair), Cr S Umbers, Mr S Duncan

IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), W McEnteer (Governance Manager) and J Harris (Governance Support Officer)

1 APOLOGIES

Apology

Committee Resolution

Moved: Harris

Seconded: Duncan

That the apology received from Cr Helm be accepted.

Carried

2 Condolences

The Chair referred to the death of Merv Murray. Members stood for a moment’s silence as a mark of respect.

3 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Umbers

Seconded: Duncan

That the public minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 May 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Declaration of Interest

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

6 Reports

22.4.2 Māniatoto Financial Report for the Period Ending 31 March 2022

To consider the financial performance overview as at 31 March 2022.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Harris

Seconded: Umbers

That the report be received.

Carried

7 Mayor’s Report

22.4.3 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor updated members on his current activities and issues of interest in the ward.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Harris

That the Maniototo Community Board receives the report.

Carried

8 Chair's Report

22.4.4 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

· Attended a community meeting in Oturehua.

· Attended a meeting with a walking group in Ranfurly regarding possible walking tracks in the area.

· Noted discussions regarding the sundial on the Rail Trail.

· Noted a number of people that had mentioned the recent spelling changes.

· Enquired about the opening of the flying fox at Naseby.

· Noted the recent bridge report at the June Council meeting and discussed several bridges in the Māniatoto and their state of repair.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Hazlett

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Members' Reports

22.4.5 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting:

Ms Umbers reported on the following:

· Received Community feedback regarding the spelling of Māniatoto.

· Enquired about rubbish bin replacements for several people in Ranfurly. Staff advised that affected people could put in a service request for a new one.

Mr Harris reported on the following:

· Observed that there was a quietness now as the election period was about to get underway.

Cr Duncan reported on the following:

· Chaired the Speed Limit Bylaw hearing.

· Attended the June Council meeting and noted that bridges were discussed.

· Noted an informal meeting with Kelvin Davis on infrastructure developments in the region and employment.

· Attended a Ranfurly Business Breakfast meeting.

· Attended a Fire Brigade meeting.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Umbers

Seconded: Harris

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Status Reports

22.4.6 June 2022 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the legacy and current status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Umbers

That the report be received.

Carried

11 Date of the Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 4 August 2022.

12 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Harris

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Board Meeting	s7(2)(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
22.4.7 - Lease of the Ranfurly Lucerne Paddocks - Preferred Proposal	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.4.8 - June 2022 Confidential Governance Report	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

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.17 pm and the meeting closed at 4.02 pm.

Audit and Risk Committee Minutes

3 June 2022

Unconfirmed

MINUTES OF Central Otago District Council
Audit and Risk Committee
HELD IN Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and live streamed on microsoft teams ON Friday, 3 June 2022 AT 9.32 am

PRESENT: Ms L Robertson (Chair), His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan, Cr S Jeffery

IN ATTENDANCE: S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), N McLeod (IS Manager), A Crosbie (Senior Policy Advisor), R Ennis (Health, Safety and Wellbeing Advisor) and W McEnteer (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the apologies received from Cr Gillespie and Cr McKinlay be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

There was no public forum

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Robertson

That the public minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 25 February 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. There were no further declarations of interest.

5 Reports

22.2.2 Policy and Strategy Register

To consider the updated Policy and Strategy Register.

After discussion it was noted that the Procurement Policy and the Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower) Policy were scheduled to come to the next meeting or an update as to their progress.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.2.3 Audit NZ and Internal Audit Update

To consider an update on the status of the external and internal audit programme and any outstanding actions for completed internal and external audits.

It was noted that the Three Waters assets were being valued and that this should be updated at the next meeting.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.2.4 Financial Report for the Period ending 31 March 2022

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 31 March 2022.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.2.5 Cyber Security, Information and Records Management, and Privacy update

To consider an update on:

· Cyber Security Plan 2022-2025

· Information and Records Management Plan 2022-2025

· Privacy Plan

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.2.6 Privacy and LGOIMA Requests Policies

To note the Privacy Policy and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act Request Policy are now finalised following incorporation of the recommended changes.

It was noted that privacy policies were being updated across all council websites to ensure consistency.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

22.2.7 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report

To provide an update on the health, safety and wellbeing performance at Central Otago District Council.

After discussion it was noted that elected members were not considered in the Risk Management Policy.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

That the report be received.

Carried

6 Chair's Report

22.2.8 Chair's Report

The Chair had nothing to report.

7 Members' Reports

22.2.9 Members' Reports

The members had nothing to report.

8 Status Reports

22.2.10 June 2022 Governance Report

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

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Robertson

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 30 September 2022.

10 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Cadogan

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Committee Meeting	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest s7(2)(d) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.2.11 - Water Services Update on Compliance Status	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.2.12 - Strategic Risk Register	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
22.2.13 - Litigation Register	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.2.14 - June 2022 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest s7(2)(d) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 10.47 am and the meeting closed at 11.28 am.

Council Meeting Agenda

6 July 2022

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Recommendations

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary 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)(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
22.5.22 - Proposal to dispose of Lot 1 DP 20932 (Bannockburn Oxidation Pond Site) (PRO: 62-3028-00)	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
22.5.23 - Proposal to dispose of Lots 3 - 5 DP 428116 (Mutton Town Road Oxidation Pond Site) (PRO: 63-4058-00)	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
22.5.24 - Proposal to Close the Millers Flat Greenwaste Site. (PRO: 65-7023-00)	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
22.5.25 - July 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
22.5.26 - Confidential Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 3 June 2022	s7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest s7(2)(d) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
22.5.27 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 13 June 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
22.5.28 - Confidential Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 16 June 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
22.5.29 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 23 June 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


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 6 July 2022
Date:	Wednesday, 6 July 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