Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 26 February 2025

Council Meeting Agenda

26 February 2025

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, 29 January 2025 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

PRESENT: Her Worship the Mayor T Alley (Chairperson), Cr N Gillespie, Cr S Browne, Cr I Cooney, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Feinerman, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson, Cr T Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE: P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), L Fleck (General Manager - People and Culture), J Muir (Three Waters Director), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), L Webster (Acting Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure), P Morris (Chief Financial Officer), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), P Fleet (Roading Manager), P Keenan (Capital Projects Programme Manager), J Thomas (Water Services Sampling & Monitoring Team Leader), A Rodgers (Principal Policy Planner), A Lines (Risk and Procurement Manager) and W McEnteer (Governance Manager)

1 Karakia

Cr Gillespie gave a karakia to begin the meeting.

2 Apologies

Apology

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Laws

That the apology received from Cr Claridge be accepted.

Carried

3 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Browne

Seconded: Cooney

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 18 December 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Declarations of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. It was noted that Cr Gillespie had an update for the register that would be sent to Governance.

6 Community Board Chair Update

25.1.2 Community Board Chair Update

There was no update.

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

7 Reports

25.1.3 Naseby Link Road - Ongoing Maintenance

To consider a reduction in level of service on Naseby Link Road in the Māniatoto Ward.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council

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

B. Approves the re-classification of Naseby Link Road to “Unmaintained”

Carried

25.1.4 CAPEX Reporting - Little Valley Bridge

To consider an update on the Little Valley Bridge capex project.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Paterson

That the report be received.

Carried

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

25.1.5 January Wastewater Compliance Status Update

To consider progress on achieving Otago Regional Council Consent (ORC) compliance for Central Otago District Council (CODC) wastewater activities.

It was noted that the abatement notice extensions for Ranfurly and Naseby were successful.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

25.1.6 Alexandra Water Renewals procurement

To consider the procurement plan for tendering of water pipe renewals for the 2024 - 2026 period.

After discussion it was agreed that part D of the resolution could only be enacted if the revised procurement policy was adopted and that the resolution should be changed to reflect this.

Resolution

Moved: Paterson

Seconded: Feinerman

That the Council

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

B. Notes that the priority water pipe renewal sites are Bridge Hill Rising Main, Enterprise Street (Alexandra) and Northland Street (Ranfurly).

C. Approves the procurement plan for tendering of water pipe renewals on Bridge Hill and Enterprise Street, Alexandra, including the following

(a) Tenders to be evaluated using the Weighted Attribute Method with a 40% price weighting.

D. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to award the work to the preferred contractor following the procurement process, provided that the tendered amounts are within the approved budget and subject to the revised Procurement Policy being adopted (25.1.14).

Carried

25.1.7 Cromwell Water Treatment Plant and Borefield Upgrade Procurement

To consider the procurement plan for the Cromwell water treatment plant and borefield upgrade.

After discussion it was agreed that part C of the resolution could only be enacted if the revised procurement policy was adopted and that the resolution should be changed to reflect this.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council

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

B. Approves procurement of a new treatment plant at the reservoir site near McNab Road and an upgrade of the borefield between Lake Dunstan and the Alpha Street recreation reserve, with tenders evaluated using the weighted attribute method with a 40% price weighting.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to award the work to the preferred contractor following the procurement process provided that the tendered amounts are within the approved budget and subject to the revised Procurement Policy being adopted (25.1.14).

D. Notes that consideration of the future use of the existing treatment buildings will occur within the next 12 months.

Carried

25.1.8 Ranfurly Water Treatment Plant - Protozoa Barrier

To consider procurement of protozoa barrier treatment for the Ranfurly Water Treatment Plant.

After discussion it was agreed that part E of the resolution could only be enacted if the revised procurement policy was adopted and that the resolution should be changed to reflect this. It was also noted that staff planned to procure both of the protozoa barrier projects together.

The proposed procurement schedules were tabled for Councillors to consider the timeframes for these projects.

Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

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

B. Approves installation of a cartridge and ultraviolet (UV) treatment solution as an affordable option to meet the New Zealand Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules

C. Notes that a cartridge and ultraviolet (UV) treatment solution:

(a) will have a treatment capacity limit is likely to require water conservation measures when source water experiences high turbidity

(b) operational costs will rise to meet increased electricity and plant operations associated with additional treatment processes

D. Approves the procurement plan for protozoa barrier treatment at the Ranfurly Water Treatment Plant using a Weighted Attribute Method with a price weighting of 40%.

E. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to award the contract to the preferred contractor following the procurement process provided that the tendered amounts are within the approved budget and subject to the revised Procurement Policy being adopted (25.1.14).

Carried

Attachments

1 Procurement Schedule for Ranfurly and Patearoa Protozoa Barriers

25.1.9 Patearoa Water Treatment Plant - Protozoa Barrier

To consider procurement of protozoa barrier treatment for the Patearoa Water Treatment Plant.

The proposed procurement schedules were tabled for Councillors to consider the timeframes for these projects.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

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

B. Approves installation of a cartridge and ultraviolet (UV) treatment solution as an affordable option to meet the New Zealand Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules

C. Notes that a cartridge and ultraviolet (UV) treatment solution:

(a) Will have a treatment capacity limit that is likely to require water conservation measures when source water experiences high turbidity

(b) Operational costs will rise to meet increased electricity and plant operations associated with additional treatment processes

D. Approves procurement of protozoa barrier treatment for the Patearoa Water Treatment Plant.

(a) Tenders to be evaluated on a Weighted Attribute Method with a price weighting of 40%.

E. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to award the contract to the preferred contractor following the procurement process provided that that the tendered amounts are within the approved budget and subject to the revised Procurement Policy being adopted (25.1.14).

Carried

Attachments

1 Procurement Schedule for Ranfurly and Patearoa Protozoa Barriers

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

25.1.10 Stage 2 of District Plan Review Program Approval

To consider Stage 2 of the District Plan review programme.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the Council

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

B. Approves Stage 2 of the District Plan review programme as outlined

Carried

Note: Her Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.

Note: Cr Feinerman left the meeting at 12.00 pm and returned at 12.01 pm.

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 12.00 pm and returned at 12.02 pm.

25.1.11 Community Boards Grant Budgets for the 2025-34 Long-term Plan

To consider inclusion of the community and promotion grant budgets for each community board in the draft budgets for the 2025-34 Long-term Plan.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

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

B. Approves $38,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Vincent community grants for the nine years of this plan.

C. Approves $50,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan process for Vincent promotions and event grants for the nine years of this plan.

D. Approves a maximum of $21,774 be available to the Teviot Valley Community Board through their reserves to fund community grants in 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years.

E. Approves a maximum of $16,948 be available to the Teviot Valley Community Board through their reserves to fund promotions and events grants in 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years.

F. Approves $3,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Teviot Valley community grants from the 2028/29 financial year onwards.

G. Approves $2,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Teviot Valley promotions and event grants from the 2028/29 financial year onwards.

H. Agrees that the Teviot Valley Community Board does not need seek Council approval to spend reserve funds for community or promotions grants within the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years.

I. Approves $50,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Cromwell community grants for the nine years of this plan.

J. Approves $106,210 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Cromwell promotions and event grants for the nine years of this plan

K. Approves $6,700 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Maniototo community grants for the nine years of this plan.

L. Approves $5,000 be allocated through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan budget process for Maniototo promotions and event grants for the nine years of this plan.

Carried

25.1.12 Assigning Role of Controller

To consider supporting a recommendation to the Otago Group Manager of Civil Defence Emergency Management that Central Otago District Council employee, Patrick Keenan, be appointed as a Local Controller in accordance with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Feinerman

That the Council

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

B. Recommends to the Otago Civil Defence Emergency Group Manager that Patrick Keenan, a Central Otago District Council employee be appointed as a Local Civil Defence Controller (statutory position).

Carried

Note: With the permission of the meeting, item 25.1.15 was moved forward.

8 Mayor’s Report

25.1.15 Mayor's Report

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

25.1.13 Risk Management Policy and Risk Appetite Statement

To consider updates made to the Risk Management Policy as part of its soft review and to consider the newly created Risk Appetite Statement.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Browne

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the revised Risk Management Policy.

C. Adopts the new Risk Appetite Statement.

Carried

25.1.14 Revised Procurement Policy

To consider revisions made to the Procurement Policy as part of its scheduled review.

Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the revised Procurement Policy.

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12.27 pm and resumed at 1.01 pm.

Note: With the permission of the meeting, item 25.1.24 was moved forward.

Note: Tom Lucas from Rationale joined the meeting for item 25.1.24.

Note: Cr Duncan returned to the meeting at 1.02 pm.

Note: Cr Gillespie left the meeting at 1.16 pm and returned at 1.17 pm.

Note: Cr Paterson left the meeting at 1.58 pm and returned at 2.21 pm.

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 3.01 pm.

25.1.24 Draft Consultation Document and Supporting Material for the 2025-34 Long-term Plan for Audit New Zealand

To consider approving the 2025-34 draft Consultation Document for the Long-term Plan and supporting information to the Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand.

Mr Lucas from Rationale discussed the draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy before responding to questions.

Version 4 of the draft consultation document was tabled at the meeting, which reflected a number of changes identified by the Audit and Risk committee.

Staff then went through the draft consultation document and discussed the budgets as they were at the present moment. It was noted there were a number of changes following the last Audit and Risk meeting to the draft consultation document. The following changes were suggested in addition to changes identified by the Audit and Risk committee:

· Change the title Focus on Water to Water.

· What else do we want your feedback on? page to be turned into item 9.

· It was acknowledged that there were a number of typos that were being changed.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council

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

B. Approves that the draft Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand for audit as required under the Local Government Act 2002, subject to the changes identified.

C. Approves the following supporting information to the Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand to facilitate the audit:

(a) Infrastructure Strategy

(b) Financial Strategy

(d) Fees and Charges

(e) Significance and Engagement Policy

(f) Revenue and Financing Policy

(g) Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

(h) Liability Management Policy

(i) Investment Policy

(j) Prospective Financial Statements and Prospective Funding Impact Statements

(k) Community Outcomes Development

(l) Significant Forecasting Assumptions and Risks

(m) Capital Expenditure for Activity Groups

D. Agrees that the consultation item for the Supercars grant that the preferred option is to support the grant of $250,000 with funding from the tourism reserves.

E. Agrees that the Chief Executive Officer is authorised, in consultation with the Mayor, to make any necessary formatting or editorial changes, or other such changes required by Audit New Zealand, to finalise the material ahead of presentation back to Council in March 2025.

Carried

Attachments

1 Version 4 of the draft consultation document tabled at meeting.

Note: Cr McPherson returned to the meeting at 3.04 pm.

9 Status Reports

25.1.16 January 2025 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: Feinerman

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Community Board Minutes

25.1.17 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 December 2024

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Browne

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 December 2024 be noted.

Carried

25.1.18 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 5 December 2024

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Browne

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 5 December 2024 be noted.

Carried

25.1.19 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 December 2024

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Browne

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 12 December 2024 be noted.

Carried

11 Committee Minutes

25.1.20 Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 28 January 2025

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Browne

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 28 January 2025 be noted.

Carried

12 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 26 February 2025.

13 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Plain English Reason
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council Minutes	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	To protect a person's privacy Commercial sensitivity
25.1.21 - Risk Register Update	s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage
25.1.22 - January 2025 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	Legal professional privilege To enable commercial activities To enable commercial or industrial negotiations To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage
25.1.23 - Confidential Minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 16 December 2024	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(f)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of Council members, officers, employees, and persons from improper pressure or harassment s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	To protect a person's privacy Commercial sensitivity To protect people from harassment Legal professional privilege To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage

Carried

The public were excluded at 3.06 pm and the meeting closed at 3.16 pm.

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7 Reports

25.3.3 Local Water Done Well - Otago Southland Joint Group of Councils

Doc ID: 2393745

Report Author:

Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

To consider authorising the signing of a Joint CCO Commitment Agreement.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to enter into the Otago Southland Joint Group of Councils Commitment Agreement.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive to sign the Otago Southland Joint Group of Councils Commitment Agreement as set out in Attachment 1 on behalf of Council, including any minor amendments that are required when finalising the document for signing].

D. Agrees to rely on the alternative requirements for decision-making and consultation set out in sections 61 to 64 of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 in accordance with section 58(a)(i).

2. Background

The Water Services Preliminary Arrangements Act 2024 sets out the new requirements for water services delivery in New Zealand. The Local Government (Water Services) Bill has also been introduced into parliament and will likely set the enduring framework for water delivery if it is passed into law later this year.

This paper presents a summary of progress to develop a Joint Water Services Organisation by the Central Otago, Clutha, Gore & Waitaki District Councils (the ‘Group of Councils’) as an option to consider alongside other practicable delivery model options.

The paper summarises the overall approach and plan to develop the options, consult with the community, secure required Council approvals and prepare a Council Approved Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to the Minister of Local Government by 3 September 2025.This paper makes recommendations in relation to consultation under the Water Services Preliminary Arrangements Act 2024.

To support this work, a Commitment Agreement Template has been developed by the DIA, for Councils to modify and adopt as they work to develop and establish a Joint Operating Organisation for Water Services. The Commitment Agreement Template has been populated to meet the requirements of the Group of Councils.

The purpose of this paper is to seek that the Council authorises the Chief Executive to enter into the Commitment Agreement as appended to this paper subject to any minor drafting changes that are required when the document is finalised.

In February 2024, the Coalition Government introduced and passed legislation to repeal all laws relating to the previous Government’s water services entities. The new approach, Local Water Done Well (LWDW), is designed to address New Zealand’s long-standing water infrastructure challenges while maintaining local decision-making flexibility. Councils, in consultation with their communities will determine how their water services are delivered, provided they meet economic, environmental, and regulatory requirements.

Government statements have made it clear that water service providers must operate more like independent utility businesses, similar to telecommunications or electricity providers. Regardless of whether services remain in-house or are managed by a Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO), they must be structured and operated differently, with direct accountability to customers, regulators, and ratepayers and shareholders.

The Water Services Preliminary Arrangements Act 2024, enacted on 2 September 2024, requires councils to submit a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) by 3 September 2025. Each WSDP must define a financially sustainable delivery model with 10 years of financial information and undergo public consultation before formal adoption. The Government has introduced financial arrangements allowing CCOs to borrow up to 500% of their water revenue from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA).

On 10 December 2024, the Local Government (Water Services) Bill (Bill 3) was introduced to Parliament. The Bill sets out key details relating to the water services delivery system, the economic regulation and consumer protection regime for water services, and changes to the water quality regulatory framework and is expected to be enacted in June 2025.

Councils in Otago and Southland have a history of working together on water service challenges.

In February 2024, the Otago-Southland Mayoral Forum directed Chief Executives to establish the Otago-Southland LWDW Working Group to explore a Regional Delivery Model. As part of this, the Morrison Low report, "Local Water Done Well Review," was completed and presented to Otago-Southland councillors in November 2024. It found that without structural changes, future water service delivery would become unaffordable, with 76% of residential users in the region facing doubled water bills within 10 years. Additionally, workforce shortages and infrastructure demands would require regional coordination to avoid inefficiency and competition. The report concluded that a joint asset-owning entity would be the most effective solution.

From that work, a subgroup of Otago Southland Councils has formed, comprising Central Otago, Clutha, Gore and Waitaki District Councils. This Group of Councils is working to investigate creation of a Joint Water Services CCO.

3. Discussion

Analysis

Group of Councils - Project Formed

Mayors & Chief Executives of the Group of Councils are engaged, and a project team has formed to define what a Joint CCO would look like and how it compares against the other practicable options, such as leaving water services in house or setting up a standalone Council CCO.

Presenting the options and agreeing a preferred delivery model to take out for consultation.

A view of the water organisation delivery model options, with supporting pros and cons is planned to be presented to the March Council Meeting for decision on a preferred delivery services model and options to consult on.

Current modelling is predominantly based on existing Council long-term plans and infrastructure strategies with some adjustments to reflect a reduction in potential costs for wastewater treatment plant upgrades.

Further work is required in order to present a view of the water service delivery models and their relative strengths and weaknesses. The work includes:

· External review of Council Asset Management Plans and associated Long Term Budgets to test and align planning and costing assumptions.

· Draft wastewater standards are released mid-February 2025. These may mean future investment requirements can be reduced. Potential impact of these to be assessed for each Council.

· Progress Joint CCO design and update modelling to reflect design options. For example, approach to Price Harmonisation.

· Seek DIA and Water Services Authority - Taumata Arowai review of financial modelling and option analysis.

DIA Joint Commitment Agreement

The DIA WSDP Team have provided a Commitment Agreement Template which sets out how councils can work together to develop and establish a joint water organisation. It lists the key activities and programme, allocation of roles and sharing of resources, accountability measures and the governance structure during the period where councils are assessing the delivery options, deciding on a preferred delivery and through to establishment of a joint water organisation.

The agreement provides for individual Councils to withdraw from the agreement at any time. Logical points for Councils to assess their continued participation are set out below. The consequences of withdrawal for the remaining Council’s is largely unknown. However, the Commitment Agreement deals with some of the immediate financial considerations.

· Provision of Water Service Delivery Models Options Analysis for Councils to decide on their preferred Water Service Delivery Model

· Review of Consultation and Stakeholder engagement outcomes

· Review & Approval of the Water Services Delivery Plan

The Commitment Agreement template has been completed by the project team and an external legal review conducted to help inform council decision making. The Commitment Agreement is provided as Attachment 1.

Consultation & Decision Making

The Water Services Preliminary Arrangements Act 2024, provides an alternative consultation requirements and decision-making pathway to that provided via the Local Government Act 2002 (Alternative Consultation and Decision-Making Requirements).

Councils are required to adopt the Alternative Consultation and Decision-Making Requirements when considering the preferred model or arrangement for delivering water services in its WSDP. These requirements are summarised as -

· Must consult once but may consult further if certain conditions are met

· Make the following information publicly available:

o Proposed model or arrangement (with explanation and reasons for the proposal)

o Analysis of reasonably practicable options

o How proceeding (or not) with the proposal would affect council rates, debt, water charges and levels of service

If the alternative consultation pathway is taken there is no need to consult further on required amendments to the Long-Term Plan to give effect to the water services delivery model if Council has already consulted on a proposed model and is satisfied that the community has a good understanding of its implications and that the Council understands the community’s views. All other relevant LGA 2002 requirements still apply (e.g. principles of consultation).

For a Council decision whether to establish, join or amend a Water Services CCO there is the ability to consult either via the LGA 2002 Part 6 pathway or use the Alternative Consultation and Decision-Making Requirements. The Alternative Consultation and Decision-Making Requirements include consideration of the following:

· Impact of the Joint Water Services CCO on the communities in the joint service area (as well as the impact on the authority’s district)

· Views of people in the joint service area (as well as the views of people in the authority’s communities)

· View of other territorial authorities who are parties or potential parties to the Joint Water Services CCO Arrangement.

Strategic Consistency

The requirements of LWDW requires the Group of Councils to revisit their respective Long-Term Plans and associated supporting strategies (including Financial & Asset Management Strategies), to ensure that water service delivery complies with the Local Water Done Well legislation requirements.

The options analysis completed to date includes consideration of impacts on the current LTPs. Impacts of the selected options will be further defined and put forward for community feedback through the planned consultation in the early part of 2025. Following decision making, amendments to Annual and/or LTPs will be made from FY 26/27.

Legal Implications

The Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act places statutory requirements on the Councils that are required to be complied with. If a territorial authority struggles to comply with the requirements for a compliant WSDP, the Act provides for the Minister to appoint either of two new roles:

· Crown facilitators, who may work with Councils to assist, advise, or amend draft WSDPs and;

· Crown water services specialists, who may prepare, direct, or adopt a WSDP in accordance with their notice of appointment.

In addition, the Act provides that a person who contravenes an obligation to disclose information can be fined up to $500,000 or, in the case of an entity, $5 million.

Risk Analysis

Risk	Impacts
DIA does not approve the WSDP and requires the document to be revised.	DIA requires the Group of Councils to alter the WSDP DIA requires the Group of Councils to change the Operating Model Design DIA requires other Councils to join the Group of Councils.
DIA does not approve the Group of Councils WSDP – and appoints a Crown Facilitator or Water Services Specialist	Reputation risk for Councils Reduction / loss in decision making control
Individual Councils do not approve of progressing with a Joint CCO approach.	Group may become unviable Individual Councils may not be able to complete a compliant WSDP Risk of DIA intervention with associated loss of decision-making control
WSDP Plan and Implementation Tasks are more complex / extensive than estimated	Potential increase in project budget Additional Council resource commitments
Continuing uncertainty for the Council 3 Waters teams as to how their work and roles may be affected	Potential loss of key staff Increasing difficulty to recruit staff
Local Government Election processes during Oct 2025.	Potential delay to key decisions – administration period may then impact Re-litigation of decisions by new Council New Councillors require up skilling in LWDW requirements
The Group of Councils is not fully compliant with new legislative requirements – within the required timeframes	Reputation risk for Councils Cost and time to rectify Potential DIA or Regulator Intervention
3 Waters legislative investment requirements impact on wider Council investment capacity	Impending increase in 3 Waters costs impacting affordability and Council investment in other areas
Ratepayers do not appreciate the impending costs increases for 3 Waters Services – irrespective of the delivery model adopted	Increasing affordability issue for larger group of ratepayers Negative publicity and reputation risk for Councils
Changes to legislation through Bill 3 may require additional resource commitments and amendments to arrangements.	Cost and time associated with rework Potential increase in project budget Additional Council resource commitments

4. Financial Considerations

The costs for the Group of Councils Joint Project, including community consultation and approach to apportionment are detailed within the Commitment Agreement. Project costs to develop, consult on and submit a Water Services Delivery Plan for a Joint Water Services CCO, are estimated to be $540k and would be equally apportioned between the Councils.

As noted, the Commitment Agreement provides for individual Councils to exit the Agreement. They will be liable for and are only liable for costs incurred, committed or budgeted (but unpaid) costs that cannot be avoided by the remaining Councils.

In selecting the preferred delivery model, the financial implications for ratepayers and impact on overall Council debt and non 3 waters budgets will be included in the Pros and Cons analysis to be presented to Council and for community feedback through the planned consultation.

5. Options

As noted, the project team is working to compile a view of practicable water service delivery model options, assess these against investment objectives and provide a view of their relative merits and drawbacks, impact of each to the ratepayer and Council debt and any impact on service levels. That analysis will be presented to the March Council meetings for decision to confirm the preferred option and options to consult on.

A summary of the options associated with the decisions requested in this paper is presented below.

1) For the Council decision whether to approve entry to the Commitment Agreement.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Group of Councils draft their own commitment agreement Not Recommended	- Tailored for the group of Councils requirements	- Significant cost and time to draft a bespoke agreement - Likely greater DIA scrutiny of a bespoke agreement and less willing to provide support to the Group if required. - Impact on WSDP delivery timeframe
Group of Councils adopt the DIA Template as modified in Attachment 1. Recommended	- Comprehensive and low cost to adapt to specific Group of Council requirements - DIA supported approach - Defined agreement entry and exit process. - Legal review completed	- If the Joint CCO preferred option is not adopted by a member Council, time and cost to exit the Agreement.
Group of Councils proceed without a Commitment Agreement. Not Recommended	- Avoided costs to adapt, complete legal reviews and secure Council decisions.	- Project work is complex and costly – lack of an agreement increases the risk of poor governance, disputes and failure to deliver required outcomes. - Increased risk of DIA intervention

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Group of Councils draft their own commitment agreement

Not Recommended

- Tailored for the group of Councils requirements

- Significant cost and time to draft a bespoke agreement

- Likely greater DIA scrutiny of a bespoke agreement and less willing to provide support to the Group if required.

- Impact on WSDP delivery timeframe

Group of Councils adopt the DIA Template as modified in Attachment 1.

Recommended

- Comprehensive and low cost to adapt to specific Group of Council requirements

- DIA supported approach

- Defined agreement entry and exit process.

- Legal review completed

- If the Joint CCO preferred option is not adopted by a member Council, time and cost to exit the Agreement.

Group of Councils proceed without a Commitment Agreement.

Not Recommended

- Avoided costs to adapt, complete legal reviews and secure Council decisions.

- Project work is complex and costly – lack of an agreement increases the risk of poor governance, disputes and failure to deliver required outcomes.

- Increased risk of DIA intervention

2) For the Council decision whether to establish, join or amend a Water Services CCO there are two consultation options. Note that the proposed model for delivering water services is required to be consulted on using the alternative consultation requirements in the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
Consult via LGA 2002 Part 6 consultation requirements Not Recommended	- Established decision making framework. - Allows wider Joint CCO Council & Community views to be included in Council Decision Making	- Requires consultation to be split between two processes which creates inefficiency, complexity and potential confusion in decision making. - Consultation processes can be costly in terms of resource and financial cost. Running multiple processes will cost more. - Given the number of significant decisions that will be required and decisions that require statutory consultation, the public may become fatigued with consultation. - No ability to narrow consultation, if doing so would not comply with the LGA requirements.
Consult via Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024alternative consultation requirements Recommended	- Aligns CCO decision making with consultation on the proposed model for delivery of water services – offering a single consistent framework that is comparatively more efficient to adopt. - Potential to avoid the need to consult on required LTP changes for the proposed model and for transfer of strategic assets if the water infrastructure is defined as a strategic asset in the Council’s significance and engagement policy. - Consultation Process is tailored for consideration of selecting a water service delivery model and will be sufficiently detailed so that the public are well informed about the full process being consulted on. - Only one consultation process required therefore saving resources and cost. - Retain the ability to consult more broadly than the alternative arrangements prescribe.	- Possible perception that consultation / decision making is not as robust as via the LGA 2002.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Consult via LGA 2002 Part 6 consultation requirements

Not Recommended

- Established decision making framework.

- Allows wider Joint CCO Council & Community views to be included in Council Decision Making

- Requires consultation to be split between two processes which creates inefficiency, complexity and potential confusion in decision making.

- Consultation processes can be costly in terms of resource and financial cost. Running multiple processes will cost more.

- Given the number of significant decisions that will be required and decisions that require statutory consultation, the public may become fatigued with consultation.

- No ability to narrow consultation, if doing so would not comply with the LGA requirements.

Consult via Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024alternative consultation requirements

Recommended

- Aligns CCO decision making with consultation on the proposed model for delivery of water services – offering a single consistent framework that is comparatively more efficient to adopt.

- Potential to avoid the need to consult on required LTP changes for the proposed model and for transfer of strategic assets if the water infrastructure is defined as a strategic asset in the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

- Consultation Process is tailored for consideration of selecting a water service delivery model and will be sufficiently detailed so that the public are well informed about the full process being consulted on.

- Only one consultation process required therefore saving resources and cost.

- Retain the ability to consult more broadly than the alternative arrangements prescribe.

- Possible perception that consultation / decision making is not as robust as via the LGA 2002.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring the community has fit for purpose Water Services, that are compliant, accommodate growth and are financially sustainable.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	This decision is consistent with central government direction regarding Local Water Done Well.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Changes are administrative in nature. Climate Change impacts would be assessed as part of any change to service provision.
Risks Analysis	Development of a multi-council CCO is subject to other council participants willingness to proceed.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy does not require consultation on the signing of the agreement in and of itself. However, the water services delivery model is considered significant in regards to community interest, impact on Councils capability and capacity, cost to council and impact on ratepayers and potential changes to the control of a Strategic Asset. The Significance and Engagement Policies of the Group of Councils and the requirements of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 and Bill 3, require the water services delivery model options to be presented for community engagement and feedback. It is intended that consultation will be coordinated across the Group of Councils, with consistent content developed in collaboration with the individual councils, approved by the individual Council and conducted via each Council using their existing community engagement channels, processes and relationships. Outcomes would be collated and presented back to each Council to inform decision making and whether to proceed with the preferred delivery model. A summary of the consultation would also be included in the WSDP.

7. Next Steps

· Complete and present Practicable Option Pros and Cons Assessment for Council Decision to identify the Preferred Water Service Delivery Model and options to consult on (target end March)

· Present Joint CCO design options and secure decisions – March and potentially April 25 Council Meetings.

· Draft consultation materials and secure Council approval – April Council Meetings

· Schedule consultation to occur from end April to end May 25

· Schedule hearings, deliberations and decision making through June 25

· Council Decision Making & WSDP Approval June & July 25

· Contingency to secure WSDP approvals - August 25

· WSDP Submission Deadline – 3 Sept 25

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Otago Southland Joint CCO Commitment Agreement ⇩

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.5 Appointment of Hearings Panel Commissioners

Doc ID: 2393510

Report Author:	Lee Webster, Acting Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed and authorised by:	Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

To consider appointing members of the Hearings Panel as independent commissioners for RMA hearings.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Appoints Crs Cooney, Gillespie, McPherson and Paterson as independent commissioners to the Hearings Panel.

C. Notes this arrangement will be reviewed at the inaugural Council meeting following the 2025 triennial elections.

2. Background

The Central Otago District Council Hearings Panel have the regulatory authority regarding various Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Dog Control Act 1996, Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966 and Reserves Act 1977 matters.

There are currently four members of the Hearings Panel for the Central Otago District Council. These are Cr Gillespie (Chair), Cr McPherson (member), Cr Cooney (member), with the recent addition of Cr Paterson who has attained the RMA certification to be member of the Hearings Panel member.

Councils Register of Delegations states that the hearings panel consists of panel members or independent commissioners. However, the delegations do not enable a choice in which panel members are selected depending on their availability for an RMA hearing, or consideration of a member who maybe conflicted or the addition of a panel member to facilitate training, without increased costs i.e. the inclusion of all members, as there is no mechanism to do this currently.

3. Discussion

To date, a Hearings Panel has been comprised of three elected members for all hearings.

However, since the addition of a fourth member there is no flexibility in choosing a panel according to the Register of Delegations for the frequent RMA hearings . The Register states that a panel should be made up of panel members or independent commissioners. It does not allow for panels to be selected as necessary for each hearing.

To enable more flexibility and to assist in meeting resource consent applicants needs it is proposed to appoint each of the panel members as RMA independent commissioners. This will enable a panel to be constituted from a pool of members according to what is being heard, member availability or to facilitate training experiences for members at no increased costs for RMA hearings. All other hearings, which are rare, would consist of the four members.

An RMA hearings panel would be appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, following advice from the Group Manager Planning and Infrastructure and in consultation with the previous Hearing Panel Chair for each hearing as necessary.

In light of impending elections in October 2025, this arrangement would have been raised for consideration at that time in order for the Hearings Panel to continue their work during the interregnum period when no Council is sitting.

4. Financial Considerations

The Hearings Panel is a user pays system for the applicant. However, with the addition of a fourth panel member, there are additional costs, which are being met out of existing budgets currently and are not attributed to the applicant.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Appoint Crs Cooney, Gillespie, McPherson and Paterson as independent RMA commissioners on the Hearings Panel.

Advantages:

· Increased flexibility to appoint three members to the Hearings Panel as necessary for all RMA hearings.

· Maintain the status quo for all other hearings (rare).

· If the current Chair was not available for a hearing, another Chair could be appointed to enable a hearing to proceed at the earliest opportunity by the independent commissioners.

· Provides training opportunities for hearings with financial prudence.

Disadvantages:

· Each RMA hearing would require the appointment of three independent commissioners.

Option 2

Do not appoint Crs Cooney, Gillespie, McPherson and Paterson as independent RMA commissioners on the Hearings Panel.

Advantages:

· The Hearings Panel continues as detailed in the Register of Delegations.

Disadvantages:

· Each hearing would require four Hearing Panel members.

· Increased costs of each hearing panel.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by continuing to have a Hearings Panel, but with independent commissioners.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, it is consistent as the Hearings Panel will still exist, however the way the panel are selected will change.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no considerations to be made in this space.
Risks Analysis	There are minimal risks to this decision as the Hearings Panel continues as normal.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This does not meet the threshold for consultation in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

7. Next Steps

Hearings Panel members will be appointed by the Chief Executive according to the decision made.

8. Attachments

Nil

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.6 Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy

Doc ID: 2390481

Report Author:	Gordon Bailey, Parks and Recreation Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	David Scoones, Group Manager - Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To adopt the Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024.

C. Notes that the Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024 will be reviewed in July 2026.

2. Background

At its October 2024 meeting Council received a report on the draft Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy (the Strategy). Appendix 1.

At that meeting Council resolved the following’

That the Council

Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

Approves the draft Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024 for consultation.

Public feedback on the draft Strategy was sought between 7 November and 9 December 2024.

Twenty-four responses were received a summary of those can be found in Appendix 2.

Respondents were asked to provide feedback on the draft Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy by answering nine questions gauging community feedback, relating to the principles of the Strategy, considerations of the Strategy and strategic approaches.

Feedback on the Strategy were positive with some respondents indicating they were proud of our open spaces and park facilities. There was reinforcement for connectivity between open spaces and that when spatial or residential plans were developed open space provision was made a requirement.

When asked what was not liked about the Strategy most respondents wanted more open spaces with associated facilities, requirements for developers to provide open spaces within their plans.

Most respondents thought the Principles and Key Considerations of the Strategy were about right.

3. Discussion

The final draft Strategy can be found in Appendix 3,4 and 5. There have been some minor edits made but any substantive changes can be viewed as track changes.

Changes include.

- Reference to the District Vision.

- References to acknowledging volunteering within our communities.

- Recreational activities Council provides. Council cannot be expected to provide for all recreational activities within the district there are many other agencies and landowners better suited to provide such activities.

It is noted that some feedback received has been captured under existing Council policy or is better suited for inclusion in specific Reserve Management Plans. Examples are Dog are managed under Council Dog Bylaw and policies, trees and plantings under Councils Tree Policy.

It is noted that some feedback felt that support facilities for field and court sports was inadequate in Alexandra.

Given this is a new Strategy it is recommended that it be reviewed in July 2026 to enable any amendments for unintended consequences.

4. Financial Considerations

There are no current financial implications however the Strategy does identify areas for future investment. These will be included in future Long-Term Plans.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council adopts the Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024.

Advantages:

· Once adopted the district will have an Open Spaces Strategy that will ensure the existing open space network meet the future needs of the community.

· The community will feel like their input has been considered and valued.

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages are evident in adopting this Strategy.

Option 2

Council does not adopt the Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2024.

Advantages:

· There are no advantages from not adopting this Strategy.

Disadvantages:

· The community will not feel like their input has been considered and valued. Council will not be responding to the needs of the community, and the Strategy will be less relevant to residents and ratepayers.

· Council will not have a clear strategy to manage the growth and development of its open spaces.

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 developing with the community an Open Spaces and Recreations Strategy that provides guides for the provision and use of open spaces I not the future.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	District Plan, Reserve Management Plans
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Strategy supports the provision and use of open spaces which will have a positive effect on the environment.
Risks Analysis	No risk shave been identified.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Feedback from the community has been undertaken on 3 separate occasions to assist with the preparation of this Strategy.

7. Next Steps

Once adopted the Strategy will become operative and available on Councils website. Media release on the adoption of the Strategy will be provided to media outlets.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Draft Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy Council Report October 2024. ⇩

Appendix 2 - Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy Feedback Summary ⇩

Appendix 3 - Final Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy ⇩

Appendix 4 - List of Parks ⇩

Appendix 5 - Parks Maps ⇩

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.7 Review of Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024

Doc ID: 1960479

Report Author:	Maria Burnett, Parks Officer - Planning and Strategy
Reviewed and authorised by:	David Scoones, Group Manager - Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To approve the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves and adopts the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024.

C. That the Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024 is reviewed in July 2027.

2. Background

At its January 2024 Meeting, Council approved the Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024. It was moved that Council:

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

B. Adopts Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024, with the following amendment to page 57 of the agenda: Where a te reo name is gifted for an open space and the space is to have a dual name, the te reo name is first.”

As it was a new policy, it was given a 1-year review period, meaning the policy is due for review in January 2025.

3. Discussion

The Open Spaces Naming Policy (the Policy) applies to the naming (or renaming) of Council-owned open spaces, including parks, reserves, sports fields, playgrounds, neighbourhood parks, greenways, tracks and trails.

Since the Policy was approved in January 2024, Council have considered the naming of one open space. This was for an existing, unnamed walking track in Bannockburn, which has since been named ‘Campbell Lane’. Another will be reported to the Vincent Community Board meeting in February 2025. Both these cases have been a good test of the Policy to determine its usability and identify any unintended consequences. Overall, the Policy has proven to be a robust Policy that is clear, easy to understand and use and reflective of Council’s intention.

Over the past year, Council staff have documented any updates to the Policy that could be made to improve it. These are included in Appendix 1, which is the revised policy with the amendments incorporated using tracked changes.

Council staff held a workshop during the January 2025 Council meeting to gather feedback on the best approach for commemorating fallen soldiers and war veterans. The workshop explored various forms of recognition, including naming parks, planting commemorative trees, installing benches and other furniture, and naming roads. These discussions helped shape some of the proposed changes to the revised policy.

A summary of the proposed amendments include: (suggested changes are highlighted)

METHODS OF ENGAGEMENT

Clarification around different methods and how these are determined.

A close-up of a proposal

Description automatically generated

UNIQUE

Added additional wording to reinforce that names should be unique, i.e. have not been used for another open space (or in some cases a neighbourhood or road name) over the district. As it was currently written, made it difficult for Council to enforce this, particularly if no alternative names were received.

SUGGESTED NAMES

Confirming that Council seeks additional suggestions ‘where appropriate’. Provides clarity that Council can seek additional suggestions (as this was not clear), while giving Council the flexibility to determine if seeking additional suggestions is appropriate or not, depending on the circumstances.

CONSIDERATIONS

Firstly, addition of two additional ‘Considerations’:

· Use and purpose of the space

· Whether it enables storytelling and placemaking

Secondly, removed repetition under Considerations Policy (simply a procedural change as one paragraph was included twice).

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated

COMMEMORATING INDIVIDUALS, ASSOCIATIONS AND EVENTS

· Separated ‘Individuals’ into a standalone policy, Commemorating Individuals, aligning it with the existing Commemorating Associations and Events policy.

· Linked to incorporation of two additional Considerations (as outlined above).

· Established a higher threshold for commemorating individuals—recognition of an individual's contributions to the district alone is not sufficient. The use and purpose of the space must also be considered, ensuring it supports storytelling and placemaking.

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

4. Financial Considerations

The revision of this Policy has no identified financial considerations.

Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council approves and adopts the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy.

Advantages:

· Provides a Policy that been amended to make more useable.

· Council has reviewed the Policy within set timeframe (determined when Policy was published).

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages have been identified.

Option 2

Council does not approve and adopt the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy.

Advantages:

· No advantages have been identified.

Disadvantages:

· Any ambiguity in the Policy that has been noted, will continue to cause confusion.

· Council would not meet its obligations to review this policy within set timeframe (determined when Policy was published).

5. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social and cultural of communities, in the present and for the future by facilitating a process for naming open spaces (including renaming), which will enhance the district’s character and heritage.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	This report is updating the approved Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No impacts identified.
Risks Analysis	No risks identified.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy is to be referred to when Council is determining who is deemed affected by the naming or renaming of an open space. Decisions around the level of engagement that will take place is to occur under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Next Steps

· Council approves and adopts the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy.

· The revised Open Spaces Naming Policy is made publicly available and uploaded to Council’s website.

· Once endorsed by Council, the revised Open Spaces Naming Policy will become operative, effective immediately.

· Internal procedures and external guidance documents will be published to sit alongside this policy.

· This policy will undergo a formal review in 2 years.

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Revised Open Spaces Naming Policy (Tracked Changes Version) ⇩

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.9 Proposal to extend Central Otago Museum Trust's Performance Agreement

Doc ID: 2389988

Report Author:	Paula Penno, Community and Engagement Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision

1. Purpose of Report

To consider extending Central Otago Museum Trust’s performance agreement by one year, to align strategic decision-making about the Trust’s future with Council’s Long-term Plan 2025-34 and museum investment framework development.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to extend the term of the Performance Agreement between Central Otago District Council and Central Otago Museums Trust through to 16 December 2025.

C. Resolves to allocate $50,000 to Central Otago Museums Trust from 2024/25 budgets to enable the implementation of the Performance Agreement for a fourth year.

D. Notes that any funding beyond this period will be considered within the museum investment framework and in line with Council’s 2025-34 Long-term Plan budgets.

2. Background

Council’s 2021-31 Long-term Plan consultation included a topic on how Council could best support Central Otago’s community-led network of museums. Through this process, Council adopted the museum sector’s proposal to develop an independent trust – comprising representatives from each of the museums as well as the Central Otago Heritage Trust – to encourage collaborative activities within their network, coordinate training and support opportunities with organisations such as Otago Museum and Te Papa, and provide advice on Council’s future investment in the district’s community-led museum sector[1].

The Central Otago Museums Trust (COMT) was subsequently developed. In December 2021 COMT entered a two-year performance agreement with Council that specified outcomes expected by Council, in return for a $50,000 per annum grant towards operating expenses. The performance agreement was initially designed as a two-year trial, to be reviewed once Council’s museum investment framework was in place. The investment framework is not completed as yet, and in December 2023 Council extended the timeframe of the performance agreement by one year to acknowledge this[2].

3. Discussion

The Central Otago Museums Trust is requesting that Council extends their performance agreement a further year, through to December 2025 – a copy of the draft agreement is attached. This agreement would require Council to provide a grant of $50,000 to the COMT from 2024/25 budgets.

The role of COMT is to work with Central Otago’s network of community-led museums to deliver on strategic goals outlined in the 2021 Central Otago District Museum Strategy.

Over the past three years COMT has maintained regular meetings and connection with sector representatives and trustees. They have coordinated training opportunities for volunteers and strengthened relationships between the sector members. A feature project for COMT has been the coordination and delivery of the Central Museums 100 project – a collaborative effort that saw each of the five museums select 20 artifacts from their collections to research and develop narratives that demonstrate the significance of these stories to their local communities. This ambitious project was made possible through a $106,150 grant from the Ministry of Cultural and Heritage plus an extensive time commitment by volunteers and trustees. The CM100 exhibition is now on display in Central Otago’s five museums.

Now that the CM100 project has been realised, COMT is looking at their next priority actions within their strategy and how they will deliver these (see prioritised strategy action list attached).

The Trust currently awaits the outcomes and directives from Council’s museum investment project and is keen to work with Council in its implementation. It is likely that Council’s museum investment project will now be completed in conjunction with the 2025-34 Long-term Plan development. This will extend the timeframe for delivery until after July 2027. A one-off grant of $50,000 in this financial year would enable COMT to continue functioning until a clear directive is developed for how Council will support the sector into the future.

4. Financial Considerations

For the past three years Council has allocated COMT $50,000 on a separate budget line within the District Community Grant cost centre. This $50,000 budget allocation has also been set aside in the 2024/25 budget allocations, so funding is available if Council chooses to proceed with this proposal.

From 1 July 2025 it is proposed through the 2025-34 Long-term Plan that community-led museum expenditure (including the $50,000 allocated to COMT) will be grouped into one general ledger line for contestable distribution amongst the sector.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

That Council’s performance agreement with COMT is extended by one year, and a grant of $50,000 is allocated to COMT in the 2024-25 financial year

Advantages:

· COMT continues to deliver on its museum strategy action plan, as evidenced with the launch of the districtwide CM100 exhibition at the end of last year.

· An additional year’s funding will align future funding decision-making by Council with the 2025-34 LTP budgets.

· Council’s museum investment platform is still under development and an additional year’s funding to COMT will provide some stability while this is bedded in.

· Another twelve months of operation may help the sector identify whether this structure will work for the sector as a whole into the future, now that the CM100 project has been delivered.

Disadvantages:

· Council may view COMT as having had sufficient time to deliver on the performance agreement.

Option 2

The performance agreement with COMT concludes and Council retains the 2024-25 $50,000 grant allocation.

Advantages:

· Council funds could be used for another purpose.

Disadvantages:

· COMT has secured additional funding to the sector, over and above Council’s grant contribution, and is delivering positive outcomes for the collective.

· COMT provides Council with a collective conduit when reviewing options for the museum investment project.

· Council has not yet established a funding allocation process for the museum sector and may value the partnership with COMT in developing this.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social and cultural wellbeing of communities, through valuing community involvement in telling local heritage stories, and through supporting sector-led decision-making and a collective voice for the Central Otago museum network.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes The COMT is driving the delivery of the 2021 Central Otago Museum Strategy. This strategy was developed by Council in collaboration with the wider Central Otago museum and heritage collective.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	A collaborative approach to museum practises will foster collective learning, operational efficiencies and organisational resilience. Each museum has its own unique stories to tell but can collaborate on areas such as museology processes and marketing & promotion.
Risks Analysis	As a community-led entity, the success of the COMT relies on the buy-in and support from the entire collective. Building strong and ongoing relationships within the sector will be key to the Trust’s ongoing viability.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This report has been requested by the COMT, as representatives of the museum collective. Wider consultation and engagement are not required at this time.

7. Next Steps

Should Council agree to extend this performance agreement, Council staff will make the required changes to the documentation. Ongoing liaison between Council staff and the Trust will continue regardless the outcome of this report.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - CODC performance agreement signed 2025 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Performance report for CODC Feb 2025 ⇩

Appendix 3 - Financial position 4 Feb 2025 ⇩

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.10 Regional Deals Proposal

Doc ID: 2393598

Report Author:	Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision
Reviewed and authorised by:	Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the Regional Deals light touch proposal and support its submission to Central Government alongside Queenstown Lakes District Council and Otago Regional Council.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the proposal for submission to Central Government under the Regional Deals framework.

2. Background

Late in 2024 Central Government invited all councils across New Zealand to register their interest in being part of a Regional Deal with neighbouring local authorities and Regional Councils.

On the 18^th of December 2024 Council co-signed a letter alongside Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) and Otago Regional Council (ORC) expressing interest in submitting a Regional Deal proposal.

Since then, staff from the respective councils, along with representatives from the private and public sectors have been working together to refine a proposal to put to Central Government. The proposal as instructed by Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is ‘light touch’, as the intent was not to burden councils with major research and feasibility work, rather that work would be done at a later date once the proposals had been assessed and identified for further investigation.

For clarity, any future reference to ‘Otago Central Lakes’ in this report and attached documents is the CODC and QLDC catchment areas.

3. Discussion

On the 28^th of February 2025 the Otago Central Lakes proposal must be submitted to DIA. Attached is the proposal, noting this is intentionally light touch as instructed.

Referencing the below milestones, the process will move from M2 to M3 after the 28^th of February 2025. The phase between M3 and M4 is when the detail is developed and any additional assessment work can be carried out before further commitment is required.

· Milestone 1 (M1) – RD Framework released

· Milestone 2 (M2) – Consideration of Proposals

· 28 Feb ‘light touch’ proposals received

· Milestone 3 (M3) – Signed MoU

· Selected regions only

· Milestone 4 (M4) – Final stage negotiation

· Pre-deal queue

· Funding and Financing

· Finalised deal

At this point, Council is being asked to support the proposal so it can be submitted to DIA by the deadline. Should the Otago Central Lakes proposal be selected to progress to an MoU, then more work will be carried out to work through details relating to each package.

The proposal is built around the key criteria given by Central Government, that all proposals must identify how they will;

· Build economic growth

· Deliver connected and resilient infrastructure

· Improve the supply of affordable, quality housing

The Otago Central Lakes is one of the fastest growing regions in New Zealand and there is no population forecast that predict growth will slow at any stage over the next 20 years.

The Regional Deals framework asks for proposals that will deliver on the key criteria over the next 30 years, but they must also have some linkage back to plans or strategies already in place for the respective parties.

For this reason some components within the proposal may seem beyond what is required today. The proposal seeks to future proof opportunities over the next 30 years.

Central Government has been very clear throughout this process there is no existing funding coming directly to regions to support packages. But Central Government has stated there is an interest in understand funding, financing and regulatory relief options that could see proposals realised. In the Otago Central Lakes proposal, visitor levies and a portion of mining royalties would be examples would be new funding tools to support such initiatives.

It should be clearly stated and noted, a request to have a portion of mining royalties returned to the region does not endorse mining activity to be undertaken. There is a clear consenting process for mining activity to go through before it can progress.

The Otago Central Lakes proposal includes packages that are primarily developed or owned by the private sector, but require some form of support from local or central government to get off the ground. These types of public/private partnerships are what government has been seeking, and it has been encouraging to see the collective work coming together from across the entire Otago Central Lakes region, noting the process is one led by the councils.

4. Financial Considerations

As this is only a proposal and carries no detail there are no immediate financial impacts from this decision to submit the proposal.

Should the proposal be successful, staff will bring back to Council detail relating to financial impacts once those are understood.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the proposal with no changes for submission by the 28^th of February 2025.

Advantages:

· Ensures the Otago Central Lakes proposal can be considered by Central Government for progression to milestone 3

· Gives CODC an opportunity to negotiate with Central Government should the proposal be progressed

Disadvantages:

· The proposal lacks the level of detail some of the public may expect

Option 2

Decline the proposal so it may not be submitted on the 28^th February 2025.

Advantages:

· Allows CODC’s view to be known over time

Disadvantages:

· Otago Central Lakes will not be considered for a Regional Deal of any sort

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by seeking support from Councillors on the proposal.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Though there is detail to be worked through should the proposal progress, the proposal has considered a range of key plans and strategies on which to build its case. This was a requirement of DIA’s also.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No implications at this stage in the process.
Risks Analysis	At this early stage the risk is primarily reputational. Any further progression of packages will bring their own assessment of risks.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Councillors have met on several occasions to discuss the proposal and share their views. They have also met with their counterparts from QLDC and ORC to work through the proposal. Members of the working group have engaged with various stakeholders in and outside of the region, including Iwi. Should the proposal progress, there will be greater levels of engagement with stakeholder groups before finalised agreements are reached.

7. Next Steps

The Central Otago Lakes proposal will be submitted by QLDC on our behalf by the deadline. Public communications will be developed to support the release of the proposal with QLDC, ORC and CODC communications teams.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Proposal - Regional Deals ⇩

Appendix 2 - Proposal - Packages for Regional Deals ⇩

26 February 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.3.13 Financial Report for the Period Ending 31 December 2024

Doc ID: 2017378

Report Author:	Donna McKewen, Systems and Corporate Accountant
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support

1. Purpose

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 31 December 2024

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

The presentation of the financials includes two variance analysis reports against both the financial statement and against the activities. This ensures Council can sight the variances against the ledger, and against the activities at a surplus/(deficit) value. The second variance analysis is to demonstrate the overall relationship between the income and expenditure at an activity level.

The third report details the expenditure of the capital works programme across activities. This helps track key capital projects across the year and ensures the progress of these projects remains transparent to Council.

The fourth and fifth reports detail the internal and external loans balances. The internal loans report forecasts the balance as at 30 June 2025, whereas the external loans show the year-to-date current balances due to payments throughout the year.

The sixth report details the external debt balances. External debt is managed using operating cashflows before being uplifted from the Local Government Funding Agency.

This report uses the below key to identify the favourable or unfavourable variances.

Abbreviation key for report

F = Favourable

U = Unfavourable

I. Statement of Financial Performance for the period ending 31 December 2024

2024/25	6 MONTHS ENDING 31 DECEMBER 2024					2024/25
		YTD	YTD	YTD
Annual Plan		Actual	Revised Budget	Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
	Income
50,445	Rates	25,836	25,637	199	˜	50,445
12,141	Govt Grants & Subsidies	5,619	7,929	(2,310)	˜	13,564
8,610	User Fees & Other	5,212	3,999	1,213	˜	8,610
-	Land Sales	2,171	2,171	-	˜	4,380
2,451	Regulatory Fees	1,580	1,381	199	˜	2,451
3,401	Development Contributions	1,177	1,700	(523)	˜	3,401
1,501	Interest & Dividends	1,168	1,208	(40)	˜	1,501
-	Reserves Contributions	208	-	208	˜	-
-	Profit on Sale of Assets	15	-	15	˜	-
-	Other Capital Contributions	-	2	(2)	˜	5
78,549	Total Income	42,986	44,027	(1,041)	˜	84,357

	Expenditure
14,847	Staff	8,059	7,544	(515)	˜	15,131
717	Members Remuneration	360	359	(1)	˜	717
12,993	Contracts	6,814	6,557	(257)	˜	13,019
2,984	Professional Fees	1,907	2,194	287	˜	4,325
20,507	Depreciation	10,254	10,254	-	˜	20,507
272	Costs of Sales	161	160	(1)	˜	957
4,438	Refuse & Recycling Costs	2,467	2,102	(365)	˜	4,438
-	Cost Allocations	-	-	-	˜	-
2,462	Repairs & Maintenance	951	1,223	272	˜	2,466
1,932	Electricity & Fuel	791	954	163	˜	1,907
-	Loss on Sale of Asset	-	-	-	˜	-
739	Grants	582	500	(82)	˜	753
1,772	Technology Costs	813	881	68	˜	1,766
337	Projects	494	210	(284)	˜	351
962	Rates Expense	779	807	28	˜	962
1,047	Insurance	440	523	83	˜	1,047
2,384	Interest Expense	1,857	1,650	(207)	˜	2,384
2,227	Other Costs	889	1,114	225	˜	2,245
70,620	Total Expenses	37,618	37,032	(586)	˜	72,975

7,929	Operating Surplus / (Deficit)	5,368	6,995	(1,627)	˜	11,382

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

The financials for December 2024 show an overall unfavourable variance of $1.62M.

Income of $42.98M against the year-to-date budget of $44.02M

Income has an unfavourable variance of ($1.04M). User fees and other, rates, regulatory fees and reserves contributions are higher than budget. Development contributions, government grants and subsidies and interest and dividend income are behind budget. Grants and subsidies are behind budget due to the timing of the Better Off Funding grants for the Alexandra Library, timing of the NZTA subsidies for roading and funding to be received from Central Lakes Trust for the Cromwell Memorial Hall. Development contributions rely on the timing of external developers. Interest is lower due to utilising cashflows before uplifting external debt, this can be seen in interest expense that is lower than budget.

Expenditure of $37.61M against the year-to-date budget of $37.032M

Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($586k). The main drivers behind this unfavourable variance are staff, contracts, refuse and recycling costs, grants, interest and projects. This is offset by favourable variances in professional fees, repairs and maintenance, electricity and fuel, interest expense and other costs. Interest expense is lower than expected due to using cashflow before uplifting external debt.

Other costs $225k F - A detailed breakdown for other costs is tabled below

2024/25		YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		2024/25
Annual Plan	Other Costs breakdown	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
634	Administrative Costs	168	313	145	˜	638
798	Office Expenses	401	388	(13)	˜	777
229	Operating Expenses	97	114	17	˜	229
275	Advertising	70	154	84	˜	310
206	Valuation Services	106	103	(3)	˜	206
85	Retail	47	42	(5)	˜	85
2,227	Total Other Costs	889	1,114	225		2,245

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

· There is no significant variance of note to report on at present.

II. Profit and Loss by Activity for the period ending 31 December 2024

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

· Community, Economic and Strategic Development $376k F – Income has a favourable variance of $376k. This is due to funding received for the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs $172k, MBIE Regional Events Promotion Fund $91k and Collaborative Trail Marketing $95k. Expenditure has a variance of nil.

· Environmental Services ($202k) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($75k). This is due to budgeted grants and subsidies of ($360k), which has not been received and related to planned capital expenditure. This is offset by the waste levy income of $195k and transfer station charges of $120k. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($127k). Overall operating expenditure is higher than budget, this can fluctuate back on demand and is being offset by higher income.

· Governance and Corporate Services $200k F - Income has a favourable variance of $145k. This is due to financial reserves contribution of $208k and rates penalties of $239k. This is offset by lower than expected interest revenue of $301k, it is unlikely that this revenue will be able met the budget this financial year as the Reserve Bank decreases the official cash rate. Financial reserves are not budgeted for as they are dependent on the developer. Expenditure has a small favourable variance of $55k.

· Planning and Regulatory Services $886k F – Income has a favourable variance of $407k. This is due to professional fees recoveries $89k, building consent fees $189k, infringements and fines $67k, liquor licenses fees $17k and environmental health fees of $27k. Expenditure has a favourable variance of $479k. This is driven by staff costs $48k and professional fees $319k.

· Pools, Parks and Cemeteries $176k F – Income has a favourable variance of $255k. This is mainly due to fees and charges $85k and other revenue $120k. Other revenue is higher mainly due to a reimbursement of costs from Otago Regional Council for tree work carried out alongside the Riverpark project in Alexandra. The remaining increases relate to the timing of rentals and hires and pool fees and charges. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($79k). This is being driven by staff costs ($194k) and offset by maintenance $27k, water charges $64k and open spaces contract of $48k. Staff costs at the pools increased in the lead up to Christmas and then tapered off as demand decreased and the Ranfurly pool closing around March.

· Property and Community Facilities ($609k) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($662k). Driving this variance is grants and subsidies of ($785k), part of grant from the Central Lakes Trust has been received for the Cromwell Memorial Hall project. The unfavourable variance is offset by fees and charges $37k, interest revenue $46k and other revenue $38k. Expenditure has a small favourable variance of $53k. This is due to the timing of contract ordered work and repairs and maintenance.

· Service Centres and Libraries ($281k) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($295k). This relates to the Better of Funding for the Alexandra library refurbishment, at the writing of this report the uplift of this funding was in progress. Expenditure has a small favourable variance of $14k.

· Roading ($1.38M) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($747k). This is due to the timing of the roading capital works programme and the NZTA subsidy. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($639k). The flooding event in October 2024 required emergency works to be carried out, as at December 2024 there was approximately $438k of operating expenditure and $389k capital expenditure (res 24.13.7). Funding from this expenditure had been received from NZTA of 51% and the remaining 49% to be funded via the councils roading emergency works reserve. The remaining unfavourable variance of ($209k) is to the timing of the roading work programme.

· Stormwater $29k F – Income has a favourable variance of $64k. This is due to interest revenue being earnt on surplus reserves. Expenditure has a small unfavourable variance of $35k.

· Wastewater ($420k) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($207k). This is mainly due to development contributions. These are difficult to gauge as they are reliant on developers. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($213k). This is being driven by interest costs ($115k) and increased overhead costs of ($147k). This is offset by favourable variances for sludge treatment $91k, electricity $55k and operating contracts of $64k.

· Water ($396k) U – Income has an unfavourable variance of ($302k). This is being driven by development contributions of ($275k). These are difficult to gauge as they are reliant on developers. Expenditure has an unfavourable variance of ($94k). This is due to increased overhead costs ($164k) and professional fees ($79k), which is offset by lower-than-expected electricity costs of $98k.

III. Capital Expenditure

Year-to-date against the revised budget (including carry forwards and Council resolutions) 33% of the total capital spend against the full year’s revised capital budget has been expensed.

2024/25						2024/25	Progress to date against revised budget
Annual Plan	CAPITAL EXPENDITURE	YTD Actual	YTD Revised Budget	YTD Variance		Revised Budget
$000		$000	$000	$000		$000
3,020	Environmental Services	148	1,616	1,468	˜	3,193	5%
1,092	Governance and Corporate Services	682	1,108	425	˜	1,721	40%
96	Planning and Regulatory	96	62	(34)	˜	124	77%
2,399	Pools Parks and Cemeteries	1,306	2,091	785	˜	3,989	33%
25,741	Property and Community Facilities	11,475	17,884	6,410	˜	27,385	42%
179	Service Centres and Libraries	860	549	(311)	˜	1,101	78%
10,416	Roading	3,369	5,756	2,387	˜	11,512	29%
320	Stormwater	19	160	141	˜	320	6%
11,520	Wastewater	1,190	2,636	1,446	˜	5,094	23%
14,669	Water	4,278	6,372	2,094	˜	16,694	26%

69,454	Grand Total	23,424	38,235	14,811		71,135	33%

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

· Environmental Services $1.46M F – The primary focus has been on securing additional funding and conducting detailed planning work, which are still in progress. Planning and design work is being conducted to ensure efficient and effective waste management solutions are implemented.

· Governance and Corporate Services $425k F – This activity includes vehicle fleet pool replacements and Information Services. Vehicle replacements are ahead of the year to date budget by $110k, the replacement programme has been completed with a couple of vehicles awaiting disposal. IS are behind budget by $375k. Projects underway include: converged security and network improvement; records digitisation stage 3; Asset management information system; meeting rooms infrastructure renewal; Microsoft E5 security deployment and rural aerial renewal contract. Completed projects include: password improvement and MagiQ cloud migration.

· Planning and Regulatory ($34k) U – vehicle replacements for building control and resource management have been completed for the financial year.

· Pools, Parks and Cemeteries $785k F – This is driven by a mixture of the timing of project budgets, work programme and contractors availability to perform the work. The variance is mainly related to: Clyde reserves $59k, Cromwell reserves $87k, Anderson Park $115k, Ranfurly pool $105k, Pioneer Park synthetic surface $190k, Omakau Recreation Reserve $24k, Alexandra cemetery $47k, Cromwell cemetery $25k, Cromwell pool $41k and Alexandra pool $42k.

· Property and Community Facilities $6.41M F – This is being driven by the Cromwell Memorial Hall which is under construction by $5.19M, along with the Alexandra airport $520k and Elderly Person housing $98k.

· Service Centres and Libraries ($311k) U – Library book renewals are slightly behind the budget. The Alexandra library building upgrade project was completed in December and there some remaining costs to come in.

· Roading $2.387M F – The roading capital works programme can be different from the budget due to the seasonal renewal programme. Projects include: carpark renewals $105k, drainage renewals ($440k), footpath renewals $21k, unsubsidised community roading $61k, gravel road renewals $233k, minor improvements $1.44M, sealed road renewals $1.20M, structures renewals ($466k) and traffic services renewals ($33k). Minor improvements include: the Clyde Heritage Precinct stage 3 is progressing and due to be completed in December and the Little Valley Bridge project is being assessed and has not started. Structures renewals include $388k of emergency works for the October 2024 flooding event (res 24.13.7) which is to be funded through the roading emergency works reserve and NZTA subsidies.

· Stormwater $141k F – The stormwater network renewals programme is currently being assessed and further is investigation being carried out before any renewals taking place.

· Wastewater $1.44M F – This is driven by a mixture of the timing of project budgets, work programme and contractors availability to perform the work. The variance is mainly related to: wastewater point renewals $106k; wastewater plant renewals $329k; district treatment improvements $214k; district network improvements $160k; Alexandra and Clyde treatment improvements $196k; Ranfurly treatment improvements $182k and Naseby treatment $168k.

· Water $2.09M F – Cromwell Rising Main project has been completed in October 2024. Cromwell treatment plant project is in the detailed design phase. Pending the procurement of the Alexandra water pipe renewal contracts.

IV. Internal Loans

Forecast closing balance for 30 June 2025 is $4.09M.

Lender	Owed By	Original Loan	1 July 2024	30 June 2025
Lender	Owed By	Original Loan	Opening Balance	Closing Balance
Cromwell General Reserve	Public Toilets	670,000	418,752	392,568
District General Reserve	Tarbert St Bldg	25,868	8,400	6,713
District General Reserve	Alex Town Centre	94,420	33,464	27,577
Vincent General Reserve	Alex Town Centre	186,398	56,284	43,728
Cromwell General Reserve	Alex Town Centre	290,600	105,202	87,176
Maniototo General Reserve	Centennial Milkbar	47,821	11,621	8,130
Maniototo General Reserve	Pioneer Store Naseby	21,589	6,760	5,246
Cromwell General Reserve	Water	867,000	634,634	604,581
District General Reserve	ANZ Bank Seismic Strengthening	180,000	131,758	125,519
Vincent General Reserve	Molyneux Pool	650,000	498,650	466,150
Maniototo General Reserve	Maniototo Hospital	1,873,000	1,615,133	1,558,020
District General Reserve	Alexandra Airport	218,000	180,720	171,958
Teviot Valley General Reserve	Roxburgh Community Pool Upgrade	250,000	232,446	223,172
Vincent General Reserve	Molyneux Pool - Iceinline Roof Upgrade	400,000	386,215	371,913
Total		5,774,695	4,320,038	4,092,451

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

V. External Loans

The total amount of external loans at the beginning of the 2024/25 financial year was $4k. As at 31 December 2024, the outstanding balance was $1.07k. The remaining external loan will be fully paid in February 2025.

Owed By

Original Loan

1 July 2024
Actual

Opening Balance

Principal

Interest

31 December 2024
Actual
Closing Balance

Oturehua Water

46,471

4,389

3,312

1,077

46,471

4,389

3,312

1,077

This table has rounding (+/- 1)

VI. External Debt

The total of external debt is $40M with a planned external debt of $88.5M at the end of this financial year. It has been estimated after the first forecast that external debt for the end of this financial year will lower to $85.1M. External debt is managed using operating cashflows to reduce the impact from interest rates. Debt is currently being uplifted in the three waters area.

A graph of a number of people

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Reserve Funds table

· As at 30 June 2024 the Council had an audited closing reserve funds balance of $12.15M. This reflects the whole district’s reserves and factors in the district-wide reserves which are in deficit at ($24.09M). Refer to Appendix 1. This has been updated for forecast and carry-forwards and is forecasted to end this financial year, 30 June 2025 with a surplus of $15.77M.

NB: the reserves totals are recognised at a high level.

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 2024-25 CODC Reserve Funds ⇩

Vincent Community Board Minutes

4 February 2025

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE
Vincent Community Board
HELD IN THE Clyde HISTORICAL Museum, 5 Blyth Street, Clyde
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Tuesday, 4 February 2025 COMMENCING AT 10.00 am

PRESENT: Mr J Cromb (Chairperson), Dr R Browne, Cr L Claridge, Mr T Hammington, Mr D Johns, Cr M McPherson,

IN ATTENDANCE: T Alley (Mayor), P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), A Mason (Media and Marketing Manager), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), M Tohill (Communications Officer), S Reynolds (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That apologies from Cr T Paterson be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Andy Ritchie - Clyde Blyth Street Museum

Ms Ritchie spoke on behalf of the Clyde Museum and gave an overview of the history of the building and the work programme that the group had undertaken in recent years. She noted strong volunteer support and the significant amount of money that had been fundraised, that enabled the group to introduce new exhibitions and ensure the building is keep in good repair. She noted the importance of the museum within the Clyde community and the good support they received for events and talks.

Ms Ritchie asked for reassurance that the museum could continue to operate into the future, with either a long-term lease agreement or for an contract for the museum group to take over the ownership of the building, and she thanked the board for their support of the museum.

Anna McRitchie - Clyde Town Square

Ms McRitchie noted that she is proud to be a resident and business owner in Clyde. She spoke of the positive improvements to streetscaping the town square the space was not well utilised as it had no shade and needed a sun shade. She also noted some screening in front of the toilet block would be good and that the lights in the town square were very bright and not in keeping with the rest of the heritage precinct.

Ms McRitchie then responded to questions.

Graham Ashby - Tree Removal Molyneux

Mr Ashby spoke to board on behalf of himself and neighbours in Molyneux Estate, Alexandra, to thank them and staff for responding to his issue with a tree adjacent to his property, noting that the poplar tree in question is now on the work schedule to be removed.

Russell Garbutt - Interface between the Community and the Board

Mr. Garbutt, in observing the building's history and comparing past practices with the council's current work, expressed concern over what he deemed was insufficient attention to cost reduction and staff number reviews, citing unsustainable rate increases. He believed that in the current conversation on divestment of halls, these assets had already been paid for by the community and that in many cases, they could be more efficiently run by community groups.

Mr Garbutt then responded to questions.

Janice Millis - Clyde Theatre Group

Ms Millis noted that she is an Alexandra resident and that she had been involved in theatre groups in the area for 25 years and stated that the potential divestment of community halls would jeopardise the fabric of the community and she asked why council are focused on this course of action. She went on to list the wide range of community groups that use the halls and noted that she would like to be part of the ongoing discussion around this topic and wanted her questions answered.

Ms Millis then responded to questions.

Angela McNaughton - Earnscleugh Hall Committee

Spoke on behalf of the Earnscleugh Hall which had been run by the hall committee for 98 years. They cover all their own expenses and raised money for their outgoings and had plans underway for celebrating the halls centenary in 2026. They also had further plans to paint the outside of the hall and Ms McNaughton indicated the committee would come back to the board to request to be able to draw down more funds from the Earnscleugh Amenity Trust Fund at this time.

3 Declarations of Interest

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

4 Reports

Note: With the permission of the meeting item 25.1.2 was moved forward.

25.1.2 Request from Earnscleugh Community Society Inc for Earnscleugh Amenity Trust Funding

There was discussion around the funding being distributed respectively but it was noted that the committee were required to get work done at a time when the appropriate trades people were available.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Approves a grant of $19,510.69 to the Earnscleugh Community Society Inc from the Earnscleugh Amenity Trust Fund for costs associated with repairs and maintenance of the Earnscleugh Hall.

Carried

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Johns

Seconded: Browne

That the public minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 3 December 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

25.1.3 Promotion and Events Grant Application - Dare 2 Sweat Events

To consider an application from Dare 2 Sweat Events to the Promotions and Events Grant budget outside the publicised funding rounds.

There was discussion around competitiveness of recent funding rounds but given the economic benefit of this event to the district the board opted to support the event to cover Council related costs.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Hammington

Seconded: Johns

Recommendations

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees the requested grant can be considered under the Council Grant Policy exceptional circumstances criteria.

C. Approves a grant ‘In Kind’ to a maximum of $600 to be applied to Council related costs including Road Closure notification, Reserve Hire and Rubbish Bins for the Dare 2 Sweat Events Spirited Women Adventure Race February 2025.

Carried with Cr McPherson abstaining from the vote.

25.1.4 Promotion Grant Request for Extension of Time

To consider a request from St Bathans Area Community Association (SBACA) to retain the Promotions Grant previously approved to the St Bathans Fete event which will now be held in January 2026.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: Hammington

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees to allow the St Bathans Area Community Association to retain the $1,500 promotion grant for the St Bathans Fete 2026.

C. Recommended that the retained grant is applied as per the original resolution 24.4.3. The grant to be applied to traffic management, road closure costs, equipment hire and programmes for the St Bathans Fete January 2026.

D. Notes that it is the grant recipient’s responsibility to obtain and have in place the appropriate consents, plans and licences (including resource consent, health and safety plans etc) as required by legislation, agencies, property owners and/or individuals to undertake the project and engagement with affected communities and businesses.

Carried with Cr McPherson abstaining from the vote.

25.1.5 Approve draft Manorburn Dam Reserve Management Plan for Consultation

Approve the notification of the draft Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan (‘the draft Management Plan’) for public submission.

Agrees to hear submissions received on the draft Management Plan and the timing for consultation on this draft plan was outlined.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Agrees to approve the draft Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan for public submission in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

C. Agrees that the Vincent Community Board hear submissions received on the draft plan.

Carried

25.1.6 Naming of Open Space in Alexandra

To consider the naming of an open space in Alexandra.

The board asked if there would be some informative panels to tell the story of the naming of the reserve and it was confirmed that these would be incorporated into the design.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cromb

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Approves the open space at the lower end of Tarbert Street, at the junction of the Mata-au/Clutha and Manuherekia Rivers, and legally described as Section 16 Survey Office 307905 to be named ‘Kāmoanahaehae – Riverside Park’.

Carried

6 Mayor’s Report

25.1.7 Mayor's Report

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cromb

Seconded: Browne

That the Vincent Community Board receives the report.

Carried

Attachments

1 Mayor's Report - February 2025

7 Chair's Report

25.1.8 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cromb

Seconded: Claridge

That the report be received.

Carried

Attachments

1 Chairs Report - February 2025

8 Members' Reports

25.1.9 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting.

Cr McPherson reported on the following:

· Noted that Blossom Festival has an AGM in early March.

· Gave an update on recent Hearings panel meetings.

· Had been approached by members of the community to discuss the conversation around the halls and potential divestment, and also councils proposed increases in water charges.

· Noted it is an exciting year ahead and that he is looking forward to debating the Long-term Plan submissions.

Mr Johns reported on the following:

· Had attended meetings for the Alexandra Golf Course, Alexandra Rugby Club and Golf Vallance Cottage.

· Noted Alexandra is hosting the over 70’s cricket tournament Cricket group this weekend.

· Had met with staff from Living Options to encourage residents to play golf.

· Had met with staff from the Blast scheme, and noted that Alexandra Rugby Club will be hosting the group whilst their usual venue is unavailable.

Mr Hammington reported on the following:

· Attended the December Promote Dunstan meeting.

Cr Claridge had nothing to report.

Dr Browne reported on the following

· Attended two meetings of Keep Alexandra Clyde Beautiful.

· Attended two meetings of Alexandra and District Museum board.

· Attended a meeting of the Central Otago District Arts Trust.

· Attended a strategic planning meeting of the Central Otago District Arts Trust.

· Chaired a meeting of the Creative Writers Circle.

· Attended a meeting of the CO-Lab business group.

· Looked at progress at removing pine trees from the Kamaka Walkway.

· Helped at the Alexandra Christmas community lunch, catering for 70 people.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Hammington

Seconded: Claridge

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

25.1.10 February 2025 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the status report updates.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

25.1.11 Update: Manuherekia River and Adjacent Crown Landscape and Visual Amenity Management

To consider providing comment on the Contact Energy Update: Manuherekia River and Adjacent Crown Landscape and Visual Amenity Management. It was noted that an updated plan would be sent out to members.

It was noted that Contact Energy would liaise with community groups for comment and the board indicated that they would endorse those community groups recommendations as they had an in depth knowledge of this area and what improvement work might most enhance the area.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Browne

Seconded: Hammington

That the report be received.

Carried

25.1.12 Update: Play STRATEGY

The update was given via video presentation.

Committee Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Hammington

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 11.53 am and resumed at 12.02 pm

25.1.13 Update - Emergency Management

To update the board on Emergency Management activities.

An update was given on the role of emergency management and their delegations within the district.

Note: Mr Johns left the meeting at 12.12 pm and returned at 12.18 pm.

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 18 March 2025.

The meeting closed at 12.27 pm

...................................................

CHAIR / /

Cromwell Community Board Minutes

10 February 2025

MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE
Cromwell Community Board
HELD IN THE Cromwell Service Centre, 42 The Mall, Cromwell
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Monday, 10 February 2025 COMMENCING AT 2.01 pm

PRESENT: Ms A Harrison (Chair), Mr B Scott, Cr S Browne, Cr N Gillespie, Cr C Laws, Ms M McConnell (via Microsoft Teams), Mr W Sanford

IN ATTENDANCE: T Alley (Mayor), P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), G Bailey (Parks and Recreations Manager), M Burnett (Parks Officer – Strategy and Planning), G Chrystall (Facility Experience Manager), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), M Tohill (Communications Officer), S Reynolds (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Forum

Martin Anderson and Jennifer Hay – Cromwell Museum Emergency Funding

Mr Anderson spoke to the Cromwell Museums current deficit in budget due, in part, to the unsuccessful Lotteries grant application. He noted that they require $25,000 until the end of the financial year to cover expected costs. He described the volunteers' efforts in planning the transfer of the museum's collection to the Cromwell Memorial Hall, as well as the future work that would be needed in the assessment and curation of the collection for display in the new building.

Mr Anderson then responded to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Browne

Seconded: Gillespie

That the public minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 9 December 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declarations of Interest

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

5 Reports

25.1.2 Land Investment Strategy - Principles and Outcomes

To consider the draft principles and outcomes that will underpin the land investment strategy.

Discussion followed and the board requested that there was reference to the original purpose of the endowment land. It was also noted that there should be the inclusion of the long-term strategic view of the board of the day.

It was also suggested that any relevant planning documents should be included in the strategy as an appendix and that this document should be regularly updated and reviewed annually. A more clear explanation of the term ‘sustainable growth’ was also requested to be added to the strategy.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the Cromwell Community Board

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

B. Agrees with the draft principles and outcomes for the strategy as detailed in the report subject to amendments.

C. Agrees that these draft principles and outcomes form the basis of the strategy and that work continues to develop the strategy subject to amendments.

D. Recommends to Council that they note work has begun on the land investment strategy and that the current draft principle and outcomes will underpin the strategy subject to amendments.

Carried

Note: Cr Browne left the meeting at 2.51 pm

6 Mayor’s Report

25.1.3 Mayor's Report

The Mayor gave the attached update of her activities in the district.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: Sanford

That the Cromwell Community Board receives the report.

Carried

Attachments

1 Mayor's Report - February 2025

7 Chair's Report

25.1.4 Chair's Report

The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting.

· Had enjoyed hosting family members to the region and had enjoyed exploring the district with her visitors throughout the summer.

· Noted she is now concentrating on the school year and working with her staff to implement the Ministry of Education's new curriculum directives.

· She outlined the busy year ahead for the Board and added that she is looking forward to seeing the progress of the Cromwell Memorial Hall.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Sanford

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Members' Reports

25.1.5 Members' Reports

Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting.

Mr Scott reported on the following:

· Noted that he had been unwell for much of the Christmas period.

· Attended the Grand Prix at Highlands Motorsport Centre, acknowledging the success of the event and the large number of visitors from all over the country who were in attendance.

Cr Gillespie reported on the following:

· Gave an update on recent Hearings Panel meetings.

· Gave an update on the December and January Council meetings, noted the consultation on Alcohol-free zones is underway, the approval of the Community Board Grants budgets and the approval of the draft Long-term plan consultation document.

Mr Sanford reported on the following:

· Noted that he had stayed local throughout the Christmas break and enjoyed the Central Otago summer.

· Had been approached by the ‘Friends of Cromwell Cemetery’ who asked for clarification on when improvements might be scheduled.

· Had been contacted by Dunstan Hospital Operational Group to see if any board members would like to be involved.

Cr Laws reported on the following:

· Noted she had spent much of the holidays working and visiting a sick family member in hospital in Dunedin.

· Gave an update on recent Council meetings.

· Was an apology at the recent Heritage Precinct meeting.

Ms McConnell reported on the following:

· Noted that she was privileged to experience an Outward Bound course recently.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Scott

Seconded: Sanford

That the report be received.

Carried

9 Status Reports

25.1.6 February 2025 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the status report updates.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

25.1.7 Update - Play STRATEGY

Video given to introduce the work undertaken to form a play strategy.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Scott

Carried

Note: Cr Browne returned to the meeting at 3.24pm

10 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 25 March 2025.

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 3.31pm and reopened at 4.17pm

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

Plain English Reason

Confidential Minutes of Extraordinary Board Meeting

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)

To enable commercial activities

To enable commercial or industrial negotiations

25.1.8 - February 2025 Confidential Governance 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

Commercial sensitivity

The public were excluded at 4.08pm and the meeting closed at 4.19pm

Audit and Risk Committee Minutes

28 January 2025

MINUTES OF Central Otago District Council
Audit and Risk Committee HELD IN Microsoft Teams
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Tuesday, 28 January 2025 AT 9.30 am

PRESENT: Mr B Robertson (Chair), Her Worship the Mayor T Alley, Cr S Browne, Cr S Feinerman, Cr T Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE: P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), L Fleck (General Manager - People and Culture), J Muir (Group Manager - Three Waters), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), P Morris (Chief Financial Officer), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), W McEnteer (Governance Manager)

1 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Paterson

That the apology for lateness received from Cr Browne be accepted.

Carried

2 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Alley

That the public minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held on 16 December 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declarations of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. Cr Paterson declared an interest in the Manuherekia Valley Community Hub item and Cr Feinerman declared an interest in the Ida MacDonald Roxburgh Pool Punawai Ora item. However, as no decisions were being made on their inclusion in the Long-term Plan they did not step aside from discussion.

Note: Cr Browne joined the meeting at 9.34 am.

5 Reports

25.1.2 The consultation document and supporting material for the 2025-34 Long-term Plan

To consider recommending to Council that the 2025-34 draft Consultation Document for the Long-term Plan and supporting information to the Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand.

The Committee went through the draft consultation document and discussed any items that were unclear to them. It was noted that three waters were taken out after year three and if they were to come back in for the full nine years it would change the financial strategy.

They then made several suggestions for changes to draft consultation document which are as follows:

· Include comment about why rates are proposed to rise.

· Remove water services as a consultation item, as it will consulted on independently from the Long-term Plan. It will remain as a key item to be noted in understanding the consultation document and the Long-term Plan. This includes the mention on p.201 of the attachments document.

· In addition, add a sentence in the foreword to say that budgets in the three waters space would not substantially change in Year 1 and 2, regardless of what the future water arrangements looked like.

· Discussion on the roading programme, not as a consultation item but as a discussion point.

· The pictures on items 4/5 and 8/9 should be different.

· On page 206 of the attachments document, the fifth column should read “Rates Contribution” and there should be a total at the bottom of each column of the table.

· On p.220, there was a query if the pie chart was correct. Staff would check that it was correct.

· On p.222, there should be a note that ratepayers can use the rates tool is identify what their proposed rates are for next year.

· It was noted that hyperlinks would be added as available.

· A note for the community to check their own rates on the rates calculator.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Robertson

Seconded: Alley

That the Audit and Risk Committee

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

B. Recommends to Council that the draft Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand for audit as required under the Local Government Act 2002, subject to the amendments received at the meeting.

C. Recommends to Council that the following supporting information to the Consultation Document be provided to Audit New Zealand to facilitate the audit:

(a) Infrastructure Strategy

(b) Financial Strategy

(d) Fees and Charges

(e) Significance and Engagement Policy

(f) Revenue and Financing Policy

(g) Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

(h) Liability Management Policy

(i) Investment Policy

(j) Prospective Financial Statements and Prospective Funding Impact Statements

(k) Community Outcomes Development

(l) Significant Forecasting Assumptions and Risks

(m) Capital Expenditure for Activity Groups

Carried

6 Date of The Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 14 February 2025.

The meeting closed at 11.20 am.

...................................................

CHAIR / /

Council Meeting Agenda

26 February 2025

13 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	Plain English Reason
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(f)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of Council members, officers, employees, and persons from improper pressure or harassment s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	To protect a person's privacy Commercial sensitivity To protect people from harassment Legal professional privilege To enable commercial activities To enable commercial or industrial negotiations To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage
25.3.19 - Award of Three Waters Reticulation Operations Contract	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)	Commercial sensitivity To enable commercial or industrial negotiations
25.3.20 - Award of Three Waters Facilities Operations Contract	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)	Commercial sensitivity To enable commercial or industrial negotiations
25.3.21 - Improving Digital Connectivity in Central Otago	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)	Commercial sensitivity To enable commercial or industrial negotiations
25.3.22 - Risk Register Update	s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage
25.3.23 - February 2025 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	Legal professional privilege To enable commercial activities To enable commercial or industrial negotiations
25.3.24 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 10 February 2025	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	Commercial sensitivity

[1] Council meeting resolution 21.7.3, September 2021

[2] Council meeting resolution 23.12.4, December 2023


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 26 February 2025
Date:	Wednesday, 26 February 2025
Time:	10.30 am
Location:	Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra (A link to the live stream will be available on the Central Otago District Council's website.)
Peter Kelly Chief Executive Officer

Service	Supplier
Legal	o Gallaway Cook Allan
Planning	o Beca Ltd o Vivian and Espie Ltd
Survey	o Landpro o Eliot Sinclair & Partners
Technical design and operational support	o Beca Ltd o Pattle Delamore and Partners o Stantec NZ Ltd o Fluent Infrastructure Solutions Ltd

Report Author:	Wayne McEnteer, Governance Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support

Report Author:	Patrick Keenan, Capital Projects Programme Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Julie Muir, Group Manager - Three Waters

Report Author:	Garreth Robinson, Property and Facilities Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Lee Webster, Acting Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure