Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Tree Service Requests

Total SR's

Removal Requests

Maintenance Requests

New Trees

Trees Fallen

Council Meeting Agenda

25 June 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, 28 May 2025 COMMENCING AT 10.32 am

PRESENT: Her Worship the Mayor T Alley, Cr N Gillespie, Cr S Browne, Cr L Claridge (via Microsoft Teams), Cr I Cooney, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Feinerman, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson,

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 van der Voort (Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure), P Morris (Chief Financial Officer), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager) , P Keenan (Capital Projects Programme Manager), K Zeelie (Water Services Planning & Policy Manager), G Chrystall (Facility Experience Manager), P Quinn (Project Manager Property), B Snape (Property & Facilities Officer), J Thomas (Water Services Sampling & Monitoring Team Leader), D McKewen (Systems and Corporate Accountant), S Reynolds (Acting Governance Manager)

1 Karakia

Cr Feinerman gave a karakia to begin the meeting.

2 Apologies

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Browne

That an apology from Cr T Paterson be accepted and an apology from Cr L Claridge for lateness be accepted.

Carried

3 Public Forum

There was no public forum.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Laws

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 15 May and the Ordinary Council Meeting held 20 May 2025 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. There were no further declarations of interest.

6 Community Board Chair Update

25.11.2 Community Board Chair Update

Anna Harrison, Chair of the Cromwell Community Board will join the meeting to discuss matters of interest to the Board.

Ms Harrison gave an update on recent activities in the Cromwell ward. She noted the impressive structure of the Cromwell Memorial Hall that was taking shape and discussed the community desire for a facility that was available for use by all sectors of the community and that was accessible outside of working hours.

Ms Harrison also noted the progress at Gair Avenue and stated that she had been approached by members of the community who were first home buyers looking to purchase. She also observed the high level of community interest in the endowment land sales.

7 Reports

25.11.3 Cromwell Memorial Hall Operations Decisions

To consider the recommendations from the Cromwell Memorial Hall operations report to Cromwell Community Board, and provide direction on the café space, cinema and catering kitchen being considered for lease to commercial operators.

Discussion followed on the opportunity to have the commercial kitchen available for community groups. It was noted that staff were currently only looking for expressions of interest for the commercial lease but that opportunities for community groups to utilise the space would come later.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Browne

That the Council

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

B. Approves the recommendation from the Cromwell Community Board that the café space and cinema and catering kitchen being considered for lease to commercial operators through Councils normal procurement process.

C. Approves that staff seek broad options through expressions of interest to run the spaces in recommendation B so all opportunities can be considered.

D. Agrees that staff bring a report back to Cromwell Community Board and Council to review the expressions of interest for consideration.

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

Carried

Note: Cr Feinerman assumed the Chair.

25.11.4 Museum Fitout within the Cromwell Memorial Hall

For Council to receive the report and approve Cromwell Community Boards recommendations where council officers facilitate the fitout of the Museum in the new Cromwell Memorial Hall facility.

It was noted that officers had now confirmed Lotteries funding of $350,000 towards the fitout.

Resolution

Moved: Laws

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

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

B. Approves council officers facilitate the fitout of the museum in the new Cromwell Memorial Hall to work in conjunction with the Cromwell Museum Trust.

C. Approves to delegate financial authority to the Chief Executive in the amount $1.6 million enabling awarding the design and fitout to nominated suppliers as per the procurement policy process, subject to successful external grant funding of the full amount.

D. Notes that $1.1m has been approved from Central Lakes Trust, and $350,000 has been approved from Lotteries.

E. Authorising the Chief Executive Officer to do all that is necessary to give effect to these resolutions.

Carried

Note: Cr McKinlay joined the meeting at 10.52 am

25.11.5 Roxburgh Entertainment Centre External Stakeholder Group

To consider a recommendation for the Roxburgh Entertainment Centre project to proceed with an appointed Steering Group and approve project structure.

It was suggested that there was opportunity to have an appointed Councillor from outside the Teviot Valley on the Steering Group, and the resolution was amended with this inclusion.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Laws

That the Council

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

B. Approves the proposed project structure.

C. Approves that the Teviot Valley Community Board has delegation to appoint up to 4 external stakeholders to the Steering group.

D Directs staff to investigate the option of an appointed Councillor representative as an additional member of the Steering Group.

E. Approves the Terms of Reference Document.

F. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the Council’s resolutions.

Carried

Note: Cr Duncan assumed the Chair.

25.11.6 Emergency Works Funding - February 2025 Rainfall

To consider funding options for emergency works following flooding in February 2025.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Approves $157,633 of funding from the roading emergency works reserve account for Council’s response to and recovery from the February 2025 flooding event.

Carried

Note: Cr Laws assumed the Chair.

25.11.7 May 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 there was a clear trend of improvement in recent years and that ORC had acknowledged the consistent effort by staff to address issues of non-compliance.

Resolution

Moved: Browne

Seconded: Alley

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr Feinerman left the meeting at 11.24 am and returned at 11.26 am.

25.11.8 Ranfurly and Patearoa Water Supplies Patearoa Barrier Non-compliance

To consider the mitigation measures being taken to manage drinking water safety risk on the Patearoa and Ranfurly water supplies while the protozoa treatment barrier upgrades are being undertaken.

The work undertaken to avoid the need for boil water notices, until the protozoa barriers were in place, was acknowledged and the mitigation plan was recommended to be implemented.

Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: Browne

A. That the report be received.

B. Noted and approves the implementation of the Mitigation Plan subject to Taumata Arowai approval.

Carried

Note: By permission of the meeting, items 25.11.10 – 25.11.14 were heard first.

25.11.10 Minor Amendments to the Register of Delegations

To consider a minor update to the Register of Delegations.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Laws

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the changes to Register of Delegations as they appear in the body of the report, noting they will come into effect on 29 May 2025.

Carried

25.11.11 2024/25 Organisational Business Plan: Second Quarter Results

To receive the third quarter results of the 2024/25 Organisational Business Plan.

Councillors requested a report come to the next meeting to address unmet performance measure targets and to offer clarification on those areas not meeting strategic objectives.

Resolution

Moved: Feinerman

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr McKinley left the meeting at 12 noon and returned at 12.05 pm.

25.11.12 Financial Report for the Period Ending 31 March 2025

To consider the financial performance for the period ending 31 March 2025

Concern was given to the level of capital project completion with only 51% of the budgeted capex spent. Staff noted imposed delays on some projects and that the delay in capital spending could create a bow wave that would become difficult to address in the future.

A forthcoming DIA benchmarking report is scheduled to assess the capital works performance of all local councils.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Laws

That the report be received.

Carried

25.11.13 Capex Report on Cromwell Memorial Hall

To provide capex updates on the Cromwell Memorial Hall Project.

Resolution

Moved: Gillespie

Seconded: Duncan

That the report be received.

Carried

8 Mayor’s Report

25.11.14 Mayor's Report

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report before responding to questions.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 12.28 pm and resumed at 1 pm. Cr Claridge joined the meeting at 1 pm.

25.11.9 Determining the Fixed Rate Portion of the General Rate and Community Facilities Rate

To consider the level of fixed Uniform Annual General Charge to be rated in the 2025/26 financial year and consider the level of Fixed Targeted Community Facilities rate to be rated in the 2025/26 financial year.

It was discussed that this matter should be revisited following the new property valuations in next year’s annual plan discussions and once again for the 2027-2029 Long-term Plan following the removal of water services delivery.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Adopts a Uniform Annual General Charge of $107.00 for 2025-2026 rating year.

C. Adopts a Targeted Fixed Community Facilities Rate of 100% of the total requirement for community facilities activities for the 2025 – 2026 rating year.

D. Notes a comprehensive rating review will be undertaken as part of the Revenue and Finance policy, and will form a key work stream for the 2027-37 Long-term Plan

Carried

9 Status Reports

25.11.15 May 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.

Note that item 25.7.6 the Freedom Camping Bylaw was not available.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Feinerman

That the report be received.

Carried

10 Community Board Minutes

25.11.16 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 29 April 2025

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Cooney

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 29 April 2025 be noted.

Carried

25.11.17 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 1 May 2025

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Cooney

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 1 May 2025 be noted.

Carried

25.11.18 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 6 May 2025

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Cooney

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 6 May 2025 be noted.

Carried

25.11.19 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 8 May 2025

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Cooney

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 8 May 2025 be noted.

Carried

11 Date of Next Meeting

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

12 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Recommendations

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
25.11.20 - Offer for a Land Access Arrangement	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(c)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied 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	Commercial sensitivity Due to an obligation of confidence and to ensure the information avenue remains open To enable commercial activities To enable commercial or industrial negotiations To prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage
25.11.21 - 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
25.11.22 - May 2025 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	To enable commercial activities
25.11.23 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 6 May 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
25.11.24 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 8 May 2025	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	To protect a person's privacy

The public were excluded at 2.07 pm and the meeting closed at 2.32 pm.

25 June 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7 Reports

25.12.4 Abbeyfield Development - Clutha Street - Request to gift part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra

Doc ID: 2504393

Report Author:	Zelda Zeelie, Statutory Property Team Leader
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting Group Manager - Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the request from Abbeyfield Alexandra for Council to gift part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra as shown in site plan, Appendix “1” to Abbeyfield Alexandra to be amalgamated with the adjoining land described as proposed Lot 2 for the purpose of the development of affordable housing.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the proposal to gift the land indicated on site plan, Appendix “1” of the report, being part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra to Abbeyfield New Zealand (Alexandra) for amalgamation to proposed Lot 2 provided that:

(a) All legal and survey costs associated with the boundary adjustment, amalgamation and uplifting of designation be paid by Abbeyfield (Alexandra).

(b) A survey of the land be done at the cost of Abbeyfield Alexandra.

(d) Should the development not proceed the land be returned to Council.

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

2. Background

From 2020-22 Council undertook a piece of work to consider what it’s role in housing is. Council undertook an investment logic mapping exercise which identified several areas for investigation including:

· Progressive home ownership models (including, rent to buy, shared ownership and secure homes – Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust’s proposal).

Following public consultation in 2022, Council decided not to proceed with the request from the Central Otago Affordable Housing Trust to gift a portion of the Gair Avenue development for affordable housing. This was a significant investment request from Council at a time when the future of three waters was uncertain and there were competing financial interests upon Council.

Community groups have continued to investigate avenues to provide affordable housing in Central Otago. In December 2024 Carole Gillions, The Chair of Abbeyfield Alexandra attended the public forum of Vincent Community Board (VCB) to explain a proposed Abbeyfield Development in Alexandra.

Abbeyfield is an innovative model aimed at older people and is based on a secure rental model. The developments are purpose built for 11-14 people and is based on a communal living model (such as shared meals). Abbeyfield have more than a dozen developments across New Zealand, with planned developments in Wanaka, Waimakariri, Greymouth, Hawkes Bay and Western Bay of Plenty.

Abbeyfield Alexandra is on the radar as a future development. Abbeyfield Alexandra have been working with a local landowner to secure land for this proposed development. In order to get the best design for the proposed development, Abbeyfield Alexandra are keen to secure a small parcel of Council-owned land adjacent to the land they are in negotiations to purchase.

Abbeyfield Alexandra need certainty over their available footprint in order to move to the concept design phase. As this will involve cost for Abbeyfield Alexandra they are needing a decision from Council on the parcel of land.

The matter was tabled at the VCB meeting on 9 June 2025 in the form of a workshop.

Direction to present this report to Council was obtained from the VCB at this workshop. The Chair of the VCB will speak to this matter at the meeting.

3. Discussion

The attached site plan (Appendix “1”) and concept plans (Appendix “2”) are for a very similar development which is currently underway, elsewhere in the country.

The land identified is part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra as shown on site plan Appendix “1” and is situated at the end of Clutha Steet in Alexandra. The site in part is currently owned by a private developer and shown as proposed Lot 2 on the attached site plan – Appendix “1”. Proposed Lot 2 is zoned for residential purposes, and a Geotech report has identified that part of the land is previous dredge tailings so unsuitable for building without remediation.

The adjacent land is owned by Council and has a designation for "Water supply and Treatment and Access Purposes" - D24, in the District Plan – See Figure 1 below. The underlying zone is Residential, Industrial and Water Surface and Margins.

To maximise the development Abbeyfield Alexandra is proposing that Council undertake a boundary adjustment and transfer a strip of the land in D24 to Abbeyfield Alexandra. The area subject to the boundary adjustment would be about 8 metres wide and would run the length of proposed Lot 2 (approx. 80 metres) being a total of approx. 600m2. This area appears to have an underlying zone of Residential. See Figure 2 below.

The designated site is over 20 metres wide so the remaining area would still have sufficient width for access purposes. The land is no longer used for its designated purpose, and Council does not have any use for the land beyond access purposes. The designation on the portion to be subject to boundary adjustment will need to be uplifted. See Figure 3 below.

Aerial view of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A aerial view of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

4. Financial Considerations

The Property and Facilities Manager, indicated that in his opinion the value of the land to be gifted is low to negligible as due to the nature of the land in question and the gifting would show support for a significant need for housing in the community.

The cost of the boundary adjustment will be carried by Abbeyfield and there will be no cost for Council.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To approve the proposal to gift the land indicated on site plan, Appendix “1” of the report, being part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra to Abbeyfield Alexandra for amalgamation to proposed Lot 2 provided that:

· All legal and survey costs associated with the boundary adjustment, amalgamation and uplifting of designation be paid by Abbeyfield Alexandra.

· A survey of the land be done at the cost of Abbeyfield Alexandra.

· The gifted land is utilised for the development of affordable last homes.

· Should the development not proceed the land be returned to Council.

Advantages:

· The gifting of the land will enable Abbeyfield to provide more housing for the elderly.

· The gifting will show Council’s support to the community project and need.

· Access to the river for the community will be retained.

Disadvantages:

· None as the land gifted is to no significant value to the Council.

Option 2

To approve the proposal to sell the land indicated on site plan, Appendix “1” of the report, being part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra to Abbeyfield Alexandra for amalgamation to proposed Lot 2 provided that:

· All legal and survey costs associated with the boundary adjustment, amalgamation and uplifting of designation be paid by Abbeyfield Alexandra.

· A survey of the land be done at the cost of Abbeyfield Alexandra.

· Costs of the valuation to be paid by Abbeyfield Alexandra.

· The land is utilised for the development of affordable last homes.

· Should the development not proceed the land be offered for purchase back to Council.

Advantages:

· Council may obtain some financial benefit.

Disadvantages:

· A valuation would need to be obtained and this would delay Abbeyfield in proceeding with the development as planned.

· This may put additional financial pressure on Abbeyfield Alexandra and delay the development while additional funding is sourced.

· The Council will miss the opportunity to show its support for the provision of housing need to the community.

Option 3

To not approve the proposal to gift or sell the land indicated on site plan, Appendix “1” of the report, being part of Section 13 BLK XXXIV TN of Alexandra to Abbeyfield Alexandra for amalgamation to proposed Lot 2.

Advantages

· None

Disadvantages

· Abbeyfield would not be in a position to proceed with the development as planned.

· The Council will miss the opportunity to show its support for the provision of housing need to the community.

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 supporting a development that provides affordable last homes to the community.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The decision is in line with all Council policy.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The decision will have no significant impact on sustainability, environmental and climate change outcomes.
Risks Analysis	There is no significant risk taken by Council as the remaining land will still provide the access to Council land required.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.

7. Next Steps

Abbeyfield Alexandra will be informed of Council resolution and can proceed with processes required for boundary adjustment and amalgamation of titles.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Abbeyfields Site Plan ⇩

Appendix 2 - Abbeyfields Concept Plans ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.6 Reserve funding a Teviot Valley future plan

Doc ID: 2495383

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

1. Purpose of Report

To consider allocating up to $50,000 of Teviot Valley Community Board general reserves to fund the development of a future strategy for the Teviot Valley.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves up to $50,000 of Teviot Valley Community Board general reserves be allocated for the development of a Teviot Valley future strategy.

2. Background

At the start of its current triennium the Teviot Valley Community Board identified they wanted to develop a ‘masterplan’ for the Teviot Valley so there was a generational strategy they and the community could work towards.

The example often used was the Cromwell Masterplan and the success that has had to give the Cromwell Community Board a clear north star when making decisions and working with the community.

Since the Community Board bought the idea forward, there have been quite a few matters occurring in the Teviot Valley that intersects with both the Community Board and Council.

· The Teviot Valley Spatial Plan has been finalised

· The Lake Onslow project has been abandoned

· The Roxburgh Townhall and Entertainment Centre has been destroyed

· The Teviot Valley Museum has secured new premises

· The Roxburgh Swimming Pool has opened

· Walking tracks have been developed on Grovers Hill

· Millers Flat Domain proposal

· Later this year the Teviot Valley Community Plan will begin to be revised.

At it’s meeting in April 2026 the Teviot Valley Community Board resolved to seek Council’s approval for the use of their General Reserves for this project.

3. Discussion

The board are seeking to develop a Teviot Valley future strategy that ties all such plans and workstreams together with a long-term vision. The strategy is intended to identify a pathway for the future, enabling limited energy and resources to be focused on an agreed future.

This paper is seeking approval from Council to allocate up to $50,000 of Teviot Valley Community Board General Reserves in the development of this work.

It is planned the project would get underway in 2026 once the Teviot Valley Community Plan has been finalised. The Community Board members will have a high degree of involvement as the project owners.

In the short term up to December 2026, Council staff will draft a scope and seek expressions of interest from contractors or consultants that can be presented to the Community Board for their consideration.

There are various points at which this project may cease before any money is spent;

· Council doesn’t support the release of reserve funds

· Staff can’t find an appropriate contractor / consultant

· Once scoped the project is deemed not to provide value

· Teviot Valley Community Board doesn’t support the project

If the project does make it through those points, there will be costs incurred once a contractor or consultant is engaged.

4. Financial Considerations

Seeking to allocate up to $50,000 of Teviot Valley Community Board General Reserves. The overall reserve funds of the Teviot Valley will remain in surplus.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council approves an allocation of up to $50,000 from Teviot Valley Community Board Reserves to fund the development of a Teviot Valley Future Strategy

Advantages:

· Aligns with the Community Board’s aspirations

· There remain exit points before funding is committed

· Gives staff direction to begin scoping the work

Disadvantages:

· Using funds that might be used for other projects

Option 2

Council declines an allocation of up to $50,000 from Teviot Valley Community Board Reserves to fund the development of a Teviot Valley Future Strategy

Advantages:

· Gives staff clear direction

· Enables funds to be used for other projects

Disadvantages:

Does not align with Community Board aspirations

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 a future strategy for the Teviot Valley.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	No implications
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No implications
Risks Analysis	No risk to this decision as there are future exit points
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Should the project proceed there will be a high level of engagement required. But for this decision no engagement required.

7. Next Steps

Nil

8. Attachments

Nil

25 June 2025

25.12.8 Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025

Doc ID: 2014835

Report Author:	Maria Burnett, Parks Officer - Planning and Strategy
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting Group Manager - Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To approve the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025 under delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation.

2. Background

At its June 2025 meeting, the Vincent Community Board approved the Draft Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan and recommended that Council adopt the Plan, under its delegated authority for the Minister of Conservation, with any necessary minor amendments incorporated following submissions.

The resolution was as follows:

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

B. Recommends that the suggested amendments and changes to the plan are approved

C. Recommends to Council the adoption of the amended Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan under its delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation.

This is the first management plan prepared for the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve. The Plan has been developed in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977, which requires that recreation reserves have an operative management plan to guide their use, protection, and development.

Public submissions were received from 10 February to 10 April 2025, with 71 submissions lodged and nine submitters presenting at the April Vincent Community Board meeting. Feedback received was used to inform the Plan. A copy of the Plan is included as Appendix 1.

3. Discussion

The Reserve Management Plan provides a clear, community-endorsed framework for managing the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve. The Plan reflects public input and balances ecological values with recreational use. Key elements included after consultation include:

· Retaining the prohibition on four-wheel driving and motocross.

· Confirming Option A: a prohibition on camping in the reserve.

· Strengthening recognition of equestrian access and allowing shared use of tracks.

· Clarifying that amenities (e.g. toilets) may be considered in future.

· Supporting environmental protection through appropriate zoning and pest control measures.

It is noted that since approval by the Vincent Community Board, the Plan has been updated to remove inconsistencies around the policies related to dogs on the reserve.

The Plan does not allocate funding but provides statutory support for future implementation through operational work programmes and a Development Plan.

4. Financial Considerations

The Plan was funded through existing budgets and does not commit Council to fund specific projects.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Adopt the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve Management Plan (Recommended)

Advantages:

· Meets requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

· Incorporates public submissions and Board feedback.

· Provides a long-term framework to support reserve planning, access, and environmental protection.

Disadvantages:

· None identified

Option 2

Do not adopt the Plan.

Advantages:

· Provides time for further review if Council deems it necessary.

Disadvantages:

· Delays the implementation of the Plan.

· Undermines the extensive community consultation already undertaken.

· Creates uncertainty for users and stakeholders.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by adopting a Reserve Management Plan that reflects public input and sets a clear framework for the future use, protection, and development of the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve, consistent with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977. This decision promotes the social, cultural and environmental well-being of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring that public open space is managed in a way that protects ecological values, recognises cultural significance, and supports inclusive access to outdoor recreation opportunities.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The Plan aligns with the 2021/31 Long Term Plan, which recognises the importance of access to high-quality open spaces.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no adverse impacts. The Plan supports long-term environmental protection through zoning and pest management policies.
Risks Analysis	There are no significant risks. Future projects will be considered through existing processes.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The reserve is a strategic asset under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. High-level engagement was undertaken, including public submissions and meetings. The process followed the Reserves Act 1977.

7. Next Steps

The Plan becomes operative upon Council approval. Implementation will occur through the Long-Term Plan, Development Plan, and operational work programmes. Staff will continue engaging with stakeholders groups regarding the Reserve as required.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Manorburn Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025.docx ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.9 Review of Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024

Doc ID: 2482300

Report Author:	Maria Burnett, Parks Officer - Planning and Strategy
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting 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. Notes that the Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024 will be reviewed in July 2027.

2. Background

At its January 2024 meeting, Council adopted the Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024, (the Policy) a new policy intended to guide the consistent and respectful naming of parks, reserves, and other open spaces across the district. Council resolved to:

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.”

At its January 2025 meeting, Council staff held a workshop with councillors 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 proposed changes guiding a soft review of the Policy which was presented to the February 2025 Council meeting.

In its February 2025, a report was brought to Council to approve a revised version of the Policy. During the meeting, questions were raised about the section in the Policy concerning the dual naming of spaces, specifically, the order of naming between te reo Māori and English. Council resolved to:

“Leave the item to lie on the table to workshop the dual naming portion of the Open Spaces Naming Policy at the next Council meeting.”

At the May 2025 meeting, a workshop with members was held. Staff discussed the concept of taonga, including Te Reo, and its importance to Te Ao Māori; and the importance of kaitiakitanga (care for) te reo in our application of the Policy. Staff also outlined the connection of traditional and gifted names to place.

Members indicated a preference to continue discussion on names on a case-by-case basis as Council’s relationship with mana whenua continues to grow and mature.

Staff suggested adding the word ‘generally’ on page 5, and adjusting the steps set out in appendix 1: Flowchart for naming of open spaces on page 7 to include the words ‘consider inviting’ mana whenua to propose a te reo Māori name.

This report brings the Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024 back to Council for formal consideration and adoption, following the completion of the workshop and review process.

3. Discussion

The Open Spaces Naming 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, two Council open spaces have been named. Firstly, an unnamed walking and cycling linkage in Bannockburn which has since been named ‘Campbell Lane’, as approved by the Cromwell Community Board. Second was Kāmoanahaehae – Riverside Park, as approved by the Vincent Community Board.

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 shows the revised policy with amendments incorporated using tracked changes.

A summary of the proposed amendments include:

Methods of engagement

Clarification around engagement and when it is determined it needs to be undertaken.

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Suggested names

This confirms that Council seeks additional suggestions ‘where appropriate’. This 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.

Added to appendix 1: Flowchart for naming of open spaces on page 7 around seeking suggested names.

Unique

Additional wording has been added 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.

Considerations

Addition of two additional ‘Considerations’:

Firstly,

· Use and purpose of the space

· Whether it enables storytelling and placemaking

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

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Change to appendix 1: Flowchart for naming of open spaces on page 7 to say ‘and the overall Policy’ at the end of the step ‘Assess suggested names against considerations and the overall Policy’.

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.

Dual naming

· Added in ‘generally’

· Change to Appendix 1, adding in ‘Consider inviting’ to ‘Consider inviting mana whenua to propose a te reo Māori name’.

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 adopted 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.

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

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

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Open Spaces Naming Policy 2024 (Reviewed).pdf ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.10 Central Otago District Council Tree Policy Renewal

Doc ID: 2488596

Report Author:	Gordon Bailey, Parks and Recreation Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting Group Manager - Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To consider adoption of the updated Tree Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Adopts the Central Otago District Council Tree Policy 2025.

2. Background

The Central Otago District Council (the Council) is responsible for approximately 6,500 trees in the district, made up of approximately 3,000 street trees and 3,500 park or amenity trees. Trees provide many benefits to communities, including aesthetic, environmental, economic, cultural and social. Trees reinforce the local identity and character of a place, which makes them an important tool in urban design, particularly with increasing urbanisation.

Trees are particularly celebrated in Central Otago through the Alexandra Blossom Festival and various autumn festivals.

Tree issues often trigger an emotive response from the public for a range of reasons, from excessive leaf dropping to shading. Clear policy in this area is required to ensure all tree requests are handled in an equitable manner.

The Council Tree Policy 2022 (the Policy) was adopted at the 9 November 2022 Council meeting, with a resolution to undertake a review in 2025. The 2022 Tree Policy updated the earlier 2020 Tree Policy. The 2020 policy sought public feedback with 12 suggestions being received. The Tree Policy 2022 is found in Appendix 1.

The purpose of the Policy is to ensure existing trees, tree spaces, canopy cover and

succession planting meets the needs of the community, can provide for growth, and continue to be protected and enhanced.

To date the Policy has been successful in helping the Council manage trees to meet community aspirations and provide guidance to ensure appropriate trees are planted in the appropriate places. More importantly it has provided guidance to staff on maintenance responsibilities and the ability to develop a tree maintenance programme through the Councils Open Spaces contract.

3. Discussion

The existing Tree Policy is working well with public interest in trees being very high.

Over the last 3 years the following Service Requests have been logged relating to tree requests. The majority of those relating to fallen trees are from the Alexandra to Clyde cycle trail.

The revised Tree Policy has been updated to provide clear process and understanding of what Council is responsible for in the way of provisions, protection and maintenance of trees.

Key enhancements from the Tree Policy 2022 are as below with the Tree Policy 2025 found in Appendix 2.

Clearer policies on development, construction, and activities around trees under the

‘Protection’ section. The Tree Policy provides more detail on working within tree root zones and directing when a Protection Management Plan (TPMP) is required.

Flexibility to use other tree valuation processes alongside the Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM). The Tree Policy now allows for Council to adopt more widely used, accessible, and modern tree valuation methods to help identify the required financial compensation for the loss or removal of trees unable to meet the replacement policies. Council will look to determine if iTree – a simple international web-based tool for valuing and estimating the benefits of individual trees would be a more useful tool.

Introducing a 2-for-1 tree replacement i.e. the planting of a minimum of two new trees for every tree removed. The Tree Policy provides direction on where and when mitigation planting is required. This policy is to help retain the trees within urban areas where Council often receives requests to remove street trees in both new and existing subdivisions to install a new vehicle crossing into a property, or other reason.

The Tree Policy now states that any wilding, noxious and pest plant species that were self-seeded are excluded and do not apply to the Policy, as these are covered under Council Wilding Conifer Control Policy.

A clear definition of a ‘significant tree’ to ensure it is clear under what circumstances a proposed tree removal will require public consultation.

A definition on the public consultation required for significant tree removal requests.

Detail on the activity of topping trees and why it is prohibited.

Council staff are reviewing NZS4404 Land Development and Infrastructure Development Standard which will cover such items as requiring tree pits and root guards for street trees, verge size adequate to support a tree long term and other tree related requirements which will guide developers on requirements of trees within subdivisions. The Standard is complimentary to this Policy.

4. Financial Considerations

Budgets are set within the 2025/34 Long Term Plan for Tree maintenance and planting.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Recommend the Tree Policy 2025 for adoption.

Advantages:

· Once adopted, the district will have a more relevant, user-friendly policy that will ensure that existing public trees and new tree plantings meet the needs of the community and will continue to be maintained and enhanced.

· The Tree Policy 2025 will ensure improved protection and management of Council owned and managed trees.

Disadvantages:

· Some people may not be supportive of the proposed changes.

· Tree scenarios may arise that are not covered within the 2025 Tree Policy.

The Policy can be reviewed more regularly to account for the speed of growth, climate change, and biodiversity requirements in the district.

Option 2

Do not adopt the Tree Policy 2025.

Advantages:

· The existing policy remains active.

Disadvantages:

· The current Tree Policy will remain active, cumbersome, and ambiguous.

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 protecting and enhancing the by protecting and enhancing the how Council owned trees network is managed.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	· Reserves Act 1977 · Council Tree Policy 2022 · Local Government Act 2002 · Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy 2025
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Protection and enhancement of trees provides positive enhancement of the environment and helps to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Risks Analysis	No risks identified
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Tree Policy has a ‘low’ level of significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy due to consistency, known community interest (12 submissions in 2020), reversibility, and financial consequence. Consultation is not required under the Policy.

7. Next Steps

Once adopted the Tree Policy will replace the existing policy and will be posted on Council’s website.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Tree Policy 2022 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Tree Policy 2025 ⇩

25 June 2025

A brown and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

25.12.11 Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park Stage 2 Ramp

Doc ID: 2497011

Report Author:	Gordon Bailey, Parks and Recreation Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting General Manager Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To consider allocating funding to complete stage 2 the Ramp of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project following the recommendation from the Vincent Community Board.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves that Stage 2 the Ramp of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project will be funded through account 2137 - Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent up to the value of $400,000.

2. Background

At its June 2025 meeting the Vincent Community Board resolved the following.

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Claridge

That the Vincent Community Board

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

B. Recommends to Council that Stage 2 the Ramp of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park will be funded through account 2137 - Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent up to the value of $400,000.

C. Notes that the completion of Stage 2 will be dependent on river levels and consent requirements.

The Vincent Community Board has supported the Alexandra Riverside Trust’s vision to activate the riverside space in lower Tarbert Street to attract more people particularly cyclists into town, while promoting the magnificent view where the Clutha – Mata au and Manuherekia rivers meet.

In the 2021 – 31 Long Term Plan Council allocated $650,000 over three years for the construction of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park (the Park).

The project was broken down into 3 stages.

- Stage 1 - construction of the Plaza are including public toilet, seating, landscaping and paving. The installation of a Mana Whenua artwork.

- Stage 2 – the ramp from the edge of the riverbank down to a floating jetty.

- Stage 3 – a play area – this stage has been pushed out pending the development of Council’s Play Strategy.

Construction began in September 2024 on Stage 1 which included several additional permissions, underground work and investigations required for archaeological authority.

Additional work was undertaken funded by the Otago Regional Council in the removal of the riverbank trees from the traffic bridge to Tarbert Street.

The Wairoa -Manuherekia Trust has provided $120,000 for the removal of additional Willow trees from the Manuherekia Riverbank and to construct an off-road trail that will link the Park to the Linger and Die and onto the Otago Central Rail Trail.

It is expected that stage 1 will achieve practical completion August / September 2025.

3. Discussion

The Ramp is intended to be the main feature of the design and allow people to access right down to the water’s edge.

The design of the ramp itself based on Geotech requirements has been challenging to ensure it meets required building standards, is flood resistant, looks good and is functional. A wooden design has been agreed which will see 6m poles driven into the ground to support it. This option provides least disturbance to the bank and any potential archaeological items.

The poles will need to be precisely placed then driven into the ground to anchor the ramp. Until this phase is completed concreting the arrival area, that sits outside the plaza, cannot be undertaken as the vibrations would crack the concrete thus the area will be left in compacted gravel.

It should be noted that a condition of consent is that certain works on the Riverbank cannot be undertaken during the winter months.

4. Financial Considerations

Additional to Council’s $650,000 allocated to this project the following funding of $723,848 has been received from third party funders:

- Otago Community Trust - $100,000

- Central Lakes Trust - $250,000

- Lottery Environmental and Heritage Fund – $48,848

- MBIE TiF funding - $325,000

Total funding for project to date is $1,373,848.

The shortfall in funding to complete Stage 2 of the project is $400,000.

Since the original budgets were prepared for this project in 2018 labour, goods and materials have all increased in price which have impacted on this project.

The Council charges financial contributions under the Resource Management Act in the district for reserves. Contributions are assessed based on the environmental effects of growth as defined in the Central Otago District Plan. Financial contributions received can be put towards the provision and/or enhancement of open space, recreation and reserve needs of the district.

Financial contributions for the Vincent Ward are held in a reserve account called “2137. Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent” and has an estimated available balance of $1.3m.

It could be argued that the projected increase in visitors particularly cyclists into Alexandra and is therefore growth related. Completing the ramp would contribute to the enhancement of this particular open space.

The attraction to visit the Park would be somewhat diminished if the ramp was not completed.

It should be noted that once completed the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park will be the cycle hub for the Clutha Gold trail, the Otago Central Rail Trail, Cromwell Gorge trail. With the imminent extension of the trail network through to Queenstown then Wanaka it is predicted that the hub will only grow in popularity as a great central stopover.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

That Council supports that Stage 2 - the Ramp of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project will be funded through account 2137 - Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent up to the value of $400,000

Advantages:

· The Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project will be completed.

· There is no direct impact on rates.

Disadvantages:

· Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent is reduced and not available for other projects.

Option 2

That Council does not support Stage 2 - the Ramp of the Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project being funded through account 2137 - Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent.

Advantages:

· Less money will be required from the Reserves Contribution Fund Vincent leaving funding for other potential future projects.

Disadvantages:

· The Kāmoanahaehae - Riverside Park project will not be completed as originally envisaged.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the (social/cultural/economic/environmental) wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring the project is completed which will enhance the economic and cultural wellbeing of Alexandra town centre.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	2021-31 Long Term Plan Open Spaces and Recreation Strategy
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No negative impacts are anticipated on the environment
Risks Analysis	Potential risk of community backlash on the cost of this project.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Does not trigger Council’s consultation and engagement policy.

7. Next Steps

Funding source is agreed and a contract for construction is established.

8. Attachments

Nil

25 June 2025

25.12.12 Elderly Persons Housing Rent Review

Doc ID: 2465589

Report Author:	Janice Remnant, Asset Management Team Leader - Property
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting General Manager Community Experience

1. Purpose

To advise of the impact of the rent review for Council’s Elderly Persons Units for 2025/2026.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Discussion

Council owns and maintains 98 Elderly Persons Housing Units throughout the district which predominantly provide accommodation for the elderly.

In 2018, as part of the Long-term Plan, Council considered providing financial assistance to lower rents. However, Council realised that this would require a significant amount of money from ratepayers. If Council had reduced or provided subsidies for rents, it would have also led to a decrease in the additional financial support that tenants receive from the Ministry of Social development’s accommodation supplement. As a result, Council decided to maintain the current policy of charging market rents for Elderly Persons Units.

Annual rent reviews determine the new annual rent set each 12 months for implementation. Rent increases are determined by a property valuer considering market rentals throughout the district.

Mark Rent Assessment

For this rent review Quotable Value Limited (QV) reviewed the rent as at mid-2024. These market rentals will be applied to tenancies from 1 September 2025.

QV recommended market rents have been derived in accordance with other comparable market rental evidence. That being other similar sized units in the same town locations. Additionally, the valuer has considered the density of the units, ability to tenant the units and Council’s target market is predominately for the elderly who tend to be in a lower socio-economic demographic. Essentially that does result in some moderating of the rent levels often referred to as being at the “soft end” of the market rent.

QV recognized that the units have on-going maintenance work occurring, the units have all been double glazed and the units are compliant with Healthy Homes standards. Occupancy rates at the time the QV rent assessment was undertaken were on average 91% across the district - a little lower than the previous year, but currently at 95%. Ranfurly currently has 5 vacant units with 100% occupancy in all other locations.

QV indicated that their “discussions with local letting agents indicated that the property rental market is steady with a good level of enquiry for all property types. The rental market has been characterised by low vacancy rates and increasing rental levels. Rental preference is given to more modern accommodation with less demand and higher vacancy rates for older accommodation. We note that employers have also re-entered the market in an effort to secure employee accommodation”.

The recommended market rent increase is $5.00 and $10.00 per week for units in Alexandra, Clyde, Cromwell, Roxburgh and Ranfurly. For larger, newer units in Cromwell the rent increase is $15.00 per week.

The table below shows the range of rental increases and gives a comparison with the last rental review undertaken in 2024.

Tabe 1: Effect of Market Rental Increase 2024/25 to 2025/26

Superannuation Rates

An increase to New Zealand Superannuation rates become effective 1 April 2025.

Table 2: Superannuation Rates

New Zealand Superannuation Recipients	2024 $	2025 $	Net Increase per Week $
Single living alone	519.47	538.42	18.95
Couple	799.18	828.34	29.16

Community Services Card and Accommodation Supplement

The Ministry of Social Development’s accommodation supplement is available to assist with rental costs for those on low income. For the purpose of this report, consideration has been given to those who receive New Zealand Superannuation and have a Community Servies Card.

Council does not mean or income test tenants, but since 1 July 2018 applies the following criteria to prioritise applications:

1. Aged over 65 with a Community Services card

2. Aged 60 plus with a Community Services Card

3. Aged 60 – 64 with no Community Services Card, where long standing vacancies exist

4. Aged under 60 with a clear social need, where there are long standing vacancies (CEO’s discretion)

The Community Services Card is mean/income tested. To be eligible for a Community Services Card the threshold of additional income received in addition to NZ Superannuation is:

· Person living alone can earn: $5,984.18 gross per annum - $115.89 per week

· Couple can earn: $8,340.36 gross or per annum - $160.40 per week

The additional income includes interest or dividends from investments, ACC payments and overseas pensions.

Those with a Community Services Card are entitled to an accommodation supplement.

The accommodation supplement is asset/income tested and is dependent on income and accommodation costs. For those who do not have a Community Services card the threshold for eligibility to receive the accommodation supplement varies dependant on income, rent or accommodation costs and location.

Effect of Applying Market Rental on Income

Net income shown in the tables below does not include Winter Energy payments paid from 1 May 2025 and end on 1 October 2025 - 22 weeks:

· Single superannuitant receives $40.46 weekly, a total of $450.12

· Couple receives $31.82 weekly, a total of 700.04.

The tables below shows the impact the rental increase has, as a percentage range of income spent after the accommodation supplement has been applied to occupancies.

Table 3: Impact of rent after Accommodation Supplement applied to a single occupancy:

Table 4: Impact of rent after Accommodation Supplement applied to a double occupancy:

Mark Rent Summary

6 older units in Ranfurly have no rental increase. Of all the Ranfurly units these tend to be the most challenging to tenant, they are the oldest units overlooking the John St playground.

51 units in Alexandra, Roxburgh and Ranfurly have a rental increase of $5 - these units are the older smaller units.

A ten dollar increase for 29 larger or double units in Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell.

The 12 newer units in Cromwell have an increase of $15. Those on the waiting list for Cromwell units prefer these units.

From August 2022 the Residential Tenancy Act limits rent increases to once every 12 months. Because Council reviews the rent charges annually there will be five tenancies where rent cannot be increased as the tenancies are less than 12 months old.

Waiting List

The number of people on the waiting list is fluid. When contacted many on the waiting list are not ready to take up a tenancy for various reasons. Some applicants have a location preference for the newer larger units in their affordability range and are prepared to wait until these units become available.

For some, although they are in a rental situation, they feel Council rental units offer better long-term security than the private market. Others are not looking to the private market and can remain in their current accommodation until a unit becomes available.

When a unit becomes available, staff review those on the waiting list, update their current situation and where applicable prioritise accordingly to the four criteria set out previously to create a prioritised short list. Staff then work through the short list to fill the vacant tenancy.

Financial

Currently at the end of May 2025 income from rent is favourable by 1.44% which reflects high occupancy to date in the higher income units.

Based on the static occupancy rate of 95% at the time of writing this report and allowing for the five the tenancies where the new rental rate cannot be applied, the rental income may increase from $884,520 to $918,060. An expected income increase of $33,540.

Implementation

The process to increase rents has a statutory requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Tenants must be given 60 days’ notice of a rent increase.

Action:

· The first letter of notification for the rent increase will be posted or delivered to affected tenants not later than 30 June 2025

· A second notification letter will be posted as a reminder in August 2025

· New rents will apply from 1 September 2025

3. Attachments

Nil

25 June 2025

25.12.13 Proposal to Consider the Requirement for an Esplanade Strip/Reserve - Hindon Street Road Stopping

Doc ID: 2482887

Report Author:	Zelda Zeelie, Statutory Property Team Leader
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting General Manager Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the determination as to whether the Council wish to impose the requirement of an Esplanade Strip/Reserve for the previously approved road stopping of an unformed legal road adjacent to the intersection of River and Hindon Streets, Omakau.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to determine that an esplanade strip/reserve is not required in terms of section 118 of the Public Works Act, 1981 in the case of the approved road stopping of the unformed legal road adjacent to the intersection of River Street and Hindon Street, Omakau.

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

2. Background

At its meeting held on 24 April 2024, Council approved the stopping of approximately 1,900 square metres of unformed legal road adjacent to the intersection of River Street and Hindon Street. A copy of the report is attached as Annexure “1”.

At the time neither the survey plan nor the recommending report addressed the fact that the road stopping adjoins the Manuherikia River, and it was only when the survey plan was requisitioned by Land Information New Zealand in respect of whether an esplanade strip was required, or not that the need to establish whether or not Council wishes to impose this requirement arose.

Legislation:

Where roads stopped under the Public Works Act 1981(PWA) are along the bank of a river, such as the Hindon Street Site, section 345(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) applies (see section 118 PWA).

Section 345(3) of the LGA requires that a portion of the area of stopped road is vested in Council as an esplanade reserve. However, s345(4) of the LGA makes the obligation in section 345(3) subject to any district plan rules resulting from section 77 of the RMA.

Section 77 of the RMA sets out the rules for esplanade reserves and strips on subdivision and road stoppings. Under section 77(3) Council may include a rule in the District Plan which:

(a) amends the standard 20 metre reserve requirement (so that it is more or less than 20 metres); or

(b) states that section 345(3) of the LGA does not apply (and therefore an esplanade reserve is not required).

Section 77(1) of the RMA also allows Council to include a rule in the District Plan when there are subdivisions for allotments of less than 4 hectares to require an esplanade strip rather than an esplanade reserve (this is relevant as the Hindon Street Site is less than 4 hectares).

The District Plan (Rule 16.7.13.1) provides Council with a level of discretion as to whether an esplanade strip or esplanade reserve is required.

Rule 16.7.13.1 of the District Plan is the starting point for esplanade strips and reserves:

“Where any land to be subdivided adjoins any river or lake or in circumstances where section 345 of the Local Government Act 1974 applies, the following may be required as a condition of consent to the subdivision:

(a) Allotments less than 4 hectares

Where an allotment of less than 4 hectares is created when land is subdivided adjacent to a river 3 metres or greater in width or a lake of 8 hectares or more in area, an esplanade strip up to 20 metres in width may be required to be created within that allotment OR an esplanade reserve up to 20 metres in width may be set aside from that allotment along the bank of the river or along the margin of the lake as the case may be.”

Subsection (a) applies to the Hindon Street Site as the allotment size is less than 4 hectares. The plan does not expressly exclude the need for an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip. However, exclusion of the need for an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip is contemplated by use of the words “may be required” in rule 16.7.13.1. There is a wide discretion in the plan for Council to require an esplanade strip or esplanade reserve of up to 20 metres.

Council’s Roading Policy does not extensively discuss esplanade reserves or esplanade strips in the context of a road stopping but does list “access to waterbody” as a factor to be considered when Council reviews a proposal. Page 28 of the policy goes on to record:

“Does the road adjoin a waterbody? If so, there is a need to consider s345 of the Local Government Act, which requires that after stopping the land be vested in Council as an esplanade reserve”.

3. Discussion

Although Council could technically not require an esplanade reserve or strip under the District Plan rule wording, there would need to be very clear reasons to decide why one was not required. Council would need to apply the same criteria to this decision making that it would ordinarily apply when considering whether and esplanade reserve or strip is required as part of a subdivision consent application.

Council will ultimately need to consider the question above and make a determination. Depending on what the outcome of that determination is i.e. whether an esplanade reserve or strip is required is likely to impact how the landowner wishes to proceed going forward.

There is a risk that the landowner will not want to proceed with the stopping and acquisition in the event an esplanade reserve or strip is required. Alternatively, if the landowner does still want to proceed in the event an esplanade reserve or strip is required a new valuation will need to be obtained, which will result in a decreased value of the land i.e. decreased purchase price to Council.

If Council’s determination is that an esplanade reserve or strip is required, there is also a chance that the landowner takes issue that this was not identified earlier on in the process to date with Council. There is potential for this to become a little untidy based on the fact the landowner has assumed surveying and valuation costs to get to this point. The landowner may feel incentivised to run an argument that he would not have progressed in the event he was aware of this at the outset.

Section 229 of the RMA sets out the purpose of esplanade reserves and strips. It’s important to note that in the case of Hindon Street a 7-metre legal road corridor is proposed to remain after the stopping, therefore some direct access to the Manuherikia River will remain.

It’s important to also note the status of the surrounding properties. The majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity have no esplanade reserve, strips or equivalent noted on the title due to having issued in the 1940’s-1960’s. The most recently subdivided is Section 13 Block I TN of Manuherikia held in record of title OT13C/494, which was subdivided in 1991. This title is subject to Part IV A of the Conservation Act 1987 which reserves a marginal strip (the equivalent under the earlier legislation, but for the Crown rather than territorial authority). There are two Crown Land marginal strips further north and east of the road to be stopped which were reserved from sale under section 58 of the Land Act.

The Planning Manager’s and Policy Principal Planner’s professional opinions were sought as to whether Council would wish to potentially impose the requirement of an Esplanade Strip or Esplanade Reserve, as outlined pertaining to relevant Rule 16.7.13(1) which provides discretion on this matter. (For awareness the relevant staff delegation manual does not afford under Section 77 of the Resource Management Act staff to make this determination; however, their professional planning recommendation was sought for relevant guidance).

Having reviewed the relevant road stopping notice diagram plan together with undertaking a site visit it was considered in this instance that an Esplanade Reserve/Esplanade Strip was not warranted. The rationale for not pursuing an Esplanade Reserve/Strip position was reflective of several unique characteristics. Primarily the topographic terrain witnessed on site in which there is evidently a distinct elevated position and considerable open space experienced from the relevant water body (Manuherikia River), together with several existing access tracks observed adjoining the land in this environment.

Additionally, it is recognised that an alternative access point will be retained in the immediate vicinity via a 7m carriageway. Therefore, it is also considered that not pursing an Esplanade Reserve/Strip would not undermine the ability in the future to follow through with the community access expectations to experience the Manuherikia River which had also been outlined as important within the recent Vincent Spatial Plan.

4. Financial Considerations

Council’s Roading Policy determines that the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the road stopping. This includes purchase of the land at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act 1981.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree to determine that an esplanade strip and/or esplanade reserve is not required in terms of section 118 of the Public Works Act, 1981 in the case of the approved road stopping of the unformed legal road adjacent to the intersection of River Street and Hindon Street, Omakau.

Advantages:

· The Council will avoid the risk of the road stopping not being continued with by the applicant.

· The applicant will not run the risk of paying for cost to date on the application to decide not to proceed with the road stopping.

Disadvantages:

· None

Option 2

To agree to determine that an esplanade strip and/or esplanade reserve is required in terms of section 118 of the Public Works Act, 1981 in the case of the approved road stopping of the unformed legal road adjacent to the intersection of River Street and Hindon Street, Omakau.

Advantages:

· None as Council run risk that applicant withdraw their application to stop the road.

Disadvantages:

· Council run the risk that applicant decide to withdraw their application for the stopping of the unformed road.

· Applicant will have incurred expenses

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the economic wellbeing of the community by generating income from the disposal of land that is held (but not required) for roading purposes which has limited other use.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Council’s Road Stopping Policy applies to the application. Consideration of this policy has ensured that the appropriate statutory process, being to stop the road in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	No sustainability, environmental or climate change impacts are related to the decision to stop this short unnamed unformed road.
Risks Analysis	No risks to Council are associated with the recommended option.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded. Notice of the completed road stopping will be published in the New Zealand Gazette.

7. Next Steps

· Applicant advised of outcome On release of resolution

· Road stopping to be finalised Mid to late 2025

· Gazette notice published 2025 Late 2025

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - 24.5.6 Proposal to Stop unformed Legal Road - Hindon street and River Street Omakau.pdf ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.14 Ratification of Vincent Community Board Resolution 25.4.6 (Proposal to Approve the Licence to Occupy to Upcycles Charitable Trust on Part of 60 Boundary Road, Alexandra)

Doc ID: 2496500

Report Author:	Zelda Zeelie, Statutory Property Team Leader
Reviewed and authorised by:	Saskia Righarts, Acting General Manager Community Experience

1. Purpose of Report

To consider ratifying the proposal to approve a Licence to Occupy to Upcycle Charitable Trust being approximately 125 square metres more or less on Part Lot 3 DP 355061 held on Record of Title 224692 for the purpose of Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Agrees to ratify Resolution 25.4.6 of the Vincent Community Board to approve the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Upcycles Charitable Trust of approximately 125 square metres more or less on Part 3 DP 355061 held on Record of Title 224692 for the purpose of Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve, on the following terms and conditions:

· Term: Five (5) years

· Right of renewal: None

· Commencement Date: 1 July 2025

· Licence Fee: $1 per annum plus GST (if demanded)

· Rent Review: None

· Permitted Use: For the establishment and use as a bicycle repair and restoration facility.

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

2. Background

Resolution 25.4.6

At their meeting held on 9 June 2025, the Vincent Community Board (the Board) considered a proposal to approve the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Upcycles Charitable Trust of approximately 125 square metres more or less on Part 3 DP 355061 held on Record of Title 224692 for the purpose of Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve. Refer to Appendix 1.

Details of Licence to Occupy proposed

The Council was approached by Upcycle Charitable Trust for granting of a Licence to occupy approximately 125 square metres on 60 Boundary Road as indicated on Map, Figure 1 below. An overview of the whole site indicating with a red star the approximate location on the site is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The Upcycle Charitable Trust intends to occupy the space to set up and operate a volunteer operated bicycle repair and recycling workshop. The workshop will provide opportunity for the community to donate unused bicycles to be Upcycled for re-use and redistribution to the community. This is a non-profit organisation and will provide the opportunity to the community to develop skills for the upcycling of bicycles.

The following covers the basis of the Licence to Occupy:

· Access to part of 60 Boundary Road Site for volunteers to repair bicycles. This will be through the marked access gate indicated in orange on Figure 1 above.

· Access will be during set times arranged with Council staff but likely would be for one weekday evening and one weekend morning per week.

· Access to a permanent sheltered roof area for the purpose of fixing bicycles.

· Access to the Council owned containers (indicated in green on Figure 1 above) for use as a workshop and storage space.

· Permission to place two more Upcycle owned containers (indicated in Red on Figure 1 above) to store tools and bikes for repair and redistribution.

· Provided that the site would be a Council-branded repair facility and not an Upcycles-branded repair facility.

· Provided that the facility (permanent sheltered roofed area and Council owned workshop container) would be able to be booked by other community groups who wish to offer one-off or ongoing bicycle repair workshops.

· Access would be restricted to the leased area only.

· Restrictions will be put in place in the Licence to Occupy on any changes to the ground surface/capping of the landfill or on anything penetrating the surface capping, for example waratahs/fence posts that might cause damage to it.

3. Discussion

The approval of the Licence to Occupy will provide a facility to the community for the repair and upcycle of bicycles. This will also provide the opportunity for education and training for fixing and upcycling bicycles to the community.

Existing Occupations:

The transfer station is currently the only other occupant on the Reserve. The licence will address the access to the reserve to avoid interference with the transfer station operations.

Type of agreement:

As this agreement does not give Upcycles Charitable Trust exclusive occupation and possession of the site but only the right to occupy and use part of the land it is recommended that a Licence to Occupy is granted instead of a Lease.

Statutory

As a Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve the land is subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act). Section 61(2A) of the Act outlines the rights of Council as the administering body:

“in the case of a local purpose reserve vested in the administering body, the administering body

may lease all or part of the reserve to any person, body, voluntary organisation, or society,

whether incorporated or not, for any of the following purposes:

(a) Community building, play centre, kindergarten, plunket room, or other like

purposes:

(b) Farming, grazing, cultivation, cropping, or other like purposes.

The proposed licence to occupy aligns with the existing occupation which are all loosely consistent with the provisions of section 61(2A)(b).

Section 61(2B) of the Act outlines the provisions on which a lease may be granted. They are:

(a) the lease shall be for a term not exceeding 33 years, with or without a right of

renewal, perpetual or otherwise, for the same or any shorter term, but with no

right of acquiring the fee simple, and, subject to paragraph (b), shall be on such

other conditions as the administering body determines:

(b) the lease shall include a condition that the land leased shall be used solely for such

purposes as are specified in the lease, and that upon breach of that condition the

administering body may terminate the lease in such manner as is prescribed or

implied in the lease, whereupon the land, together with all improvements, shall

revert to the lessor without compensation being payable to the lessee for

improvements or otherwise.

The proposed lease will be granted subject to the provisions of section 61(2B).

Leases/Licences to occupy of local purpose reserves do not require public consultation or notification.

4. Financial Considerations

As Upcycles Charitable Trust has no income and is operated solely on a volunteer basis the rent for the leased area is recommended to be a nominal amount of $1. This is recommended to enable the Trust to provide this facility and the operation thereof.

All cost for the establishment, operation and maintenance of the facility will be carried by Upcycles Charitable Trust.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

To agree to ratify Resolution 25.4.6 of the Vincent Community Board to approve the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Upcycles Charitable Trust of approximately 125 square metres more or less on Part 3 DP 355061 held on Record of Title 224692 for the purpose of Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve, on the following terms and conditions:

o Term: Five (5) years

o Right of renewal: None

o Commencement Date: 1 July 2025

o Licence Fee: $1 per annum plus GST (if demanded)

o Rent Review: None

o Permitted Use: For the establishment and use as a bicycle repair and restoration facility.

Advantages:

· Gives effect to Resolution 25.4.6 of the Vincent Community Board.

· This will provide a bicycle repair and recycling facility to the community and the opportunity for those in the community that are interested to gain access to a training facility to repair and upcycle bicycles.

Disadvantages:

· None

Option 2

To not agree to ratify Resolution 25.4.6 of the Vincent Community Board to grant a Licence to Occupy to Upcycles Charitable Trust of approximately 125 square metres more or less on Part 3 DP 355061 held on Record of Title 224692 for the purpose of Local Purpose (Transfer/Landfill) Reserve.

Advantages:

· None

Disadvantages:

· Would not give effect to Resolution 25.4.6 of the Vincent Community Board.

· This will take away the opportunity to provide a bicycle repair and recycling facility to the community and the opportunity for those in the community that are interested to gain access to a training facility to repair and upcycle bicycles.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by providing a facility that will ensure skills are gained and transferred and old bicycles are re-used in the community.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Leasing and Licencing Policy and the Reserves Act 1977.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The concept of repair and upcycle of bicycles will be beneficial to sustainability and the environment.
Risks Analysis	There is a risk in having a group occupy the site, but the risk is mitigated by controlled access and outweighs the benefit this facility would provide to the community.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded. Public consultation is not required when a lease is granted under section 61 of the Reserves Act.

7. Next Steps

· Vincent Community Board recommendation approved: 9 June 2025

· Council Approve recommendation of the Board: 25 June 2025

· Licensee advised of decision: June/July 2025

· Licence to Occupy Executed: June /July 2025

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Copy of report of Vincent Community Board Resolution 25.4.6 - Monday, 9 June 2025.pdf ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.15 Bridge Renewal Procurement - Bridge 191 Little Valley Road

Doc ID: 2490949

Report Author:	Paul Fleet, Roading Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Quinton Penniall, Infrastructure Manager

1. Purpose of Report

To consider procurement plan for tendering of Bridge 191 timber component renewal.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the procurement plan for tendering of the renewal of all timber components of Bridge 191 Little Valley Road, including the following

(a) Tenders to be 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.

2. Background

Bridge 191 is located on Little Valley Road and crosses the Manuherikia River near Alexandra. It provides the only local crossing of the river and is a critical link for multiple users. The bridge supports access to residential properties, several working farms and stations east of the river, and is the sole vehicle route to the Alexandra–Clyde Wastewater Treatment Plant. It also connects to popular local features such as the Otago Central Rail Trail and the 'Clock on the Hill'.

Figure 1: Bridge 191 Location

Bridge 191 is one of many structures across the district experiencing age-related deterioration. Central Otago’s bridge network includes a number of aging assets, and inspections have identified the need for timely intervention to ensure continued service and safety.

For Bridge 191, several key timber components are at the end of their useful life and require replacement to support ongoing use. These works are necessary to extend the bridge’s useful life and increase its allowable trafficable axle loading, ensuring it can continue to meet demand into the future.

The proposed works are consistent with the Bridge Replacement Strategy outlined in the 2024–2027 Transportation Activity Management Plan.

To enable construction while maintaining access across the Manuherikia River, a temporary Bailey bridge is proposed approximately 1 km south of the existing structure. This temporary crossing will connect 65 Graveyard Gully Road to Rivers Street Park and ensure continued access for residents, rural users, and critical infrastructure.

The temporary bridge works have already been procured, with WSP engaged as design consultants and Fulton Hogan delivering the physical works through the Roading Maintenance Contract. While not part of the tender subject to this report, the temporary bridge is a key enabling component for the proposed upgrade.

Figure 2: Temporary Bailey Bridge Location

3. Discussion

Approval is sought to proceed with the procurement of a physical works contractor for the structural refurbishment of Bridge 191.

An open, multistage tender process is proposed. This will commence with the advertisement of an Expression of Interest (EOI), followed by a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) issued to the open market.

The EOI stage is intended to give prospective suppliers early visibility of the opportunity, allow time to review prequalification requirements, and consider procurement of any long lead-time materials. This approach is particularly important given that some local suppliers may require additional time to prepare and meet eligibility requirements.

Preliminary market engagement suggests moderate interest, particularly from small to medium-sized contractors with experience in bridge refurbishment, structural timber works, and construction in constrained environments. Several capable suppliers are expected to participate, and the process is designed to encourage competitive responses.

Council Procurement Policy

Council approves budgets annually (and as required), including planned procurement

expenditure, and retains authority to approve the award of all contracts exceeding $1,000,000, unless otherwise previously agreed.

The diagram below outlines the procurement process to be followed under Council’s Procurement Policy. For market tenders exceeding $200,000, approval of the procurement plan is required from the relevant Activity Manager (or next tier up). Only non-standard procurement plans with a value exceeding $1,000,000 require formal approval by Council.

As this procurement follows a standard open tender process, formal Council approval of the procurement plan is not required. However, it is also recommended that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to award the contract to the preferred tenderer, provided that the tendered price is within the approved budget.

A diagram of a procedure

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3: Procurement Overview

Tender Evaluation Models

Two evaluation models have been considered for this procurement: the Lowest Price Conforming model and the Weighted Attribute model.

The Lowest Price Conforming (LPC) model is typically used for straightforward, low-risk projects where the scope is well-defined and the primary consideration is cost. Under this model, all conforming bids are assessed to ensure they meet minimum requirements, and the contract is awarded to the lowest-priced submission. While efficient, this approach limits the ability to consider broader value elements such as innovation, stakeholder impact, or delivery methodology.

The Weighted Attribute model, by contrast, allows both price and non-price attributes to be evaluated based on their relative importance. This approach provides flexibility to assess factors such as construction methodology, proposed programme, experience, environmental outcomes, and the ability to minimise disruption to the community. For example, one tenderer may propose a shorter full closure of the road, while another may keep the route partially open under traffic management for a longer period. The weighted model enables the evaluation team to consider the overall value of these trade-offs rather than just the lowest cost.

Given the complexity of the project, the stakeholder impacts, and the nature of the work—particularly the replacement of structural components, work over water, and the need for certified height safety practices—the Weighted Attribute model is recommended.

In line with the Procurement Policy, a weighting of 60% for non-price attributes and 40% for price will be applied. This provides a balanced framework that maintains price tension while ensuring quality, capability, and risk management are properly considered in the final decision.

4. Financial Considerations

The cost estimate for design, construction, and project management of the project is $2.475 million

This is the budget provided in the 2024 Annual Plan and the 2025 Long-term Plan for the component replacements on Bridge 191. Due to the complexity of exploring and establishing a viable temporary crossing to facilitate works there will be a carryover of a portion of budget from the 2024/25 financial year to the 2025/26 financial year.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council approves the attached procurement plan for the Little Valley bridge (191) timber component renewal. This contract will be openly tendered using the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS) using a weighted attribute model with a 40% price weighting.

Advantages:

· Council procures a contractor with the best overall combination of price and attributes to carry out the contract works

· Contractors get the opportunity to include innovations in their tender that can be evaluated against other submitters

· The 40% price component provides a level of cost tension

Disadvantages:

· The winning tenderer may not be the cheapest presented price

Option 2

Tender the work using a lowest price conforming model

Advantages:

· Cheapest presented price wins the contract work.

Disadvantages:

· Contractors may take greater risks in items such as communication with residents, health and safety, and materials and work quality to enable a low price to win the contract.

· Requires greater level of staff oversight to ensure that work is being undertaken to the required quality.

· No genuine comparison can be made between contractors on their attributes to deliver or add value outside price

· Limits opportunities for Council to take advantage of whole-of-life cost benefits, innovations, or added value alternatives that contractors may offer in a weighted attributes tender

· Increased likelihood of customer dissatisfaction due to supply disruption if the successful contractor does not have adequate experience and staff to undertake the project.

· Greater likelihood of variations due to unforeseen circumstances.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by giving elected members input into the procurement process used and an insight into the work to be delivered. AND This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by renewing assets in a cost-effective manner
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes, the recommendation is consistent with the Procurement Policy
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The programmed work will ensure Council replaces ageing assets with long-term sustainable products that provide resilience to our community.
Risks Analysis	No substantial organisational risks have been identified with the recommended procurement approach. A communication plan will be developed before physical works commence. Project-specific risks will be outlined in project status reports to Council.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	A full communication and engagement plan will be developed as a part of the contract delivery requirements.

7. Next Steps

· Advertise the tender Mid-July 2025

· Procure a contractor for the work and commence construction

· Initiate two monthly status reporting to Council

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Procurement Plan - Bridge 191 (Little Valley) Refurbishment ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.16 Proposed Speed Limit Changes 2025

Doc ID: 2493568

Report Author:	Quinton Penniall, Infrastructure Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

To consider approving the proposed speed limit proposals for consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Approves the speed limit proposals for consultation.

2. Background

In 2022, CODC transitioned to the National Speed Limit Register, replacing the traditional bylaw process as the legal method for setting speed limits. That year, 82 targeted speed limit changes were implemented, informed by technical assessments and community feedback. This work aimed to improve road safety, address community concerns, and align speed limits with the function, usage, and risk profiles of local roads.

Building on this progress, a draft Speed Management Plan was developed in 2023. The Speed Management Plan proposed tailored speed limit changes, particularly around schools and community areas, and received strong community support during consultation from December 2023 to February 2024. The final plan was approved by both Council and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA).

However, prior to implementing these speed limits into the National Speed Limit Register, the Government introduced the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the Rule), effective from 30 October 2024. This Rule replaced the previous framework and introduced a new approach to speed management across state highways and local roads, aiming for consistent safety, productivity, and efficiency.

A significant impact of the Rule was the invalidation of all Speed Management Plans not implemented by 30 October 2024, including Council’s 2024 Speed Management Plan, despite its largely consistent alignment with the new standards. Additionally, the Rule required a reassessment of all speed limit changes made since 1 January 2020.

A review identified only one necessary adjustment: the 30 km/h limit on Gilling Place near Goldfields School was changed to a variable 30 km/h limit during school hours, reverting to 50 km/h at other times, this change was implemented prior to 1 May 2025.

3. Discussion

Following strong community support during earlier consultations, a revised set of local road speed limit proposals is now presented for public consultation. These proposals remain largely consistent with the previous proposed changes; however, some modifications have been made in response to the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

The Rule introduces more prescriptive standards, specifying speed ranges for different road classifications. The revised proposals have been updated to align with these requirements.

Key differences from the previous speed management plan consultation include:

· Cambrians: Proposed speed reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h.

· St Bathans: Introduction of varying speed limits, ranging from 30–60 km/h, to comply with the Rule.

· Pisa Moorings: Partial inclusion of a 40 km/h speed zone.

· Māori Point Road, Clark Road and Bannockburn area: Inclusion of both 60 km/h and 80 km/h options for consultation.

· Munro Road, Church Lane, and Jolly Road: Newly proposed for inclusion at 80 km/h to align with State Highway 8.

· Earnscleugh Road and Ranfurly Patearoa Road: Partial reversals, with existing 50 km/h zones shortened to better reflect road classification.

· Partridge Road, Sunderland Street (north end), and Fruitgrowers Road: Proposed speed limits to remain unchanged as the previous proposals are no longer compliant under the Rule.

· Mutton Town Road: Extension of proposed 50km zone from State Highway 8 to Hospital Road, to align with current and future urban land development.

The Rule sets stricter public consultation standards, including:

· Extending the consultation period to six weeks (previously four).

· Requiring cost-benefit disclosure statements for each proposal, including analyses of travel impacts, implementation costs, and safety outcomes.

· Specific engagement efforts targeting affected groups such as freight operators, businesses, schools, local communities, and adjoining road authorities.

Consultation materials must clearly describe each road’s function, current usage, and justification for proposed speed limit changes. A summary of submissions and responses to feedback will be published following the consultation.

Consultation is scheduled from 27 June to 10 August 2025, ensuring local speed management progresses in alignment with legislative requirements and incorporates community views.

The attached Alternative Method Proposal (Appendix 1) is the draft Plan, required for review by the Director of Land Transport. Additional information outlining the rationale for each proposal are provided in Appendix 2: Consultation Supporting Information. Cost-benefit analyses, now required to supplement the consultation process, are summarised in Appendix 3: Cost Benefit Disclosure Statement. The consultation Statement of Proposal can be found in Appendix 4: Statement of Proposal.

Following the consultation process, the Alternative Method Proposal will be updated to reflect community feedback and then submitted to the Director of Land Transport for formal approval.

4. Financial Considerations

The process fits within existing budgeted spend for speed signage improvements.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the speed limit proposal for consultation.

Advantages:

· Responds directly to community requests.

· Aligns with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

· Provides opportunity for community input and engagement.

· Ensures consistent district-wide speed management.

Disadvantages:

· Potential resistance to proposed speed reductions from some community members.

Option 2

Do not approve the speed limit proposal for consultation.

Advantages:

· No change may be preferred by some community members.

Disadvantages:

· Inconsistent approach to district-wide speed management.

· Community input and concerns would not be addressed.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by engaging with the community on proposed changes through the special consultative process. AND This decision promotes the social wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by increasing road safety and reducing associated harm.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Minor sustainability implications if safety improvements lead to an increase in active transportation.
Risks Analysis	The proposal seeks to reduce the risk to health and safety on the district roading network.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Consultation is required under the Local Government Act 2002 and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

7. Next Steps

Consultation will be open from 27^th June to 10th August 2025.

The final proposal will be presented to the 24^th September Council meeting.

Following the consultation process and Council resolution, the Alternative Method Proposal will be updated to reflect community feedback, and subsequently submitted to the Director of Land Transport for formal approval, ensuring compliance with the requirements outlined in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

Following approval, all changes will be programmed and implemented.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Alternative Method Proposal Draft ⇩

Appendix 2 - Consultation Supporting Information ⇩

Appendix 3 - Cost Benefit Disclosure Statement ⇩

Appendix 4 - Statement of Proposal ⇩

25 June 2025

25.12.21 Fast Track Act Application

Doc ID: 2491629

Report Author:	Louise van der Voort, Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed and authorised by:	Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

To revoke a previous resolution and delegate the approval of the key issues report for the application from Santana Minerals under the Fast Track Approvals Act 2024, to Council staff.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Revokes the resolution 25.6.2 D nominating Her Worship the Mayor and Cr Browne to approve Council’s comments (Key Issues Report) for the Bendigo-Ophir Gold project under the Fast Track Approvals Act.

B. Approves that prior to approval Her Worship the Mayor and Cr Browne have the opportunity to consider the draft report and provide any comment.

C. Delegates the approval of the Key Issues Report for the Bendigo-Ophir Gold project under the Fast Track Approvals Act to the Chief Executive.

2. Background

On 4 April 2025 a report was referred to Council providing information on the Fast Track Act 2024. The report included a discussion on the process in relation to the proposal by Bendigo-Ophir Gold, a listed project in the Act. At the time indications were that an application would be lodged with the EPA in late April 2025.

Council officers have been in communication with Santana Minerals Limited about timing of lodgement, and consultation requirements under the Act. We have now been formally advised that an application will be lodged in late June 2025.

Reports are being provided by Santana Minerals as part of the consultation process and Council officers are in the process of engaging ’s consultants and refining the scope of work.

At the meeting in April Council made the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: McKinlay

That the Council

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

B. Endorses the proposed process for responding to applications under the Fast Track Approvals Act.

C. Nominates Cr Gillespie to the expert panel to consider the application for the Bendigo-Ophir Gold project under the Fast Track Approvals Act.

D. Nominates Her Worship the Mayor and Cr Browne to approve Council’s comments (Key Issues Report) for the Bendigo-Ophir Gold project under the Fast Track Approvals Act.

The applicants draft reports are starting to come through as part of consultation and there is already a significant volume of material which needs to be read and understood. It has become evident that one the application is lodged, it will be challenging for Council to meet its obligations under the Fast Track Approvals Act in the twenty days provided, being: the review of the application, distribution to consultants with instructions, completion and review of consultants’ reports and preparation and approval of the key issues report.

The application by Santana Minerals is significant for the district and ideally there would be time for Councillors to formally review and approve the document. The key issues report will largely be based on the technical evidence of consultants relating the effects of the proposal, and proposed conditions. Rather than a formal review and approval of the report is it proposed that documents be shared with Councillors as they become available, for comment.

It is also proposed that in the interests of efficiency the approval of the key issues report be delegated to the Chief Executive. Following approval, the report will be circulated to Council for information only.

4. Financial Considerations

No financial implications relating to this decision

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended approach) Council approves the delegation of approval of the key issues report to the Chief Executive

Advantages:

· Timeframe obligations under the Fast Track Act are particularly challenging so delegating the approval to staff provides extra time to get the key issues report completed, reviewed and lodged with the EPA

Disadvantages:

· Does not give Councillors the opportunity to review the report prior to lodgement with the EPA

Option 2 – do not approve the delegations of approval of the key issues report to the Chief Executive

Advantages:

· Enables a formal review by Councillors prior to lodgement of the report with the EPA.

Disadvantage:

· The report may not be completed and reviewed in the time required under the Fast Track Approvals Act 2024.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose

Provisions

This decision relates to the Fast Track

Approvals Act 2024

Decision consistent with other Council

plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.

Not relevant

Considerations as to sustainability, the

environment and climate change impacts

Unknown

Risks Analysis

Council must implement the new FTA and meet our obligations, including responding within prescribed timeframes. This requires sufficient capacity within the team or engaging external resource.

If Council does not provide accurate or thorough advice to the Fast Track panels, there is a risk that a proposal is granted with inappropriate or insufficient conditions. There is also a reputational risk if Council does not adequately discharge our duty of providing correct planning and technical advice.

In terms of legal risk, there is a possibility that the community or an environmental group challenges Council if it does not discharge its duty under the Act. However, there is a limited role for Council in the process and limited ability for appeals under the Act.

Significance, Consultation and Engagement

(internal and external)

This decision is not significant under the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy

7. Next Steps

Continued preparation for receiving the application under the FTA.

8. Attachments

Nil

25 June 2025

25.12.22 Regional Deals

Doc ID: 2502113

Report Author:	Dylan Rushbrook, Regional Partnership Lead
Reviewed and authorised by:	Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer

1. Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to confirm how Council intends to approach Regional Deals should the Central Otago Lakes proposal be progressed by Central Government.

Recommendations

That the Council

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

B. Notes a similar report will be considered by Queenstown Lakes District Council and Otago Regional Council this week.

C. Approve the establishment of a Joint Committee with limited delegations as set by the full partner Councils.

D. Notes that the full Councils will retain approval of the final form of the deal.

E. Delegates the Joint Committee the ability to determine the best form of Negotiating Authority based on government process and preferences.

F. Approves the negotiating principles outlined in this report.

G. Delegate to the Joint Committee the power to agree joint priorities for Otago Central Lakes.

H. Note that Otago Central Lakes priorities will only guide negotiations with government.

I. Note that to appoint a joint committee a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) must be agreed by all partner councils

J. Note that the attached MoA outlines that the joint committee will have two elected members from each partner council and that one of these is the Mayor /Chair, but that each Council will determine how to appoint the other member,

K. Approve the Memorandum of Agreement (note this will appoint the Joint Committee based on the powers and delegations outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement).

2. Background

a. Central Otago, has until relatively recently been protected from the challenges of growth, with the rate of growth stable with the New Zealand average throughout the 1990s and 2000s. However, since 2015 Central Otago has been experiencing rapid growth both in resident population and visitor nights.

b. Growth is generally regarded as a good thing, it brings diversity, energy into communities, new economic opportunities and vibrancy. But Central Otago’s rapid growth is putting significant pressure on a small rate payer base to maintain infrastructure and build future infrastructure to meet demand. Population growth forecasts show no sign of that growth easing in the next 20 years, which will only lead to greater pressure being put on a small ratepayer base to fund growth.

c. Central Government late in 2024 released the City & Regional Deals framework, outlining a new way to partner with Local Government to deliver shared objectives and outcomes through an agreed 30-year vision and 10-year strategic plan. Central government has made clear objectives and outcomes that deals must be centred around to ensure a focus on building economic growth and productivity. Government has outlined what Regional Deals will/will not do, and how it will participate.

d. Central Otago District Council (CODC), alongside Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) and Otago Regional Council (ORC) submitted a Regional Deal proposal in late February for Otago Central Lakes based on the Government’s Strategic Framework.

Central government want to partner with local government to deliver shared objectives and outcomes through an agreed 30-year vision and 10-year strategic plan.

a. Government intends Regional Deals to be long-term commitments that endure and focus both central and local governments on building economic growth. To better deliver shared objectives and outcomes between central and local government, the deals will align with local government 10-year planning cycles rather than central government’s three-year planning cycles.

b. Government intends Regional Deals to be a vehicle for greater regional collaboration and coordination, enhanced private sector involvement and improved local government decision-making, funding and financing. This is intended to promote innovative and collaborative ways of working between central and local government, ensuring resilient cities and regions. Deals will aim to unlock economic and regional growth, remove regulatory bottlenecks and support investment in infrastructure funding and provisions, in exchange for commitments from local government to investment and support for key government initiatives. Government’s aspiration is that this will provide better value for ratepayers and taxpayers.

Central Government has made clear objectives and outcomes that deals must be centred around to ensure a focus on building economic growth and productivity.

a. The Regional Deal Strategic Framework sets out priority objectives that will be the focus for central government across Regional Deals. Central and local government will need to agree on what projects will be best placed to support these objectives, which could involve trade-offs and priority setting as regional deals are negotiated.

Priority Objectives	Outcomes
Build economic growth	· Increased jobs and skills · Improved standard of living · Increased productivity
Deliver connected and resilient infrastructure	· Better connected communities and businesses through infrastructure · Infrastructure (and identified investment in support of it) is more resilient against the impacts of natural hazards and climate change · Infrastructure enables development, including housing objectives
Improve the supply of affordable, quality housing	· Increased supply of build ready land (both greenfield and brownfield), including ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place for development. · Improved housing affordability for rental and home ownership

3. Discussion

a. A Cabinet decision is expected in June 2025 on proposals to advance to the next phase and the expectation is that successful regions will be ready to enter the negotiation process immediately. Agreeing a negotiation approach in advance will put OCL in the best position to participate in a Regional Deal negotiation process should the opportunity arise.

b. To achieve this, Council needs to give its formal approval to how negotiations will be undertaken on its behalf, in collaboration with partner Councils.

c. The key areas needing agreement are;

1) Authorising Authority – Who will be authorised to agree to what?

Recommendation: Joint Committee with limited delegations.

2) Negotiating Authority – Who will meet, and directly negotiate, with Government?

Either an independent negotiator or the partner council CEs, or a hybrid, depending on what will work best with the government’s approach.

Recommendation: Delegate to the joint committee the ability to determine which of these approaches should be taken.

3) Negotiating Principles – What are the principles that will guide negotiations with Government?

Recommendation: Agree to the negotiating principles set out in this report.

4) Establishing a Joint Committee, if the recommended option for authorising authority is approved.

Recommendation: Approve the attached Memorandum of Agreement and appoint the joint committee.

5) In all scenarios the Negotiating Authority and Authorising Authority will be supported by a cross council working group (CODC, ORC and QLDC) of relevant leadership and subject matter experts.

6) A secretariat function will be needed to support the advisory work of this group. At this stage it is assumed that the private sector will be engaged through a separate mechanism.

7) If option 1 for the authorising authority is approved, a joint committee will need to be established. This section outlines:

· Establishing a Joint Committee – Process

· Establishing a Joint Committee – Memorandum of Agreement

8) Authorising Authority – who will be authorised to agree to what?

The following key elements informed the options analysis:

a) Government has expressed a desire to work with a small group of officials, empowered to negotiate in a timely and efficient manner without disruption from local government elections. Any option that is unlikely to enable timely negotiation with Government was not recommended.

b) Councils expect that appropriate democratic oversight is maintained throughout the process, reflecting the importance and impact of the outcomes sought on the community. Any option that does not provide an appropriate level of democratic oversight was not recommended.

c) In considering democratic oversight it is important to note the following:

d) The partner Councils' role in delivering the full range of the programme is relatively limited. The primary role for the partner Councils lies in striking the deal and setting it up for success and in influencing central government agencies and Ministers to invest in areas of priority for OCL.

e) Components of the proposal that Council is directly responsible for will likely require public consultation if not already undertaken.

f) Components of the proposal will still need to go through appropriate planning and resource consent processes.

g) Those components of the deal that fall within the remit of other Councils or central government agencies would be subject to the usual public sector oversight requirements of those Councils / agencies. For example, decisions about where public funded health services would be located and who in the private sector Te Whatu Ora will partner with will be driven by Te Whatu Ora’s decision-making framework.

The following table sets out the options, the analysis supporting the options and the recommended approach to determining the authorising authority.

Option:

Analysis and Recommendation:

OPTION 1: Joint Subcommittee – Some Delegation

A joint subcommittee is established by the three partner Councils and is made up of the Mayors/Chair, one other Elected Member and the CEs. The joint subcommittee would be in place for the duration of the negotiations only. The ongoing governance structure to provide oversight of the deal itself would be agreed during the negotiations.

Councils empower the joint subcommittee to:

· appoint the negotiating authority,

· agree to deal components in line with the negotiating principles,

· use its discretion to determine whether deal components are in line with, or outside of, the negotiating principles,

· agree joint priorities, and

· apply the negotiating principles to determine whether direction needs to be sought from partner Councils, via workshop, to inform negotiations.

· The joint subcommittee would provide regular updates to partner Councils on progress and agreements made with Government.

· Councils retain responsibility to:

· agree to deal components outside the negotiating principles, and

· ratify the final form of the deal.

RECOMMENDED

Provides an appropriate balance between ability to flexibly and efficiently negotiate with Government and democratic oversight of outcomes sought.

Advantages:

Provides ability to efficiently make decisions to progress the negotiation.

Provides for democratic oversight of outcomes for the region through Councils retaining responsibility to set negotiating principles and as the ultimate approver on the final form of the deal.

Disadvantages:

Doesn’t provide the highest level of democratic oversight from partner councils of outcomes for the region of all options.

Doesn’t provide the highest ability of all options to efficiently make decisions to progress the negotiation.

OPTION 2: Joint Subcommittee – Full Delegation

The joint subcommittee is delegated full authority to negotiate and approve the deal; Councils empower the sub-committee to:

· appoint the negotiating authority,

· agree the negotiating principles,

· agree joint priorities,

· agree deal components within or outside the negotiating principles, and

· agree the final form of the Regional Deal.

The joint subcommittee will provide regular updates to partner Councils on progress and agreements made with Government.

NOT RECOMMENDED

Would not provide sufficient democratic oversight from partner Councils.

Advantages:

Provides the highest ability of all options to efficiently make decisions to progress the negotiation.

Disadvantages:

Does not provide sufficient involvement from Councils to ensure that that democratic oversight is appropriate.

OPTION 3: No Joint Subcommittee

The three partner Councils retain responsibility for all components of negotiating and finalising a Regional Deal.

NOT RECOMMENDED

Would not enable efficient decisions to progress the negotiation.

Advantages:

Provides the highest level of democratic oversight of outcomes for the region of all options.

Disadvantages:

Does not provide the ability to efficiently make decisions to progress the negotiation and therefore would not meet Government expectations.

Negotiating Authority – Who will meet, and directly negotiate, with Government

The following key elements informed the options analysis:

a. Government has expressed a desire to be able to work with a small group of officials, empowered to negotiate in a timely and efficient manner without disruption from local government elections. Any option that is unlikely to enable timely negotiation with Government was not recommended.

The following table sets out the options, the analysis supporting the options and the recommended approach to determining the negotiating authority.

Option:

Analysis and Recommendation:

OPTION 1: Combination of CEs + Independent Negotiator

Negotiations with government representatives would be undertaken by a team made up of the CEs of the three partner councils, supported by someone with specific experience and expertise in both negotiating and establishing long term work programmes with Government. This person would also be independent of all partner councils in that they would not have specific ties to, or previous political or employment experience with, any individual partner council.

The negotiator would likely be appointed as outlined above.

Recommended if Government allows a small group to negotiate.

Advantages:

· Having both an independent negotiator and the CEs working as a team on negotiations with the government ensures that the views of the three partner councils are appropriately weighted. The independent negotiator brings a neutral perspective, while the CEs, despite not being independent, collectively represent the interests of the three councils effectively.

· Someone skilled in negotiation would maximise the opportunities available through the regional deal by being able to navigate best where there is flexibility and where there is not.

· Someone skilled in establishing long term work programmes with Government would be able to “speak the same language” as Government and enable OCL to best understand what Government is looking for and how to integrate this what is best for

· The CEs have detailed knowledge of the proposal and the supporting strategies that informed the proposal as such they will have a clear understanding of what falls within the scope of their decision making and where they must revert to the subcommittee or partner councils.

· The CEs understand the unique context of the sub-region and are invested in such a way that will reduce the risk of missing important opportunities.

· This option mitigates all the disadvantages of the having either only an independent negotiator or the CEs as the negotiating authority.

Disadvantages:

This will require the co-ordination of a larger team to participate in the process, which may present some challenges.

OPTION 2: Independent negotiator.

Negotiations with government representatives would be undertaken by someone with specific experience and expertise in both negotiating and establishing long-term work programmes with Government.

The negotiator would be independent of all partner councils in that they would not have specific ties to, or previous political or employment experience with, any individual partner council.

The negotiator would likely be appointed through a direct appointment process following the government rules of sourcing guidance for such appointments. The procurement approach would be agreed by the relevant party based on the authorising authority agreed above.

Recommended if Government requires one party to negotiate.

Advantages:

· Someone independent of the three partner councils would bring a neutral perspective, ensuring that the views of the three partners were appropriately weighted in discussions and negotiations with Government.

· Someone skilled in negotiation would maximise the opportunities available through the regional deal by being able to navigate best where there is flexibility and where there is not.

Disadvantages:

· An independent negotiator won’t have detailed knowledge of the proposal or the supporting strategies that informed the proposal as such they will need to be given very clear and specific instructions about where they can make agreements and where they must revert to the subcommittee or partner councils.

· An independent negotiator won’t understand the unique context of the sub-region and are invested in such a way that will reduce the risk of missing important opportunities.

OPTION 3: Partner Council CEs

Negotiations with government representatives would be undertaken by a team made up of the CEs of the three partner councils.

Not Recommended if Government allows a small group to negotiate. Option 1 enables the disadvantages of this option (and option 2) to be mitigated.

Advantages:

· The CEs understand the unique context of the sub-region and are invested in such a way that will reduce the risk of missing important opportunities.

· While the CEs are not independent of the three partner councils, having all three negotiating would ensure that the views of the three partners were appropriately weighted in discussions and negotiations with Government.

Disadvantages:

· While CEs have broad management experience, they may lack the specialised negotiation skills that an expert independent negotiator possesses. This could result in less effective negotiation strategies and outcomes.

· Differences in opinions and approaches among CEs could lead to internal conflicts, which could weaken the negotiation stance and reduce overall effectiveness of the negotiating team.

OPTION 4: Mayors / Chair

Negotiations with government representatives would be undertaken by a team made of the mayors / chair of the three partner councils.

Not recommended. As this would be unlikely to meet government expectations this option is not reasonably practicable, as such an option of the mayors / chairs + independent negotiator has not been considered.

Advantages:

· The mayors and chair have good knowledge of the proposal and the supporting strategies that informed the proposal as such they will have a clear understanding of what falls within the scope of their decision making and where they must revert to the subcommittee or partner councils.

· The mayors and chair understand the unique context of the sub-region and have “skin in the game” and so will not miss identifying “game changing” opportunities.

· While the mayors and chair are not independent of the three partner councils, having all three negotiating would ensure that the views of the three partners were appropriately weighted in discussions and negotiations with Government.

Disadvantages:

· The local body election scheduled for October 2025 is in the middle of the negotiation period. This could result in all, or some, of the members of the committee, and therefore all Councillor members of the subcommittee, not being re-elected. This would result in new members having to be appointed and educated in the matter. This would slow down the ability to negotiate and would be unlikely to meet Government expectations.

· While the mayors and chair have broad management experience, they may lack the specialised negotiation skills that an expert independent negotiator possesses. This could result in less effective negotiation strategies and outcomes

· Differences in opinions and approaches among the mayors and chair could lead to internal conflicts, which could weaken the negotiation stance and reduce overall effectiveness of the negotiating team.

a. It is recommended that Council approve options 1, 2 and 3 and delegate to the joint committee the ability to determine which approach is taken based on confirmation from government about their process, if OCL are invited to participate in a negotiation. This could include a hybrid of both options.

Negotiating Principles – What are the principles that will guide negotiations with Government?

a. To enable the authorising authority and negotiating authority to negotiate with government they will need parameters within which to operate. Negotiating principles will guide the negotiations, enabling the authorising and negotiating authorities to make agreements with government without having to come back to partner Councils for direction or authorisation. While the authorising and negotiating authorities will be able to make agreements (within the negotiating principles) during negotiations, this will not be binding until the final form of the deal has been ratified by the partner Councils.

b. The negotiating principles below have been developed based on discussions with partner Councils about what will be important to them during a negotiation. As such this forms advice, options analysis has not been completed.

c. It is recommended that Council approves the negotiating principles listed below to guide Regional Deal negotiations:

· Streamlined planning / consenting / permitting / land acquisition pathways must relate only to projects specified under the Regional Deal.

· Streamlined planning / consenting / permitting / land acquisition pathways must be consistent with the partner Council’s climate and biodiversity, spatial and destination management plans.

· Delivery staging for the health and transport packages will be consistent with dependencies identified by partner Councils

· An agreed deal will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles and will be delivered in partnership with Ngāi Tāhu.

· Deal components must be within the scope of the activity areas outlined in the proposal.

d. It is worth noting that in previous council workshops, the allocation of mining royalties, local visitor levy and affordable housing contributions were included in the negotiating principles. Upon further analysis, it was considered that such allocations would require further discussion and oversight from the councils and as such is addressed in the delegations for the joint subcommittee instead.

Establishing a Joint Subcommittee – Process Requirements

If Council approves the authorising authority as set out in option 1, then a joint committee between Council, ORC and QLDC will need to be established. Outlined below is the process for establishing a joint subcommittee and how each step will be executed.

a. Reach agreement with partner councils to appoint a joint committee.

An agreement to establish a joint committee must be made between the partner councils, and the agreement must specify:

· the number of members each partner council may appoint to the committee,

· how the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the committee are to be appointed,

· the terms of reference of the committee,

· what responsibilities (if any) are to be delegated to the committee by each partner council, and

· how the agreement may be varied.

b. Partner Councils appoint, and agree delegations and powers of, the joint committee

By reaching agreement on the matters above, the partner councils appoint the joint committee and approve the role, function, terms of reference and delegations of the joint committee.

c. Joint committee appoints Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.

The joint committee once established can appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson.

d. Joint committee appoint a subcommittee and delegates its powers to that subcommittee

Membership of the Committee cannot include an employee of the partner councils acting in the course of their employment, as such the Chief Executives cannot be members of the Committee. However, employees can be members of a subcommittee. To ensure continuity of membership of the group overseeing deal negotiations over the local body election period, the Committee will establish a subcommittee and delegate all its powers and responsibilities to that subcommittee.

Establishing a Joint Committee – Memorandum of Agreement

If Council approves the authorising authority as set out in Option 1 A Joint Subcommittee – Some Delegation, then a joint committee will need to be established. To establish a joint committee agreement must be reached between the partner councils. A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) is commonly used for the purposes of obtaining this agreement.

Once a MoA is approved by all partner councils the joint committee is appointed and powers delegated to it. Key points to highlight from the MoA;

1. The number of members each partner council may appoint to the committee.

Section 2 of the MoA sets out that the joint committee is to be comprised of two elected members from each Council and this must include the mayor / chair. The MoA does not specify how each Council will determine the second member.

2. How the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the committee are to be appointed.

Section 3 of the MoA sets out the process by which a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will be selected.

3. The terms of reference of the committee

Section 6 of the MoA sets out the terms of reference of the Committee, outlining the role, functions, activity areas and negotiating principles of the Committee.

4. What responsibilities are to be delegated to the committee by each partner council.

Section 7 sets out the delegations of the Committee.

5. How the agreement may be varied.

Section 11 of the MoA sets out the approach to varying the MoA.

The MoA also addresses the points below, although these are not required by the Local Government Act 2002.

a. Whether a quorum must include 1 or more members appointed by each partner council.

Section 4.1 sets out the quorum required for a meeting. All members must be present for a quorum to be attained to ensure that there is always an appropriate balance of all partner council representation. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson have no additional voting powers.

b. The extent to which the standing orders of any partner council apply to meetings of the joint committee.

Section 4.3 sets out that the standing orders of QLDC will apply to this Committee. Adopting the standing orders of one of the partner councils is the most efficient way of enabling this committee. This section makes clear that if there is any inconsistency between the MoA and the Standing Orders that the MoA takes precedence.

c. That the committee will not be discharged at the point of the next election to maximise continuity of the negotiation process over the election period.

Section 2.5 sets out that the Committee will not be discharged at the next election, and that any members of the Committee who remain elected members of the partner councils will remain members of the Committee after the election.

d. That the committee has been expressly created for the purposed of negotiating the deal, and it will be discharged on completion of the deal negotiations.

Section 1.3 sets out that the Committee will be automatically discharged on completion of the regional deal negotiation phase, or after 18 months, whichever comes first. Separate governance for the deal itself will be agreed during the negotiations and will depend on the final form of the deal.

By approving the MoA, the partner councils appoint and empower the joint committee. The MoA sets out the role, functions, activity areas and delegations of the Committee and as such encompasses the Terms of Reference.

4. Financial Considerations

The direct financial costs to Council are not clear at this stage. If Central Otago Lakes was selected to progress there would be Council staff resource required to support this activity.

Equally if an independent negotiator was to be appointed that cost would be shared across the partner Councils.

It is expected much of these costs could be covered through existing budgets, or the use of reserves.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Supports the establishment of a Joint Committee and approves the MoA.

Advantages:

· Enables Central Otago Lakes to establish a joint committee to oversee Regional Deals and work closely with central government from July 2025 if the region is chosen by Cabinet in June to progress

Disadvantages:

It is not clear the costs and resource impacts this work stream may have on Council.

Option 2

Declines to support the establishment of a Joint Committee and approval of MoA.

Advantages:

· The opportunity to engage with central government on Regional Deals and aspects within the proposal will be gone

Disadvantages:

· The opportunity to engage with central government on Regional Deals and aspects within the proposal will be gone.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by giving Councillors the decision making authority on behalf of their communities.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The Regional Deal proposal was written with key strategic plans in mind such as spatial plans, destination management plan, economic development plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Nil that relate directly to this decision.
Risks Analysis	There is some limited risk to Councillors due to being seen as partnering with QLDC. It is important to ensure communities understand there is no amalgamation of councils or sharing of assets (or costs) associated with this work program.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	There have been a number of Council workshops and meetings held prior to this decision paper being presented. Relevant staff of CODC, ORC and QLDC have also been engaged as required.

7. Next Steps

1. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Negotiation Joint Committee Memorandum of Agreement ⇩


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 25 June 2025
Date:	Wednesday, 25 June 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

Report Author:	Sarah Reynolds, Acting Governance Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Paul Morris, Acting Group Manager – Governance and Business Services

Report Author:	Rebecca Williams, Community Development Advisor
Reviewed and authorised by:	Louise Fleck, Acting Group Manager - Community Vision

Report Author:	Nick Lanham, Economic Development Manager
Reviewed and authorised by:	Louise Fleck – Acting Group Manager Community Vision

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

Report Author:	Joyce Thomas, Sampling and Compliance Monitoring Team Leader
Reviewed and authorised by:	Julie Muir, Group Manager - Three Waters

Report Author:	Sarah Reynolds, Governance Support Officer
Reviewed and authorised by:	Paul Morris, Acting Group Manager - Community Experience