AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Community Services Committee
Thursday 18 August 2016
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Councillor Pete Rainey (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese, Councillors Ruth Copeland, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson, Gaile Noonan (Deputy Chairperson), Tim Skinner and Mike Ward
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Orders:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings (SO 2.12.2)
· At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.
· Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee (SO 3.14.1)
It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda. They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.
Community Services Committee
18 August 2016
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
Document number M1992
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 7 July 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.
6. Status Report - Community Services Committee - 18 August 2016 17 - 20
Document number R6433
Recommendation
THAT the Status Report Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 (R6433) and its attachment (A1157454) be received.
7. Chairperson's Report
8. 175th Commemorations and Legacy Projects 21 - 27
Document number R6381
Recommendation
Receives the report 175th Commemorations and Legacy Projects (R6381);
Approves the creation of a Legacy Trail and associated activities and events as outlined in report R6381 to commemorate the 175th Anniversary of Nelson in 2017.
Recreation and Leisure
Document number R6437
Recommendation
Receives the report Campground Review (R6437) and its attachment (A1448988);
Notes that capital improvements to the Maitai Motor Camp will be considered as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
Recommendation to Council
Adopts the four key recommendations in the Campground Review (A1448988) in order to inform the Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and to support future lease arrangements. The recommendations are summarised as:
1. Council should identify its strategic requirements around the provision of campgrounds and prioritise these.
2. Council should encourage each campground to work with Nelson Tasman Tourism to plan for improved marketing.
3. Each Campground should review its development plans to ensure that facilities are optimised around their target markets.
4. Each lease should be reviewed prior to renewal, to ensure operators are incentivised to perform well, taking account of social and economic benefits.
10. Stoke Community and Sport Facility - Tender Feedback 90 - 95
Document number R6225
Recommendation
Receives the report Stoke Community and Sport Facility - Tender Feedback (R6225).
Recommendation to Council
Approves that an additional $350,000 be included in the 2016/17 financial year to complete the Stoke Community and Sport Facility project.
Community Development
11. Emergency Housing Update 95 - 98
Document number R6103
Recommendation
Receives the report Emergency Housing Update (R6103) and its attachment (A1602177);
Notes the allocation of funding made by the Community Investment Panel for 2016/17 and 2017/18 to provide emergency housing and youth emergency housing services;
Requests that the Mayor writes to the Minister of Social Housing and the Minister of Social Development asking that Ministry of Social Development make funding available for both Emergency Housing and support services for those in Emergency Housing in Nelson.
Marina
12. Nelson Marina Advisory Group 99 - 105
Document number R6291
Recommendation
Receives the report Nelson Marina Advisory Group (R6291) and its attachment (A1583567).
Recommendation to Council
Establishes the Nelson Marina Advisory Group;
Approves the Terms of Reference (A1583567) for the Nelson Marina Advisory Group;
Delegates responsibility for appointing members to the Nelson Marina Advisory Group to a panel consisting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chair of Community Services.
13. Community Investment Funding Panel - 29 June 2016 106 - 111
Document number A1584455
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Community Investment Funding Panel, held on 29 June 2016, be received.
Youth Councillors Annie Tonks and Joseph Alison will provide an update on Youth Council activities.
15. Nelson Youth Council - 9 June 2016 112 - 116
Document number M1923
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Nelson Youth Council, held on 9 June 2016, be received.
Public Excluded Business
Recommendation
THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject 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(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 7 July 2016 |
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7. |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
|
2 |
Community and Commercial Leases - Omnibus Report
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
3 |
Community Investment Funding Panel Appointment
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person |
|
4 |
Campground leases
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
17. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.
Note:
· Youth Councillors Annie Tonks and Joseph Alison will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
Minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 7 July 2016, commencing at 9.01am
Present: Councillor P Rainey (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors R Copeland, M Lawrey, P Matheson, G Noonan (Deputy Chairperson), T Skinner and M Ward
In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk and I Barker, Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Manager Community Partnerships (S Hermsen), Youth Councillors Jordan Lankshear and Mamata Dahal, and Administration Advisor (J McDougall)
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
The Chairperson advised that after the agenda had been distributed, a public forum had been confirmed and a late item had also been received. He said that in order for the late item to be considered, the following resolution needed to be considered:
2.1 Submission on Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan
|
Resolved CS/2016/045 THAT the item regarding Submission on Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan be considered at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable the submission on Submission on Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan to be submitted prior to 8 July 2016. Matheson/Ward Carried |
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Waahi Taakaro Golf Club
President of the Waahi Taakaro Golf Club, Peter Watson, spoke in support of the draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Club and the Council. Mr Watson provided background details regarding the relationship between the two parties, and the process of the development of the draft Memorandum of Understanding.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 26 May 2016
Document number M1907, agenda pages 8 - 15 refer.
|
Resolved CS/2016/046 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 26 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
6. Status Report - Community Services Committee - 7 July 2016
Document number R6141, agenda pages 16 - 19 refer.
In response to questions, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward provided further detail regarding the Stoke Community and Sports Facility, and the review of management of community facilities.
|
Resolved CS/2016/047 THAT the Status Report Community Services Committee 7 July 2016 (R6141) and its attachment (A1157454) be received. Rainey/Ward Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson reminded councillors that the Light Nelson event would start on Friday 8 July 2016 and would run through to Tuesday 12 July 2016.
Arts, Festivals and Events
8. Arts Fund - Approval of Waka Landing Site Concept
Document number R5322, agenda pages 20 - 23 refer.
Manager Community Partnerships Shanine Hermsen, presented the report, and displayed a Power Point presentation (A1560091).
In response to a question regarding speeding up the approvals process, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward noted that there had been about thirty art works to consider, all of which had to go through a rigorous process to check on aspects such as quality and functionality.
Ms Hermsen noted, in response to a query, that there would be an interpretation panel in both English and te reo Maori situated close to the art work.
|
Resolved CS/2016/048 THAT the report Arts Fund - Approval of Waka Landing Site Concept (R5322) be received; Rainey/Lawrey Carried |
|
Resolved CS/2016/049 THAT the ‘Taurapa’ concept for artwork at the waka landing site is approved for further development; Lawrey/Ward Carried |
|
Resolved CS/2016/050 AND THAT the artwork is commissioned subject to successful resource and building consent applications and approval of the budget and final concept plans by Council’s Art Selection Panel. Lawrey/Ward Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1560091 - Power Point Presentation |
Recreation and Leisure
9. Bishopdale Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply
Document number R6072, agenda pages 24 - 29 refer.
Group Manager Corporate Services Nikki Harrison presented the report.
|
Resolved CS/2016/051 Receive the report Bishopdale Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply (R6072) and its attachment (A1564516). Noonan/Lawrey Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council CS/2016/052 Grants the easement in gross, in favour of Network Tasman Limited, shown as area “A” and “B” on Title Plan LT 499221; That the easement be consented to under section 48(1) (d) of the Reserves Act 1977, acting pursuant to a delegation from the Minister of Conservation; Meets all legal costs associated with the easement. Noonan/Skinner Carried |
10. Management of Waahi Taakaro Golf Course
Document number R4513, agenda pages 30 - 57 refer.
Manager Community Services, Chris Ward presented the report and noted the following corrections to the report:
5.1.3 $216 (not $207) for members who wished to play 9 holes
5.1.3 Club member cost per annum varies between $184 and $224 (not around $110)
Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 9.43am to 9.45am.
In response to questions, Mr Ward provided further details regarding the consultation process and advised that any changes would come into effect after the current club year i.e. on 1 April 2017.
Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting from 9.59am to 10.01am.
|
Resolved CS/2016/053 THAT the report Management of Waahi Taakaro Golf Course (R4513) and its attachment (A1487496) be received; Rainey/Copeland Carried |
|
Resolved CS/2016/054 THAT it be noted that consultation will be carried out on the proposed fee and concession structure outlined in report R4513 and its attachment (A1487496); AND THAT it be noted for budgeting purposes that the user recovery charges for the Waahi Taakaro Golf Course will be set at 50-60% of operating costs. Rainey/Ward Carried |
Councillor Noonan, seconded by Skinner, moved the recommendation to Council in the officer report:
THAT the Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Waahi Taakaro Golf Club (A1487496) be approved in principle for signing, subject to confirmation of the fee and concession structure.
Councillor Lawrey, seconded by Councillor Copeland, moved an amendment:
THAT the Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Waahi Taakaro Golf Club (A1487496) be approved in principle for signing, subject to confirmation of the fee and concession structure and completion of consultation with club and non-club members in regards to the proposed fee and concession structure.
Attendance: the meeting adjourned from 10.19am to 10.21am.
The amendment was put and became the substantive motion.
|
Recommendation to Council CS/2016/055 THAT the Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Waahi Taakaro Golf Club (A1487496) be approved in principle for signing, subject to confirmation of the fee and concession structure and completion of consultation with club and non-club members in regards to the proposed fee and concession structure. Noonan/Skinner Carried |
Attendance: the meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.34am to 10.42am, and Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 10.43am.
11. Late item: Submission on Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan
Document number R6220, late items agenda pages 2 - 6 refer.
Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, presented the report.
Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting from 10.44am to 10.45am.
In response to a query, Ms McDonald noted that the issue had been in the public arena for some time and no questions or queries had been received to date.
|
Resolved CS/2016/056 Receive the report Submission on Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan (R6220) and its attachments (A1577117) ; Noonan/Ward Carried Approve the content in attachment (A1577117) to be provided to Tasman District Council as a submission to the Draft Moturoa/Rabbit Island Reserve Management Plan. Rainey/Ward Carried |
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
12. Youth Council Update
Nelson Youth Councillors, Jordan Lankshear and Mamata Dahal, spoke about collaboration with the Elma Turner Library, the current audit/survey of careers guidance in local secondary schools, and how to share the information they learn as youth councillors.
They noted that the Youth Council had not yet received a response from the Minister of Education to their submission on youth employment and on careers guidance in secondary schools.
They advised that Nelson MP Hon Dr Nick Smith would be presenting at their meeting on 8 July 2016 and that a list of possible topics, including the Nelson Southern Link and the waterfront precinct, had been prepared.
Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 11.12am to 11.14am.
13. Nelson Youth Council - 13 May 2016
Document number M1885, agenda pages 58 - 62 refer.
|
Resolved CS/2016/057 THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Nelson Youth Council, held on 13 May 2016, be received. Rainey/Matheson Carried |
14. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved CS/2016/058 THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject 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(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: Rainey/Noonan Carried |
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 26 May 2016 |
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7. |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
|
2 |
Status Report - Community Services Committee - 7 July 2016
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
3 |
Community Leases - Bowls Tahunanui
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.21am and resumed in public session at 11.33am.
15. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved CS/2016/059 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.34am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6433
Status Report - Community Services Committee - 18 August 2016
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.
2. Recommendation
|
THAT the Status Report Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 (R6433) and its attachment (A1157454) be received. |
Shailey Burgess
Administration Adviser
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1157454 - Status Report - Community Services Committee
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6381
175th Commemorations and Legacy Projects
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider options for commemorative activities to celebrate Nelson’s 175th Anniversary.
2. Summary
2.1 Council has allocated $40,000 in the 2016/17 Annual Plan towards the Nelson’s 175th Anniversary commemorations in response to public submissions.
2.2 Council requested a report to approve how the funding would be allocated. This report provides options for consideration.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Community Services Committee
4. Background
4.1 Nelson Anniversary Day celebrates the landing days of the first European settlers and is linked to the arrival the first New Zealand Company Boat, The Fifeshire, on 1 February, 1842. It is a provincial public holiday that always falls on a Monday, as per Section 44 of the Holidays Act 2003.
4.2 Nelson’s 175th Anniversary Day falls on 30 January 2017.
4.3 Funding of $40,000 has been allocated to commemorate the Anniversary in the 2016/17 Annual Plan subject to a report to Council. Submitters to the Annual Plan questioned how the allocated budget would be consistent with the Heritage Strategy and Activity Management Plan.
5. Discussion
5.1 Other New Zealand cities celebrate an Anniversary in various ways. One off events remain popular, while the creation of a legacy to mark the commemoration is also common.
5.2 It would be appropriate to celebrate this occasion with a family friendly event, linking with Nelson’s history. As it is a significant milestone, creating a lasting legacy for Nelson is also recommended. A legacy project could include the development of a ‘Legacy Trail’ (walk/cycle trail) or public artwork.
5.3 It is good value for money to create a legacy for the city that lasts longer than a one day celebration. A combination of an event as well as a legacy project would reach a wider section of the community, and have lasting value.
5.4 Annual Plan submitters’ comments have been noted and both the Nelson Heritage Advisory Group and Historical Society are supportive of a legacy project to commemorate this occasion as they see the benefits of this type of project in promoting Nelson’s heritage.
5.5 Creating a legacy as part of the commemorations of Nelson’s 175th Anniversary aligns with Council’s Heritage Strategy objective “To promote and celebrate Whakatu Nelson’s heritage resources” and Council’s Heritage Activity Management Plan level of service “to ensure that the community can easily access information about Council-owned historic sites”.
Commemorative Event
5.6 A public event to commemorate the occasion could include a range of activities such speeches and entertainers in a prominent Nelson location. If combined with developing a legacy project the event could also be the launch for this.
5.7 If a public event is to be held as part of the commemorations, this should be included in the Council’s Summer Programme & Events guide which requires the details to be finalised by October 2016. A further promotional opportunity would be to link an event with Heritage Week in April 2017. That programme is finalised by November.
5.8 Whilst Anniversary Day is a peak time for visitors to Nelson, it is recognised that many locals leave the region in January. However most would expect that the commemoration would take place on the 175th Anniversary Day.
Legacy Trail
5.9 There are good examples from other cities of walk, cycle and car trails that link sites of interest and attractions, and these are generally well received by the public. One such example has been shared with Council by Karen Stade, president of the Historical Society who suggests a proposal based on the Boston ‘Freedom Trail’ using the large number of walking trails (mainly created by the Council), and linking to a range of attractions.
5.10 Dunedin, Wellington and Napier heritage trails provide a mix of private and public walking and cycling. Wellington City Council uses digital applications (apps) to work in two ways. One uses a downloadable map that allows the user to find out where they are at any moment in time using the GPS co-ordinates on a mobile phone. This uses very little phone data if the map is preloaded. It has a high hit rate and is the most popular walk on Wellington City Council website. Pre-printed maps are also available at no cost. The second digital app works with short walks and was created by the Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency (WREDA).
5.11 A ‘Legacy Trail’ could be developed to commemorate Nelson’s 175th and be launched with two to four family friendly events to encourage use. The first launch event would be part of the 175th commemoration one off event. Events would encourage families to use the trail, walking or cycling and meeting historical characters at key points along the way.
5.12 The public could experiment with using an app (if created) or standard map and make their own way along the Legacy Trail. The first event could be on 30 January (Anniversary Day), the second and third in February and March. The last one could feature in Heritage Week 2017 in April which would allow promotion in the existing, widely circulated, programme.
5.13 To make the Legacy Trail a permanent legacy for the city, the outcomes could include permanent markers on the trail and an overarching map with “app’ function using existing walk and cycle trails to create visible long term reminders of easily accessible art and heritage destinations. The Legacy Trail would link to historic sites, interpretative panels, and attractions such as Nelson Provincial Museum, The Suter and Heritage Houses.
5.14 The Legacy Trail map could have intersecting (existing) trails added. Examples of loops would be central city; the Port to Tahuna including Washington Valley, Maitai Walkway(sea to golf course); Stoke and an Atawhai loop. An intersecting Maori legacy trail loop could also be developed.
Public artwork
5.15 A traditional approach to anniversary celebrations is an installation of a public artwork or similar physical item in a prominent site. At present Council is due to have two new art works installed before December 2016. A third is planned for the waka landing site but is unlikely to have reached install stage until June 2017. Due to the level of public art in progress it is not recommended to create additional artwork to mark this occasion.
6. Options
6.1 The options outlined in the table below provide considerations for one off commemorative events as well as legacy projects.
6.2 To maximise the return on Council’s investment in commemorating the 175th Anniversary of Nelson, it is recommended to combine option four (development of a ‘Legacy Trail’) with option one and/or two so that there is both a commemorative event as well as a legacy project as a lasting resource.
6.3 The Legacy Trail could be launched at the commemorative event on Anniversary Day, and promoted further with extra events to encourage use.
|
Option one: Commemorative event on Nelson Anniversary Day |
|
|
Advantages |
· Possible to create in time within budget · Builds on existing resources · Able to promote via Summer Events programme and guide |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Would not be of value to those residents who are away on holiday · No lasting legacy |
|
Option two: Commemorative event during Heritage Week |
|
|
Advantages |
· Possible to create in time within budget · Builds on existing resources · Able to promote via Heritage Week programme · Residents less likely to be away on holiday |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Not on Anniversary Day itself · No lasting legacy |
|
Option three: Installation of a public artwork |
|
|
Advantages |
· A legacy project with lasting benefits |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Insufficient time to get in place (consents to obtain, build of art work) · Already a number of public artworks being installed |
|
Option four: Legacy Trail development |
|
|
Advantages |
· Possible to create in time within budget · Builds on existing resources · A legacy project with lasting benefits |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Short lead in time |
7. Conclusion
7.1 To commemorate Nelson’s 175th Anniversary, a lasting resource such as a Legacy Trail, as well as commemorative events to recognise the anniversary and to help promote the Trail are recommended.
Shanine Hermsen
Manager Community Partnerships
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The commemoration of Nelson’s 175th Anniversary delivers a local service and with the legacy of a heritage trail is a cost effective way to mark the day and deliver lasting heritage value to residents and, by supporting tourist activity, local businesses. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Heritage Strategy and Heritage Activity Management Plan. This report is consistent with Community Outcomes of: Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity • We have a strong sense of community, enhanced by activities, festivals, events and celebrations that reflect our distinct environment and people. • We celebrate and acknowledge our heritage and our history and how that contributes to our distinctive identity. |
|
3. Risk Commemoration of Nelson’s 175th Anniversary is able to be achieved with the proposed recommendations. The timing of the publications and programming for the summer events and Heritage Week programmes require any commemorative events to be planned with enough time to allow inclusion in the planning for events. |
|
4. Financial impact The recommended option is able to be completed within the allocated budget of $40,000 as approved in the Annual Plan 2016/17. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance for residents of Nelson. Further consultation with Historical Society and Nelson Heritage Advisory Group in confirming any projects or events is recommended. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been involved in the preparation of this report, but iwi will be approached to explore the possibility of a Maori heritage trail. |
|
7. Delegations The Community Services Committee has the responsibility for considering Festivals and Events and has the power to approve projects within this area of responsibility, which have been included in Council’s Annual Plan/Long Term Plan. |
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6437
Campground Review
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To receive the Campground Review report and consider its recommendations.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee
It is recommended that Council
2. Background
2.1 Council owns three campgrounds:
· The Tahuna Beach Holiday Park, currently operated by the Tahuna Beach Camp Incorporated Society;
· The Maitai Camp, currently operated under lease by Kevrol Ltd.
· The Brook Camp, currently operated by Council staff.
2.2 Council commissioned an external review of its three campgrounds to understand their financial trends and to assist in establishing a strategic direction for these properties.
2.3 Concurrently, Council developed, and has adopted in principle, the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan.
2.4 A Council workshop was held on 8 March 2016 to consider the draft Campground Review, which has now been updated following that workshop and is attached (attachment 1).
2.5 A Council workshop has also recently been held on Freedom Camping.
3. Discussion
16. Key recommendations from the Campground Review
3.1 The key recommendations are:
3.1.1 Council should identify its strategic requirements around the provision of campgrounds and prioritise these.
3.1.2 Council should encourage each campground to work with Nelson Tasman Tourism to plan for improved marketing.
3.1.3 Each Campground should review its development plans to ensure that facilities are optimised around their target markets.
3.1.4 Each lease should be reviewed prior to renewal, to ensure operators are incentivised to perform well, taking account of social and economic benefits.
3.2 It is recommended that Council adopts these recommendations to inform the 2018-28 Parks and Reserves Asset Management Plan and to support development of future leases for the campgrounds.
Tahuna Beach Holiday Park
3.3 The review finds that Tahuna Beach Holiday Park is currently run as an effective and efficient campground, making a substantial return to ratepayers and maintaining strong community connections. The Park has developed a Revitalisation Master Plan and has a clear strategic focus on enhancing facilities to bring it up to a resort status.
3.4 Council needs to consider what lease arrangements it wishes to consider on expiry of the current lease in 2018. This matter is subject of a report in the confidential section of this meeting’s agenda.
Maitai Camp
3.5 The Maitai Camp is leased until 2021. The current lessee has indicated that its focus is on providing a good standard of budget accommodation. However, the profitability of the camp is marginal and the review has identified that Council investment in infrastructure is required to ensure the long term viability of the camp.
3.6 The draft Freedom Camping Strategy has also identified that the Maitai Camp should be better promoted to freedom campers, as a low cost facility that offers kitchen and shower facilities.
3.7 It is recommended that officers work with the lessee to bring a package of potential works to Council for consideration in the 2018/28 Long Term Plan. These may include: additional cabins, enhanced communal spaces and improvements to the ablution blocks.
Brook Motor Camp
3.8 The Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan has been adopted in principle by Council. The findings of the Campground Review are consistent with that document – there is an opportunity to provide eco-accommodation for visitors looking to experience camping in a native bush environment. There are clear synergies with the Brook Sanctuary.
3.9 A Comprehensive Development Plan will be prepared for the Brook Recreation Reserve once the current land classification processes are completed. This will identify spatially how the campground activity relates to other activities in the Reserve.
3.10 Council needs to consider what lease arrangements it wishes to consider for the Brook Camp. This matter is subject of a report in the confidential section of this meeting’s agenda.
4. Options
4.1 Council can either adopt the Campground Review recommendations or not. Substantive decisions on future leases for the campgrounds are the subject of a separate report.
5. Conclusion
5.1 A Campground Review has been carried out and a report with recommendations is presented to the Council for consideration.
Chris Ward
Group Manager Community Services
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1448988 - Review of Campground Services - Stage One Report by APR Consultants
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Campgrounds are local infrastructure that provides services to residents and visitors to Nelson. The Campground Review was undertaken to ensure the services are of good quality and delivered effectively and efficiently. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy Campgrounds contribute to goal seven of Nelson 2060: Our economy thrives and contributes to a sustainable Nelson. |
|
3. Risk Having a greater understanding of our campgrounds use and potential mitigates risk around Council owning assets which are underutilised. |
|
4. Financial impact Costs for implementing the recommendations will be included in future asset and activity management plans. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance as the review does not make recommendations involving divestment or change of use of any of Council’s assets. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been involved in the preparation of this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Community Services Committee has the responsibility for the provision and operation of recreation and leisure facilities and services, including reserves, parks, sports fields, swimming pool facilities and motor camps. The Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter. |
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6225
Stoke Community and Sport Facility - Tender Feedback
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To request additional funding to enable the award of the physical works contract for the construction of the Stoke Community and Sports Facility.
2. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee
|
Receives the report Stoke Community and Sport Facility - Tender Feedback (R6225). |
It is recommended that Council
|
Approves that an additional $350,000 be included in the 2016/17 financial year to complete the Stoke Community and Sport Facility project. |
3. Background
3.1 At its meeting of 2 July 2015 the Community Services Committee approved the concept design plans for the Stoke Community and Sports Facility.
3.2 The concept planning advanced to detailed design and in May 2016 Expressions of Interest were called for construction. Five companies were shortlisted and supplied with tender documents. Tenders closed in June 2016.
3.3 Four conforming tenders were received. Negotiations are underway with the preferred tenderer whose tendered price is higher than the construction estimate by approximately $350,000 or 6% of the total budget.
4. Discussion
Budget Summary
4.1 The budget approved in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan for this multi-year project is $6,140,000, allocated as follows:
· 2015/16 = $1,520,000
· 2016/17 = $4,620,000
4.2 The project estimate budget summary is shown below:
|
Item |
Amount |
|
Physical works estimate
Stormwater relocation (see item 4.6) Tennis courts Kitchen fit-out
Project contingency |
$4,605,873
$ 169,000 $ 89,700 $ 74,427
$ 250,000 |
|
Sub Total |
$5,189,000 |
|
Professional fees Building and Resource consents |
$ 765,000 $ 186,000 |
|
Total Cost |
$6,140,000 |
Preferred Tendered Price
4.3 Negotiations are ongoing with the preferred tenderer, whose adjusted tendered price is $4,963,237. This is approximately $350,000 higher than the pre-tender construction estimate of $4,605,873.
4.4 The next preferred tendered price is approximately $300,000 higher again than the unadjusted price of the preferred tenderer.
4.5 An evaluation of the preferred tenderers pricing schedule against the project estimate shows an average difference across most of items of approximately 5%. The only significant single difference relates to the Mechanical category which details the items required for heating and cooling within the facility. Analysis shows the designers estimate was underestimated in key areas of this mechanical category.
Other Related Works
4.6 The tender to relocate the stormwater reticulation has already been advertised, evaluated and ready for award. Award and commencement is awaiting the award of the Stoke Community and Sports Facility tender.
4.7 Council and the Anglican Archdiocese have been in discussions for Council to purchase the St Barnabas parish land at 523 Main Road Stoke – the land adjacent to the proposed Stoke Community and Sports Facility development. Council was advised on 12 July this year that the Diocese made the decision not to sell the land to Council as they wished to retain the land for future growth and hold the land as a strategic asset.
4.8 The architect of the proposed Stoke Community and Sports Facility confirms that this recent decision by the Diocese, not to sell this adjacent piece of land to Council, in no way effects the location and design of the proposed facility as neither of these were contingent on the purchase of the adjoining land from St Barnabas.
Other Potential Savings
4.9 Other potential savings were investigated by the project team. While the removal of these items will enable the project to remain within budget, they may reduce the quality of the design below the scope and expectations previously agreed to with Council. These items were specifically requested by Council and additional funding was provided to incorporate them.
4.10 These potential savings are listed below:
· Replacement of ‘green’ heating and cooling system with conventional system ($100,000);
· Removal of ‘Transpace’ dividing doors which divides the main hall into separate meeting spaces ($75,000);
· Removal of proposed future café space ($200,000).
Options
4.11 The Community Services Committee may choose to recommend to Council increasing the existing budget by $350,000 to enable the contract to be awarded to the preferred tenderer, reduce the scope to enable the works to meet the budget or decide not proceed with the construction of the facility.
|
Option 1: do not proceed with this project |
|
|
Advantages |
· No further money spent on project as scope cannot be achieved within existing budget |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Tender is not awarded so construction cannot proceed · Need is not met for a community and sport facility in Stoke
|
|
Option 2: increase the existing budget by $350,000 |
|
|
Advantages |
· Tender can be awarded to the preferred Contractor and construction, in line with Councils vision and expectations, can proceed · Community need for a community and sport facility in Stoke is met |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Additional funding of $350,000 (approximately 6% of the total budget) will be required · Some in the community may not agree with providing additional funds for this facility |
|
Option 3: reduce the scope to realise savings |
|
|
Advantages |
· Tender can be awarded to the preferred Contractor and construction can proceed within budget · Community need for a community and sport facility in Stoke is met |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· The scope may not meet Councils vision and expectations · Certain items specifically requested and agreed to by Council, will not be able to be incorporated within the facility |
Shane Davies
Manager Capital Projects
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The decision required by this report involves Council balancing affordability with the need for good quality local infrastructure as required by 10 (1) (6) of the Local Government Act 2002. This clause of the Act requires Council to meet the current and future needs of communities in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy · ‘Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities’. The new facility is included in the current Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan, the 2014/15 Annual Plan and the 2015-25 LTP. |
|
3. Risk This is a new build, so the risks associated with unforeseen issues found in projects that upgrade or alter existing buildings are less likely. An appropriate contingency for normal risk items has been included within the budget and it is expected this will not be exceeded. There is risk that some in the community will not agree to the provision of additional funds for this project. |
|
4. Financial impact The additional funding, requested as part of this report, ensures the project can be completed as per the scope and expectation of Council and stakeholders. An appropriate contingency for normal risk items has been included. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement The increase of overall budget by approximately 6% is of low to moderate significance to all residents, but will be of higher significance to the residents of Stoke. It is not a sufficiently significant change to require additional engagement with the Community. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been specifically been consulted on this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Community Services Committee area of responsibility includes the provision and operation of recreation facilities and services. Additional funding is delegated to Council. |
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6103
Emergency Housing Update
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To update the Committee on emergency housing matters.
2. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee
3. Background
3.1 At its meeting on 16 June 2016, Council decided to re-allocate funding that had been tagged to the Youth and Community Trust. As part of the discussions, Councillors were keen to ensure that any gaps in service provision were filled with some urgency. The Chair of Community Services also asked for an update on Emergency Housing.
4. Discussion
Emergency Housing
4.1 The Nelson Tasman Housing Trust (NTHT) co-ordinates emergency housing on behalf of a number of organisations in Nelson. It works with a number of housing providers to match referrals to appropriate accommodation.
4.2 Previously NTHT has used two cabins located at the Tahuna Beach Camp as emergency housing. Camp staff used to provide some oversight of the tenants.
4.3 In January 2016, the Tahuna Beach Camp decided to stop providing emergency accommodation. In response, NTHT submitted a proposal for funding to the Community Investment Fund, with two options identified.
4.4 Its preferred option at that time relied on funding from the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). MSD administers funding designed to support people to get access to emergency housing when they need it and to have a pathway to sustainable long-term housing.
4.5 In June MSD issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from providers interested in delivering emergency housing contracted places across New Zealand. The closing date was 13 July 2016.
4.6 NTHT decided not to apply to that fund because funding was not being provided for wrap around care for people in emergency housing situations (attachment 1). It is recommended that the Committee asks the Mayor to write to the Ministers concerned (Hon Paula Bennett and Hon. Anne Tolley) requesting that MSD addresses the issues raised by NTHT.
4.7 NTHT indicated to the Community Investment Fund Panel that it still wanted to move forward with an alternative option. The Panel decided to allocate NTHT $20,000 towards emergency housing provision.
Youth Emergency Housing Services
4.8 The Youth and Community Facilities Trust (YCT) held a community assistance contract from Council to deliver Youth Emergency Housing Services. This generally consisted of finding suitable accommodation, providing essential supplies and working alongside the referral agency to support the young person into more permanent arrangements.
4.9 The YCT Board has commenced the process of winding up the Trust, and is not in a position to continue to offer support for young homeless people.
4.10 On 16 June 2016, Council resolved:
THAT the $100,000 allocated to the Youth and Community Facilities Trust in the 2016/17 draft Annual Plan be reallocated to youth activities for 2016/17 only, in alignment with Community Investment Fund processes;
AND THAT the funding be allocated in line with the Youth section of Council’s Social Wellbeing Policy 2011 and the Community Assistance Policy 2015 with consideration given to resulting gaps in the services provided by Youth and Community Facilities Trust;
4.11 Officers believe that emergency housing provision and youth transition services were the two services delivered by YCT that needed to be addressed urgently. As a result a report was presented to the Community Investment Panel meeting seeking delegation to officers to contract other service providers to deliver these services. At its meeting on 29 June 2016 the Community Investment Panel resolved:
THAT up to $20,000 be allocated towards youth emergency housing and youth transition services, with any unspent funds being distributed through the youth funding allocation;
AND THAT Officers engage with possible providers to contract these services;
4.12 Officers called for proposals to provide youth emergency housing and at the time of writing this report were in the process of negotiating a contract with a preferred provider.
5. Options
5.1 The Committee can choose to ask the Mayor to write to the Minister concerned, or choose just to receive the report. It is recommended that Council advocates to the Ministers concerned on the issues raised by the Housing Trust.
Chris Ward
Group Manager Community Services
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1602177 - update from Nelson Tasman Housing Trust to the Community Investment Panel
|
|
Community Services Committee 18 August 2016 |
REPORT R6291
Nelson Marina Advisory Group
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve the Terms of Reference of the Nelson Marina Advisory Group and to agree on a mechanism for making appointments to the group.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee
|
Receives the report Nelson Marina Advisory Group (R6291) and its attachment (A1583567). |
It is recommended that the Council
|
Establishes the Nelson Marina Advisory Group; Approves the Terms of Reference (A1583567) for the Nelson Marina Advisory Group; Delegates responsibility for appointing members to the Nelson Marina Advisory Group to a panel consisting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chair of Community Services. |
2. Background
2.1 Council has been developing a Marina Strategy and has recently consulted on a draft. As the consultation process progressed, the Mayor considered that it would be helpful for a small group of interested individuals to meet, discuss issues and opportunities and provide input into the Strategy.
2.2 The Mayor invited such a group and the Chair of Community Services Committee to meet with her on 8 July. The discussion was considered valuable and there was interest in having more regular discussions to provide input into the draft strategy and then into its implementation once adopted by Council. There was recognition that more targeted oversight and engagement was needed in the Strategy review.
2.3 As a result, Terms of Reference for a Nelson Marina Advisory Group have been drafted (attachment 1).
2.4 A list of potential members is being drawn up – it is recommended that people are appointed to the group as individuals bringing knowledge and capability, and not as representatives of a particular user group. There are a large number of groups who use the marina and appointing a representative from each would make the resulting group unwieldy.
3. Discussion
3.1 Council has to consider if it is necessary to constitute an advisory group. Given the complexity of relationships and competing uses in the Marina, and the need to have open and transparent communication, it is recommended that an advisory group is established.
3.2 Council then has to consider its terms of reference and membership. Once Council has approved the establishment of the Advisory Group and its Terms of Reference, it is recommended that membership is confirmed by a panel consisting of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Chair of Community Services.
4. Options
4.1 Council can decide whether it wishes to establish an Advisory Group, or not. If it does decide to establish an Advisory Group, it can then adopt the draft Terms of Reference provided (with any amendments) or request further development by staff.
4.2 It then needs to decide on the process for appointing members – it is recommended that this is delegated to a small panel: this is deemed appropriate due to time constraints and because the Advisory Group has no decision making powers.
|
Option 1: Establish a Marina Advisory Group |
|
|
Advantages |
· Opportunity for considered input into the Marina Strategy · Transparency · Opportunity to build relationships between Council and Marina Users |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Staff effort and time required · Need to keep group size manageable may mean some people are not included |
|
Option 2: Status Quo |
|
|
Advantages |
· No additional resource required |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Marina Strategy is adopted without buy in from users · Lack of transparency · Lost opportunity to build relationships |
Chris Ward
Group Manager Community Services
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1583567 - Draft Terms of Reference Nelson Marina Advisory Group
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The Nelson Marina is an important piece of local infrastructure, providing local services to residents and visitors to Nelson and developing a robust Marina Strategy will ensure it meets the community’s needs. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The recommendation is consistent with the Council’s decision to develop a Marina Strategy and supports goal 2 of Nelson 2060: We are all able to be involved in decisions. The Marina contributes to the community outcomes of ‘Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs’, ‘Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities’ and ‘Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy’. The Marina Strategy was identified as a Council project in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan. |
|
3. Risk There is a very low risk of the Advisory Group not making a positive contribution to the development of the Marina Strategy. This risk can be managed by careful selection of the advisory group members. |
|
4. Financial impact The establishment of an advisory group will result in a small administrative cost but this can be met from within existing resourcing. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance to residents as a whole, but high significance to those marina users involved in the strategy development. It is therefore appropriate to provide this extra opportunity for input to marina users. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been involved in the preparation of this report. |
|
7. Delegations The provision and operation of the Marina and Marina activities falls within the area of responsibility of the Community Services Committee. It can make recommendations to Council on the matters contained in this report. |
Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson Youth Council
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 9 June 2016, commencing at 1.00pm
Present: S Kuo (Chairperson), D Leaper, T Shuker, S McIlroy, K Phipps, E Edwards, H Goldthorpe, J Stallard, C Collins, M Dahal, B Rumsey, L Wilkes, A James, I Lorandi, J Alison, F Sawyer, J Lankshear and A Tonks
In Attendance: Councillors M Lawrey and P Rainey, Social Wellbeing Adviser (R Large), Cadet – Community Partnerships (G Thawley) and Administration Adviser (J McDougall)
Apologies: E Ang
1. Apologies
The apologies were noted.
2. Confirmation of Minutes
2.1 13 May 2016
Document number M1885, agenda pages 4 - 8 refer.
|
Resolved YC/2016/011 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Nelson Youth Council, held on 13 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Leaper/Phipps Carried |
3. Chief Executive
Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, spoke about the role as a Chief Executive, emphasising the external focus of the job. She described a typical week as Chief Executive and the significant milestones and events during the year.
In response to questions, Mrs Hadley noted
· the importance of consultation
· that at election time, the Chief Executive needed to be independent and ensure fair usage of council resources to support the election, to ensure a level playing field for all candidates
· that she was appreciative of the Youth Council’s active role in the community and in Council.
4. Group Manager Community Services
Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward spoke about the history of the Southern Arterial Link investigation. Mr Ward advised that he had been involved with the 2011 Southern Arterial Link study, and that it had been a topic of discussion since the 1960s.
Mr Ward said that the Southern Arterial Link 2011 report had proposed four options but had noted that the problem was not significant enough at the time for any action to be taken. He said that, since then, work had continued such as traffic monitoring and that the New Zealand Transport Agency also monitored traffic-flow. In response to a query about bus subsidies, Mr Ward noted that bus fares were already subsidised to some extent and that there were differing views on the appropriate level for any subsidy.
5. Nelson Public Libraries
Nicki Sharpe, the new Children’s and Young Adult Librarian at Nelson Public Libraries, introduced herself and asked for interest from the group to meet with her. Interested youth councillors indicated their availability to meet with Ms Sharpe.
6. Youth Declaration
Keegan Phipps outlined the key points of a copy of the Aotearoa Youth Declaration and led a discussion on the relevant points for the Youth Council.
Keegan noted that the item detailed what had been sent to government and was for information only.
7. Vast Dance Festival
Alana James described the forthcoming event and proposed that Youth Council promote it to support other youth in the community.
She said that the day-long event was for Top of the South young people to celebrate their talents and would be held at the Theatre Royal, Nelson on 31 August. She added that the Festival was not a competitive event.
Youth councillors agreed to support the Vast Dance Festival through Facebook and through schools and word of mouth.
8. Youth Engagement
Keegan Phipps lead a discussion, noting that the group’s role was to pass on information to the youth community in Nelson. Youth councillors were supportive and agreed to put the item on the agenda for the next meeting.
9. Rockquest Award
Jordan Lankshear led a discussion about the Youth Council Rockquest award and the finals on 20 May 2016.
Jordan noted that the group from Motueka High School had won the Youth Council award for crowd engagement. It was noted that the event was sold out, so a bigger venue might be needed for future events.
There was a brief discussion about the value of the Youth Council Rockquest Award as a promotional tool for the Youth Council.
Youth councillors agreed to consider redefining the Youth Council award in the future, noting that Rockquest did give the Youth Council good visibility in the community. It was noted that there was no obligation for the Youth Council to provide a prize at Rockquest.
10. Trustpower Community Award
Fynn Sawyer advised that one space was available for a youth councillor to attend the Trustpower Community Awards night on 27 June 2016. Youth councillors indicated their availability to attend.
11. Youth Employment
Fynn Sawyer updated the group on the outcomes of the meeting on 19 May 2016. Fynn advised that a further meeting would take place after the 101 Election session which was scheduled to follow the Youth Council meeting.
Fynn said that the audit/survey would be conducted between 4 - 24 June 2016.
Fynn also advised that no response had yet been received from the Minister of Education to the letter the Youth Council had sent on youth employment/careers guidance.
12. Council Meetings
12.1 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting – 19 May 2016
Sam McIlroy and Samuel Kuo reported from the Planning and Regulatory meeting on 19 May 2016. Sam spoke about a discussion regarding the increase in building fees and consents. Samuel reported on the actions that Council could take where cars for sale were parked at the roadside.
12.2 Community Services Committee meeting – 26 May 2016
Keegan Phipps and Alana James reported from the Community Services Committee meeting held on 26 May 2016.
Alana noted the presentation by the Multicultural Council at the public forum part of the meeting.
Keegan noted that the Friends of the Glen had attended the meeting in regard to the playground at the Glen.
Keegan also noted that the Youth Community Facilities Trust was closing due to lack of funding resulting in $100,000 for youth funding now being unallocated. Social Wellbeing Adviser (Rachael Large) advised that the budget would be reallocated in line with Council’s social wellbeing policy.
12.3 Council meeting – 2 June 2016
Hayley Goldthorpe and Samuel Kuo reported from the Council meeting on 2 June 2016. They advised that items discussed at the meeting included Special Housing Areas at Bett Carpark and Tahunanui.
13. General Business
Taylah Shuker advised that the Tasman Youth Council were running an event called Colour Craze on Sunday 19 June. Youth councillors agreed that anyone attending would be representing Nelson Youth Council and indicated their availability to Taylah.
Ms Large drew youth councillors’ attention to the following matters:
· Light Nelson: 8 to 12 July. Any volunteers would need to attend a briefing session on 7 July at 6pm. Interested youth councillors indicated their availability to Ms Large.
· Top of South Forum of Youth Councils: 15 July in Marlborough. Taylah Shuker said it was a great opportunity to learn from other Youth Councils and be inspired by them. Interested youth councillors indicated their availability to Ms Large.
· Youth Volunteer summit: 13 July. Interested youth councillors indicated their availability to Ms Large. In response to a question Ms Large advised that the Community and Whanau meeting is now on 20 July.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.51pm
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
