AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Nelson City Council
Thursday 22 September 2016
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Ruth Copeland, Eric Davy, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson (Deputy Mayor), Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Pete Rainey, Tim Skinner and Mike Ward
Nelson City Council
22 September 2016
Opening Prayer
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Gaire Thompson - Inner City Retailers and Property Owners Group
Gaire Thompson, of Inner City Retailers and Property Owners Group, will speak about the need to change the regulations to prevent any situations arising such as with Lewis Stanton now and in the future.
Document number M2126
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 8 September 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.
Document number R6558
Recommendation
THAT the Mayor's Report (R6558) and its attachments (A1631097 and A1351876) be received.
7. Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Proposal to Establish a Business Unit 41 - 97
Document number R6390
Recommendation
Receive the report Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Proposal to Establish a Business Unit (R6390) and its attachments (A1625909, A1625154, A1625160 and A1628550);
Approve delegated authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign a Deed of Agreement with Tasman District Council that commits Nelson City Council to a Regional Landfill arrangement, including the payment of $4.2 million from Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council. This delegation is to only be exercised if:
a) all necessary legal processes have been completed to ensure the proposal complies with the Local Government Act 2002, Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Commerce Act 1986; and
b) the Agreement is not materially altered from that attached to this report (A1625154).
Notes an intention to form a Joint Committee with Tasman District Council. The Joint Committee will be delegated powers and responsibilities to govern and control York and Eves Valley landfills through the proposed Regional Landfill Business Unit. The purpose of the Joint Committee and its terms of reference may be subject to amendment to address any conditions of approval by the Commerce Commission.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
9. 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping Hearing Panel - 30 August 2016 98 - 101
Document number A1618660
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping Hearing Panel, held on 30 August 2016, be received.
10. Hearings Panel - Other - 6 September 2016 102 - 105
Document number A1621801
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Hearings Panel – Other, held on 6 September 2016, be received.
11. 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping Hearing Panel - 7 September 2016 106 - 107
Document number A1625199
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the 80 Scotia Street Road Stopping Hearing Panel Deliberations, held on 7 September 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 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 8 September 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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) 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. |
13. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.
Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 8 September 2016, commencing at 9.06am
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, R Copeland, E Davy, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson (Deputy Mayor), B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, T Skinner and M Ward
In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), 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 Administration (P Langley), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Nelson Youth Councillors (J Lankshear and T Shuker)
Opening Prayer
Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
Her Worship the Mayor advised the order of business may need to be adjusted as the meeting proceeded. She advised of several additional public forum presentations.
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 Harry Pearson
Mr Pearson provided a handout (A1624719) and presented the key points regarding the Stoke Community Centre, stakeholders, the removal of free tennis courts, opposition to the proposal, and costs of heating and cooling.
Mr Pearson summarised discussions with users of the tennis courts, many of whom he said were not in favour of the Stoke Community Centre proposal. He suggested Council could be forward thinking and include facilities such as a vehicle charging system. Mr Pearson emphasised his belief that Council should not rush decisions regarding the proposed facility and instead ensure the facility met the needs of the community and had the best energy solutions.
4.2 Mr John Lacey
Mr Lacey asked whether there were trustees that could be pursued for the Everyman Records debt. He then spoke about the rounding up of Council rates and asked why errors in this process had not been noticed by Council officers.
4.3 Trudie Brand - Nelson Residents Association
Trudie Brand, of the Nelson Residents Association, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the Modellers’ Pond (A1624803).
Ms Brand supported the recommendation in the officer report ‘Modellers Pond – Fundraising Status’ on the Council agenda for the meeting. She summarised background detail regarding the Modellers’ Pond, and questioned previous Council decisions regarding funding for the Pond. Ms Brand highlighted the potential of the Pond to create social cohesion and family memories.
In response to a question, Ms Brand said the Nelson Residents Association supported Council funding the Modellers’ Pond as it was a unique and accessible area for the community.
4.4 Cathy Fearey and Jim Tompkins (Vice President), Stoke Tennis Club members representing small group of players
Ms Fearey said that a group of players at the Stoke Tennis Club were not in favour of the proposed Stoke Community Centre. She suggested the location was not suitable and there could be further project budget overruns. Ms Fearey said she did not support the removal of the free public tennis courts, but did support an upgrade of the Tennis Club facilities and the Stoke Memorial Hall.
Ms Fearey suggested that Council was rushing to make a decision on the matter, and there was a large silent majority who opposed the proposal. She tabled a petition (A1625317) and newspaper article (A1625318).
Mr Tompkins reiterated Ms Fearey’s key points and raised concerns about who would be using the additional carparking at the proposed facility.
4.5 Richard Waite (President) and Pauline Smith (Club Captain), Stoke Tennis Club
Mr Waite provided background detail regarding the Stoke Tennis Club and its processes in terms of electing a Committee, and tabled a related document (A1625336). He said that members of the Club had not advised the Committee that they opposed the Stoke Community Centre, although he had heard about some local opposition to the project. Mr Waite said he supported debate on Council funding for projects.
Ms Smith provided further background detail on the Club and Committee, and the process of providing feedback on the proposed facility. She noted there was some general division amongst members of the Club.
In response to questions, Mr Waite and Ms Smith explained how members of the public could use the Club’s tennis courts for a fee, and how Club members had been advised of plans for the facility via various means.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting at 10.12am.
4.6 Allan Johnson (Chairman of Board of Trustees), Stoke Seniors
Mr Johnson spoke about Stoke Seniors, its activities and how it was funded.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland returned to the meeting at 10.13am.
Mr Johnson spoke about the need for Stoke Seniors to have access to better facilities. He said that Council consultation regarding the Stoke Community Centre had been carried out very well. Mr Johnson urged Council to view the Stoke Community Centre on its merits and proceed with the project as he believed it would meet the needs of various community groups.
4.7 Kim Biggs, Stoke Rugby Club
Ms Biggs said the Club supported the Stoke Community Centre proposal and noted that Council had been in discussions with the Stoke Rugby Club on the matter for many years. She pointed out that the current Greenmeadows facilities were inadequate for the region. Ms Briggs said she had been impressed with consultation regarding the facility to ensure it would be fit for purpose. She provided detail on membership at the Club.
Ms Briggs suggested the facility would bring community groups together, and emphasised that the project should not be delayed.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 10.26am to 10.28am.
4.8 Keegan Phipps
Keegan Phipps gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1624674) on his experience of being a member of the Youth Parliament and his ideas for supporting and developing youth in the region. He spoke about the difficulties of youth seeking employment in Nelson, and therefore moving out of the region, and emphasised the need to address this issue.
Mr Phipps spoke about protection of the environment, Council rates and debt, engagement with youth, and online voting. He responded to questions from councillors regarding the concept of a Youth Mayor.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 10.47am to 11.01am, during which time Councillor Lawrey left the meeting.
The meeting moved to consideration of the Mayor’s Report.
Attachments 1 A1624719 - Harry Pearson - Stoke Community Centre Handout 2 A1624803 - Trudie Brand Nelson Residents Association Modellers' Pond PowerPoint 3 A1625317 - Cathy Fearey and Jim Tompkins - Stoke Community Centre Petition 4 A1625318 - Cathy Fearey and Jim Tompkins - Stoke Community Centre Newspaper Article 5 A1625336 - Richard Waite and Pauline Smith - Stoke Tennis Club - Stoke Community Centre Handout 6 A1624674 - Keegan Phipps PowerPoint |
5. Mayor's Report
Document number R6477, agenda pages 50 - 51 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/239 Receives the Mayor's Report (R6477). Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
Attachments 1 A1625296 - Huangshi Visit Mayor's Report Eel Gift Blessing PowerPoint |
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 11.03am.
Bill Findlater, Gail Collingwood, Ferry van Mansum and Jordan Lankshear joined the table. Mr Findlater provided detail on the trip to Huangshi to attend the opening of the Nelson Garden. The group provided a PowerPoint presentation (A1625296) and thanked Council and the China Friendship Society for its support.
The meeting agreed to leave the remainder of the Mayor’s Report to lie on the table, and move to consideration of item 8 on the agenda ‘Modellers Pond – Fundraising Status’.
6. Modellers Pond - Fundraising Status
Document number R6456, agenda pages 52 - 56 refer.
Capital Projects Contractor, Richard Kirby, and Major Projects Engineer, Darryl Olverson, presented the report.
In response to questions regarding potential other uses or configurations for the Modellers’ Pond space, Mr Kirby emphasised that alternative uses would only be considered if the Society was unable to organise adequate funding to modify the Pond. He advised Council that the Society believed it could reach the funding target of $600,000.
In response to questions, Mr Olverson confirmed there was adequate funding budgeted to continue managing the Pond over the coming summer. He said there would be adequate time to prepare a proposal for the Annual Plan 2017/18 if the officer recommendation was passed.
Councillor Davy, seconded by Councillor Ward, moved the recommendation in the officer report.
Several councillors questioned the significant level of funding that Council had asked the Society to raise. The majority of elected members supported the motion, noting that it was reasonable to extend the funding timeframe for the Society.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting from 11.40am to 11.42am.
Resolved CL/2016/241 Receives the report Modellers Pond - Fundraising Status (R6456); Amends clauses 4 and 7 of the Council resolution passed on 24 March 2016 as follows: AND
THAT The Nelson Society of Modellers be afforded the
opportunity to finalise and confirm additional funding for the balance over
and above the $600,000 committed by Council no later than the end of AND
THAT Council confirms that should the additional
funding not be raised by the Nelson Society of Modellers by the end of Davy/Ward Carried |
The meeting moved to consider item 12 on the agenda ‘Stoke Community and Sports Facility – Supplementary Information’.
7. Stoke Community and Sports Facility - Supplementary Information
Document number R6526, agenda pages 116 - 142 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/242 Receives the report Stoke Community and Sports Facility - Supplementary Information (R6526) and its attachments (A1351796 and A1528009). Ward/Noonan Carried |
Manager Capital Projects, Shane Davies, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, and Major Projects Engineer, Darryl Olverson presented the report.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 11.57am to 11.59am. Councillor Acland left the meeting from 11.59am to 12.02pm. Councillors Davy and Copeland left the meeting from 12.01pm to 12.03pm.
Mr Ward spoke about the investment of having a well-insulated facility to reduce ongoing heating costs, the need to provide a lift to ensure appropriate accessibility, and the need for security as the facility would be a significant Council asset. He confirmed that these items were included in the current facility budget.
In response to a question, Mr Davies provided further detail about why photovoltaic panels were not suitable for the Stoke Community and Sports Facility, and reiterated that it was more cost-effective to improve the thermal qualities of the building and use an appropriate heating/cooling system.
Elected members asked further questions regarding the potential for a café at the facility, the application of Green Star principles, costs of energy systems, energy consumption, Nelson 2060 goals, and the status of tender rates.
In response to a question, the Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, advised that if the additional funding for the facility was not approved by Council, then the tender for the facility would not be let.
Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting at 12.33pm.
In response to questions about the loss of the public tennis courts, Mr Ward advised that the matter would be considered as part of the Stoke Urban Design Strategy which was under development.
Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting from 12.35pm to 12.37pm. Councillor Rainey returned to the meeting at 12.42pm.
The meeting moved to item 17 of the agenda, the Community Services Committee minutes from 18 August 2016.
8. Community Services Committee - 18 August 2016
Document number M2095, agenda pages 167 - 176 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/243 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 18 August 2016, be received. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
8.1 Stoke Community and Sport Facility - Tender Feedback
Councillor Ward, seconded by Councillor Davy, moved the recommendation from the Community Services Committee.
Councillor Lawrey, seconded by Councillor Copeland, moved an amendment to the motion to include:
AND THAT Council seeks expressions of interest in operating a café in the Stoke Community and Sports Facility.
Several councillors indicated support for the amendment as it seemed reasonable to determine if there was any interest in operating a café at the facility.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 12.52pm to 12.55pm.
It was noted that further time to was required ensure the amendment was worded suitably.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned for lunch from 12.56pm to 1.28pm.
The meeting considered proposed wording from officers for the amendment. The Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, advised that any expression of interest material would be explicit that there was no funding available from Council for the fit out of a café. Officers advised that for clarity, the amendment should clearly reflect that any café would be leased.
The mover and seconder agreed to modify the amendment to:
AND THAT in line with Council consideration on 23 July 2015 and resolution CL/2015/026, Council seeks expressions of interest in leasing a café in the Stoke Community and Sports Facility.
Councillors for the amendment supported the aim of having a café opening alongside the opening of the building. Those against felt it may give the impression that Council would provide the fit out for the café, and noted that the Stoke community and businesses had not asked for a café.
The amendment was put and carried, and became the substantive motion.
Councillors for the motion felt it was money well spent, and the Stoke community had been waiting for development and commitment from Council. A view was expressed that the decision should not be made prior to consideration of the Stoke Urban Design Strategy, and that consultation had not been carried out correctly.
The motion was put and a
division was called.
Councillor Acland |
Aye |
Councillor Barker |
Aye |
Councillor Copeland |
Aye |
Councillor Davy |
Aye |
Councillor Fulton |
Aye |
Councillor Lawrey |
Aye |
Councillor Matheson |
Aye |
Councillor McGurk |
Aye |
Councillor Noonan |
Aye |
Councillor Rainey |
No |
Councillor Skinner |
Aye |
Councillor Ward |
Aye |
Her Worship the Mayor |
Aye |
The motion was passed, 12-1.
Resolved CL/2016/244 Approves that an additional $350,000 be included in the 2016/17 financial year to complete the Stoke Community and Sport Facility project; AND THAT in line with Council consideration on 23 July 2015 and resolution CL/2015/026, Council seeks expressions of interest in leasing a café in the Stoke Community and Sports Facility Ward/Davy Carried |
The meeting moved to consider the earlier items on the agenda, starting at item 5 – Confirmation of Minutes.
9. Confirmation of Minutes
9.1 28 July 2016
Document number M2043, agenda pages 16 - 32 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/245 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 28 July 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Davy/McGurk Carried |
9.2 29 July 2016 - Extraordinary Meeting
Document number M2047, agenda pages 33 - 35 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/246 THAT the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 29 July 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Davy/McGurk Carried |
10. Status Report - Council - 8 September 2016
Document number R6516, agenda pages 36 - 49 refer.
In response to questions, officers provided further detail regarding green waste stockpiling at York Valley Landfill and consultation with users of the Waahi Taakaro Golf Course.
Resolved CL/2016/247 THAT the Status Report Council 8 September 2016 (R6516) and its attachment (A1168168) be received. Noonan/McGurk Carried |
11. Mayor’s Report (continued)
The meeting considered the remaining items on the Mayor’s Report.
Her Worship the Mayor advised the letter to the Minister for Social Housing and the Minister for Social Development, regarding emergency housing, had been sent on 7 September 2016 and had been acknowledged.
12. Plan Change A3 - Woodburners - Operative Date
Document number R6465, agenda pages 57 - 93 refer.
Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizzell, and Senior Planning Adviser, Mark Leggett, presented the report.
Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the table at 2.33pm.
Resolved CL/2016/248 Receive the report Plan Change A3 - Woodburners - Operative Date and its attachments (A1580627) and (A1601106); Approve Plan Change A3 Nelson Air Quality Plan – Woodburners (A1580627) as operative on 19 September 2016, pursuant to Clause 20(1) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. Davy/Ward Carried |
Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the table at 2.34pm.
13. Administrative Matters
Document number R6108, agenda pages 94 - 112 refer.
Manager Administration, Penny Langley, presented the report.
A correction was noted to Councillor McGurk’s attendance at the 2 June 2016 Planning and Regulatory Committee, as it showed as ‘n/a’ when he had attended. It was also noted that Councillor Lawrey should show as ‘n/a’ instead of ‘n’ for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit meeting on 24 June 2016.
Resolved CL/2016/249 Receives the amended report Administrative Matters (R6108) and its attachments (A1323219, A1103850, A1606906, A1006782, and A1550618); Confirms the approval of the fixing of the seal in relation to those documents and the warrants of appointment detailed in the Schedule of Documents Sealed (A1550618). Davy/Lawrey Carried |
14. Freedom Camping - redirection of budget provision
Document number R6523, agenda pages 113 - 115 refer.
Attendance: Councillor Barker left the meeting from 2.35pm to 2.37pm.
Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, presented the report.
In response to a question, Mr Ward advised that he expected the Freedom Camping Strategy to be presented to Council early in the next triennium.
Attendance: Councillor McGurk left the meeting at 2.41pm.
Concern was expressed that the project to install sinks had been in line with the current behaviour of freedom campers, and there was no policy in place to guide Council to act otherwise.
Attendance: Councillor McGurk returned to the meeting at 2.43pm.
Mr Ward confirmed that, if approved, the signs would be installed promptly, in time for the busy summer season. He spoke about the process to date and summarised consultant advice which had been to not install infrastructure at this time.
Resolved CL/2016/250 Receives the report Freedom Camping - redirection of budget provision (R6523) ; Approves the redirection of $10,000 capital expenditure in the Annual Plan 2016/17 for signage targeted at freedom campers (instead of providing two sinks at two locations). Davy/Noonan Carried |
Reports From Committees
15. Chief Executive Employment Committee - 1 August 2016
Document number M2051, agenda pages 143 - 146 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/251 THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee, held on 1 August 2016, be received. Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
16. Works and Infrastructure Committee - 4 August 2016
Document number M2053, agenda pages 147 - 154 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2016/252 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 4 August 2016, be received. Davy/Skinner Carried |
16.1. Stoke Urban Design - Progress Transport Projects |
|
|
Resolved CL/2016/253 Approve bringing forward $85,000 from the 2018/19 Stoke Centre Enhancement Fund to enable the construction of Main Road Stoke traffic calming stage I to take place in 2017/18. Davy/Noonan Carried |
16.2 40 Frenchay Drive Easement for Purposes of Electricity Supply
Resolved CL/2016/254 Grant the proposed easement over Lot 31 DP 487620, adjoining the boundary with Lot 29 DP 487620, in favour of land owned by Hammock Hill Family Trust (CFR 703598) pursuant to section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977; Agree that all costs incurred by Council in this matter will be met by the Hammock Hill Family Trust. Davy/Skinner Carried |
17. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 11 August 2016
Document number M2077, agenda pages 155 - 162 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/255 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 11 August 2016, be received. McGurk/Fulton Carried |
18. Chief Executive Employment Committee - 16 August 2016
Document number M2086, agenda pages 163 - 166 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/256 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee, held on 16 August 2016, be received. Her Worship the Mayor/Acland Carried |
19. Community Services Committee – 18 August 2016 (continued)
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 2.47pm to 2.49pm.
19.1 Campground Review
Resolved CL/2016/257 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. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
19.2 Nelson Marina Advisory Group
Resolved CL/2016/258 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. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
20. Joint Shareholders Committee - 23 August 2016
Document number M2100, agenda pages 177 - 181 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/259 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Joint Shareholders Committee, held on 23 August 2016, be received. Barker/Davy Carried |
21. Civil Defence Emergency Management Group - 23 August 2016
Document number M1837, agenda pages 182 - 184 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/260 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, held on 23 August 2016, be received. Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
22. Governance Committee - 25 August 2016
Document number M2109, agenda pages 185 - 195 refer.
Resolved CL/2016/261 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Governance Committee, held on 25 August 2016, be received. Barker/Acland Carried |
22.1 The Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA) draft Statement of Intent 2016/17
Resolved CL/2016/262 THAT the Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2016/17 (A1603844) be approved subject to any minor edits. Barker/Acland Carried |
22.2 Nelson Cycle Lift Society – approval of project plan
Attendance: Councillor Rainey declared an interest and left the table at 2.52pm.
Councillor Barker, seconded by Councillor Acland, moved the recommendation from the Governance Committee.
It was agreed the motion would be left to lie on the table until representatives from the Nelson Cycle Lift Society joined the meeting.
Attendance: Councillor Rainey returned to the table at 2.55pm.
22.3 Draft Annual Report 2015/16
Resolved CL/2016/263 Note the draft Annual Report 2015/16 has been prepared and will be audited before being presented to Council for adoption. Barker/Noonan Carried |
22.4 Carry Forwards from 2015/16
Resolved CL/2016/264 Approve the carry forward of $16,029,000 unspent capital budget for use in 2016/17; Approve the offsetting of $219,000 of capital spent in 2015/16 against 2016/17 budgets; Approve the carry forward of $3,085,203 of unspent operating budget for use in 2016/17. Note savings in 2015/16 capital expenditure of $2,619,000. Barker/Davy Carried |
22.5 Corporate Report to 31 May 2016
Item from Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting - 4/08/2016
Resolved CL/2016/265 THAT unbudgeted expenditure of $50,000 be approved for engaging external resource to assist delivering the Internal Audit Plan 2016/17. Barker/McGurk Carried |
22.6 Internal Audit Report to 30 June 2016
Item from Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting - 4/08/2016
It was noted that the report number needed to be added to the recommendation for clarity.
Resolved CL/2016/266 NOTE the internal audit findings, recommendations and status of action plans up to 30 June 2016 as per report R6205. Barker/McGurk Carried |
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 2.58pm to 3.01pm. At 3.01pm Councillor Rainey declared an interest and left the table.
22.7 Nelson Cycle Lift Society – approval of project plan (continued)
Jo Rainey, Chairman, and John Rollston, of the Nelson Cycle Lift Society, joined the meeting.
Mr Rainey summarised the proposal to develop a world class adventure park in the Fringed Hill area. He said that a fundamental module of this work was to develop a business case for a gondola/lift service. Mr Rainey highlighted that it was too early to engage with potential investors as a robust business case had not been prepared.
Mr Rollston spoke about the need to assess return on invesment and feasibility, while also looking at the wider impact on Nelson, especially in terms of visitor numbers and their length of stay.
In response to questions, Mr Rollston said that inclusion of a café/restaurant facility would be an investor decision. He emphasised the aim in developing a business case was to determine if anything major would prohibit the gondola development. Mr Rollston confirmed that if the business case showed no major issues, then the Society would start to look for investors.
In response to questions, Mr Rainey said the Society was aiming to have Stage One of the business case development complete by February 2017. He said the Society had offered to speak with members of the Brook community any time they wished. Mr Rainey confirmed that members of the Society were volunteers. He also clarified that the document would not be a prospectus and was pre-commercial.
Mixed views were expressed by councillors, however the majority of councillors supported the grant due to the project’s potential influence on growth in the region.
Resolved CL/2016/267 THAT pursuant to Standing Order 3.12.1, the motion under debate now be put. Ward/Acland Carried |
The motion was put, and a
division was called.
Councillor Acland |
Aye |
Councillor Barker |
Aye |
Councillor Copeland |
Aye |
Councillor Davy |
No |
Councillor Fulton |
Aye |
Councillor Lawrey |
Aye |
Councillor Matheson |
Aye |
Councillor McGurk |
Aye |
Councillor Noonan |
Aye |
Councillor Rainey |
Interest |
Councillor Skinner |
No |
Councillor Ward |
Aye |
Her Worship the Mayor |
Aye |
The motion was passed, 10-2.
|
Resolved CL/2016/268 THAT the $50,000 of funding allocated in the 2016/17 Annual Plan be released to the Nelson Cycle Lift Society for further development of the business case and for advice on the economic contribution of a gondola to mountain biking and the city, with the following condition: THAT the brief for the economic assessment be signed off by the Chief Executives of Nelson City Council and the Nelson Regional Development Agency. Barker/Acland Carried |
Attendance: Councillors Matheson and Noonan left the meeting and Councillor Rainey returned to the meeting at 3.49pm.
23. Extend meeting beyond six hours |
|
|
Resolved CL/2016/269 THAT the meeting continue beyond six hours. Her Worship the Mayor/Acland Carried |
24. Exclusion of the Public
Resolved CL/2016/270 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: Barker/Her Worship the Mayor 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 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 28 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). · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) 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. · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. |
2 |
Extraordinary Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 29 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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
3 |
Public Excluded Status Report - Council - 8 September 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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
4 |
Chief Executive KPIs 2016/17 - Update
|
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 |
5 |
Proposed asset sale of the Punawai
|
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)(b)(ii) 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 · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
6 |
Chief Executive Employment Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 1 August 2016 These minutes contain a recommendation to Council regarding · Chief Executive Performance Review 2015/16 |
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)(c)(i) 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. · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. |
7 |
Chief Executive Employment Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 16 August 2016 These minutes contain recommendations to Council regarding · Chief Executive Performance Assessment 2015/16 · Chief Executive Remuneration Review 2015/16 |
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. |
8 |
Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 18 August 2016 These minutes contain recommendations to Council regarding · Community and Commercial Leases · 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. |
9 |
Joint Shareholders Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 23 August 2016 These minutes contain no recommendations to Council |
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. |
10 |
Governance Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 25 August 2016 These minutes contain recommendations to Council regarding · Land Purchase – Nelson Marina · Forestry Review · Internal Audit Findings · Detailed Property Assessment: Emano · Review of Forestry · Property Matters – 1 Kinzett Terrace
|
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). · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) 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. · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(j) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage. |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 3.50pm and resumed in public session at 4.38pm, during which time Councillors Fulton and Lawrey left the meeting.
25. Re-admittance of the Public
Resolved CL/2016/271 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Her Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.39pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson Date
|
Council 22 September 2016 |
REPORT R6558
Mayor's Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To update Council on several matters.
2. Recommendation
THAT the Mayor's Report (R6558) and its attachments (A1631097 and A1351876) be received. |
3. Discussion
Brook Cabins
3.1 After recent months Council has had discussions around the summer session influx of visitors, including freedom campers. Further work on a possible Freedom Camping Bylaw will be undertaken by the incoming Council post-election.
3.2 In the interim, Councillor Skinner has expressed an interest in better utilising the Brook Camp cabins to assist with peak demand over summer. Councillor Skinner and I visited the cabins last week with a Council officer to gauge the cabins condition and suitability for this purpose.
3.3 We are of the view that the cabins should be considered and I have asked the Chief Executive to prepare a report for the incoming Council setting out the options and costs involved in utilising this existing resource with a view to making the cabins operational to assist with peak summer demand.
Housing Accord Extension
3.4 The Joint Steering Group established under the Housing Accord has agreed to extend the Accord (Attachment 1). Clause 19 of the Housing Accord (Attachment 2) makes provision for such extensions.
Visit from Diplomatic Corps
3.5 Representatives of the Diplomatic Corps are visiting the northern region of the South Island in late September and will be accompanied by officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The group is made up of Ambassadors and High Commissioners who are accredited to New Zealand and based in either Wellington or Canberra. The programme includes Nelson, Blenheim and Kaikoura. The group will visit Nelson 30 September - 1 October. The purpose of the visit is to showcase the Nelson region, its export economy and international connections and its unique attributes.
Rachel Reese
Mayor of Nelson
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1631097 - Housing Accord Extension Correspondance
Attachment 2: A1351876 - Housing Accord
|
Council 22 September 2016 |
REPORT R6390
Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Proposal to Establish a Business Unit
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve the proposal to establish a Business Unit to manage and operate a regional landfill for the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils by;
· Seeking delegated approval from Council for the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign a Deed of Agreement with Tasman District Council on the joint venture landfill arrangement (with conditions);
· Seeking a resolution from Council on its intention to form a Joint Committee, with associated Terms of Reference; and
· Outlining the next steps and programme of work.
2. Summary
2.1 This report sets out the legal arrangements and draft governance arrangements proposed between Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council to progress with the joint venture proposal in the form of a Regional Landfill Business Unit.
2.2 Proceeding with the proposal for a Regional Landfill Business Unit represents a further step towards greater regional integration of waste management, and in particular presents the Councils with an opportunity to meet the objectives of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council
4. Background
The Landfills
4.1 Both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council are responsible for promoting effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their respective territorial boundaries (collectively the Nelson-Tasman region) under Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act).
4.2 Nelson City Council owns and operates the York Valley landfill at 34 Market Road, Bishopdale, Nelson and the Tasman District Council owns and operates the Eves Valley landfill at 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West, Tasman.
Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
4.3 Nelson City and Tasman District Councils prepared and adopted a single Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) dated April 2012 pursuant to section 45 of the Act.
4.4 Policy 3.1.5 of the JWMMP states that the Councils will jointly make the most effective and efficient use of York Valley and Eves Valley landfill space. Method 3.1.5.1 to achieve this policy states:
The Councils will investigate a joint landfill solution as a matter of priority in the first year this plan is operative (and the options will include using one landfill as a regional facility serving both Districts or that the two landfills will be used for separate materials).
4.5 Policy 3.1.6 of the Joint Plan states that the Councils are to ensure jointly that there is landfill capacity in the two districts for the safe disposal of waste. Method 3.1.6.1 to achieve this policy states:
The Councils will continue to provide a landfill disposal service for the disposal of approved waste that is sourced from within the Districts.
The Previous Agreement
4.6 In 2014, following investigation, the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils proposed joint use of York Valley landfill to accept all residual solid waste generated in the Nelson-Tasman region. This arrangement proposed a ‘contract for service’ approach. A memorandum of understanding was prepared and the Councils consulted with their communities. Subsequently, when formalising this agreement, it became clear that the Councils could not agree on mutually acceptable terms for the allocation of future capital costs, and the ‘contract for service’ model did not proceed.
The Current Proposal
4.7 Both Councils still wanted to reach agreement and therefore agreed to undertake an independent review to assess options and associated implications for each Council. This independent review was completed by Deloitte in October 2015. Although it provided accurate and factual information on the solid waste activities undertaken by each Council, it did not result in an agreement being reached.
4.8 During deliberations on the independent review it was agreed that a joint venture model be considered – one along the lines of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU). In the NRSBU model the Councils effectively share assets and capital expenditure 50:50 and operations are governed by a joint committee of the Councils. This NRSBU approach has worked well for over 15 years.
4.9 It was agreed that before any deliberations could occur that a valuation be undertaken of each Council’s landfills and landfilling operations. This independent valuation was received in February 2016, and indicated a higher value for the York Valley landfill.
4.10 Both Councils agreed to progress with a 50:50 joint venture based around a balancing payment to cover the difference in the respective valuations. This would involve Tasman District Council paying $4.2 million to Nelson City Council to establish an equal investment in the landfilling operations.
4.11 On 3 March 2016 both Councils considered similar reports to progress towards joint landfill management. The Nelson City Council passed resolutions (CL/2016/006) and the Tasman District Council passed equivalent resolutions (CN16-03-6) on that day.
4.12 The Nelson City Council passed the following resolution (CL/2016/006);
THAT the report Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Joint Venture Proposal (R5512) and its attachments (A1504294 and A1504295) be received;
AND THAT Council approve a Joint Venture model as the preferred option for the management of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils’ landfills;
AND THAT a 50:50 Joint Venture is preferred, with a one-off payment of $4.2 million paid by Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council to compensate for the difference in midpoint landfill values between York Valley and Eves Valley be approved;
AND THAT for Eves Valley, operational control of all land used for the existing landfill and for Stage 3 landfill purposes will be transferred to the Joint Venture and that for York Valley operational control of all of the land currently used (but not the land designated for Stage 2) will be transferred to the Joint Venture (noting that, for formal decision-making purposes, maps and legal descriptions will be provided);
AND THAT both councils retain buffer land and designations, and that should any alternative use be proposed, the views and preferences of the joint venture will be taken into account in determining the future use of that land;
AND THAT the structure, governance, funding and ownership aspects of the landfill Joint Venture will be the subject of a future report to both Councils, noting the intention that this Joint Venture be similar to Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit;
AND THAT the Nelson City Council will undertake consultation on the proposal through its Annual Plan 2016/17 process and that, concurrently, Tasman District Council will engage with its community through its engagement on its Annual Plan 2016/17 whilst acknowledging that Tasman District Council may need to amend its Long-term Plan in July 2016 to enable this transaction (as the Eves Valley landfill is a strategic asset);
AND THAT, subject to confirmation through the Annual Plan consultation processes, the Joint Venture formally commence 1 July 2017 with the one-off payment of $4.2 million to be made from Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council on that date;
AND THAT from the date of 3 March 2016 (being the date both Councils consider the proposal) both Councils will continue to support the model in the way they manage their landfills in anticipation of it being the approved outcome;
AND THAT prior to commencement of the Joint Venture on 1 July 2017, that each Council continue with all necessary work to establish the Joint Venture in anticipation of approval of the proposal;
AND THAT all direct and external costs for establishment of the Joint Venture will continue to be shared 50:50 between both Councils;
AND THAT the Chief Executive be instructed to establish with Tasman District Council a Joint Venture project team and do all necessary work for the purpose of establishing the Joint Venture for landfill operations from 1 July 2017;
AND THAT all the statements in this recommendation be subject to the Tasman District Council passing equivalent resolutions on the joint landfill management.
4.13 The Nelson City Council included the joint entity proposal in its Draft Annual Plan 2016/17. The proposal attracted seven (7) submissions all of which were in support of the proposal. Council did not amend its Annual Plan as a result of the submissions and a final Annual Plan was adopted 2 June 2016. The Annual Plan states that the arrangement would be operational by 1 July 2017. Council’s Long Term Plan already plans for operation of the York Valley Landfill for at least a further ten years, and was not required to be altered to accommodate the joint venture proposal.
4.14 Unlike the Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council classifies its landfill (Eves Valley) as a Strategic Asset in its Significance and Engagement policy. As a consequence, Tasman District Council initiated an amendment to its Long Term Plan 2015-2025. The amendment was necessary because the Local Government Act requires explicit decisions relating to a change of control for a strategic asset to be included in the Long Term Plan.
4.15 The Tasman District Council prepared a consultation document and supporting information as part of a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). The SCP enabled Tasman District Council to consult and engage with its communities on the proposal (and alternative options) during July and August 2016. Like Nelson City Council, the number of submissions were very low. Four submissions were originally lodged – two in support and two opposed. One of the opposing submitters subsequently withdrew their submission, leaving only one submitter who wished to be heard.
4.16 The submissions were considered by a Hearings Panel on the 24 August and recommendation made to the Tasman District Council to adopt the Amendment to the Long Term Plan, without further changes. This recommendation was considered and adopted by the Tasman District Council on 15 September 2016.
5. Proposed Regional Landfill Business Unit
5.1 Since 3 March 2016, the two Councils have been working on the proposed structure, governance, funding and ownership arrangements for the proposed joint venture. A Regional Landfill Business Unit (RLBU) is proposed, overseen by a joint committee, in a structure similar to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU).
5.2 Councillors from both Councils met at a Joint Workshop on the 29 July 2016 to discuss the proposed business unit - in particular a draft Deed of Agreement and draft Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee. These documents are necessary for the arrangement to be formalised and acted upon.
5.3 The draft Deed of Agreement (A1625154), draft Terms of Reference (A1625160) and a structure diagram (A1625909) have been updated and these are attached to this report.
5.4 There are a small number of changes to the drafts, which have arisen as a result of feedback from the Council workshop and a legal review. The changes have been made to assist or clarify understanding, to provide clear distinctions between processes; to provide for unilateral decisions; and to anticipate the Commerce Commission process.
5.5 It is anticipated that the RLBU will commence operations on 1 July 2017. It will manage both the York Valley and Eves Valley landfills on behalf of the Councils and will be governed by a joint committee.
5.6 Administration and operational services of the business unit will be provided by the Nelson City Council (as the Administering Council), with a General Manager appointed by joint agreement of the Chief Executives of the Councils.
Governance
5.7 A Joint Committee shall provide oversight and direction for the RLBU. Each Council shall appoint two representatives to the Joint Committee. Two further roles are likely to be available for an independent person and iwi advisor.
5.8 Each Council shall retain ownership of their respective landfills and the RLBU will have control over their combined operation.
5.9 The RLBU shall make all future decisions about the operational aspects of each landfill, including when to open or close them. It shall also assess future landfilling operations whether at the current landfills or at a completely new site(s). It shall recommend to the Councils the purchase of additional land where necessary for future landfill facilities.
5.10 The RLBU shall contribute to the Long Term Plan planning processes of each Council including asset management plans and infrastructure strategies. It shall also contribute to and comply with the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan of the Councils.
5.11 The RLBU shall contribute to the development of other Council policies that require input from the regional landfilling operation. Specifically, both Councils’ Regional Policy Statements, Regional Plan Reviews, Asset Management Plans, Development Contribution and Financial Contribution Policies.
5.12 The RLBU shall determine the fees and charges for waste disposal at the regional facilities and include them in its Annual Business Plan that is submitted to each Council for approval by 31 October each year. Once approved by the Councils the joint committee shall set the fees by 30 June each year.
5.13 The RLBU may not borrow money or undertake major financial transactions other than with the approval of the Councils.
Levels of Service
5.14 For most residents and businesses there will be no noticeable change to how each Council delivers solid waste services. Council’s kerbside rubbish and recycling collections will continue unchanged.
5.15 The Pascoe Street resource recovery centre will also continue to operate, accepting commercial and domestic waste and recycling. The Tasman District Council resource recovery centres will also continue to operate, accepting commercial and domestic waste and recycling. All the residual waste from these facilities will be directed to the York Valley landfill.
5.16 Commercial customers at the York Valley landfill will become customers of the RLBU and customers of the Eves Valley landfill will be directed to the York Valley landfill and become customers of the RLBU.
5.17 During the consultation on the ‘contract for service’ option in late 2014, questions were asked about the increased traffic volumes should York Valley became a regional landfill. The Statement of Proposal indicated increased movements of less than 1% per day. Evidence at the time indicated that traffic movements along Market Road would increase from an average of 2,300 vehicle movements per day to around 2,322 traffic movements per day.
Planning and Reporting
5.18 The RLBU shall produce the following plans in a timeframe which aligns with each Council’s reporting deadlines;
5.18.1 Business Plan – shall be prepared annually and it shall outline the activities and intentions of the RLBU over the next 3 years. A draft of the Business Plan shall be presented to each Council by 31 October each year. Each Council shall consider the draft plan and include any appropriate content in their draft annual plans. They shall report back to the RLBU so that the Business Plan can be adopted by the 31 May each year.
5.18.2 Asset Management Plan – shall provide an analysis of the assets controlled by and services delivered by the RLBU in relation to current levels of service and envisaging the future requirements. This plan shall be reviewed annually and revised every three years to align with each Council’s Long Term Plan processes.
5.18.3 Annual Report – shall be prepared annually and include achievements against performance targets and financial forecasts in the Business Plan. It shall include audited annual accounts and financial statements.
Management and Support Services
5.19 The management and support services shall be provided by the Administering Council. The Administering Council is agreed to by both Councils and formalised in the terms of Reference. These shall include management, operational, financial, secretarial and administrative activities as necessary for the RLBU to fulfil its purpose and responsibilities.
5.20 The General Manager shall be appointed by the Chief Executives of both Councils. The General Manager shall be employed/contracted by the Administering Council.
5.21 The Councils shall establish and maintain a Management Group comprising the General Manager and at least one staff member with either engineering and/or financial expertise nominated by each Council. The Management Group will meet as necessary and report to the joint committee when it meets.
5.22 The Management Group shall undertake all the management and oversee the delivery of landfilling services to achieve the obligations and objectives established for the RLBU.
Termination
5.23 The transition of the joint committee over the period of the triennial elections shall be undertaken in either of two ways;
5.23.1 Either the members of the joint committee be discharged on the coming into office of the members of Councils elected at the triennial local body elections and appointed by resolution of the Councils at the earliest opportunity post-election, or
5.23.2 Prior to the election, the Joint Committee recommend the Councils approve a transitional arrangement for representation on the joint committee (this provision shall only apply where the Councils have approved the transitional arrangement).
5.24 The Councils may at any time replace their appointed members or by mutual agreement remove/replace the independent member of the joint committee.
5.25 Iwi may nominate, at any time, a replacement for the appointed iwi advisor. The replacement iwi advisor shall be appointed by the Councils for a maximum of three years.
Deed of Agreement
5.26 The Deed of Agreement represents the legal contract between the Councils (A1625154). It covers:
· the principles of the agreement,
· matters of ownership and control,
· responsibilities and powers to be delegated,
· administrative agreements,
· financial transactions (including the payment of $4.2 million to Nelson City Council),
· arrangements for sharing costs/surpluses on a 50:50 basis,
· exit arrangements
· dispute resolution and
· other minor items.
Terms of Reference
5.27 The Councils will need to agree to form a Joint Committee after the Triennial elections in October 2016. The Councils could choose to form the Joint Committee ahead of the election, but the Committee would not have an opportunity to meet prior to being dissolved like all committees as a result of the election.
5.28 The Local Government Act 2002 states the agreement to form a Joint Committee must contain Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee. While Council cannot decide on the content of those Terms of Reference at this meeting, it is useful for both Councils to consider how the Committee will operate before entering into the Deed of Agreement
5.29 A draft Terms of Reference is attached (A1625160) and contains:
· powers and responsibilities,
· representation arrangements,
· meeting and reporting requirements,
· planning and monitoring responsibilities,
· management and support service responsibilities
· provisions for terminations and variations, and
· limitations.
5.30 It is intended that these draft Terms of Reference will be submitted to the Councils for adoption when they agree to form the RLBU Joint Committee. The Terms of Reference may be subsequently varied by the agreement of the Councils to enable the joint committee to perform in such a manner as to give effect to its purpose.
6. Options
6.1 The landfilling operation is part of the wider solid waste activity that Council delivers to its community. However it is a discrete operation and only comprises the disposal of solid waste in the York Valley landfill.
6.2 The landfilling joint venture options available to Council are;
6.2.1 Option 1 - Agree to proceed with the RLBU. This comprises the establishment of a joint committee that governs York and Eves Valley landfills, with both Councils interests represented and all costs and surpluses shared on a 50:50 basis - similar to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU);
6.2.2 Option 2 - Agree to proceed with amendments, as instructed at this meeting. This option would require amendments to be agreed with the Tasman District Council;
6.2.3 Option 3 - Decline to enter into the agreement and direct staff to consider further alternative joint venture options (i.e. some other version of a regional contract-for-service arrangement). This option may also require agreement with Tasman District Council.
Advantages, Risks and Disadvantages
6.3 The following table outlines the advantages, risks and disadvantages of each of the three joint venture options available to Council.
Option 1: Regional Landfill Business Unit (RLBU) |
|
Advantages |
· Shared responsibilities for landfill management and operations · Realises the benefits of a regional approach (capital and operational efficiency, reduction of commercial risk, waste minimisation and non-financial benefits) · Future capital expenditure can be shared equally · Aligns with the objectives of the JWMMP |
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Shared control over the landfill · Risks and benefits are shared equally · Option would need to be assessed to ensure it complied with the requirements of the Commerce Act 1986. |
Option 2: RLBU with Amendments |
|
Advantages |
· Same as Option 1 |
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Same as Option 1 |
Option 3: Consider other options |
|
Advantages |
· Shared responsibilities for landfill or potentially have no responsibility for a landfill |
Risks and Disadvantages |
· There may not be other acceptable options that meet the objectives of the JWMMP · Many options have already been considered and viable alternative options are very limited · Further delays the establishment of a regional landfill (Tasman District Council could be in a position where Stage 3, Eves Valley may need to be committed immediately, thereby negating the option of a regional landfill in the short to medium term) · High financial risks associated with uncertainty |
6.4 A service level review has been undertaken (A1628550). This review complies with the Local Government Act requirements to undertake service level reviews as per section 17A.
7. Statutory Considerations
7.1 The Councils have jointly sought legal advice on the formation of the RLBU, the draft Deed of Agreement and the draft Terms of Reference.
7.2 In terms of the formation of the RLBU, the legal advice has considered compliance with the following statutes;
7.2.1 Local Government Act 2002;
7.2.2 Waste Minimisation Act 2008;
7.2.3 Commerce Act 1986, specifically;
· Section 27 which prohibits arrangements that have the purpose, effect, or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the market, and
· Section 30 which deems a provision of an arrangement to substantially lessen completion, if the provision has the purpose, effect, or likely effect of fixing, controlling, or maintaining the price of goods or services supplied or acquired by the parties to the arrangement in competition with each other.
7.3 Legal advice has indicated that the proposed arrangement between the Councils may lessen competition and potentially breach aspects of the Commerce Act.
7.4 While the Councils have a clear mandate to pursue cost effective approaches to service provision, and to consider shared service arrangements, neither the provisions of the Local Government Act nor Waste Minimisation Act are explicit enough to exempt the Council from the requirements of the Commerce Act.
7.5 Section 61 of the Commerce Act provides that the Commerce Commission may grant authorisation for arrangements that may otherwise breach certain provisions of the Act. In general, the Commission is able to grant an authorisation for an arrangement if it is satisfied that the public benefit of the arrangement outweighs the detriment arising from the loss of competition.
7.6 The Councils at the earliest opportunity will be lodging an application with the Commerce Commission to authorise the arrangement. Council will be advised on the progress of this application and any outcomes.
8. Next Steps/Timeline
8.1 Both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils will continue to work together to assist legal advisors prepare a Commerce Commission Application. It is expected the Commerce Commission will issue a decision within 4-6 months after the application is submitted. The decision would either approve the arrangement, approve it with conditions, or decline it.
8.2 Assuming a favourable outcome, the Councils will then jointly agree to form the Joint Committee and adopt the Terms of Reference at the earliest opportunity.
8.3 At the current time, it is anticipated the Joint Committee will be able to meet prior to the operational date of 1 July 2017.
8.4 In the interim, the Councils will need to continue to prepare financials for their respective Annual Plans. These will be prepared on the basis of the amended Long Term Plan provisions.
8.5 If the Councils receive an unfavourable outcome from the Commerce Commission, then the Nelson City Council would continue with its current landfill arrangements and undertake late changes to its draft Annual Plan 2017/18. It should also consider whether any alternative joint venture options with Tasman District Council can be achieved.
9. Conclusion
9.1 This report recommends the Councils proceed to set up all the necessary legal arrangements to establish the Regional Landfill Business Unit. This includes delegating authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign a Deed of Agreement with Tasman District Council. It is anticipated the Deed will be signed following an authorisation decision from the Commerce Commission.
9.2 Proceeding with the proposal for a Regional Landfill Business Unit represents a further step towards greater regional integration of waste management, and in particular presents the Councils with an opportunity to meet the objectives of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
Richard Kirby
Consulting Engineer
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1625909 - RLBU Organisation Structure
Attachment 2: A1625154 - Draft Deed of Agreement for RLBU
Attachment 3: A1625160 – Draft Terms Of Reference
Attachment 4: A1628550- Section 17a review of services
Important considerations for decision making |
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Council has previously resolved to progress with the establishment of a joint venture option for a regional landfill and this meets the criteria for current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. |
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The proposed joint venture arrangement comprising a Regional Landfill Business Unit is consistent with previous Council decisions. |
3. Risk There is a risk that the Commerce Commission may not be satisfied that the public benefit of the arrangement outweighs the detriment arising from the loss of competition and does not authorise the arrangement. |
4. Financial impact The proposed arrangement results in operational cost savings to Council. The Council receives $4.2m from TDC which will be invested within the Solid Waste activity to fund NCC share of any future landfill development. Effectively this repays debt with Council. |
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement Community consultation on the proposed arrangement was undertaken as part of the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 deliberations earlier this year. This proposed arrangement is of low significance because the small impact on the users of York Valley and the residents of Nelson City. |
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not specifically been consulted on this report |
7. Delegations This is a decision for Council. |