AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Nelson City Council
Thursday 13 December 2018
Commencing at 9.00a.m.
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Pat
Dougherty
Chief
Executive
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese
(Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Mel Courtney, Bill
Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson, Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan,
Mike Rutledge, Tim Skinner and Stuart Walker
Quorum: 7
Nelson
City Council Disclaimer
Please
note that the contents of these Council and Committee Agendas have yet to be
considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by
the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision.
Nelson City Council
13
December 2018
Page
No.
Opening Prayer
1. Apologies
Nil
2. Confirmation
of Order of Business
3. Interests
3.1 Updates
to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify
any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4. Public
Forum
4.1 Christopher
St Johanser - Brook Valley Community Group. Court of Appeal decision and
the consequences.
4.2 Jenny
Easton and Julie Nevin - Top of the South Zero Carbon Act - changes needed to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the adverse effects of a changing
climate and rising sea level. (speaking at 10.35a.m.)
5. Confirmation
of Minutes
5.1 15 November
2018 17 - 29
Document number M3897
Recommendation
That the
Council
Confirms
the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 15 November 2018, as a true
and correct record.
5.2 Extraordinary
Meeting - 27 November 2018 30 - 33
Document number M3953
Recommendation
That the
Council
Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the
Council, held on 27 November 2018, as a true and correct record.
6 Confirmation
of Minutes 20 September 2018 34 - 51
Document number M3766
Recommendation
That the Council
Confirms
the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 20 September 2018, as a true
and correct record.
7. Recommendations from
Committees 52 - 57
7.1 Works and Infrastructure
Committee - 15 November 2018
7.1.1 Recycling -
Update on international markets
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Agrees
to consider through the 2019/20 Annual Plan the additional costs resulting from
the ongoing low global commodity prices, for the 2019/20 financial year at an
estimated cost of between $132,000 and $192,000 funded 50% from the current
reserves in the Solid Waste account and 50% through increased landfill
charges.
7.1.2 Hanging Baskets
Activity Review
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
foregoing $16,000 budgeted income in the Annual Plan 2019/20 from business
contribution towards hanging baskets in order to maximise the number of baskets
that are hung within the City; and
Approves
that the hanging baskets be funded from the Parking and CBD Enhancement cost
centre, street parking meters maintenance account (5510 2010
0415).
7.1.3 Nelson Regional
Sewerage Business Unit - Business Plan 2018-19 and Bell Island Resource Consent
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the Nelson Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan 2018-19 (A2086495) noting that
this now better reflects Nelson City Council’s Long Term Plan and Nelson
City Council’s environmental aspirations.
7.1.4 Waimea Road -
Proposed Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Agrees
a bylaw to set a permanent speed limit is the most appropriate way of
addressing safety issues on Waimea Road between Market Road and the Beatson
Road roundabout; and
Agrees
the proposed amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 (210) are the most
appropriate form of bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and
Agrees
a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendment to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011
(210) is not required; and
Adopts
the Statement of Proposal (A2069647 of Report 9765) relating to the lowering of
the speed limit along Waimea Road from 240m south of Market Road (Market Road)
through to 200m north of the Beatson Road roundabout (Beatson Road roundabout);
and
Approves
commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2069647 of Report R9765),
with the consultation period to run from 14 December 2018 to 15 February 2019;
and
Approves
the consultation plan (A2079928 of Report 9765) and agrees:
(a) the
plan includes sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be
reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner
appropriate to its purpose and significance; and
(b) the
plan will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is
reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.
7.1.5 Seafield
Terrace remediation - supplementary information
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the Enhanced “Scaled-up do minimum” option as the preferred
remedial solution as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2038309) of report R9621
(A2088021) for Seafield Terrace, noting a preliminary revised estimated capital
cost of $1.4 Million with an expected 51% NZTA
Funding Assistance Rate; and
Notes
that design will commence in the current 2018/19 financial year with request
for funding for consents and construction ($1.4 Million)
to be made through the 2019/20 Annual Plan; and
Approves
unbudgeted expense of $70,000 in the 2018/19 financial year to cover costs
incurred to date and to commence detailed design of the preferred option.
7.1.6 Transport
Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028
Recommendation
to Council
That the
Council
Adopts
the Transport Asset Management Plan 2018-28 (A1755799), amended to reflect the
approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.
7.2 Sports and Recreation Committee
- 20 November 2018
7.2.1 Marsden Valley
Reserve - options to manage wild deer populations
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Confirms
that the practice of culling deer within the Marsden Valley Reserve should
continue.
7.2.2 Haulashore
Island Manuka Motu Wharf Review
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the Haulashore Island Manuka Motu wharf remaining closed for use by vessels,
but retained in the short term for its landscape values only; and
Considers
a full wharf refurbishment or replacement in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.
7.2.3 Marina
Governance
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Confirms
the continuation of the Marina Advisory Group to advise on
matters pertaining to the management of Nelson Marina; and
Approves
the Marina Advisory Group to work through a process to advise the Sports and
Recreation Committee on future Marina management once they are in a more
informed position.
7.3 Planning and Regulatory
Committee - 22 November 2018
7.3.1 Deliberations
on Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the Revised Schedule of Annual Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges
(A2098732).
7.4 Planning and Regulatory
Committee - 22 November 2018
7.4.1 National Policy
Statement Urban Development Capacity Assessment 2018
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Considers
all matters relating to the receipt and adoption of the National Policy
Statement on Urban Development Capacity Assessment 2018.
7.4.2 Biosecurity
Annual Review
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy
2018-19 (A2081604), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s
area.
7.5 Community Services Committee -
27 November 2018
7.5.1 Community
Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Adopts
the Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028
(A2012013) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.
7.5.2 Community
Housing
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Considers
all matters relating to the future of Nelson City Council’s community
housing with a view to developing a proposal for community consultation in
2019.
7.6 Governance Committee - 29
November 2018
7.6.2 Bishop Suter
Trust - Statement of Expectation 2019/20
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Confirms
the general matters to be included in the Bishop Suter Trust Statement of
Expectation 2019/20 letter as those identified in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.14 of
report R9824; and
Confirms
the following specific matters to be included in the Bishop Suter Trust
Statement of Expectation letter:
· Governance
succession plan; and
· Resilience;
and
· Good
employer obligations; and
·
Climate Change responsiveness, including risk resilience,
mitigation and adaption; and
·
Development of the relationship with Tasman District
Council with a view to increasing funding from that source.
7.7 Advice from Regional Transport
Committee - 3 December 2018
7.7.1 Regional Land
Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Approves
the inclusion of $1.2 Million in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan
2015–21 for Saltwater Creek Bridge in the 2018/19 financial year.
7.7.2 Nelson Southern
Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Endorses
the amended outline scope for the Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking
and Cycling project (A2102066 of Report 9734) that will enable the Detailed
Business Case to commence.
7.7.3 Proposed
Champion Road underpass
Recommendation to Council
That the
Council
Commits
to the allocation of a maximum of $470,000 as a grant payable to Tasman
District Council for the Champion roundabout and underpass project as part of
the 2019/20 Annual Plan.
7.8 Planning and Regulatory
Committee - 6 December 2018
7.8.1 Gambling Venue Policy
Review Deliberations Report 52 - 57
The amended Gambling Venue Policy
is attached for information
That the
Council
Adopts
the Gambling Venue Policy (A2090535).
7.9 Sports
and Recreation Committee – 13 December 2018
7.9.1 Referral of
Powers - Request for Assistance from a Nelson sporting group
That the
Council
Considers
all matters relating to a request for assistance from a Nelson sporting group.
8. Mayor's
Report 58 - 58
Document number R9907
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Mayor's Report
(R9907); and
Updates the Delegations Register to include Community Facilities
e.g. toilets as the responsibility of the Community Services Committee.
9. Building an
Effective Partnership with Iwi 59 - 77
Document number R9869
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Building an
Effective Partnership with Iwi (R9869)
and its attachments (A1994125);
Agrees
that staff initiate work on the review of the Memorandum of Understanding
between Tangata Whenua o Whakatū and the Nelson City Council;
Agrees
that staff initiate work on the development of an iwi engagement and partnering
strategy;
Agrees
that an Iwi-Council Advisory Group be formed to support the review of the
Memorandum of Understanding and strategy development; and
Delegates
Mayor Rachel Reese, Deputy Mayor Paul Matheson, Cr______ and Cr______ to be
members of the Iwi-Council Advisory Group.
10 Bay Dreams - main event
and camping 78 - 106
Document number R9843
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Bay Dreams - main event and camping (R9843) and its attachments (A2098483,
A2098482, A2101448, A2101838, A2101859); and
Agrees
that Council has taken reasonable steps to assess and consider the views of
persons likely to be affected by the Bay Dreams event in light of its moderate
significance (having had regard to the report and officers' verbal briefing on
the outcomes of community engagement); and
Agrees
that the proposed use of Trafalgar Park (A2098483) as the main
venue for the Bay Dreams music event from 3 – 5 January 2019 is
consistent with both the classification and purposes of recreation reserves and
with the Management Plan that applies to Trafalgar Park; and
Agrees
that the proposed use of Saxton Field reserve (A2098482) for camping associated
with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 – 5 January 2019 is consistent
with both the classification and purposes of recreation reserves and with the
Management Plan that applies to Saxton Field; and
Delegates the
powers conferred on Council as administering body of recreation reserves by
section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the Chief Executive; and
Consents
to the temporary use of Saxton Field Reserve as a camping ground associated
with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 - 5 January 2019 under section 44(1) of
the Reserves Act 1977; and
Notes that permission for up to 1500 people to camp at
Rutherford Park from 3 -5 January 2019 as part of the Bay Dreams event will be
granted by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Rutherford and Trafalgar
Parks Reserves Management Plan, subject to Council’s internal process
requirements being met by the event organiser; and
Agrees to impose a temporary ban on the consumption and
possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to
09:00pm on 5 January 2019 pursuant to clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments
Bylaw 2015.
11. National Policy Statement on
Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for
Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
107
- 247
Document number R9826
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report National
Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity
Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area (R9826) and its attachments (A2099700 and A2080812) and
Approves
the submission of the reports to the Ministry of Housing and Development as
required by the NPS-UDC; and
Notes
the recommendations in the attached HBA reports (A2099700
and A2080812).
12. Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial:
Way Forward 248
- 271
Document number R9823
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Tahunanui
Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward (R9823)
and its attachments (A2078208, A2106756 and A2094762); and
Notes
that officers do not support continuing with the trial beyond the three
month initial period; and
Approves
on the recommendation of the Working Party to proceed with the Diatomix trial
as per Option 3 of Report R9823 (for a further five months) noting the Working Party’s desire to supply and
install an alternative pump at their own cost; and
Approves
additional unbudgeted operational funding of $130,000 in the
current 2018/19 financial year to continue with the Diatomix trial for a
further five months – ending April 2019; and
Requests
an update, on the outcome of any further trial period, be reported back to the
full Council.
13. Code of Conduct - Independent
Investigation 272
- 308
Document number R9900
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Code of
Conduct - Independent Investigation (R9900)
and its attachments (A1745031);
Approves
the establishment of a Code of Conduct Committee;
Appoints
a Code of Conduct Committee to consider the independent investigator’s
report on the matter of the Code of Conduct complaint lodged against Councillor
Mike Rutledge relating to events on 17 May 2018;
Delegates
the power to determine the penalty or other form of action to
be imposed, if required, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Local
Government Act 2002 processes to the Code of Conduct Committee; and
Appoints
Councillor Dahlberg (Chairperson), Councillor Noonan, John Peters and John
Murray as members of the Code of Conduct Committee.
Public Excluded Business
14. Exclusion
of the Public
Recommendation
That the
Council
Excludes
the public 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 - 15 November 2018
|
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
· Section
7(2)(i)
To enable the local authority to carry
on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and
industrial negotiations)
|
|
2
|
Recommendations
from Committees
Works and
Infrastructure Committee 15 November 2018
Graham
Street and part of Roger Street – proposed road stopping
Community
Services Committee 27 November 2018
Queens
Garden Toilets Update
Governance
Committee 29 November 2018
Nelmac
Limited – matters for Statements of Expectations 2019/20
Strategic
Property Central City
Maitai
Mountainbike Hub Location
Regional
Transport Committee 3 December 2018
Electronic
Bus Ticketing
|
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
· 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)(g)
To maintain legal
professional privilege
|
|
3
|
Classification
of Greenmeadows under the Reserves Act 1977
|
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)(g)
To maintain legal
professional privilege
|
|
4
|
Options
for Council's Community Housing
|
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)
|
|
5
|
Request
for Assistance from a Nelson Sporting Group
|
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
|
Note:
·
This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime. (delete as appropriate)
·
Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)
·
Youth Councillors Max Schneider and Ella Smith will be in
attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
Nelson City Council Minutes - 15
November 2018
Minutes of a meeting of
the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council
Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 15 November
2018, commencing at 9.00a.m.
Present: Her
Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), I Barker, M Courtney, K Fulton,
M Lawrey, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, T Skinner and S Walker
In
Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager
Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C
Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate
Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald)
Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Adviser (R Terry) and Youth
Councillor (N Rais)
Leave of
Absence: Councillor L Acland
Apologies: Councillors
B Dahlberg and M Rutledge
Opening Prayer
Councillor Matheson gave the opening prayer.
1. Apologies
|
Resolved CL/2018/242
That the Council
Receives and
accepts the apologies from Councillors B Dahlberg and M Rutledge.
Her Worship the Mayor/Walker Carried
|
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
Her Worship
the Mayor Reese invited Youth Councillor Nathanael Rais to the table.
Mayor Reese
advised of two late items for the public and public excluded part of the
meeting, and that the following resolutions needed to be passed for the items
to be considered:
2.1 Late
Item: Recommendation from Works and Infrastructure Committee
|
Resolved CL/2018/243
That the Council
Considers the item regarding
Works and Infrastructure Committee Recommendation to Council at this
meeting as an item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a
timely decision to be made.
Her Worship the Mayor/Walker Carried
|
2.2 Requests
for Leave of Absence
|
Resolved CL/2018/244
That the Council
Considers the public excluded
item regarding Requests for Leave of Absence 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 a timely decision to be
made.
Courtney/Her Worship the Mayor 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 Leonie Allen and Gill Starling
from Parker Gallery, Mike Darling from Hunting and Fishing and Allen Knott from
United Video were present speaking on behalf of Wakatu Square retailers.
Her
Worship the Mayor clarified that the request to speak at Public Forum was
regarding Council practice for closing Wakatu Square for future events. She
noted the current request for closure was the subject of a report to Hearings
Panel - Other and the public would be given the opportunity to speak to their
objections at that forum.
Attendance: Councillor McGurk, Chair of the Hearings Panel
– Other meeting scheduled for 4 December 2018, declared an interest and
left the meeting at 9.16a.m.
Ms
Starling advised she had been in business in Nelson for 10 years and in Wakatu
Square for 10 months. She said that retail in Nelson was really tough and
relied on summer trade and the impact of closing Wakatu Square on one of the
busiest retail days of the year would be disastrous. She hoped Council would
support local businesses and not external businesses to the detriment of locals
and would consider the rights and needs of retailers in the square when making
a decision to close the carpark for events.
Mr Nott
advised he had been in business for 25 years with United Video. He said that
Friday and Saturday were his busiest days and his income was seriously affected
when Wakatu Square was closed due to the recent All Black’s test. He also
noted that he had a high number of elderly customers who needed to have easy
access and park outside his premises.
The
retailers asked Council to consider alternative sites for future events.
Attendance: Councillor McGurk returned to the meeting at
9.32a.m.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 11 October
2018
Document number M3825, agenda
pages 30 - 31 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/245
That the Council
Confirms the
minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 11 October 2018, as a true and
correct record.
McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
5.2 25 October
2018
Document number M3853, agenda
pages 32 - 34 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/246
That the Council
Confirms the
minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 25 October 2018, as a true and
correct record.
Courtney/Barker Carried
|
6. Recommendations from Committees
6.1 Audit,
Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 25 September 2018
6.1.1 Carry Forwards
2017/18
|
Resolved
CL/2018/247
That
the Council
Approves
the carry forward of $4,945,000 unspent capital budget for use in 2018/19;
and
Approves
the offsetting of $1,145,000 of capital spent in 2017/18 against 2018/19
budgets; and
Approves
the carry forward of $700,505 of unspent operating budget for use in 2018/19;
and
Approves
the release of $4,025,000 of 2018/19 capital budget unlikely to be spent as
itemised in attachment 1; and
Notes
savings in 2017/18 capital expenditure of $945,000; and
Notes
that the total capital budget (including staff costs but excluding
consolidations and vested assets) will be adjusted by these resolutions to a
total of $41,868,000.
Barker/Courtney Carried
|
6.1.2 Draft Internal
Audit Charter - Review September 2018
|
Resolved CL/2018/248
That
the Council
Approves
the Draft Internal Audit Charter – Review September 2018 (A2026584).
Barker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.1.3 Draft Annual
Internal Audit Plan - 30 June 2019
|
Resolved CL/2018/249
That
the Council
Approves
the Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan to 30 June 2019 (A2026190).
Barker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.2 Works and
Infrastructure Committee - 28 September 2018
6.2.1 Wastewater and
Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2018 – 28
|
Resolved
CL/2018/250
Adopts
the Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Protection Asset Management Plans 2018-28
(A1611752 and A1711433), amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan
2018-2028.
Walker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.2.2 Nelson Tasman
Regional Landfill Business Unit Treasury Policy
|
Resolved CL/2018/251
That
the Council
Approves
the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Treasury Policy (A1963932
of Report R9441).
Walker/Barker Carried
|
6.2.3 Saltwater Creek
Bridge
|
Resolved
CL/2018/252
That
the Council
Approves an additional unbudgeted $300,000 to fund construction
of the bridge in the 2018/19 financial year that will allow the award of a
tender and enable work to commence this financial year (2018/19).
Walker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.2.4 Nelson Tasman Regional
Landfill Business Unit Landfill Asset Management Plan
|
Resolved CL/2018/253
That the Council
Approves
the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Landfills Asset Management
Plan (A1998592).
Walker/Barker Carried
|
6.3 Regional
Transport Committee - 3 October 2018
6.3.1 Regional Land
Transport Plan variation - Noise Reduction and Safety Enhancements Programmes
|
Resolved CL/2018/254
That
the Council
Approves
that the Nelson Regional Land Transport Programme 2015-21 be varied to
include a total of $4.97M for “Noise Improvements” and $350,000
for “Safety Enhancements on the State Highway Network” spread
over the 2018-21 financial years.
Noonan/Matheson Carried
|
6.4 Community
Services Committee - 4 October 2018
6.4.1 Adoption of
Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2028
|
Resolved CL/2018/255
That
the Council
Adopts
the Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028
(A2013479) amended to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028.
Noonan/Courtney Carried
|
6.5 Planning
and Regulatory Committee - 9 October 2018
6.5.1 Appointment of
Regional On-Scene Commanders
|
Resolved CL/2018/256
That
the Council
Agrees
to end the appointment of Stephen Lawrence as primary Regional On-Scene
Commander under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 on 15 November 2018; and
Approves
Brent Edwards to be the primary Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson
region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective
from 16 November 2018; and
Approves
Adrian Humphries to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the
Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective
from 16 November 2018; and
Approves
Luke Grogan to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson
region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16
November 2018.
McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.5.2 Adoption of the
Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028
|
Resolved CL/2018/257
That
the Council
Adopts
the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (A2051681).
McGurk/Walker Carried
|
6.5.3 Amendments to
the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental
Standard - Plantation Forestry
|
Resolved CL/2018/258
That
the Council
Approves
the additional proposed amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to
implement the National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry.
McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
|
6.6 Governance
Committee - 25 October 2018
6.6.1 Policy review:
Remuneration for directors of Nelson City Council's Council Controlled Trading
Organisations
|
Resolved CL/2018/259
That
the Council
Adopts
the amended 2018 Nelson City Council Policy for setting the remuneration for
directors of Nelson City Council’s council controlled trading
organisations (A2045559).
Barker/Courtney Carried
|
The meeting adjourned from 10.04a.m.
until 10.20a.m.
7. Mayor's Report
Document number R9801, agenda
pages 36 - 36 refer.
Her Worship the Mayor Reese
updated Council on an announcement that Kiwibank and Post Office were closing
down in Stoke. She said it was extremely disappointing to find that Kiwibank,
who had continued to deliver the message about community for New Zealand,
advised the Council and community of the closure by proforma letter and a media
release. She advised that she had written to Kiwibank to advise that there was
an expectation that when significant decisions were being made there should be
engagement with the Mayor. She noted that services in Stoke were
critically important as it was the fastest growing community in the district.
Mayor Reese advised Council that
the Nelson Southern link investigation into the Rocks Road walking and
cycling project was making good progress. New Zealand Transport Association had
indicated this was being included in the National Land Transport Fund and was
no longer a crown funded project.
|
Resolved CL/2018/260
That the Council
Receives the report Mayor's
Report (R9801).
Her Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried
|
|
8 Quotable
Value Revaluation Presentation
|
|
|
Gail Smits, Revaluation Manager
and Craig Russell, Nelson Manager of Quotable Value presented on the 2018 revaluation
of Nelson properties (attached).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments
1 A2093792 Quotable
Value Nelson District Revaluation 2018 Powerpoint Nelson City Council
15Nov2018
|
Ms Smits answered questions on
areas of greatest increase and the impact on rates.
The meeting adjourned from
11.05a.m. until 11.20a.m. at which time Councillors Noonan and Fulton were not
present.
9. Communications
and Engagement Strategy
Document number R9663, agenda
pages 37 - 40 refer.
Communications Manager, Paul
Shattock, presented the report and explained that while Council had a
communications and engagement strategy, there was no governance oversight. The
recommendation was that the Governance Committee would be delegated this
oversight.
Attendance: Councillors Noonan and Fulton returned to the
meeting at 11.23a.m.
Mr Shattock answered questions on
the communications budget, resourcing and levels of engagement.
|
Resolved CL/2018/261
That the Council
Receives the report
Communications and Engagement Strategy (R9663); and
Delegates
responsibility for development and implementation of a Communications and
Engagement Strategy to the Governance Committee; and
Updates
the Delegations Register to include the Governance Committee’s
responsibility for development and implementation of a Communications and
Engagement Strategy.
|
The motion was put and a division was called:
|
For
Her Worship the Mayor Reese
(Chairperson)
Cr Barker
Cr Courtney
Cr Fulton
Cr Matheson
Cr McGurk
Cr Noonan
Cr Walker
|
Against
Cr Lawrey
Cr Skinner
|
Apologies/LOA
Cr Acland
Cr Dahlberg
Cr Rutledge
|
The motion was carried 8 - 2.
|
Noonan/Fulton Carried
|
10. Submission
on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill
Document number R9810, agenda
pages 41 - 55 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/262
That the Council
Receives the report Submission
on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill (R9810) and its attachments (A2081420,
A2069694); and
Approves
retrospectively the attached Nelson City Council submission (A2069694) on the
Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill.
Barker/Matheson Carried
|
11. Exclusion
of the Public
|
Resolved CL/2018/263
That
the Council
Excludes
the public 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:
Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried
|
|
|
|
Item
|
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to
each matter
|
Particular interests protected (where applicable)
|
|
1
|
Council Meeting - Public
Excluded Minutes - 20 September 2018
|
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
·
Section 7(2)(g)
To maintain legal
professional privilege
|
|
2
|
Council Meeting - Public
Excluded Minutes - 11 October 2018
|
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
|
|
3
|
Recommendations from
Committees
Planning and Regulatory
Committee 09/10/18
Appointment of external
District Licensing Committee Commissioner and members
Governance Committee
25/10/18
State Advances Building
– Update
Recommendation from Civic
Trust Annual General Meeting 19/10/18
|
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
·
Section 7(2)(h)
To enable the local
authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities
·
Section 7(2)(g)
To
maintain legal professional privilege
|
|
4
|
Requests for Leave of
Absence
|
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
|
Policy for the
appointment and remuneration of jointly-appointed independent members to
committees
|
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
|
|
6
|
Rural Fire: Hira Fire
Station Licence and Response Assets
|
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
|
The meeting went into public
excluded session at 12.07p.m. at which time Councillor Noonan left the meeting.
The meeting resumed in public
session at 12.26p.m.
There being no further business the meeting ended at
12.26p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Nelson City Council Minutes - 27 November 2018
Minutes of an
extraordinary meeting of the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council
Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Tuesday 27 November
2018, commencing at 11.00a.m.
Present: Deputy
Mayor P Matheson, (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B
Dahlberg, K Fulton, M Lawrey, B McGurk, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner, S
Walker and Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (via teleconference)
In
Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager
Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group
Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and
Communications (N McDonald) and Team Leader Governance (R Byrne)
Apologies : Nil
Opening Prayer
Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.
Attendance: Councillor Skinner entered the meeting at
11.03a.m.
1. Apologies
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order
of business.
|
3 Release
of Information from Public Excluded Business
|
|
|
The Chief Executive, on
reviewing the information in the Public Excluded report, Confirmation of
contribution to the Waimea Dam, had agreed that the matter could be
considered in public, unless members wanted to ask questions about
negotiations.
|
|
|
Resolved CL/2018/273
That the Council
Agrees that Report (R9876), Confirmation of contribution to the
Waimea Dam be released from public excluded
business for consideration in the open part of the meeting.
Matheson/Rutledge Carried
|
4. Interests
There were no updates to the
Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
5. Public Forum
4.1 Steve Cross - Nelson Residents
Association - Urban Water Supply
Mr
Cross noted that during the consultation period and following hearings the
Nelson Residents Association had requested a simple graph showing water demand
in Nelson and future projection. They had not received this information and
recommended that members request this. They considered that the Drought
Security Report included an inflated forecast and that there would be
implications for not taking a regional view on water supply, as Nelson City had
a significant supply and could provide for the Tasman urban area.
6. Recommendations from Committees
6.1 Community
Services Committee - 4 October 2018
|
6.1.1 Stoke Library Weather Tightness
|
|
|
The following recommendation
was not included in the Agenda at the Council meeting on 15 November 2018.
|
|
|
Resolved CL/2018/274
That the Council
Approves
unbudgeted expenditure of $200,000 for an immediate short term structural
renewal for the Stoke Library; and
Approves unbudgeted
expenditure of $25,000 for design work considering the medium
and long term solutions for the Stoke Library to inform the draft Annual Plan
2019/20, giving consideration to activities in the Stoke CBD.
Noonan/Barker Carried
|
|
7 Confirmation
of contribution to the Waimea Dam
|
|
|
Document number R9867, agenda pages
4 - 10 refer.
Group Manager Corporate Services,
Nikki Harrison, presented the report and noted that the recommendation was in
line with the Council resolution of 15 May 2018. As requested,
officers had negotiated with Tasman District Council to have the ability to
become a shareholder after 10 years and to have influence over appointing a
director. Ms Harrison answered questions on legality if a letter from
Nelson City Council was a contractual arrangement and the percentage of
shareholding a $5million contribution would provide.
Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty,
clarified that the shareholding would provide for Council to take up to 22,000m3/day, should it require that. The decision would be made
by the Council at the time, following due diligence.
Ms
Harrison confirmed that Tasman District Council had confirmation of
commitment from all investors and would make their final decision on Friday
30 November. Following this the only outstanding issue would be the passing
of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill due to
be read on 15 December 2018.
Ms
Harrison was asked to include further clarification of the water take in the
officer’s recommendation.
The meeting adjourned from
12.03p.m. until 12.15p.m
|
|
|
Resolved CL/2018/275
That the Council
Receives the report Confirmation
of contribution to the Waimea Dam (R9867); and
Authorises
the Chief Executive to write to Tasman District Council confirming the
following:
· Nelson
City Council’s contribution is $5 million;
· Nelson
City Council’s contribution is included in 2020/21 of Nelson City
Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-28 and payment will be made on 1 July
2020, as requested by Tasman District Council;
· Nelson City Council has noted that the cost of the Waimea
Dam has increased by 30% but declines the request from Tasman District
Council to increase the amount of its contribution to the Dam and/or decrease
the volume of water that its contribution provides access to;
· Nelson
City Council, or its successor, will have ongoing rights to access 22,000m3/day of water from the Waimea Aquifer;
· Nelson City Council, or its successor, has the right to
convert the $5 million to shares in Waimea Water Limited no earlier than
2028, being 10 years after financial close for the Waimea
Dam – the number of shares representing the rights to take up to
22,000m3/day (515 hectares equivalent);
· If
Nelson City Council exercises its rights to convert
the grant to shares, then it will also have the right to appoint, jointly
with Tasman District Council, a director to the Waimea Dam Company board.
|
The motion was put and a division was called:
|
For
Her Worship the Mayor Reese
Cr Barker
Cr Courtney
Cr Dahlberg
Cr Matheson(Chairperson)
Cr McGurk
Cr Noonan
Cr Rutledge
|
Against
Cr Acland
Cr Fulton
Cr Lawrey
Cr Skinner
Cr Walker
|
The motion was carried 8 - 5.
|
Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried
|
There being no further business the meeting ended at
12.58p.m..
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 6: Confirmation of Minutes: Attachment 1
|
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 - 9 August 2018
|
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
· Section 7(2)(g)
To maintain legal professional privilege
·
Section 7(2)(i)
To enable the local authority to carry
on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and
industrial negotiations)
|
|
2
|
Recommendations
from Committees
Community
Services Committee 30 Aug 2018
Greenmeadows
Centre - Progress Update
Governance
Committee 6 September 2018
Bishop Suter
Trust – reappointment of Trustees
Nelmac
Director Reappointment
|
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
· Section 7(2)(g)
To maintain
legal professional privilege
|
|
3
|
Policy
for the appointment and remuneration of jointly-appointed independent members
to committees
|
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
|
Nelson
Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) independent member 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
|
The meeting went into public
excluded session at 3.53p.m. and resumed in public session at 4.47p.m.
There being no further business the meeting
ended at 4.47p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of
proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 7: Recommendations from Committees: Attachment 1
Item 8: Mayor's Report
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9907
Mayor's
Report
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
update Council on current matters.
2. Recommendation
1.
|
That the Council
Receives the report Mayor's
Report (R9907); and
Updates the Delegations Register to include Community Facilities
e.g. toilets as the responsibility of the Community Services Committee.
|
2. Discussion
Donation to Ngāti Tama
2.1 The
Mayor donated $350.00 from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund to Ngāti Tama as
a contribution to costs associated with organising the Kaumātua Kirimete
Hui (Christmas party) which is being held in December. Ngāti Tama are
hosting this event.
3. Update
to Delegations Register
3.1 When
reviewing delegations it was noted that community facilities such as public
toilets did not lie within the responsibility of a Committee. As a community
facility public toilets have historically been seen to be the responsibility of
the Community Services Committee and the recommendation to update the
Delegations Register reflects this.
Author: Rachel
Reese, Mayor of Nelson
Item 9: Building an Effective Partnership with Iwi
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9869
Building
an Effective Partnership with Iwi
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to consider options for reviewing the Memorandum of
Understanding between Tangata Whenua o Whakatū and the Nelson City
Council; and the development of an Iwi Engagement and Partnering Strategy.
2. Summary
2.1 The
Nelson City Council has taken major steps over the past 10 years to grow its
internal capability and responsiveness to progress its partnership with iwi.
Despite this, there are still significant gaps that present risk for the
organisation and its relationship with iwi. To address this, this paper
proposes two work streams with the support of Council, namely
· a
review of the Memorandum of Understanding between Tangata Whenua o Whakatū
and the Nelson City Council; and
· the
development of a Nelson City Council Iwi Engagement and Partnering Strategy.
3. Recommendation
1.
|
That the Council
Receives the report Building an
Effective Partnership with Iwi (R9869)
and its attachments (A1994125);
Agrees
that staff initiate work on the review of the Memorandum of Understanding
between Tangata Whenua o Whakatū and the Nelson City Council;
Agrees
that staff initiate work on the development of an iwi engagement and
partnering strategy;
Agrees
that an Iwi-Council Advisory Group be formed to support the review of the
Memorandum of Understanding and strategy development; and
Delegates
Mayor Rachel Reese, Deputy Mayor Paul Matheson, Cr______ and Cr______ to be
members of the Iwi-Council Advisory Group.
|
4. Background
4.1 It
has been three years since the Council and iwi formally met through the
Kotahitanga hui. It was felt that the Kotahitanga hui had become a vehicle for
operational reporting rather than a forum for governance to governance
engagement and decision making. Members of Kotahitanga agreed to disestablish
Kotahitanga and establish a Te Waka ā Mauī iwi Chairs and Mayors Forum
to discuss governance issues.
4.2 On
20 May 2015 Council resolved:
|
Resolved CL/2015/001
THAT
Council continues to engage with iwi of Te Tau Ihu, and supports the
development of a mayors and iwi chairs forum.
|
4.3 Te
Waka ā Mauī iwi Chair’s and Mayors Forum has not been very
successful for Iwi-Council engagement. This may be due to practicalities of
timetabling Chairs and Mayors, and also the absence of a Kaihautū over
some of that time, to assist in facilitating the relationship.
4.4 On
14 September 2018, the council reaffirmed its relationship with iwi through the
Nelson City Council and Iwi Leaders Forum. This involved the Mayor, Chief
Executive, senior staff, iwi Chairs and iwi senior leadership. No terms of
reference exist as those participating are still testing what the best model of
engagement will be for the relationship.
5. Discussion
The Treaty of Waitangi and
Local Government
5.1 The
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi form the primary basis for iwi involvement
with local government, where Māori retain rangatiratanga over their
resources, and taonga, including all valued resources and intangible cultural
assets.
5.2 Although
the Treaty is between Māori and the Crown, the Crown has extended certain
requirements to local government in order to meet its Treaty obligations.
Consequently, councils operate under a number of statutory regimes such as the
Local Government Act (2002) and the Resource Management Act (1991) that require
councils to either ‘consult’ or ‘engage’ with
Māori or iwi, and ‘provide opportunities for participation’ in
some capacity. Underpinning this is an assumption that dialogue should be
occurring in order to understand and include the values, aspirations and
interests of local and regional Māori organisations.
5.3 Section
77 of the LGA requires Council to take into account the relationship of
Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water,
sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
5.4 Sections
6, 7 & 8 of the RMA recognises Māori and iwi interests in ancestral
lands, water sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga “as matters of
national importance” and requires all who exercise powers under the RMA
to “have particular regard to” kaitiakitanga and iwi environmental
management plans to “take into account” the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi. The RMA recognises Māori and iwi interests in natural
and physical resources and contains specific provisions for consulting and
working with tangata whenua.
5.5 Requirements
and obligations to engage and consult with specific iwi in the Whakatū
region have been provided for in the following Treaty settlement legislations:
· Ngāti
Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu and Te
Ātiawa o Te Waka ā Mauī Claims settlement Act 2014;
· Ngāti
Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia Rangitane o Wairau Claims Settlement
Act 2014, and;
· Ngāti
Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014
Beyond the Treaty and
Statutory obligations
5.6 Aside
from the Treaty and legislative context, there are compelling reasons for
Council and iwi to work together, and not all engagement with iwi is driven by
statute. Iwi provide a unique and defining part of the Whakatū community
and region, and hold a wealth of knowledge about the cultural, natural,
physical and social landscape, and are also key players in the region’s
economic development.
5.7 Council
partnership is through the Long Term Plan 2018 -2028 whereby, the “Council
accepts that capacity and capability must be built upon to have effective
meaningful partnerships with Te Tau Ihu iwi” (p. 22) by,
· having
effective, long lasting, and genuine relationships/ partnerships with all eight
Te Tau Ihu iwi at both operational and governance levels
· supporting
iwi to participate with local government
· delivering
local government functions in a manner which acknowledges the mana of Te Tau
Ihu iwi, and
· enabling
iwi aspirations, particularly for development in post-settlement
Memorandum of Understanding
between Council and Iwi
5.8 On
12 September 2005, the Council and six local iwi (Ngāti Rārua,
Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Koata,
and Te Ātiawa) signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
Tāngata Whenua o Whakatū and Nelson City Council (Appendix 1). The
MOU is a framework for consolidating the relationship between Council and iwi
through several guiding principles and initiatives.
5.9 In
2010, Treaty settlements signalled changes to the relationship between iwi and
council. Under the Treaty settlements, statutory acknowledgement were given to
two further iwi Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō and Rangitane ki Wairau,
as having traditional association within the Whakatū region.
5.10 Discussions
about revising the MOU with iwi started in 2011, and eight separate MOU were
suggested but nothing was resolved.
5.11 It
has been 13 years since the MOU was first signed, and in light of the post
treaty settlement phase it is recommended that Council and iwi revisit and
review their partnership aspirations. Iwi have all settled and are in a better
position to participate in issues impacting their rangatiratanga. Treaty
settlements have also provided iwi with a firmer economic base in which to
contribute to the economic development of the region.
Rangatira to Rangatira
– Leadership to Leadership
5.12 Between
2005 and 2015 the iwi and Council engaged through the Kotahitanga hui. This was
established to provide kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) hui between iwi
leaders, tangata whenua and Council leaders and managers to discuss strategic
and governance issues.
5.13 Since
the disestablishment of Kotahitanga, there has been no formal platform of
engagement until the meeting on 14 September 2018. At the meeting discussions
included the need to co-construct, co-design and co-review models and tools for
the partnership.
5.14 Attendees
were presented with an overview of:
· key
milestones of Council and iwi activity over the past 10 years;
· iwi
engagement strategies used by other councils throughout Aotearoa / New Zealand;
and
· an
update on the status of the 2005 Memorandum of Understanding between
Tāngata Whenua o Whakatū and the Nelson City Council.
5.15 It
was agreed by all attendees that the best vehicle to progress the next steps
was through an advisory group involving governance representatives from Council
and iwi. The role of the advisory group is to review the MOU, and provide
recommendations to council and the eight iwi on recommendations to progress
their partnership.
Iwi Engagement and Partnering
Strategy
5.16 To
improve the Council engagement process with iwi it is important that a
partnering strategy is developed to guide our relationship.
5.17 The
absence of an iwi engagement strategy is noticeable across the organisation
where engagement with iwi lacks consistency and is more driven by Council
deadlines and priorities. On occasion this approach is unavoidable, but often
it is a consequence of not having worked with iwi to develop a realistic,
appropriately resourced engagement plan while the project or activity is in its
planning phase. This message has also been conveyed to us by iwi.
5.18 Within
the last six months all six local iwi have raised significant concerns with the
current Council engagement processes, which they believe are inconsistent with
a “meaningful partnership with Te Tau Ihu iwi” (LTP 2018-28). The
continued absence of an agreed process of engagement, and commitment from
Council to strengthen a relationship with iwi that acknowledges and values a
meaningful partnership puts at risk:
· the
cultural safety of Council staff who need to work with iwi;
· the
ability for Council to complete work with the support of iwi;
· the
ability for Council to meet its legislative requirements; and
· the
ability for Council to progress true partnership with iwi.
5.19 Having
a strategy would support the aspirations of the MOU by providing high level
guidance for how we agree to engage. It is therefore recommended that the
Iwi-Council Advisory Group also consider the development of an Iwi Engagement
and Partnering Strategy.
6. Options
6.1 The
recommended approach is option 2, to initiate the review of the current
Memorandum of Understanding led by the Iwi-Council Advisory Group and supported
by Council staff.
|
Option 1: Status quo –
continue to use existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
|
|
Advantages
|
· Saving
in staff and councillor time
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Current
MOU is 13 Years old
· It does
not include two iwi that have statutory acknowledgements in the region
· The
current Memorandum of Understanding does not consider changes following
Treaty settlements
· Lost
opportunity to strengthen Council relationship with iwi
· Does
not send a positive message to iwi about council commitment to an Iwi-Council
partnership
|
|
Option 2: Review the
Memorandum of Understanding
|
|
Advantages
|
· Opportunity
for relationship building between Council and iwi
· An
MOU that is current and inclusive of all statutory partners
· Already
have a MOU, so overall a short process of engagement with quick turn around
· A
MOU that is led by key stakeholders
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Varied
views may slow the process
|
6.2 The
recommended approach is option 2, to initiate the development of Iwi Engagement
and Partnering Strategy led by an Iwi-Council Advisory Group and supported by
Council staff.
|
Option 1: Status quo –
Continue to operate without an Iwi Engagement and Partnering Strategy
|
|
Advantages
|
· Saving
in staff and councillor time
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· There
is currently no iwi engagement strategy in place, so no agreement of best
practice between Council and local iwi
· Council
continues to operate inconsistently across the organisation, and in an ad hoc
and reactive manner with iwi
· Financial
costs in delays due to lack of clarity regarding an appropriate iwi
engagement process
· Lost
opportunity to strengthen Council relationship with iwi
· Does
not send a positive message to iwi about Council commitment to an Iwi-Council
partnership
· Compromises
Council ability to meet statutory obligations
· Cumulative
impact of poor engagement resulting in iwi not supporting council activity
|
|
Option 2: Develop an Iwi
Engagement and Partnering strategy
|
|
Advantages
|
· Opportunity
for relationship building between council and iwi
· A
strategy that is current and relevant to iwi-council relationship
· Iwi
have requested the development of a strategy
· Iwi
are supportive of the development of a strategy
· A
strategy that is co-constructed and co-designed by relevant partners
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Varied
views may slow the process
· Less
Council control over final product
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Effective
Iwi-Council relationships are based on reciprocal partnerships where the
expertise of each party is respected and drawn upon to achieve shared goals. Whilst
the MOU will outline the relationship and how Council and iwi will behave, the
strategy provides high level guidance of how Council and iwi will engage.
Author: Pania
Lee, Kaihautu
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1994125 Signed Memorandum
of Understanding [MOU] between Tangata Whenua o Whakatu and the Nelson City
Council - 12Sep2005 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Approving work for the review of the Memorandum of
Understanding and the development of an Iwi Engagement and Partnering
Strategy will assist in meeting the current and future needs of the Nelson
community.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
This decision aligns with the following community
outcome:
Our Council provides leadership and fosters
partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.
|
|
3. Risk
Should the
engagement with iwi not progress there is a risk of significant relationship
breakdown, resulting in loss of reputation and negative public reaction.
Council also risks being unable to effectively fulfil its statutory
obligations in relation to providing for Māori contribution and
participation in decision making.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
The cost of work on the review of the MOU and
development of the iwi engagement strategy can be met within existing budgets
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This meets clause 7 of Council’s Significance
and Engagement Policy.
Council will take into account its obligations as
outlined under legislation including Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013
and all other relevant Acts. Council will also take into account National
Policy Statement Frameworks, and will honour all engagement processes,
agreements and memorandums of understanding developed with Māori as they
relate to its decision-making processes.
|
|
6. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
There has been significant engagement with all
local iwi through a number of face to face meetings prior to preparing this
report.
|
|
7. Delegations
This is a matter for Council
|
Item 10: Bay Dreams -
main event and camping
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9843
Bay Dreams - main event and camping
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To update Council on the Bay
Dreams event and to seek Council's agreement to the proposed approach to the
approval of use of Rutherford Park and recreation reserves in connection with
this event and the steps taken to engage with the community.
1.2 To delegate the powers conferred
on Council as administering body of recreation reserves to the Chief Executive.
1.3 To consent to the use of part of
Saxton Field reserve for camping associated with the Bay Dreams event.
1.4 To prohibit the consumption and
possession of alcohol at Saxton Field, excluding a licensed area, over the
period for which camping will be provided.
2. Summary
2.1 The Reserves Act
1977 (Act) applies to Trafalgar Park where the main Bay Dreams event will be
taking place and to the sections of Saxton Field where Bay Dreams ticket
holders will be camping.
2.2 In order for the
event to proceed, Council as administering body must first grant exclusive use
of Trafalgar Park and the relevant section of Saxton Field under the Act. A
resolution is sought delegating this power to the Chief Executive. Council
consent for the temporary camping and use of tents at Saxton Field is also
required under the Act.
2.3 Under the Urban
Environments Bylaw (June 2015) the consumption of alcohol is prohibited 24
hours 7 days at Rutherford Park and overnight at Saxton Field. Council approval
is sought to prohibit the consumption and possession of alcohol at Saxton Field
from 07:00am on 3 January 2019 – 09:00pm on 5 January 2019.
3. Recommendation
·
|
That the Council
Receives the
report Bay Dreams - main event and camping (R9843) and its attachments (A2098483,
A2098482, A2101448, A2101838, A2101859); and
Agrees
that Council has taken reasonable steps to assess and consider the views of
persons likely to be affected by the Bay Dreams event in light of its
moderate significance (having had regard to the report and officers' verbal
briefing on the outcomes of community engagement); and
Agrees
that the proposed use of Trafalgar Park (A2098483) as the
main venue for the Bay Dreams music event from 3 – 5 January 2019 is
consistent with both the classification and purposes of recreation reserves
and with the Management Plan that applies to Trafalgar Park; and
Agrees
that the proposed use of Saxton Field reserve (A2098482) for camping
associated with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 – 5 January 2019 is
consistent with both the classification and purposes of recreation reserves
and with the Management Plan that applies to Saxton Field; and
Delegates the powers conferred
on Council as administering body of recreation reserves by section 53 of the
Reserves Act 1977 to the Chief Executive; and
Consents
to the temporary use of Saxton Field Reserve as a camping ground associated
with the Bay Dreams music event from 3 - 5 January 2019 under section 44(1)
of the Reserves Act 1977; and
Notes that permission for up to 1500 people to camp at
Rutherford Park from 3 -5 January 2019 as part of the Bay Dreams event will
be granted by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Rutherford and
Trafalgar Parks Reserves Management Plan, subject to Council’s internal
process requirements being met by the event organiser; and
Agrees to impose a temporary ban on the consumption and
possession of alcohol at Saxton Field between 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to
09:00pm on 5 January 2019 pursuant to clause 6.15 of the Urban Environments
Bylaw 2015.
|
4. Background
4.1 Bay Dreams is a
sold-out one day music festival attracting 20,000 people to Nelson’s
Trafalgar Park to see national and international dub and dance acts on 4
January 2019. Pre-party and after party events are scheduled at the Trafalgar
Centre and at Saxton Field.
4.2 The organiser, Bay
Dreams South is seeking to establish Bay Dreams as an annual event. Bay Dreams
has the potential to strengthen Nelson’s reputation as a welcoming city
that supports creativity and showcase Nelson as a venue for these types of
events.
4.3 It is proposed
that the event would include camping at Rutherford Park and camping at Saxton
Field and the organiser has received 4,500 camping booking requests to date.
Camping would provide accommodation options for ticketholders, but has associated
risks including nuisance and disorder.
4.4 The organiser has
applied to Council to host 1,500 campers at Rutherford Park and up to 5,000
campers at Saxton Field between 3 and 5 January.
4.5 On 20 September
2018, Council resolved as follows in relation to camping at Saxton Field and
Rutherford Park:
Resolved
CL/2018/227
That the
Council
Agrees to
conditional landowner approval for camping at Rutherford Park for up to 1500
people over 3 – 5 January 2019;
Agrees to conditional landowner approval for camping at Saxton Field for
up to 5000 people over 3 – 5 January 2019 (subject to resource consent if
required);
4.6 The Saxton Field
Committee met on 14 November 2018 to consider the camping activity planned for
Saxton and the Committee’s feedback is included below in paragraphs 8.1
– 8.3. The Saxton Field Committee resolved as follows on 14 November
2018:
Notes that the decision about
whether or not to approve the use of Nelson City Council recreation reserve for
this purpose is being made by Nelson City Council; and
Notes that Nelson City Council
has provided conditional landowner approval for camping and associated activities
at Saxton Field (refer attached map A2083648) and this is also subject to a
resource consent application and associated approvals to be sought from Nelson
City Council; and
Invites the Committee to provide
feedback to Nelson City Council on:
- the proposal for camping and
associated activities at Saxton Field; and
- camping conditions at Saxton Field;
and
Notes that Nelson City Council
will take into consideration feedback provided by the Committee as part of its
decision-making; and
Notes that Nelson City Council
will not be seeking any remedial or other costs arising from the Bay Dreams
camping and other activities at Saxton Field from either Tasman District
Council or the Saxton Field combined maintenance budget.
4.7 Council is the
administering body for the relevant part of Saxton Field under the Act and
therefore decisions around approval for the proposed use associated with Bay
Dreams must be made by Council.
5. Discussion
Camping at Rutherford Park
5.1 It is expected
that up to 1500 people will camp at Rutherford Park from 3 – 5 January
2019 as part of the Bay Dreams event.
5.2 The parts of
Rutherford Park where the camping will take place are freehold land vested in
Council.
5.3 Camping in
Rutherford Park is permitted under section 4.1.3 of the Rutherford and
Trafalgar Parks Reserve Management Plan. The permission required under the
Reserve Management Plan will be provided by the Chief Executive subject to the
event organiser meeting Council’s internal process requirements.
Main event at Trafalgar Park
5.4 The main Bay
Dreams festival will take place at Trafalgar Park from 3 – 5 January
2019. This includes the music and dance acts on the main stage, food stalls and
licenced sale of alcohol (Main Event). The attached map (Attachment 1)
indicates where the various activities will take place in Trafalgar Park.
Proposed Use of Saxton Field - camping and music
5.5 In relation to
Saxton Field, the proposed use is camping from 3 – 5 January 2019 for up
to 5000 people in connection with Bay Dreams as well as dance and/or music
events with licenced sale of alcohol. (collectively the ‘Proposed Use of
Saxton Field’). The attached map (Attachment 2) indicates where the
camping and events will be take place in Saxton Field.
Reserves Act 1977
5.6 Trafalgar
Park and Saxton Field are Council recreation reserves. Under the Act, Council
is required to administer Trafalgar Park and Saxton Field in accordance with
the purpose for which the areas are classified (section 40) and with the terms
of the relevant reserve management plans.
5.7 One of the primary
purposes of recreation reserves is to provide “…areas for
recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of
the public, and for the protection of natural environment and beauty of the
countryside, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor
recreation activities, including recreational tracks in the countryside”
(section 17(1)).
5.8 The Act requires
that the public shall have freedom of entry and access to recreation reserves
subject only to the specified powers of administering bodies under the Act and
the restrictions considered necessary for the protection and wellbeing of the
reserve and the public using it (section 17(2)).
5.9 The Main Event and
the Proposed Use of Saxton Field align with the purpose of reserves by
supporting recreation activities and allowing public enjoyment of the reserves.
Both the Main Event and the Proposed Use of Saxton Field fall within the range
of matters for which Council, as administering body for the reserves, can grant
exclusive use under section 53(1)(e) of the Act.
5.10 Section
53(1)(e) enables Council to grant the exclusive use of part of the reserve for
no more than 6 consecutive days at a time (subject to a maximum of 40 days per
year) to a body such as the Bay Dreams event organiser for the purpose of
“particular games, sports or other activities or for public recreation
and enjoyment”, and permits for that body to charge a fee for
admission on those days. A resolution is sought delegating the powers conferred
on Council as administering body by section 53 of the Act to the Chief
Executive and this is discussed below.
5.11 Council’s
consent for the use of tents at Saxton Field is also required under section
44(1) of the Act. Under section 44, no person may use a tent on a reserve for
temporary accommodation except with the consent of the Minister or under
specified provisions of the Act. These specified provisions do not include
section 53(1)(e) and therefore Council’s consent is required. (The
Minister’s consenting power has been delegated to the Council as the
administering body of Saxton Field.)
6. Delegation
to the Chief Executive
6.1 While Council has
delegated powers to enter into leases or licences on recreation reserves
pursuant to section 54(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, Council has not yet
delegated the powers conferred on it by section 53 of the Act.
6.2 Section 53 of the
Act (Attachment 3) sets out a number of powers Council has in respect of
recreation reserves (other than leasing) including powers to:
6.2.1 Prescribe activities for
public recreation or enjoyment which may take place in the reserve;
6.2.2 Grant exclusive use of all
or part of reserve for events; and
6.2.3 Enter into agreements for
the exclusive use of reserve.
6.3 A resolution is sought delegating the powers
conferred on Council by section 53 of the Act to the Chief Executive.
6.4 The delegation
will mean that the Chief Executive can grant rights as required under the Act
for this event where it occurs on recreation reserves and for events to be held
on recreation reserves (including over the summer months when Council is not
sitting).
7. Reserve Management Plans
7.1 In making a
decision about whether to grant exclusive use for the Main Event and the
Proposed Use of Saxton Field, Council (or the Chief Executive, if this power is
delegated) is required to consider the relevant sections of the reserve
management plans for Saxton Field, and Rutherford and Trafalgar Parks in the
context of Bay Dreams. These sections are set out below.
Rutherford
and Trafalgar Parks Reserve Management Plan (Trafalgar Park RMP) - vision and goals (sections 3.1 and 3.2)
7.2 The vision set out
in section 3.1 is that the three park areas (Rutherford Park, Trafalgar Park
and Kinzett Terrace) will grow into one iconic, active urban space which
attracts a diversity of people through its integrated landscape,
its links with the Maitai River and the Haven, and through its well-designed,
multiple-use recreation facilities and areas.
7.3 The goals
which contribute to the vision are that the park area should be accessible,
safe, integrated with the wider transport connections, meet the needs of
current users without constraining future uses and provide areas for people to
engage in a range of activities including cultural and other events.
7.4 The Main Event
aligns with the vision and the goals as it will enable a large number of users
to attend and enjoy the Bay Dreams event in Trafalgar Park.
Trafalgar Park RMP – car
parking (section 4.1.4)
7.5 Section 4.1.4 aims
to ensure that sufficient parking is provided whilst also ensuring that the
adverse effects of cars on the enjoyment of Trafalgar Park is minimised.
7.6 Bay Dreams
complies with this objective as it requires no additional parking areas i.e.
only those areas that are currently used for parking will be utilised for that
purpose. Parking and vehicle movement will be managed by marshals during the
event and large numbers of ticketholders will be transported by bus from the
main camping area at Saxton Field to Rutherford and Trafalgar Parks in order to
minimise traffic in and around these areas.
Trafalgar Park RMP – commercial
activities (section 4.1.5)
7.7 The objective
outlined in section 4.1.5 is to permit commercial activities which will enhance
the enjoyment of Trafalgar Park and which are compatible with the vision, uses
and capacity of the Park. Commercial activities including circuses, trade
exhibits, concerts and other commercial activities may be permitted subject to
Council approval (noting that a delegation of this approval power is sought in
this report).
7.8 Bay Dreams is a
concert and therefore fits within the category of permitted commercial
activities set out in the Trafalgar Park RMP. The event is also compatible with
the vision, uses and capacity of Trafalgar Park.
Trafalgar Park RMP - crime prevention
and safety (section 4.1.6)
7.9 The relevant
objective under section 4.1.6 of the Trafalgar Park RMP is that the Park should
be a safe community space.
7.10 In order to meet this
objective, the Bay Dreams organiser will provide appropriate security
throughout the areas of Rutherford and Trafalgar Parks which may be affected by
the activities associated with Bay Dreams.
Trafalgar Park RMP –
entertainment and events (section 4.1.8)
7.11 Section 4.1.8 aims to promote
and use Trafalgar Park as a venue for events, activities and selected forms of
entertainment with a view to ensuring widespread community use of Rutherford
and Trafalgar Parks.
7.12 The Bay Dreams event in 2019
is expected to attract approximately 20,000 attendees to the Park. The event
organiser is seeking to establish Bay Dreams as an annual event.
Saxton Field Reserve Management Plan 2008 (Saxton Field RMP) -
vision and aims (sections 5.1 and 5.2)
7.13 The vision set out in the
Saxton Field RMP is that the reserve “provides an iconic regional park
and green space”. The RMP includes several aims that strengthen the
positive attributes of Saxton Field and contribute to the realisation of the
vision.
7.14 The aims recognise the mixed
use of land required within Saxton Field to meet current and future community
need for health and enjoyment, exercise, spectating, competition and relaxation
through sporting and recreational activities and events.
7.15 The Proposed Use of Saxton
Field aligns with the vision and aims as it meets the need for spectating and
relaxation through an event.
7.16 The associated risks of
nuisance and disorder are being managed through consents, licences, agreements
with the organiser, detailed event management plans, cooperation with Police
and emergency services and monitoring by Council staff.
Saxton Field RMP - entertainment and events (section 5.6)
7.17 Section 5.6 of the RMP
relates to entertainment and events. The objective is to promote and use
Saxton Field as a venue for events and selected forms of entertainment.
7.18 The Proposed Use of Saxton
Field meets this objective as dance and/or music events will be held at Saxton
Field prior to and after the main event at Trafalgar Park.
Saxton Field RMP - licences (section 5.8)
7.19 Section 5.8 of the RMP
provides that liquor licencing needs to be consistent with the sport and
recreation purpose of Saxton Field and policies applied elsewhere in
Nelson.
7.20 The Proposed Use of Saxton
Field (which will includes a temporary liquor ban and liquor licence for a
designated area) is consistent with this objective.
Saxton Field RMP - commercial activity – includes concerts and
circus (section 5.11)
7.21 Section 5.11 permits the use
of Saxton Field for commercial activities including concerts and circus. The
objective is to permit activities which enhance the public enjoyment of Saxton
Field and which are compatible with the principal purposes, uses and character
of Saxton Field.
7.22 Concerts and circus shows
have been successfully held at Saxton Field in the past for example, Opera in
the Park in February 2017.
7.23 The Proposed Use of Saxton
Field will enhance the public’s enjoyment of Saxton and is compatible
with the purpose, uses and character of Saxton as detailed in the Act and in
the vision and aims referred to above in paragraph 7.12 and 7.13.
Saxton Field
RMP - circulation networks, transport and parking (section 5.13)
7.24 Section 5.13 relates to
circulation networks, transport and parking. In relation to the Proposed
Use of Saxton Field, campers will be required to park in a designated area
adjacent to the campsite. Only Bay Dreams ticket holders will be permitted to
park in the designated area and marshals will be on duty to monitor traffic
flow and parking. Shuttles will transport campers between the campsite and the
main event area at Trafalgar Park and this is expected to minimise the movement
of vehicles within the reserve.
8. Saxton
Field Committee feedback
8.1 A report about Bay
Dreams was presented to the Saxton Field Committee on 14 November 2018.
8.2 The Committee
suggested that consideration be given to the following matters: emergency
planning, smoking at Saxton Field, security of water supply, cricket oval security,
community engagement, and security.
8.3 The
above-mentioned matters will be considered as part of the operational planning
for the event and where appropriate included as conditions of use in the
agreement with the organiser.
9. Alcohol
prohibition for Saxton Field
9.1 The Urban
Environments Bylaw 2015 prohibits the consumption and possession of alcohol at
Saxton Field from 9:00pm on any day to 7.00am on the following day.
9.2 The Police have
requested that the prohibition for the consumption and possession of alcohol at
Saxton Field be temporarily extended to cover the entire period for which
camping is approved (07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5 January 2019).
Concerns have been raised by the Police about the potential for alcohol related
disorder given that approximately 5000 people will be camping in the area over
a three day period.
9.3 The requested
prohibition will enable Police to respond to any alcohol related issues that
may arise during the period 3 to 5 January 2019. Police powers of search,
seizure and arrest will be extended over the entire camping period.
9.4 Clause 6.15 of the
Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 allows Council to prohibit the consumption and
possession of alcohol where it is appropriate for the safe and effective
holding of a public event or gathering in a public place. The Council must
publicly notify a resolution to this effect no less than 14 days before the
event.
9.5 An application has
been made to license the parts of Saxton Field where the music event will be
taking place for possession and consumption of alcohol under the Sale of
Alcohol Act 2012. If this area receives an alcohol licence, this area could be
specifically excluded from the blanket alcohol prohibition for Saxton Field
under clause 6.8 of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.
9.6 It is considered
appropriate to grant the request by the Police, particularly given that a
specific area of Saxton Field will be licensed for alcohol consumption over
this time.
9.7 There are no other
events planned at Saxton Field from 3-5 January 2019 that would be affected by
the prohibition.
10. Community
engagement
10.1 Council officers have
assessed that those most likely to be affected by or interested in the Bay
Dreams event include commercial and residential neighbours and ratepayers of
the areas surrounding Trafalgar Park, Rutherford Park and Saxton Field.
10.2 In order to assess the
knowledge and preferences of those most likely to be affected by or interested
in Bay Dreams, Council sent letters and an information sheet to the occupants
and ratepayers of every property as shown on the attached maps (Attachment 4)
and invited recipients to public meetings to discuss the event and provide
feedback. A total of 600 residential and 200 business invitations were sent.
10.3 The template letters and
information sheet provided to those individuals are attached to this report
(Attachment 5).
10.4 The meetings are scheduled
for 11 December 2018. Two meetings will be held in Nelson – one for
residents and the other for businesses, and one at Saxton Field combining
residents and businesses. Council staff from Community Partnerships, Roads,
Parks and the Group Manager Community Services will be present at the meetings
along with representatives from the New Zealand Police and Bay Dreams event
organisers. The meetings will be chaired by the Chair of the Sports and
Recreation Committee, Councillor Tim Skinner. Invitations were also sent to the
Tasman District Council and the Saxton Field Committee.
10.5 Letters sent to occupants and
ratepayers included a phone number and email address where questions could be
sent if individuals were unable to attend public meetings. Residents are also
able to obtain up to date information and provide feedback at the Council
customer service centre by phone or in person.
10.6 Feedback received by email,
telephone and at the meetings will be presented by officers to Council for
consideration at the Council meeting.
10.7 Businesses in Wakatu Square
that may be affected by a proposed carpark closure were advised of this as
affected parties through the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) process. Officers
have personally visited each of these businesses, obtained their feedback and
noted their concerns. These retailers subsequently presented to Council at a
public session on 15 November and intend appearing at the TMP hearing on 4
December.
11. Options
Main Event and the Proposed Use of
Saxton Field
11.1 In relation to the
event at Trafalgar Park and camping at Saxton Field, the recommended approach
is option 1 – to delegate the powers conferred on
Council as administering body of recreation reserve to the Chief Executive and
consent to temporary camping at Saxton Field.
|
Option 1: Delegate the powers conferred on Council
as administering body of recreation reserve to the Chief Executive and
consent to temporary camping at Saxton Field– recommended option
|
|
Advantages
|
· The delegation will
streamline the approval process for this event and future events to be held
on Council recreation reserves.
· The event can take place at Trafalgar Park.
· Camping can proceed at
Saxton Field with oversight from event organisers, Council and Police.
· Patrons, event organisers and visitors will be satisfied.
· Supports event viability over the longer term.
· Allows Council and agencies a degree of control over camping and
behaviour.
· Event will enhance Nelson’s reputation if it goes well.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· Some disruption to local residents.
· Risks of disorder associated with intoxication in the campgrounds.
· Risk of damage to the facilities at the venues.
|
|
Option 2:
Decline to delegate the powers conferred on Council as administering body of
recreation reserve to the Chief Executive and grant exclusive use for the Bay
Dreams event at Trafalgar Park and the Proposed Use of Saxton Field
(including consent to camping)
|
|
Advantages
|
· As
with option 1, however Council retains oversight over decisions to be made.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· As with
option 1.
· In
addition, all events to be held on recreation reserve (including a number of
events already planned for the summer months) will require a decision from
full Council in order to proceed.
· This
will increase time and cost spent on internal administrative
compliance.
|
|
Option 3: Decline to delegate or grant exclusive use
for the Bay Dreams event at Trafalgar Park and decline to consent to
temporary camping at Saxton Field
|
|
Advantages
|
· May limit the risk of disruption to local residents, disorder associated
with intoxication and damage to facilities at the venues.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· Event may be cancelled / moved to an alternative venue.
· Reputational risk as Council could be criticised as unwelcoming of
major events/activities for younger people.
· Patrons, event organisers and visitors will be dissatisfied.
· Unlikely that the event would be held in Nelson next year.
· If event proceeds without camping, patrons will likely sleep and
camp anywhere they can.
|
Alcohol prohibition
11.2 In relation to the alcohol
ban at Saxton Field, the recommended approach is option 2 – to impose an
alcohol prohibition at Saxton Field from 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm
on 5 January 2019.
|
Option 1:
Status quo – Alcohol prohibition 9:00pm on any day -7:00am the
following day at Saxton Field
|
|
Advantages
|
· In accordance with current practice.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· May not be sufficient to deal with potential alcohol related
disorder.
· Contrary to the recommendations of Police.
|
|
Option 2: Alcohol
prohibition at Saxton Field from 07:00am on 3 January 2019 to 09:00pm on 5
January 2019
|
|
Advantages
|
· Will allow Police to respond to alcohol related disorder at any
time of the day.
· Will align with liquor license by directing drinking to a designated
area.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· None.
|
12. Conclusion
12.1 Bay Dreams has the potential
to strengthen Nelson’s reputation as a welcoming city that supports
creativity and showcases Nelson as a venue for these types of events. It is
recommended that Council agrees with the proposed approach to the approval of
use of Rutherford Park and recreation reserves in
connection with this event and the steps taken to engage with the community;
delegates the powers conferred on Council as administering body of recreation
reserves to the Chief Executive (including to grant exclusive use for the Main
Event at Trafalgar Park and the Proposed Use of Saxton Field); consents to
camping at Saxton Field; and approves the alcohol ban for Saxton Field.
Author: Mark
Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2098483
- Site map: Trafalgar Park and Rutherford Park ⇩
Attachment 2: A2098482 - Site map: Saxton Field ⇩
Attachment 3: A2101448 - Section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977 ⇩
Attachment 4: A2101838 - Community engagement maps ⇩
Attachment 5: A2101859 - Template letters and information
sheet ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government
The decision facilitates the
delivery of an event that supports the economic prosperity and creative
identity of the city with a view to that event becoming an established annual
event.
|
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes
and Council Policy
The decision is consistent with
previous Council decisions about this matter and aligns with the following
community outcomes:
· Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their
heritage, identity and creativity.
· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and
recreational facilities and activities.
|
|
3. Risk
Risk of legal challenge in
relation to the interpretation and application of the Act and RMP.
Risk of nuisance, disorder, damage
to Council facilities and private property.
Reputational risk to Council if
nuisance, disorder or damage occurs.
Legal advice
has been sought on the interpretation and application of the Act and RMP. The
risks of nuisance, disorder and damage are being managed through consents,
licences, agreements with the organiser, detailed event management plans,
cooperation with Police and emergency services and monitoring by Council
staff.
|
|
4. Financial impact
There is a
significant staff time component associated with planning for and monitoring
this event. The direct cost to Council is estimated to be $80,000 of
unbudgeted expenditure previously approved by Council. Negotiations are
ongoing to recover costs through venue hire and associated fees.
Economic
benefits to Nelson have not yet been quantified, but are expected to be
considerable for this and future events of this scale. A post-event
economic impact assessment has been requested from the Nelson Regional
Development Agency.
|
|
5. Degree of significance and level of
engagement
This matter is of medium
significance because it may negatively affect users of Saxton Field,
Trafalgar Park and Rutherford Park and ratepayers/residents who live close to
these venues. Engagement with affected residents has already
occurred and feedback will be presented by officers at the Council meeting on
13 December 2018.
|
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the
decision making process
No engagement with Māori has
been undertaken in preparing this report.
|
|
7. Delegations
This is a matter for Council as it
relates in part to Section 53 of the Reserves Act 1977 and Council has not
delegated its decision making power under this section.
|
Item 10: Bay Dreams -
main event and camping: Attachment 1
Item 10: Bay Dreams - main event and camping: Attachment 2
Item 10: Bay Dreams - main event and camping: Attachment 3
Item 10: Bay Dreams -
main event and camping: Attachment 4
Item 10: Bay Dreams -
main event and camping: Attachment 6
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9826
National
Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity
Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
receive the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC)
Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
Overview.
1.2 To
approve submission of the HBA reports to the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development to meet the requirements of the NPS-UDC.
1.3 To
note the recommendations in the HBA.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Council
Receives the report National
Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity
Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area (R9826) and its attachments (A2099700 and
A2080812) and
Approves
the submission of the reports to the Ministry of Housing and Development as
required by the NPS-UDC; and
Notes
the recommendations in the attached HBA reports (A2099700
and A2080812).
|
3. Background
3.1 The
NPS-UDC came into effect on 1 December 2016 with an overarching purpose to
ensure that planning enables development through providing sufficient
development capacity for housing and business over the next 10 to 30
years. National policy statements are instruments issued under section
52(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and state objectives and policies for
matters of national significance. Section 55 of the RMA states that a
local authority must make any amendments to its planning documents, or take any
other, action as directed by a national policy statement.
3.2 The
NPS-UDC identifies the Nelson Urban Area as a medium growth urban
area. The Nelson Urban Area is defined by Statistics NZ and extends
from Wakapuaka to Hope. As such, the Nelson and Tasman Councils are
required to meet requirements applicable to medium growth areas in the NPS-UDC.
3.3 Policy
PB1 of the NPS-UDC, directs local authorities to quantify in broad terms how
much feasible development capacity should be provided in resource management
plans and be supported with development infrastructure, to enable the supply of
housing and business space to meet demand. This policy directs local
authorities to, on at least a three-yearly basis, carry out a HBA that:
a) Estimates
the demand for dwellings, including the demand for different types of
dwellings, locations and price points, and the supply of development capacity
to meet that demand, in the short, medium and long-terms; and
b) Estimates
the demand for the different types and locations of business land and floor
area for businesses, and the supply of development capacity to meet that
demand, in the short, medium and long-terms; and
c) Assesses
interactions between housing and business activities, and their impacts on each
other.
3.4 The
purpose of this report is for Council to receive the first HBA produced by
Nelson and Tasman Councils. Nelson and Tasman Council officers have
undertaken separate HBAs for the territorial areas that form part of the Nelson
Urban Area. Together officers have then produced an overview report for
the Nelson Urban Area.
3.5 The
other requirement of the NPS-UDC is for quarterly monitoring reports under
Policy PB1 to PB7 and PD1 which officers from Nelson and Tasman Councils have
been jointly reporting to Council over the last year. The NPS-UDC policies
encourage local authorities to publish the results of their monitoring and HBA
assessments. The NPS-UDC also encourages medium growth Councils to
undertake a Future Development Strategy under policies PC12 to PC14 which both
Councils have committed to. This joint Nelson Tasman Future Development
Strategy project has started and is due for completion in July 2019.
3.6 The
purpose of the monitoring, capacity assessments and strategies is to ensure:
a)
That Councils have a robustly-developed, comprehensive and frequently updated
evidence base to inform planning decisions in urban environments; and
b) that
planning decisions and methods enable urban development in a timely way, and
c) that
infrastructure and land use planning are coordinated and aligned within and
across local authority boundaries.
3.7 The
HBA will provide the evidence base to inform target setting in the Regional
Policy Statement, the plan review, LTP project scheduling and the Nelson Tasman
Future Development Strategy (FDS). The FDS will demonstrate that there
will be sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term
and how this is to be achieved for the Nelson Urban Area.
4. Discussion
4.1 The
NPS-UDC directs that the assessment of capacity can only include capacity which
is Plan enabled (under an operative or proposed plan) and that is either
serviced or planned to be serviced in Councils LTP or 30 Year Infrastructure
Strategy. In addition to this, under policy PB3 all capacity must be
feasible in the current market.
4.2 The
overall conclusion from the HBA for Nelson (territorial area) is that there are
no projected shortfalls in business capacity over the short (1-3 years), medium
(3-10 years) or in the years up to 2038 (up to year 20 years). In terms of
housing there is no shortfall in capacity in the short term (1-3 years), but
there is a small shortfall in capacity in the medium term (3-10 years) and a
significant shortfall in the long term (10-30 years).
|
Nelson Business Capacity Assessment
|
|
|
Demand (ha)
|
Capacity(ha)
|
Difference(ha)
|
|
Commercial
|
16.6
|
18
|
1.4
|
|
Industrial
|
0.1
|
35.1
|
35
|
|
Nelson Housing Capacity Assessment
|
|
|
Demand
(households)
|
Capacity
(households)
|
Difference (households)
|
|
Short term
|
2001
|
3127
|
1126
|
|
Medium Term
|
2855
|
2777
|
-78
|
|
Long Term
|
2937
|
432
|
-2505
|
4.3 For
the Nelson Urban Area (includes Richmond) the HBA provides a similar
conclusion. There are no projected shortfalls in business capacity over
the short (1-3 years), medium (3-10 years) or in the years up to 2038 (up to 20
years). For housing there is no shortfall in capacity in the short term (1-3
years) or medium term (3-10 years), but there is still a significant shortfall
in the long term (10-30 years).
|
Nelson Urban Area Business Capacity Assessment
|
|
|
Demand (ha)
|
Capacity(ha)
|
Difference(ha)
|
|
Commercial
|
30.9
|
33.48
|
2.58
|
|
Industrial
|
1.8
|
39.15
|
37.35
|
|
Nelson Urban Area Housing Capacity Assessment
|
|
|
Demand
|
Capacity
|
Difference
|
|
Short term
|
2,391
|
3,969
|
1,578
|
|
Medium Term
|
3,556
|
4,850
|
1,294
|
|
Long Term
|
3,887
|
1,804
|
-2,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.4 The
results of the housing capacity assessment for the Nelson Urban Area are also
shown in the graph below.
4.4 The
NPS-UDC requires under Policy PC3 that Council initiate a response within 12
months of the HBA if there is insufficient capacity for the Nelson Urban Area
in any of the short, medium or long terms.
4.5 Both
the HBA for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area reports attached provide
recommendations as to how Council can, and has already begun, to initiate a
response. The main methods through which Council can achieve this is the
Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy and the review of the NRMP (Nelson
Plan development). This will also need to be supported by additional
infrastructure planning to support growth.
5. Options
5.1 Council
has the option of either receiving the HBA for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
or not. Tasman District Council is also receiving its HBA for Richmond
and the Nelson Urban Area Overview Report at its 13 December Council meeting.
|
Option 1: Receive
the HBA for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
Overview
|
|
Advantages
|
· Statutory
requirements of the NPS-UDC are met.
· Decisions
makers are able to use the HBA as an evidence base to inform planning
decisions in the urban environment.
· The
Future Development Strategy and Nelson Plan are able to be informed by the
latest capacity assessments and recommendations.
· Developers
and the community are able to understand where and how investment decisions
are made by Council to enable growth.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· None
|
|
Option 2: Do
not receive the HBA for Nelson and the Nelson
Urban Area Overview
|
|
Advantages
|
· None
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Statutory
requirements of the NPS-UDC are not met.
· Tasman
District Council will receive the Tasman HBA and Nelson Urban Area Overview
and this will be publicly available while the Nelson HBA is not.
· Decisions
makers are unable to use the latest HBA to inform planning decisions on the
urban environment and there is a risk that household demand from year 9 to 30
are not met, stifling growth in Nelson and exacerbating housing supply and
affordability issues.
|
6. Conclusion
6.1 Policy
PB1 of the NPS-UDC directs local authorities to, on at least a three-yearly
basis, carry out a HBA.
6.2 The
purpose of this report is for Council to receive the first HBAs produced by
Nelson and Tasman Councils.
Author: Lisa
Gibellini, Team Leader City Development
Attachments
Attachment 1: Nelson Territorial
Authority Area Housing and Business Capacity Assessment (A2099700) ⇩
Attachment 2: Nelson
Urban Area Overview Housing and Business Capacity Assessment (A2080812) ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Receiving the Nelson HBA and the Nelson Urban Area
Overview reports fits with the purpose of the Local Government Act as it
enables Council to be informed in its decisions making to ensure that it
provides for the 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
Receiving the HBA reports supports the community
outcome of Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets
current and future needs
|
|
3. Risk
It is considered that there is little risk in
receiving the HBA reports. If Council were not to receive the reports
there is a risk that non-compliance with a national policy statement results
in direction or action form central government.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
There is no financial impact of the decision to
receive the reports. All recommendations in the report are funded as
part of business as usual for Environmental Management and Infrastructure
groups.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
Receiving the HBA reports is of low significance.
Actions arising out of the assessment such as the Future Development Strategy
and the Nelson Plan work will provide opportunities for public participation.
|
|
6. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken
in preparing this report.
|
|
7. Delegations
The Planning and Regulatory Committee delegated on
the 22 November 2018 the receipt of the HBA to Council, so that it may be
received on the same day as Tasman District Council.
|
Item 11: National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity:
Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area:
Attachment 1
Item 11: National Policy
Statement on Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity
Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area: Attachment 2
Item 12: Tahunanui
Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9823
Tahunanui
Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
agree to either stop the trial or approve additional operating funding to
continue with the trial in some form at the Tahunanui Modellers Pond (Pond).
2. Summary
2.1 A
trial using Diatomix (a diatom fertilizer) commenced at the pond on 20 August
2018 with a view to improving the water quality and amenity of the pond. This
trial was planned to run for up to 18 months with a hold point at three months
to determine the success of the Diatomix before proceeding further. The aim of
the trial is to encourage the growth of diatoms to the detriment of the
filamentous algae (algae) and aquatic weed (weeds).
2.2 There
is only sufficient budget to operate the trial for three months and this three
month period finished on 20 November 2018.
2.3 Observations
during this three month trial show that algae has continued to grow in the
pond. Anecdotally this growth seems to be at lower levels than previous years.
It is unclear whether this is wholly the impact of the Diatomix, circumstantial
and/or supported by an additional light midwinter clean out of algae as part of
the trial preparation.
2.4 The
overall assessment by the Working Party is that the trial has been successful
in restricting the algae growth and that they wish to continue.
2.5 Officers
note that the trial appears to be successful in limiting algae growth to date,
however, with no guarantee of success and the high costs of continuing with the
trial, officers are of the opinion that they cannot support continuing with the
trial and that an assessment of alternative options should be undertaken.
2.6 Council
has previously referred this matter to the Works and Infrastructure Committee
(Committee), but due to the timing of the three month trial and the Committee
meeting, the Committee resolved on 15 November to refer this matter to the full
Council for a decision to either proceed or not proceed with the trial.
3. Recommendation
1.
|
That the Council
Receives the report Tahunanui
Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward (R9823)
and its attachments (A2078208, A2106756 and A2094762); and
Notes
that officers do not support continuing with the trial beyond the three
month initial period; and
Approves
on the recommendation of the Working Party to proceed with the Diatomix trial
as per Option 3 of Report R9823 (for a further five months) noting the Working Party’s desire to supply and
install an alternative pump at their own cost; and
Approves
additional unbudgeted operational funding of $130,000 in the
current 2018/19 financial year to continue with the Diatomix trial for a
further five months – ending April 2019; and
Requests
an update, on the outcome of any further trial period, be reported back to the
full Council.
|
4. Background
4.1 The
growth of weed and algae (which forms long strands and mats) has been a problem
in the pond since the addition of copper sulphate was stopped. Officers have
been working on a solution, but this has been a complex and protracted process.
4.2 A
Working Party comprising the following members was established to assist in
developing a solution.
· Nigel Gibbs and
Alan Malaquin from the Tahunanui Modelling Society; and
· John Gilbertson
from the Tahunanui Business Association; and
· Councillors Stuart
Walker and Tim Skinner as chairs of the Works and Infrastructure and Sports and
Recreation Committees respectively.
4.3 A
potential solution to use Diatomix was agreed to be trialled. This trial
involves dosing the pond with Diatomix which encourages diatom growth (single
celled algae of a variety of species). The presence of diatoms limits the
nutrients available for the growth of other algae and weeds. The Working Party is
supported by Dr Simon Tannock from AlgaEnviro, the Diatomix supplier.
4.4 WSP
Opus have been engaged by Council to process the resource consent and to
monitor the resource consent conditions.
4.5 Following
the granting of the resource consent to trial Diatomix at the pond, supporting
equipment was installed (pond circulation and dosing pumps) and base testing
carried out. The trial then commenced on 20 August 2018. The consent provides
for an 18 month trial, with progress being assessed after three months (hold
point) and a decision made to either continue or not continue with the trial
beyond this point.
4.6 There
is only sufficient capacity within existing budgets to operate the trial for
three months, ending 20 November 2018. Refer to Attachment 1 for an update
provided to all councillors on 27 September 2018 from the Chief Executive.
4.7 On
the 15 November 2018, the Works and Infrastructure Committee approved the
recommendation to refer a decision on the trial to the Council meeting on 13
December 2018. This was required as there was insufficient time to adequately
assess the data and report on the outcome of the first three months of the
trial any earlier.
4.8 Should
the decision be made to continue with the trial beyond the three months,
approval for additional operational funding will be required.
5. Discussion
5.1 Following
the completion of the three month trial, algae has continued to grow throughout
the pond. This algae growth appears to be at lower levels than at the same time
in previous years, which indicates the Diatomix may have been successful in
limiting its growth.
5.2 This
trial has been reactive to manage due the sensitivity of the pond environment.
There are many variables that have affected the performance of the trial. These
variables were either not known, or not able to be fully quantified before and
during the trial. This has led to both a cost increase for the trial as well as
limiting the performance of the trial. The Diatomix supplier has also
recommended further improvements and tweaking of operational requirements to
optimise the impact of Diatomix. This will lead to further cost increase and
officers have been very aware that there is no further budget to undertake any
additional works this financial year.
5.3 The
unanticipated issues/recommended changes requested by AlgaEnviro, that have had
an impact on the performance of the trial include:
· The discovery of
isolated groundwater springs (hot spots) within the pond that are contributing
additional nutrients to the system, which encourage algae growth.
· Stormwater events
– these events add more nutrients into the pond than original test
results show and this increase in nutrients encourages algae growth.
· The need to
maintain the water level within the pond. The water level in the pond drops
depending on seepage, wind and evaporation and can drop by up to 10-15mm a day.
When the water level drops too low it affects the pond circulation and the
mixing of the Diatomix throughout the pond.
· Greater circulation within the pond is required and has
been requested by AlgaEnviro.
· The orientation of the mixing pump outlet has been
tweaked throughout the trial to optimise pond circulation.
5.4 In
some instances where algae has appeared, the algae has shown signs of
deterioration/die-back and this may be attributed to the use of Diatomix.
5.5 It
is believed that the circulation within the pond has been effected by the
growth of algae. To improve the circulation, the Working Party have actively
been removing algae and weed from the pond.
WSP Opus feedback
5.6 WSP
Opus have been engaged by Council to process the resource consent and to
monitor the resource consent conditions.
5.7 At
present, testing and observations indicate there has been no discernible or
significant adverse effects on the downstream water quality and/or aquatic
life.
5.8 There
has not been a potential/actual toxic algae bloom in the pond or the downstream
environment.
5.9 WSP
Opus are unable to assess the effectiveness of the trial due to the variability
in the pond water quality (effects from the stormwater). However, WSP
Opus overall assessment is that the data indicates that the addition of
Diatomix has had less than minor effect on the pond water quality and that in
respect to amenity, the Diatomix does not appear to have been successful in
preventing water weed/algal growth in the pond. Refer to Attachment 2 for the
Executive Summary.
AlgaEnviro feedback
5.10 The
overall assessment from AlgaEnviro is that the Diatomix treatment has been a
success. AlgaEnviro confirm that to control the algae issue in the long term,
improvements need to be made to increase the dosing level following weather
events, maintain the water level and improve circulation. Refer to Attachment
3.
5.11 Increasing
the dosing as originally noted by Dr Tannock will require a variation to the
existing resource consent and improving the circulation will require either an
additional circulation pump or a larger pump. These extra costs are summarised
in the financial section.
5.12 Dr
Tannock has since verbally suggested that the current dosing rate is
sufficient, but improved water circulation is critical and needs to be
addressed for the trial to be successful.
5.13 Given
the sensitivity/reactiveness of the trial, officers have considered the option
for increasing the dosing as part of the options assessment.
6. Financial
Maintenance
6.1 Regular
maintenance typically involves skimming the algae off the surface and this
happens several times a year with the cost of this being in the order of
$40,000 to $50,000/annum. However, the average maintenance cost for the pond
over the past five years has been in the order of $80,000/annum and has
included higher than normal maintenance including draining the pond,
removing/drying the weed mats and transporting these to the landfill for
disposal.
6.2 The
Long Term Plan has allocated $45,000 for the maintenance of Modellers Pond in
2019/20.
Trial
6.3 The
costs incurred to date for the three month trial is approximately $145,000 and
includes set-up costs, resource consent monitoring, dosing and extensive
testing (as required by the resource consent and setting the AlgaEnviro dosing
rate).
6.4 The
cost for continuing the trial from the end of the three month trial to this
Council meeting is in the order of $10,000.
6.5 If
the trial is deemed to be successful and Council decides that this is the
permanent solution, the anticipated ongoing annual operation cost is estimated
to be between $75,000 and $190,000/annum, depending on the level of resource
consent monitoring required. However, this cost will only be able to be
confirmed at the end of the trial and will need to be weighed up against all
other options.
6.6 Should
the decision be made by Council to continue with the trial, officers will be
engaging the services of an independent specialist to provide advice on whether
the trial is working.
6.7 Four
options for continuing the trial in some form are discussed below, each with
their own financial summary. The fifth option is to stop the trial. The four
options for continuing with the trial include:
6.7.1 Option
1 - Continuing with the enhanced 18 month trial – i.e. increased dosing
and an additional pump. The estimated operational costs to continue with this
is shown in the table below and this would have an effect on rates in the order
of 0.34% for 2018/19 and 0.19% for 2019/20. The total estimated cost of the
enhanced 18 month trial (including the $145,000 cost of three month trial)
would be in the order of $605,000.
|
Description
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
|
Diatomix product
|
$21,000
|
$27,000
|
|
Operational monitoring
|
$30,000
|
$37,000
|
|
Resource consent monitoring
|
$57,000
|
$70,000
|
|
Power costs
|
$10,000
|
$12,000
|
|
Improved circulation (Pump etc)
|
$60,000
|
$0
|
|
Resource consent variation
|
$30,000
|
$0
|
|
Subtotal
|
$208,000
|
$146,000
|
|
Contingency (20%)
|
$42,000
|
$29,000
|
|
Independent specialist
|
$5,000
|
$5,000
|
|
Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3
month trial to Council meeting in December
|
$10,000
|
$0
|
|
Allowance to close out the trial (disestablishment,
resource consent monitoring & final report)
|
$0
|
$15,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$265,000
|
$195,000
|
|
Initial three month trial cost
|
$145,000
|
|
Projected costs
|
$460,000
|
|
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
|
$605,000
|
6.7.2 Option
2 - Continuing with the 18 month trial with the existing set-up – i.e. no
increased dosing and no additional pump. The estimated operational costs to
continue with this is shown in the table below and this would have an effect on
rates in the order of 0.16% for 2018/19 and 0.15% for 2019/20. The total
estimated cost of this option (including the $145,000 cost of three month
trial) would be in the order of $430,000.
|
Description
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
|
Diatomix product
|
$14,000
|
$19,000
|
|
Operational monitoring
|
$22,000
|
$29,000
|
|
Resource consent monitoring
|
$51,000
|
$62,000
|
|
Power costs
|
$5,000
|
$5,000
|
|
Subtotal
|
$92,000
|
$115,000
|
|
Contingency (20%)
|
$18,000
|
$25,000
|
|
Independent specialist
|
$5,000
|
$5,000
|
|
Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3
month trial to Council meeting in December
|
$10,000
|
$0
|
|
Allowance to close out the trial (disestablishment,
resource consent monitoring & final report)
|
$0
|
$15,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$125,000
|
$160,000
|
|
Initial three month trial cost
|
$145,000
|
|
Projected costs
|
$285,000
|
|
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
|
$430,000
|
6.7.3 Option
3 - Continuing for a further five months (end of April) with a larger pump to
aid circulation. The aim is to continue the trial through the warm summer
months, where the algae growth has historically been problematic.
6.7.4 The
Working Party have indicated that they will manage the supply and installation
of a larger pump (anticipated to be a modified outboard motor). A nominal fee
of $2,000 has been allowed for electrical certification for the proposed pump
and a 30% contingency (rather than 20%) has been applied due to greater risk
associated with the supplied pump.
6.7.5 The
total estimated cost of this (including the $145,000 cost of three month trial)
would be in the order of $275,000. The rates effect would be in the order of
0.17%.
|
Description
|
2018/19
|
|
Diatomix product
|
$11,000
|
|
Operational monitoring
|
$18,000
|
|
Resource consent monitoring
|
$39,000
|
|
Power costs
|
$3,000
|
|
Improved circulation (pump etc)
|
$2,000
|
|
Subtotal
|
$73,000
|
|
Contingency (30%)
|
$22,000
|
|
Independent specialist
|
$5,000
|
|
Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3
month trial to Council meeting in December
|
$10,000
|
|
Manual cleanout of the pond post trial for remainder of
18/19 FY.
|
$5,000
|
|
Allowance to close out the trial (disestablishment,
resource consent monitoring & final report)
|
$15,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$130,000
|
|
Initial three month trial cost
|
$145,000
|
|
Projected costs
|
$130,000
|
|
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
|
$275,000
|
6.7.6 Option
4 - Continuing for a further three months (end of February) with a larger pump
to aid circulation. The aim is to continue the trial through a large part of
the warm summer months, where the algae growth has historically been
problematic.
6.7.7 The
Working Party have indicated that they will manage the supply and installation
of a larger pump (anticipated to be a modified outboard motor). A nominal fee
of $2,000 has been allowed for electrical certification for the proposed pump
and a 30% contingency (rather than 20%) has been applied due to greater risk
associated with the supplied pump.
6.7.8 The
total estimated cost of this (including the $145,000 cost of three month trial)
would be in the order of $250,000. The rates effect would be in the order of
0.14%.
|
Description
|
2018/19
|
|
Diatomix product
|
$7,000
|
|
Operational monitoring
|
$12,000
|
|
Resource consent monitoring
|
$23,000
|
|
Power costs
|
$2,000
|
|
Improved circulation (pump etc)
|
$2,000
|
|
Subtotal
|
$46,000
|
|
Contingency (30%)
|
$14,000
|
|
Independent specialist
|
$5,000
|
|
Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3
month trial to Council meeting in December
|
$10,000
|
|
Manual cleanout of the pond post trial for remainder of
18/19 FY.
|
$15,000
|
|
Allowance to close out the trial (disestablishment,
resource consent monitoring & final report)
|
$15,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$105,000
|
|
Initial three month trial cost
|
$145,000
|
|
Projected costs
|
$105,000
|
|
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
|
$250,000
|
6.7.9 Option
5 - Stopping the trial with immediate effect. Stopping the trial will require
equipment to be removed from site and further sampling and reporting to be
undertaken as part of the resource consent requirements. The total estimated
cost of this (including the $145,000 cost of three month trial) would be in the
order of $200,000. The rates effect would be in the order of
0.07%.
|
Description
|
2018/19
|
|
Committed costs for continuing trial from end of initial 3
month trial to Council meeting in December
|
$10,000
|
|
Close out of trial (disestablishment, resource consent
monitoring & final report)
|
$15,000
|
|
Manual cleanout of the pond post trial for remainder of
18/19 FY.
|
$30,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$55,000
|
|
Initial three month trial cost
|
$145,000
|
|
Projected costs
|
$55,000
|
|
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
|
$200,000
|
6.7 If the
trial stops, no budget exists in the current financial year to do any further
cleans on the modeller’s pond. Additional cleaning could vary between
$5,000 to $30,000 depending on the option selected.
6.8 Any additional unbudgeted operational
expenditure in the 2018/19 financial year is unlikely to be offset by savings
elsewhere in the organisation.
7. Officer’s
feedback
7.1 The
trial has been very reactive to manage and has not gone as smoothly as initially
anticipated. It is unclear to officers whether increasing the circulation
and/or adding more Diatomix will guarantee the success of the trial and
officers cannot support any further expenditure.
7.2 Officers
recognise that the trial appears to have been successful in limiting algae
growth to date. However, notwithstanding the view of the product supplier, the
amount of algae growing within the pond is greater than officers would have
anticipated at this stage. With warmer temperatures still to come (which
typically results in increased algae and weed growth), it has caused a high
degree of uncertainty on the final outcome of the trial.
8. Working
Party Recommendation
8.1 The
overall assessment by the Working Party is that the trial has been successful
in restricting the algae growth, based on:
· Historic photos
and anecdotal evidence from the Modellers Society that algae growth has been
noticeably less when compared to the same time in previous years.
· In some instances
when algae has appeared, it has shown signs of deterioration, which they
believe to be attributed to Diatomix.
· The amount of fish
and wildlife within the pond has increased to a level which the
working party have not seen in the past. This is believed to be attributed to
the Diatomix increasing the amount of diatoms within the pond and therefore
providing a greater food source.
8.2 The
Working Party supports continuing with the trial for a further five months and
have offered to supply and install, at their cost, an improved pump
(anticipated to be a modified outboard motor).
9. Options
9.1 There
are five options open to Council:
9.1.1 Option
1: Install additional equipment, vary the resource consent, increase the dosage
and continue with the trial with officers reporting back to Council in June
2019.
9.1.2 Option
2: Continue with the trial under the current set-up (no increased dosing or
additional pump), with officers reporting progress back to the Council in June
2019.
9.1.3 Option
3: Continue with the trial for a further five months (end of April) with the
working group responsible for supply and installation of an alternative pump,
with officers reporting progress back to Council.
9.1.4 Option
4: Continue with the trial for a further three months (end of February) with
the working group responsible for supply and installation of an alternative
pump, with officers reporting progress back to Council.
9.1.5 Option
5: Stop the trial, continue to clean the pond as in previous years and
officer’s report back on other options.
|
Option 1:
Upgrade equipment, increase dosage and continue with the trial for a further
15 months at an additional cost of $265,000 in
2018/19 and potentially $195,000 in
2019/20
|
|
Advantages
|
· Trial
continues.
· May
be conclusive on whether Diatomix will be a successful long-term solution.
· Previously
supported by AlgaEnviro.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· No
guarantee of success.
· Reputational
risk.
· The
Consenting Authority may not approve a variation to the existing resource
consent for increasing the dosing rate.
· Significant
increased operational cost and impact on rates.
· Additional
challenges may be discovered during the trial.
· Algae
may continue to grow.
· Not
supported by officers.
|
|
Option 2: Continue with the
trial under current set-up for a further 15 months at an additional cost of
$125,000 in 2018/19 and potentially $160,000 in 2019/20
|
|
Advantages
|
· Trial
continues.
· Continuing
with the trial in some form is supported by the Working Party.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· No
guarantee of success.
· Reputational
risk.
· Significant
increased operational cost and impact on rates.
· Additional
challenges may be discovered during the trial.
· Algae
may continue to grow.
· Not
supported by officers.
|
|
Option 3:
Continue with trial for a further five months with the working group
supplying and installing an alternative pump (at their own cost) for an
additional cost of $130,000 in 2018/19.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Trial
continues.
· Supported by the Working Party.
· Continuing with the trial with increased circulation is
supported by AlgaEnviro.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· No
guarantee of success.
· Reputational
risk.
· Increased
operational cost & impact on rates.
· Additional
challenges may be discovered during the trial.
· Algae
may continue to grow.
· Not
supported by officers.
|
|
Option 4:
Continue with trial for a further three months with the working group
supplying and installing an alternative pump (at their own cost) for an
additional cost of $105,000 in 2018/19.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Trial
continues.
· Continuing with the trial with increased circulation is
supported by AlgaEnviro and the Working Party.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· No
guarantee of success.
· Reputational
risk.
· Increased
operational cost & impact on rates.
· Additional
challenges may be discovered during the trial.
· Algae
may continue to grow.
· Not
supported by officers.
|
|
Option 5: Stop trial and
reassess other options
|
|
Advantages
|
· No
additional expense other than regular cleaning and costs to close out the
trial.
· Enables
other options to be assessed for the area.
· Supported
by officers.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· The
algae problem will continue for the foreseeable future.
· Disappointment
from the Modellers Society.
· Not supported by the Working Party.
· Not supported by AlgaEnviro.
|
10. Conclusion
10.1 A
trial commenced at the pond on 20 August 2018 to try and improve the water
quality and amenity of the pond. There are signs of improvement, but the costs
for the three month trial and continuing with the trial are a lot higher than
expected.
10.2 The
overall assessment of the Working Party is that the trial has been successful
in restricting the algae growth and that the trial should continue.
10.3 Officers
have a high degree of uncertainty on the final outcome of the trial and based
on the anticipated high costs and risk of continuing, officers cannot support
continuation of the trial.
Author: David
Light, Manager Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: Update to Councillors from
CE (2078208) ⇩
Attachment 2: WSP
Opus Assessment (A2106756) ⇩
Attachment 3: Assessment
of Trial by AlgaEnviro (A2094762) ⇩
|
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 and deciding what is the most cost effective approach.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
Our Community Outcomes state - “Our
communities should have access to a range of social, educational and
recreational facilities and activities”.
|
|
3. Risk
There is a risk that the trial may not be
successful and additional operational expenditure would have been incurred.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
Sufficient funding only exists for a three month
trial and any decision to continue past this hold point will attract
additional unbudgeted operational budget and will need Council approval.
Any additional unbudgeted operational expenditure
in the 2018/19 financial year is unlikely to be offset by savings elsewhere
in the organisation.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of low significance for the wider
community but of high significance for the users of the pond. A Working Party
has been established, and this includes representatives from the Modellers
Society and the Tahunanui Business Association.
|
|
6. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken
in preparing this report.
|
|
7. Delegations
The Council has the powers to approve additional
funding.
·
Council has powers to approve additional funding.
|
Item 12: Tahunanui
Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward: Attachment 1
Item 12: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward: Attachment 2
Item 12: Tahunanui Modellers Pond Trial: Way Forward: Attachment 3
Item 13: Code of
Conduct - Independent Investigation
|
|
Council
13 December 2018
|
REPORT R9900
Code
of Conduct - Independent Investigation
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To
receive an update on the progress of the independent investigation into the
Code of Conduct complaint against Councillor Rutledge relating to events of 17
May 2018, to appoint a Code of Conduct Committee
and provide appropriate delegations.
2. Summary
2.1 The
Chief Executive received a Code of Conduct complaint from Her Worship the Mayor
Reese regarding the alleged behaviour of Councillor Rutledge around the Council
Long Term Plan (LTP) deliberations meeting of Thursday 17 May 2018.
2.2 In
accordance with the Elected Members Code of Conduct (A1745031 –
Attachment 1) (the Code), the matter was considered by the Conduct Review Panel
(the Panel) on 20 August 2018. The Panel determined that the complaint
was material and sufficiently serious to warrant an independent
investigation.
2.3 An
independent investigation has been undertaken and a final report will be
submitted to the Chief Executive prior to this meeting.
2.4 In
accordance with the Code, the Chief Executive is now required to prepare a
report on this and provide it to the Council, the Panel or Committee with
delegated authority for a determination of whether a penalty or some other form
of sanction will be imposed. To ensure that the matter can be dealt with
equitably and efficiently, a Committee with the appropriate delegated authority
is sought.
3. Recommendation
1.
|
That the Council
Receives the report Code of
Conduct - Independent Investigation (R9900)
and its attachments (A1745031);
Approves the
establishment of a Code of Conduct Committee;
Appoints
a Code of Conduct Committee to consider the independent investigator’s
report on the matter of the Code of Conduct complaint lodged against
Councillor Mike Rutledge relating to events on 17 May 2018;
Delegates the
power to determine the penalty or other form of action to be imposed, if
required, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Local Government Act
2002 processes to the Code of Conduct Committee; and
Appoints
Councillor Dahlberg (Chairperson), Councillor Noonan, John Peters and John
Murray as members of the Code of Conduct Committee.
|
4. Background
4.1 The
Code sets out the standards of behaviour expected from elected members in the
exercise of their duties. It was adopted by Council on 10 August 2017.
4.2 A
Conduct Review Panel was appointed at the Council Meeting held on 22 June
2017. The following was resolved:
Resolved CL/2017/241
That the Council
Appoints Her
Worship the Mayor, Councillors Dahlberg and McGurk to the Conduct Review Panel;
and
Appoints Councillors
Fulton, Courtney and Lawrey to replace any member on the Conduct Review Panel
in the event of a conflict of interest or unavailability of a member.
4.3 To
ensure that any matter under the Code could be dealt with equitably and
efficiently, at the Council Meeting held on 21 June 2018, all elected members
were appointed to the Panel:
Resolved CL/2018/146
That the Council
Receives the report Mayor's Report
(R9326) and its attachment (1989403); and
Appoints
Councillors Acland, Barker, Matheson, Noonan, Rutledge, Skinner and Walker to
replace any member on the Conduct Review Panel in the event of a conflict of
interest or unavailability of a member;
4.4 On
22 May 2018, the Chief Executive received a Code of Conduct Complaint from
Mayor Reese regarding the alleged behaviour of Councillor Rutledge on Thursday
17 May 2018, around the Council LTP deliberations relating to Natureland
funding.
4.5 On
17 July 2018, the Chief Executive referred the complaint to Councillors
Dahlberg and Noonan to undertake a preliminary assessment in accordance with
the Code.
4.6 Whilst
clause 11.3 of the Code allows for the Panel to consist of three elected
members, for this complaint the Panel comprised two councillors only.
This was to ensure that a Panel member did not have any actual or perceived
conflict of interest in relation to the complaint and/or was not a potential
witness to the alleged incidents.
4.7 On
20 August 2018, the Panel met and determined that the complaint was material
and sufficiently serious, if proven, to warrant independent investigation.
4.8 On
11 September 2018, Nelson barrister, Camilla Owen was appointed to undertake
the independent investigation in accordance with the agreed Terms of Reference
and submit a report (the Report) to the Chief Executive.
4.9 The
Report was originally required by 5 October 2018. However, as a
consequence of Ms Owen’s personal circumstances, that deadline could not
be met. The Report will be received by the Chief Executive prior to this
meeting.
5. Discussion
Process to complete the Code
of Conduct complaint
5.1 Appendix
B to Council's Code of Conduct sets out the process requirements for the
determination and investigation of complaints.
5.2 The
principles in Part 11.1 of the Code of Conduct provide important context to the
processes set out in Appendix B — these include applying concepts of
natural justice and fairness, having privacy respected, taking an approach that
is proportionate to the seriousness of the breach and keeping the roles of
complaint, investigation, advice and decision making separate as appropriate to
the nature and complexity of the alleged breach.
Consideration of the
Independent Investigation Report
5.3 Under
the Code, the Chief Executive is required to prepare a report for Council, the
Panel or Committee with delegated authority, which meets to consider the
findings of the independent investigation and determine whether or not a
penalty, or some other form of action, will be imposed.
5.4 Under
the Code, Step 6 – Process for considering the investigator’s
report states that:
“Depending upon the
nature of the complaint and alleged breach the investigator’s report may
be considered by the full council, excluding the complainant, respondent and
any other ‘interested’ members, the Panel, or a committee
established for that purpose.”
5.5 It
is the Chief Executive who determines the 'nature of the complaint and
alleged breach' and therefore, the appropriate level of decision making
body for the decision on what (if any) penalty or other form of action is
imposed.
5.6 Referring
the Report to full Council for consideration is not an option as the full
Council is not available to make a decision. That is, the Code explicitly
excludes the complainant, respondent and other 'interested parties' from this
part of the process. Only two elected members, Councillors Dahlberg and Noonan
do not have any actual or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the
complaint and/or were not witnesses to the alleged incidents. This
determination was made at the time this Panel was convened. This means no
quorum is available.
5.7 Consequently,
the Chief Executive has effectively only two options for the final step in the process:
5.7.1 Refer
the matter back to the Panel (Councillors Dahlberg and Noonan).
5.7.2 Refer
the matter to a committee with delegated authority.
5.8 There
is currently no committee with the delegated authority to consider this
matter. The appointment of a Code of Conduct Committee with the delegated
authority would provide the Chief Executive with an alternative option for
consideration and determination of the Report.
Membership
– Code of Conduct Committee
5.9 It
is recommended that the Panel members, Councillors Dahlberg and Noonan are
appointed to the Code of Conduct Committee (the Committee), together with the
external appointees to the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee, namely John
Murray and John Peters.
5.10 Under
the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee Terms of Reference, John Murray and
John Peters are both bound by the Code. In addition to being known to
elected members and having extensive knowledge of the workings of Council
through their work on the Governance Committee, the Audit Risk and Finance
Subcommittee and the Commercial Subcommittee, both John Murray and John Peters
also have considerable professional experience in matters relating to
employment misconduct issues.
5.11 This
would provide for the determination to be considered by a wider group than
Councillors Dahlberg and Noonan and is the Chief Executive’s preferred
option. The external appointees to the Audit, Risk and Finance
Subcommittee would provide both actual and perceived independence and
objectivity, ensuring the integrity and robustness of the process.
Robustness of
Process
5.12 The
Code allows for the Chief Executive, not Council, to make the decision as to
whether the independent investigator’s report is considered by the
Council, the Panel or a committee with delegated authority.
5.13 To
maintain the integrity of the process whereby elected members with an actual or
perceived interest are not involved in the decision as to who will ultimately
consider the independent investigator’s report, it is important that the
Chief Executive makes this decision, not Council.
5.14 If
the Committee is not established, then the Chief Executive will only have the
option of referring the Report to the original panel.
5.15 External
legal advice has been sought and it supports this approach.
6. Options
6.1 Option
1 is the preferred option
|
Option 1: Appoint Councillor
Dahlberg, Councillor Noonan, John Murray and John Peters to a Code of Conduct
Committee with delegated authority to consider the independent
investigator’s report on the matter of a Code of Conduct complaint
lodged against Councillor Mike Rutledge relating to events on 17 May 2018 and
determine a penalty, if required
|
|
Advantages
|
· Maintains
integrity of the Code of Conduct process
· Allows
for a wider committee of four to consider the matter
· Provides
external experience dealing with professional misconduct matters
· Provides
confidence that the matter is being correctly, robustly and independently
managed
· Consistent
with legal advice
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· None
|
|
Option 2: Not appoint a Code
of Conduct Committee
|
|
Advantages
|
· None
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Prevents
the Chief Executive from a choice of decision making bodies
· A
Panel of only two elected members will consider the matter
·
|
7. Next Steps
7.1 In
accordance with Step 6 of the process, the Panel or Committee will consider the
Chief Executive’s report in an open meeting. It is anticipated that
this meeting will take place in mid-January 2019.
8. A Code of Conduct meeting
of a Panel or Committee is not a 'meeting' as defined in s 45 of the Local
Government Official Information and meetings Act 1987 because the Panel or
Committee is not carrying out a function conferred on it by an enactment.
Consequently, requirements around public notice and publication of agendas and
reports do not apply to this Code of Conduct meeting of the Panel or Committee.
8.1 All
elected members will be provided with a copy of the independent
investigator’s report.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The
appointment of a Code of Conduct Committee with delegated authority to consider
this matter would provide confidence that the complaint was being robustly and
independently managed.
Author: Mary
Birch, Manager Governance and Support Services
Attachments
Attachment 1: (A1745031) Code of Conduct
Adopted 10 August 2017 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Appointing a code of Conduct Committee will provide
for the integrity of democratic local decision-making and action by, and on
behalf of, communities.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The decision to appoint a Code of Conduct Committee
is consistent with the processes laid down in the Elected Members Code of
Conduct and aligns with the following community outcome:
“Our Council provides leadership and fosters
partnerships, a regional perspective and community engagement”.
|
|
3. Risk
The risk of
legal challenge in relation to the Code of Conduct complaint is considered to
be unlikely; legal advice has been sought on the process.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
There is no financial impact associated with the
appointment of a Code of Conduct Committee.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
Whilst matters concerning Code of Conduct
complaints generally raise a high level of public interest amongst some
members of the community, it is considered that the decision whether to
appoint a Code of conduct Committee is of low significance and does not
require any public engagement or consultation.
|
|
6. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken
in preparing this report.
|
|
7. Delegations
This is a matter for Council.
|
Item 13: Code of Conduct - Independent Investigation: Attachment 1
