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
Opening Prayer
1. Apologies
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 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.)
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.
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
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.
· Lunch will be provided.
· 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.
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
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.
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
Barker/Noonan Carried |
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
1 |
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 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
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
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
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 11: National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity: Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson and the Nelson Urban Area
|
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
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
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 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
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. |