Agenda of Council - 12 August 2021

Nelson City Council

12 August 2021

Page No.

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Petition - Delaware Bay Boat Access Group

Representatives from the Delaware Bay Boat Access Group will present the Group’s petition, signed by 1,041 signatories.

“We the undersigned, support access remaining open to all users including vehicle access for boat launching and retrieval at the Delaware Bay Ramp.”

5. Public Forum

4.1 Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association Inc - Waka Kotahi Proposals for Tahunanui Drive and the Effects of those Proposals

Paul Matheson, John Gilbertson and Mrs Stevenson, from Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association Inc, will speak about the Association’s meeting with Waka Kotahi (NZTA) over proposals for Tahunanui Drive and the effects of those proposals.

4.2 Neville Male - The Actions of Councillors and NCC Staff associated with the Extinction Rebellion Protest.

Neville Male, on behalf of the Nelson Citizens Alliance, will speak about the action of councillors and Nelson City Council staff associated with the extinction rebellion protest.

4.3 Save the Maitai - Update on Campaign

Representatives from Save the Maiati will provide elected members with an update on the campaign.

6. Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 24 June 2021 12 - 45

Document number M18738

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 24 June 2021, as a true and correct record.

6.2 1 July 2021 46 - 58

Document number M18768

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 1 July 2021, as a true and correct record.

7. Recommendations from Committees

7.1 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee

7.1.1 Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan for year to 30 June 2022

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan for the year to 30 June 2022 (A2601457).

7.2 Urban Development Subcommittee - 29 July 2021 59

7.2.1 Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson City and Nelson-Tasman's urban environment

Please refer to the additional information on agenda page 59 to support the recommendation

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the housing bottom lines be adopted for inclusion into Nelson City Council’s district plan/regional policy statement as set out in this report Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson City and Nelson-Tasman's urban environment (R24829); and

2. Notes that the Minister of the Environment will be notified of the insufficiency of development capacity for housing for the Nelson part of the urban environment as set out in this report (R24829); and

3. Delegates to the Mayor and Chief Executive the authority to confer with the Tasman District Council regarding any minor editorial amendments to the Nelson-Tasman Housing and Business Capacity Assessment report (A2688455); and

4. Notes the recommendations from the Housing and Business Capacity Assessments as set out in this report (R24829).

8. Mayor's Report 59 - 63

Document number R26067

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R26067); and

2. Amends the following clauses of Nelson City Council Standing Orders, section to state:

Minutes

26.1 “The local authority, its committees, subcommittees and any local and community boards must keep minutes of their proceedings. When confirmed by resolution at a subsequent meeting, or in the case of a meeting with rotating membership, by the electronic signature of the Chairperson, will be prima facie evidence of the proceedings they relate to.”

Petitions

15.3 “In the case of presenting a petition to Council, a committee, subcommittee, local or community board, the subject of the petition must fall within the terms of reference of that meeting.”

9. Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Developer-led Expressions of Interest 64 - 135

Document number R26027

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Developer-led Expressions of Interest (R26027) and its attachments (A2704700, A2714336, A3904008, A2711258, A2716113, A2720023, A2713299 and A2719661); and

2. Provides a letter of support (A2719661 of Report 26027) to the following developers to be included as part of their Expressions of Interest, noting that these letters are in no way intended to fetter any future Council decision making in relation to the proposals, including in its regulatory capacity:

a. Wakatū Incorporation (Horoirangi, A2711258); and

b. Maitai Development Co “Mahitahi” (Kaka Valley, A2716113); and

c. Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited/Marsden Park Limited (Ngawhatu Valley/Marsden Valley, A2720023); and

3. Notes that the following proposal has been assessed as not meeting the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund eligibility criteria and is not recommended for a letter of support from Council:

a. Gibbons (Bishopdale, A2713299); and

4. Notes that a further report will be brought to Council once Kāinga Ora has decided which, if any, of these Expressions of Interest will be invited to respond to a Request for Proposals process detailing:

· The required level of Council investment in infrastructure to support each qualifying development; and

· Whether or not this funding is included in the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 and which year(s); and

· The impact of prioritising any capital projects that support qualifying development on the phasing of other capital projects within the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 work programme; and

· The capacity of Council to deliver multiple additional infrastructure projects within the required timeframe.

10. Representation Review Initial Proposal 136 - 195

Document number R25896

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Representation Review Initial Proposal (R25896) and its attachments (A2712103, A2719650, A2715296, A2712591 and A2720247; and

2. Adopts the following initial representation proposal (Option 4a):

a. That the Nelson City Council consist of a mayor and 12 councillors; and

b. That two General Wards be established as follows:

Name

Boundaries

Central Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

Stoke-Tahuna Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

i. Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, a decision which cannot be appealed to the Local Government Commission; and

c. That a mixed system of voting be established, as follows:

	Members	Popn. per Ward councillor
At large (all voters)	Mayor Three councillors	N/A N/A
Central Ward (General roll)	Four councillors	6,458
Stoke-Tahuna Ward (General roll)	Four councillors	6,370
Whakatū Māori Ward (Māori roll)	One councillor	3,320

and

d. That no community boards be established; and

3. Agrees that public notification of the initial proposal and opportunity to submit on the proposal will be undertaken in line with the statutory requirements of section 19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Confidential Business

11. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

2. 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 - Confidential Minutes - 24 June 2021	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(c)(i) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege.
2	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 1 July 2021	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3	Recommendations from Committees (Confidential) 3 August 2021 Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee Tahuna Beach Camp – Community Engagement on the Proposed Lease of the Campground	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
4	Nelmac Limited Director 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
5	Nelmac Limited 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
6	Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
7	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: Council-led Expression of Interest	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 24 June 2021

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(c)(i) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

· Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege.

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 1 July 2021

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)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Recommendations from Committees (Confidential)

3 August 2021 Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee

Tahuna Beach Camp – Community Engagement on the Proposed Lease of the Campground

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Nelmac Limited Director 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

Nelmac Limited 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

Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Council-led Expression of Interest

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Karakia Whakamutanga

Nelson City Council Minutes – 24 and 29 June 2021

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 24 June 2021, commencing at 9.08a.m.

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies : Nil

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

Attendance: Councillor Brand entered the meeting at 9.09am.

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor Reese explained the order of business would change as the Audit opinion had not yet been received and that the meeting would be adjourned and reconvened on Tuesday 29 June to adopt the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31 (LTP).

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 11 May 2021

Document number M17623, agenda pages 15 - 36 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/100

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 11 May 2021, as a true and correct record.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

5.2 18 May 2021

Document number M17643, agenda pages 37 - 92 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/101

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 18 May 2021, as a true and correct record.

Skinner/Courtney Carried

6. Mayor's Report

Document number R25966

Her Worship the Mayor noted that her Mayor’s Report would be provided in closing of the adoption of the LTP.

John Mackey, Audit Director, Audit New Zealand, joined the meeting via Zoom to explain that the Office of the Auditor General was unable to issue the Audit opinion for today’s meeting. He advised that Audit proposed an unmodified opinion on the LTP, in that it was considered a reasonable basis for long term decision making but that it would have one modification that applied to all territorial authorities. He noted the key LTP issues.

Her Worship the Mayor thanked Audit and Council staff working on the opinion, acknowledging the work that took place behind the scenes and acknowledged Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis and his team for their work on the capital programme. It was confirmed that the Audit opinion would be received in time for the meeting to be reconvened on Tuesday 29 June, for the adoption of the LTP.

Mr Mackey answered questions, confirming that Council’s growth assumptions had been considered at the Consultation Document stage, noting that Council met the growth assumption criteria, which were combined for the region. He clarified what other factors were assessed and that the proposed unbalanced budget was not considered a significant concern.

7. Development Contributions Policy 2021 Adoption (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R25923, agenda pages 612 - 686 refer.

Strategy and Environment Senior Analyst, Chris Pawson, answered questions regarding the public’s understanding of the levels of contributions, noting that a contributions tool was available on Council’s website. Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton noted that recent internal conversations had taken place between the building and consents teams regarding providing clarity on contributions.

Mr Pawson answered questions regarding reduction in costs for brownfield development and greenfield expansion, and it was noted that development contributions were required to be reasonable but adequate to maintain levels of service.

Resolved CL/2021/102

That the Council

1. Receives the report Development Contributions Policy 2021 Adoption (R25923) and its attachment (A2502141); and

2. Adopts the Nelson City Council Policy on Development Contributions 2021 (Attachment one to report R25923, A2502141)

McGurk/Courtney Carried

8. Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 9)

8.1 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 25 May 2021

8.1.1 Draft Treasury Management Policy including Liability Management and Investment Policies

The Subcommittee’s recommendation was moved by Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Courtney.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the Treasury Management Policy (A2611223) as amended at the 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney

Group Manager, Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, spoke to the Subcommittee’s recommendation, explaining the process to date, noting that the Treasury Management Policy was separate to the LTP. Ms Harrison answered questions regarding the review schedule for the policy.

Councillor Sanson foreshadowed a proposed amendment to the Subcommittee’s recommendation, Councillor Lawrey to second.

That the Council

1. Adopts the Treasury Management Policy (A2611223) as amended at the 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting; and

2. Undertakes an independent review of Council's approach to forestry in 21/22 financial year, developing a science-led regenerative forestry plan prioritising permanent-canopy indigenous forest opportunities, climate leadership and innovation; and

3. Directs staff to review the Treasury Management Plan (TMP) and Investment Policy for Forestry in alignment with the proposed regenerative forestry plan.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, clarified his advice at the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting where the policy was considered, was that the request constituted a large piece of work and that his recommendation would be to request a report to provide the scope and costs involved in a review.

Discussion took place on the proposed amendment and it was noted that clause 3 appeared to predetermine the outcome of the review and that it would be preferable to request a report on potential costs and scope, and that clause 3 should be considered after any review had taken place.

During discussion regarding use of the forestry budget for a review, Councillor Skinner raised a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for disrespectful remarks and potential misrepresentation regarding the naming of Forestry Subcommittee advisors and contractors, which was upheld. Councillor Sanson apologised.

During discussion on the review process, Councillor Sanson raised a Point of Order against the Chief Executive for misrepresentation around the potential costs of a review and the costs of transition, which were not known. The Point of Order was not upheld as the figures had been supplied to Elected Members in related documents.

Following further questions as to whether the forestry funding of $100,000 could be used to look at all the options for forestry transition, it was reiterated that the forestry budget was to consider alternative commercial species, which still had to adhere to the principles of the Forestry Activity Management Plan (AMP) and the Treasury Management Plan, one of which was provision of a commercial return.

Further concerns were raised regarding clause 3 of the amendment predetermining the outcome of a review without allowing for the financial implications.

It was noted that the amendment should state ‘Treasury Management Policy’ not ‘Plan’ and it was clarified that iwi feedback had been factored into the AMP.

Discussion took place regarding replanting and cessation of commercial forestry.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.29am.until 10.46am.

At the request of the mover and seconder, the foreshadowed amendment was replaced with the below amendment.

Amendment

That the Council

1. Adopts the Treasury Management Policy (A2611223) as amended at the 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting; and

2. Requests a report on the costs and scope of undertaking an independent review of Council's approach to forestry in 21/22 financial year, developing a science-led regenerative forestry plan prioritising indigenous forest opportunities, climate leadership and innovation; and

3. Directs staff to review the Treasury Management and Investment Policies to enable regenerative forestry policy and report back.

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Against

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Abstained

Cr Brand

The amendment was declared equal 6 - 6.

Sanson/Lawrey

The meeting was adjourned from 11.17am until 11.24am, at which time Councillors Fulton, Lawrey and McGurk were not present.

In order to progress the matter under discussion (SO 20.5), Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Edgar, moved the following motion.

That the Council

1. Adopts the Treasury Management Policy (A2611223) as amended at the 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting; and

2. Requests a report on the potential costs, scope, and high level implications (including financial) of undertaking an independent review of Council's approach to forestry in the 21/22 financial year, including considering developing a regenerative forestry plan prioritising indigenous forest opportunities, climate leadership and innovation to inform the Forestry Activity Management Plan and Treasury Management Policy.

Attendance: Councillors Fulton, Lawrey and McGurk returned to the meeting at 11.26am.

During debate, Councillor Sanson raised a Point of Order against the Mayor for misrepresentation that she was against forestry in general, Councillor Sanson’s Point of Order was not upheld as Councillor Sanson had described forestry as ‘strip mining’ in her debate.

Councillor Skinner raised a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for disrespect, regarding comments relating to dirty politics and campaign donations. Councillor Skinner’s Point of Order was upheld. Councillor Sanson apologised and withdrew her comments.

The motion was put in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/103

That the Council

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Sanson

Against

Cr Rainey

Cr Skinner

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 11 - 2.

CL/2021/104

That the Council

1. Adopts the Treasury Management Policy (A2611223) as amended at the 25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 11.57am until 12.00pm.

8.2 Regional Transport Committee - 21 April 2021

8.2.1 2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan – Deliberations Report

Recommendation to Council CL/2021/105

That the Council

1. Approves the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 (A2570814 of Report R22719) for submission to Waka Kotahi prior to 30 June subject to any changes made as part of the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 process, and minor changes made by Marlborough District Council or Tasman District Council Regional Transport Committees, and notes the delegation to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee.

McGurk/Edgar Carried

8.2.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 - Deliberations Report

Recommendation to Council CL/2021/106

That the Council

1. Notes that a Regional Public Transport Plan will be brought to Council on 1 July 2021 seeking approval to lodge with Waka Kotahi and that this timing of the approval of the Regional Public Transport Plan will ensure consistency across the Regional Land Transport Plan, Regional Public Transport Plan and Long Term Plan.

McGurk/Edgar Carried

9. Adoption of Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 (Agenda Item 7)

Document number R25879, agenda pages 93 - 611 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison and Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald, spoke to the report. Two documents were tabled (A2689716) containing officer amendments and LTP 2021-31 Accounting Policies (A2558353), containing changes requested by the Auditors.

Ms Harrison and Ms McDonald clarified the changes and an additional change was provided to Page 134 of the agenda (Page 27 of the LTP):

Approved an additional $38,000 per annum to provide the Living Wage for bus drivers in our public transport service dependent on the successful completion of discussions with the contracted public transport operator.

Ms Harrison and Ms McDonald answered questions regarding the LTP. It was noted that the Community Investment Funding Panel membership on agenda page 602 needed to be updated.

During questions, Her Worship the Mayor raised and upheld a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for being misleading, in suggesting that Council staff were not being honest regarding forestry income. Councillor Sanson withdrew the comments and apologised.

There were further questions regarding the Forestry Reserve balance, financial prudence and wastewater sludge charges.

Discussion took place regarding the Good Food Cities wording on agenda pages 211 and P212 (LTP pages 103 and 104)

Councillor Fulton raised a Point of Order against Councillor Skinner for misrepresentation in the use of the word ‘veganism’, the Point of Order was upheld.

Councillor Brand raised a Point of Order against Councillor Fulton for disruption (talking across the room), the Point of Order was upheld.

Councillor Fulton moved a motion, seconded by Councillor Sanson, to formalise the Good Food Cities wording on pages 211 and 212 of the agenda, with the amended wording on document A2689716.

Good Food City LTP wording

Resolved CL/2021/107

That the Council

1. Confirms the Good Food City wording provided on the Council Agenda 24 June 2021, pages 211 to 212 remain in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31, including the amended wording “Council’s food purchasing continues to support the Planetary Health Diet principles” provided on Attachment A2689716.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese

(Chairperson)

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Against

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 7 - 6.

Fulton/Sanson Carried

Following the vote, it was noted that Council had not agreed to sign up to the Good Food City initiative, and suggested that the Good Food City wording decision had gone against Council’s LTP deliberations. It was agreed to revisit this topic when the meeting reconvened on Tuesday 29 June 2021.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.42pm, to be reconvened on Tuesday 29 June 2021 at 9.00am.

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson reconvened on Tuesday 29 June 2021, commencing at 9.08a.m.

Apologies : Nil

10. Late Confidential Item - 5 City Heights

Her Worship the Mayor advised that there was a late confidential item to be considered and therefore a resolution was required to be passed. The meeting was adjourned from 9.10am until 9.19am. Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, advised that the matter needed to be considered at this meeting as the decision was timebound. It was noted that Audit and Risk Subcommittee Chair, John Peters, would also be remaining for consideration of the late item.
Resolved CL/2021/108
	*That the Council* *Considers* the Confidential item regarding 5 City Heights 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.
Edgar/McGurk Carried

11. Exclusion of the Public

Sarah Macky, of Heaney and Partners, and John Peters, Chair of the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee, were in attendance for Item 2 of the Confidential agenda – 5 City Heights, to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution was required to be passed:

Resolved CL/2021/109

That the Council

1. Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Sarah Macky of Heaney and Partners and John Peters, Chair of the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee, remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 2 of the Confidential agenda (5 City Heights), as they have knowledge that will assist the meeting.

Edgar/Courtney Carried

Resolved CL/2021/110

That the Council

1. Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar 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 - Confidential Minutes - 11 May 2021	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 18 May 2021	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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
3.	5 City Heights	The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(c)(i) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege.

The meeting went into confidential session at 9.23am and resumed in public session at 10.57am.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.57am until 11.30am.

Item 9 - The adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 was revisited.

9. Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 (Good Food City Wording) (revisited)

Discussion took place on the previous Good Food City wording decision (CL/2021/107). Concerns were raised that the decision did not reflect the LTP deliberations discussion, which had not been finalised at the deliberations meeting. It was explained that the proposed replacement wording gave no indication that Council was signing up to the C40 declaration and did not commit Council to spending or resource, but would show Council’s commitments to projects that support the Good Food Cities initiative.

1. Revokes Decision CL/2021/107, resolved on 24 June 2021

That the Council

2. Replaces the Good Food City wording in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31, on Pages 211 – 212 of Council Agenda 24 June 2021, with the following words:

Good Food City

Council supports Nelson Marlborough Health (NMH) leading work on Nelson becoming a Good Food City – a city that supports sustainable and healthy food, champions its local producers and works to reduce food waste. Council has many projects that contribute to the Good Food City objectives, particularly through reducing food waste and supporting a food resilient community. Examples of projects in the Long Term Plan that support the aims of this work include a proposed kitchenwaste collection scheme (dependent on the results of a trial and government funding), edibles in our reserves, encouraging home composting and initiatives that focus on better use of food.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.51am until 11.59am.

Discussion took place on the proposed motion, which was moved by Councillor Edgar, seconded by Councillor Fulton.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/111
	*That the Council* 1. Revokes Decision CL/2021/107, resolved on 24 June 2021 That the Council 1. Confirms the Good Food City wording provided on the Council Agenda 24 June 2021, pages 211 to 212 remain in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31, including the amended wording “Council’s food purchasing continues to support the Planetary Health Diet principles” provided on Attachment A2689716.
Edgar/Fulton Carried
Debate took place on the second clause of the motion and it was noted that Nelson City Council did not have a definition of what a good food city was and had not considered the financial implications.
Resolved CL/2021/112
	*That the Council* 2. Replaces the Good Food City wording in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31, on Pages 211 – 212 of Council Agenda 24 June 2021, with the following words: *Good Food City* Council supports Nelson Marlborough Health (NMH) leading work on Nelson becoming a Good Food City – a city that supports sustainable and healthy food, champions its local producers and works to reduce food waste. Council has many projects that contribute to the Good Food City objectives, particularly through reducing food waste and supporting a food resilient community. Examples of projects in the Long Term Plan that support the aims of this work include a proposed kitchenwaste collection scheme (dependent on the results of a trial and government funding), edibles in our reserves, encouraging home composting and initiatives that focus on better use of food.
Edgar/Fulton Carried

10 Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 - Receipt of the Auditor General Auditor's Opinion

The Auditor’s opinion was tabled (A2703016)
Resolved CL/2021/113
	*That the Council* 1. *Receives the Office of the Auditor General Auditor’s Opinion on the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 (A2703016).*
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

Discussion took place on minor amendments and it was noted that better communication and improvements to the website relating to building and resource consents should be included in the final LTP.

The motion, moved by Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Edgar, was taken in parts.

That the Council

1. Receives the report Adoption of Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 (R25879) and its attachment (A2681479).

Carried

That the Council

2. Adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy (pages 191-225) of A2681479, the Rates Remission Policy (pages 226-237) of A2681479.

Carried

That the Council

3. Confirms that setting an unbalanced budget in 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 is prudent in terms of section 100 of the Local Government Act 2002, given the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local economy and ratepayers, and having had regard to the matters in section 100(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

Debate took place on the adoption of the LTP motion, with a range of views expressed for and against. Councillor Skinner requested that the minutes note his view that the Library Project $26million budget would blow out and went too far beyond Council’s core responsibilities.

Councillor Fulton raised a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for misrepresentation regarding a statement that Council’s current forestry approach and response was indicative of systemic issues, noting that scenarios were based on worst case and that the work was based on reducing emissions.

The meeting was adjourned from 1.20pm until 1.50pm to allow consideration of the Point of Order.

Following advice given by Mr Dougherty on flood levels, the Point of Order was upheld as misleading.

Councillor Lawrey raised a Point of Order against Councillor Edgar for misrepresentation regarding comments he felt that were directed at him, the Point of Order was not upheld as it was felt they were not a direct criticism.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.26pm until 2.32pm.

In closing, Her Worship the Mayor, acknowledged the work undertaken on the LTP, the critical timeframes and the role of Audit New Zealand. She recognised that a change in local government was needed, as ratepayers were finding it difficult, especially with COVID-19 repercussions and the property revaluation process. She noted Council’s environmental responsibilities, particularly relating to freshwater work, the science and technology precinct, Council’s spatial plan and the marina and encouraged Elected Members to support the adoption of the LTP.

That the Council

3. Adopts the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 (A2681479) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Against

Cr Brand

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 8 - 5.

That the Council

4. Delegates the Mayor (or in her absence the Deputy Mayor) and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the final Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 to the public.

Carried

That the Council

6. Sets and assesses the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2021 and ending on 30 June 2022.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow:

Revenue approved:

General Rate $44,415,955

Uniform Annual General Charge $9,111,973

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge $7,202,771

Waste Water Charge $9,361,397

Water Annual Charge $3,799,826

Water Volumetric Charge $8,866,261

Clean Heat Warm Homes and
Solar Saver $70,228

________

Rates and Charges (excluding GST) $82,828,411

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate) $12,424,261

_________

Total Rates and Charges $95,252,672
__________

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

· a rate of 0.56582 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

· a rate of 0.56582 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

· a rate of 0.62240 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.62240 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.54924 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 173.805% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.30365 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 130.4% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.05752 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 86.9% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.81195 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 43.5% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.65992 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 193.365% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.38626 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 145% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.11297 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 96.7% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.83911 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 48.3% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.59703 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 182.25% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.33930 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 136.7% differential on land value.

· a rate of 1.08128 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 91.1% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.82383 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 45.6% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.36778 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.50924 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $429.14 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $384.62 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

· $502.29 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

· For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $125.57 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note: a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection) $203.29

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/yr $2.038 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year 1.708 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year 1.348 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over 10,000 cu.m/year

$1.873 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

· For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into on or after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

· For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

Loan Assistance Range	Installation after 30 Sept 2010	Completed prior to 30 Sept 2010
$1,400 to $1,599	$140.00	$143.11
$1,600 to $1,799	$160.00	$163.56
$1,800 to $1,999	$180.00	$184.00
$2,000 to $2,199	$200.00	$204.44
$2,200 to $2,399	$220.00	$224.89
$2,400 to $2,599	$240.00	$245.34
$2,600 to $2,799	$260.00	$265.78
$2,800 to $2,999	$280.00	$286.22
$3,000 to $3,199	$300.00	$306.67
$3,200 to $3,399	$320.00	$327.11
$3,400 to $3,599	$340.00	$347.56
$3,600 to $3,799	$360.00	$368.00
$3,800 to $3,999	$380.00	$388.44
$4,000 to $4,199	$400.00	$408.89
$4,200 to $4,399	$420.00	$429.34
$4,400 to $4,599	$440.00	$449.78
$4,600 to $4,799	$460.00	$470.22
$4,800 to $4,999	$480.00	$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

· 0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

· 0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

(9) Low Valued Properties Remission Value

In accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and Council’s Rates Remission Policy, Council sets the land value for the Low Valued Properties Rates Remission at $6,000.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

Instalment Number	Instalment Due Date	Last Date for Payment	Penalty Date
Instalment 1	26 July 2021	20 August 2021	26 August 2021
Instalment 2	25 October 2021	22 November 2021	26 November 2021
Instalment 3	25 January 2022	21 February 2022	25 February 2022
Instalment 4	25 April 2022	20 May 2022	26 May 2022

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Water volumetric rates shall be payable on the following dates:

Billing Month	Last Date for Payment
July 2021	20 August 2021
August 2021	20 September 2021
September 2021	20 October 2021
October 2021	22 November 2021
November 2021	20 December 2021
December 2021	20 January 2022
January 2022	21 February 2022
February 2022	21 March 2022
March 2022	20 April 2022
April 2022	20 May 2022
May 2022	20 June 2022
June 2022	20 July 2022

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

· a charge of 5% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

· a charge of 5% will be added on 8 July 2021 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 1 July 2021.

· a further additional charge of 5% will be added on 10 January 2022 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) to which a penalty has been added according to the bullet point above, remaining outstanding on 7 January 2022.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and Council’s Rates Remission Policy, the Council will approve the remission of a penalty where the criteria of the policy has been met.

Payment of Rates

Rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Wednesday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then to current year rates due.

For clarity, the full Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 resolution is below:

Resolved CL/2021/114

That the Council

1. Receives the report Adoption of Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 (R25879) and its attachment (A2681479); and

2. Adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy (pages 191-225) of A2681479, the Rates Remission Policy (pages 226-237) of A2681479; and

4. Adopts the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 (A2681479) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. Delegates the Mayor (or in her absence the Deputy Mayor) and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the final Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 to the public; and

6. Sets and assesses the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2021 and ending on 30 June 2022.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow:

Revenue approved:

General Rate $44,415,955

Uniform Annual General Charge $9,111,973

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge $7,202,771

Waste Water Charge $9,361,397

Water Annual Charge $3,799,826

Water Volumetric Charge $8,866,261

Clean Heat Warm Homes and
Solar Saver $70,228

________

Rates and Charges (excluding GST) $82,828,411

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate) $12,424,261

_________

Total Rates and Charges $95,252,672
__________

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

· a rate of 0.56582 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

· a rate of 0.56582 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

· a rate of 0.62240 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.36778 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

· a rate of 0.50924 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $429.14 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection) $203.29

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/yr $2.038 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year

1.708 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year 1.348 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over 10,000 cu.m/year

$1.873 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

· For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

*Loan Assistance Range*	Installation after 30 Sept 2010	Completed prior to 30 Sept 2010
*$1,400 to $1,599*	*$140.00*	*$143.11*
*$1,600 to $1,799*	*$160.00*	*$163.56*
*$1,800 to $1,999*	*$180.00*	*$184.00*
*$2,000 to $2,199*	*$200.00*	*$204.44*
*$2,200 to $2,399*	*$220.00*	*$224.89*
*$2,400 to $2,599*	*$240.00*	*$245.34*
*$2,600 to $2,799*	*$260.00*	*$265.78*
*$2,800 to $2,999*	*$280.00*	*$286.22*
*$3,000 to $3,199*	*$300.00*	*$306.67*
*$3,200 to $3,399*	*$320.00*	*$327.11*
*$3,400 to $3,599*	*$340.00*	*$347.56*
*$3,600 to $3,799*	*$360.00*	*$368.00*
*$3,800 to $3,999*	*$380.00*	*$388.44*
*$4,000 to $4,199*	*$400.00*	*$408.89*
*$4,200 to $4,399*	*$420.00*	*$429.34*
*$4,400 to $4,599*	*$440.00*	*$449.78*
*$4,600 to $4,799*	*$460.00*	*$470.22*
*$4,800 to $4,999*	*$480.00*	*$490.67*

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

· 0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

· 0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

(9) Low Valued Properties Remission Value

In accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and Council’s Rates Remission Policy, Council sets the land value for the Low Valued Properties Rates Remission at $6,000.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

Instalment Number	*Instalment Due* *Date*	*Last Date for* *Payment*	*Penalty Date*
*Instalment 1*	*26 July 2021*	*20 August 2021*	*26 August 2021*
*Instalment 2*	*25 October 2021*	*22 November 2021*	*26 November 2021*
*Instalment 3*	*25 January 2022*	*21 February 2022*	*25 February 2022*
*Instalment 4*	*25 April 2022*	*20 May 2022*	*26 May 2022*

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Water volumetric rates shall be payable on the following dates:

*Billing Month*	*Last Date for Payment*
*July 2021*	*20 August 2021*
*August 2021*	*20 September 2021*
*September 2021*	*20 October 2021*
*October 2021*	*22 November 2021*
*November 2021*	*20 December 2021*
*December 2021*	*20 January 2022*
*January 2022*	*21 February 2022*
*February 2022*	*21 March 2022*
*March 2022*	*20 April 2022*
*April 2022*	*20 May 2022*
*May 2022*	*20 June 2022*
*June 2022*	*20 July 2022*

Penalty on Rates

· a charge of 5% will be added on 8 July 2021 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 1 July 2021.

Penalty Remission

Payment of Rates

Rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Wednesday.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

Attachments

1 A2689716 - LTP 2021-31 changes to table

2 A2558353 - LTP 2021-31 - Accounting Policies

3 A2703016 - Auditor General Auditor's Opinion on the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031

Karakia Whakamutunga

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.53pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Nelson City Council Minutes - 1 and 6 July 2021

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 1 July 2021, commencing at 9.07a.m.

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson until 9.30am), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor, Chairperson from 9.30am), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) and Governance Advisers (E Stephenson and K McLean)

Apologies : Nil

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor advised that an additional Public Forum request had been accepted since the agenda had been issued, and that the meeting would be adjourned and reconvened on Tuesday 6 July to consider Item 10 Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2021 – 2024.

3. Interests

Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner declared an interest in Item 5 – Code of Conduct Investigation Report.

4. Public Forum

0.2. Faye Wulff - The Code of Conduct

Faye Wulff spoke on the Code of Conduct Investigation and in support of Councillor Skinner.

0.1. Nelson Citizens Alliance Group - The Code of Conduct

Neville Male spoke on behalf of the Nelson Citizens Alliance Group on the Code of Conduct Investigation and in support of Councillor Skinner.

4.3 Tom Harrison – Code of Conduct Investigation

Tom Harrison spoke regarding the Extinction Rebellion protest and in support of Councillor Skinner.

Her Worship the Mayor vacated the Chair and the Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair at 9.30am.

5. Code of Conduct Independent Investigation Report

Document number R25995, agenda pages 8 - 44 refer.

Bruce Robertson, RBruce Robertson Ltd and Johnathan Salter, Simpson Grierson, (via Zoom) were present to provide advice on the matter.

It was clarified that Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner would both leave the meeting for deliberations after receiving the advice from Mr Salter and making their statements on the Code of Conduct Investigation.

Mr Salter’s advice via Zoom included:

· The principles of the Code of Conduct, natural justice and fairness

· The independent report had been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct

· The key issue was the requirements of natural justice and what was the standard that applied

· The decision to be made today was regarding the penalty to be imposed, which needed to be proportionate to the breach to the code of conduct

· Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner both had the right to be heard on the matter of the report and should then leave the meeting for deliberations

· The need to be confident a decision could be made on the evidence in the report

· The requirement for all Elected Members to take part in deliberations with an open mind and not to be predisposed, to be open to what was in the report and to persuasion

· If Elected Members did not feel that they could deliberate in that context, they should disqualify themselves from deliberations.

Mr Salter answered questions regarding Councillor Skinner’s employment status and accountability, compliance with the Code of Conduct, and as to what matters the Elected Members should take into account in their decision-making.

Her Worship the Mayor gave her statement, noting that she stood by the Code of Conduct complaint process, which she had not initiated lightly. She acknowledged the pressure on Councillor Skinner and his family, on Elected Members and on staff. The Mayor believed the independent report was very clear and that, to the best of her knowledge, both she and Councillor Skinner had cooperated with the Code of Conduct. She felt that the independent report had rightly found that there had been a breach, and she felt that an apology was warranted. She was in support of what was proposed, which would show accountability. She noted that in consideration of the matter, she had taken into account her knowledge of Councillor Skinner in his role, noting his honesty and treatment of others with respect and that he held the trust and confidence of the Chief Executive. The Mayor reiterated that the issue today was to deal with the facts of the matter to decide a proportionate penalty.

Councillor Skinner gave his statement, saying that he had been humbled by the support shown to him, especially that of his wife and family. Councillor Skinner said that he had taken ownership for his actions, and that he had continuously reflected on his actions with a long lasting effect. He noted the effects of the continual media coverage and social media judgement, with little opportunity for him to respond as there had been a requirement for him to stay silent through the Police complaint process, and then through the Code of Conduct process. Councillor Skinner said that this had been an emotionally challenging period, which had taken a huge mental toll on his family, and had been the toughest period he had ever experienced, something that he would not wish on anyone else. He noted that he had apologised to Anne Smith as soon as he had realised that she had been chained to the door, and on several more occasions. He hoped Anne Smith was well and had never wished her harm. He said that this incident had made him reassess his day to day actions. He confirmed that he had read the independent report and respected Bruce Robertson’s judgement.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 10.12am. Deputy Mayor Edgar invited any Elected Members unable to deliberate with an open mind to leave at that point.

Mr Bruce Robertson was invited to the table to speak to his report. He noted that he had received full cooperation from both the Mayor and Councillor Skinner, and that all requested information had been provided to him. He outlined his thinking in the report, noting that Council’s Code of Conduct meant that Elected Members, as a group, had defined what was acceptable behaviour, which was higher than that expected of the public and that it was Council’s responsibility to decide on the matter. It had been his job to decide what the pertinent facts were and he noted his role was advisory.

He spoke about the facts that he had considered in his investigation and noted that Council’s Code of Conduct, like many councils, was lacking in detail regarding social media. He provided the rationale for his recommendations. Mr Robertson answered questions regarding his understanding of the events, his focus during the investigation, his recommendations, the scale of the breach of the Code of Conduct and his understanding of Councillor Skinner’s actions.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, clarified who would undertake Councillor Skinner’s chairing responsibilities and what Community and Recreation Committee meetings and workshops were taking place in the proposed standdown period.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.03am until 11.22am.

In response to a question from Deputy Mayor Edgar, all Elected Members confirmed that they had an open mind.

During debate, it was agreed that the following changes be made to the motion:

· The words and Council staff be included in clause 3.a.

· The period in clause 3.b. be changed from ‘ for the duration of one round of committee meetings’ to a period of 6 weeks effective 2 July 2021 to 12 August 2021 inclusive

· That a clause 3.b.i. be added to clarify that the role of the Community and Recreation Committee Chair would be undertaken by the Deputy Chairs during the period of Councillor Skinner’s stand down; and

· That a clause 3.b.ii. be added to reflect Councillor Skinner’s wishes to make a donation to Habitat for Humanity Nelson of the difference in remuneration between a chair and councillor for the period of his stand down.

It was also suggested that a review of the Code of Conduct social media section was required as part of the next review.

Resolved CL/2021/001
	*That the Council* *1. Receives the report Code of Conduct Independent Investigation Report (R25995) and its attachments (A2504147, A2692456 and A2691195); and* *2. Agrees with the conclusions of the independent investigation that:* *a. Councillor Skinner has breached section 5.3 of the Code of Conduct and his actions have not contributed to the trust and respect of the Council by the Nelson community; and* *b. Councillor Skinner’s actions on social media, while not necessarily breaching section 6 of the Code of Conduct, have been unwise.* *3. Requires the following in accordance with section 13.1 of the Code of Conduct:* *a. That Councillor Skinner provide a genuine and fulsome public apology to the protestor and to his fellow elected members and Council staff; and* b. That Councillor Skinner be stood down from his role as Chair of the Community and Recreation Committee for a period of six weeks effective 2 July 2021 to 12 August 2021 inclusive; i. Noting that the role of Community and Recreation Committee Chair will be undertaken by the Deputy Chairs to the Committee during this period; and ii. Noting that Councillor Skinner will make a charitable donation of the difference in remuneration between a chair and councillor for the period of his stand down to Habitat for Humanity Nelson; and 4. Notes that, subject to Councillor Skinner complying with the penalties imposed, this will be the full and final resolution of this Code of Conduct matter.
Brand/Noonan Carried
Attachments 1 A2696320 - Councillor Skinner apology

The meeting was adjourned from 12.04pm until 12.11pm, at which time Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting.

Councillor Skinner delivered his apology, which has been attached to the meeting minutes (A2696320).

The meeting was adjourned from 12.15pm until 12.45pm.

6. Exclusion of the Public

The table below includes the titles of the matters included in the Recommendations from Committees, the Mayor’s Report and the Status Report, which were inadvertently omitted from the open agenda.

Resolved CL/2021/116

That the Council

1. Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Brand/Courtney 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	Recommendations from Committees Strategic Development & Property Subcommittee 01/06/21 Kinzett Terrace Lease Community and Recreation Committee 17/06/21 Approval of Community Investment Funding Panel Membership	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	Mayor’s Report Update from the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee	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
3.	Status Report - Council - Confidential Statement of Understanding – Update and legal advice Strategic Land Funding Allocation Community Housing Settlement NCC/TDC Engineering Services Agreement and NCC/TDC Waimea Community Dam Funding Agreement	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
4.	Kāinga Ora Housing Developments	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.	• Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege • Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Recommendations from Committees

Strategic Development & Property Subcommittee 01/06/21

Kinzett Terrace Lease

Community and Recreation Committee 17/06/21

Approval of Community Investment Funding Panel Membership

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)

Mayor’s Report

Update from the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee

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

Status Report - Council - Confidential

Statement of Understanding – Update and legal advice

Strategic Land Funding Allocation

Community Housing Settlement

NCC/TDC Engineering Services Agreement and NCC/TDC Waimea Community Dam Funding Agreement

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)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Kāinga Ora Housing Developments

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.

• Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

• Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The meeting went into confidential session at 12.52pm and resumed in public session at 3.22pm, at which time Councillors Lawrey and Rainey were not present.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 3.24pm.

7. Recommendations from Committees

7.1 Regional Transport Committee - 29 June 2021

7.1.1 Nelson Tasman 2021-31 Regional Public Transport Plan

Recommendation to Council CL/2021/126

That the Council

1. Approves the Nelson Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-2031 (A2679732 of Report R25893) for submission to Waka Kotahi prior to 2 July 2021.

McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

8. Mayor's Report

Document number R25866, agenda pages 103 - 198 refer.

Elected Members indicated that they were comfortable with the remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2021.

The motion was put in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/127
	*That the Council* 2. Supports the proposed Remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2021, as discussed.
Sanson/O'Neill-Stevens Carried Resolved CL/2021/128
*That the Council* *1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R25866) and its attachment(A2688382, A2692426 and A2692427).*
Sanson/Courtney Carried

9. Status Report - Council

Document number R25992, agenda pages 199 - 204 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/129

That the Council

1. Receives the report Status Report - Council (R25992) and its attachment (A1168168).

Skinner/Sanson Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 3.32pm, to be reconvened on Tuesday 6 July 2021.

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 1 July 2021, and reconvened on Tuesday 6 July commencing at 2.09p.m.

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, J Edgar (Deputy Chairperson), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) and Governance Advisers (E Stephenson and K McLean)

Apologies : Councillors M Courtney and P Rainey

10. Apologies

Resolved CL/2021/130

That the Council

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillors Courtney and Rainey.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

11. Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2021 – 2024 (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R25848, agenda pages 45 - 102 refer.

A PowerPoint presentation (A2698906) was provided.

Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA) Board members present were:

· Meg Mathews

· Jeremy Banks

· David Johnston

NRDA Chief Executive, Fiona Wilson, introduced her management team:

· Toni Power – Finance and Commercial Lead

· Mark Maguire – Regional Business Advisor

· Hannah Norton – Regional Development and Attraction Manager

· Giselle Purcell – Visitor Destination Manager

· Sarah Fitchett – Mahitahi Colab Community Manager

Ms Wilson spoke to the PowerPoint presentation regarding addressing the NRDA’s challenges and principles, noting that Project Kōkiri 2.0 was a significant part of the NRDA’s work. She highlighted strategic priorities and activity areas and initiatives, noting that there would be amendments to terminology in Project Kōkiri 2.0 and that targets in business plans would be reported on going forward. She noted the NRDA’s change of model since COVID-19, that funding was neither long-term nor guaranteed, that the Statement of Intent (SOI) was based on the assumption that the NRDA received all expected funding, and that it was waiting for the outcome of a government funding application.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald, noted that some extra officer recommendations relating to Project Kōkiri 2.0 had been included and it was reiterated that NRDA’s Project Kōkiri 2.0 document was still confidential at this stage.

Ms Wilson answered questions on the SOI and the NRDA’s current challenges and focus.

Discussion took place on Councillor Fulton’s suggestion for a wording change on page 12 of the SOI (agenda page 69) regarding Economic Challenges.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.36pm until 2.37pm to clarify the wording of the amendment to the SOI.

Context on the wording change was provided – to separate environmental challenge from climate change specifically, particularly relating to reflect the current challenge of environment in terms of biodiversity, not just sea level rise. The current economic challenge is around emissions reductions, and separate to that is environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, which was a small part of environmental challenge.

It was clarified that the words ‘vulnerable to sea level rise and extreme weather events’ would not be removed and the importance of a high level focus was agreed. It was agreed that the words as amended be added to clause 2. of the recommendation to reflect the SOI wording change.

Resolved CL/2021/131
	*That the Council* 1. Receives the report Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2021 - 2024 (R25848) and its attachment (A2679638); and 2. Agrees that the Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Intent 2021-24, as amended, meets Council’s expectations and is approved as the final Statement of Intent for 2021-24; and 3. Approves, in principle, the Nelson Tasman Regeneration Plan/Project Kōkiri 2.0; and 4. Agrees that, unless there are material changes following further engagement, this in principle approval will allow provision of $350,000 per annum to the Nelson Regional Development Agency over the first three years of the Long Term Plan 2021/31 towards implementation of the Regeneration Plan/Project Kōkiri 2.0; and 5. Notes that should changes to the Regeneration Plan/Project Kōkiri 2.0 following further engagement be material, the Plan will be brought back to Council for further consideration and approval; and 6. Endorses the Mayor as Council’s representative on the Project Kōkiri Leadership Group.
Edgar/Noonan Carried
	Attachments 1 A2698906 NRDA SOI PowerPoint presentation

Karakia Whakamutunga

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.54pm.

Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

CONFIDENTIAL: Kāinga Ora Housing Developments

That the Council

11. Agrees that Report (R25874), Attachments (A2680037, A2684427) and the decision remain confidential at this time.

CONFIDENTIAL: Kinzett Terrace Lease

That the Council

3. Agrees that the decision remain confidential at this time.

CONFIDENTIAL: Approval of Community Investment Funding Panel Remuneration

That the Council

2. Agrees that the decision remain confidential at this time.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 9: Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Developer-led Expressions of Interest

Council

12 August 2021

REPORT R26027

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Developer-led Expressions of Interest

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider developer-led Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) with a view to Council considering providing support for those which meet the IAF criteria.

2. Summary

2.1 Central Government announced on 22 June 2021, that at least $1 Billion of grant funding was being made available under the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) for infrastructure projects that will unlock housing development in the short to medium-term. Kāinga Ora is administering the application process and invited EOIs from territorial authorities, developers, and Māori on 30 June 2021. All EOIs must be submitted by 18 August 2021.

2.2 Council officers have engaged with developers with several expressing an interest in submitting an EOI to the IAF for their development. Of those, a number have indicated that they intend to submit an EOI. Having assessed their initial proposals against the Kāinga Ora criteria and Council Long Term Plan (LTP) priorities, officers recommend that three of those be supported at this stage.

2.3 The funding application process will require any successful EOIs, through invitation, to submit a more detailed proposal through an RFP process in October-December 2021.

2.4 Further information will be brought to Council at that time to identify the potential impacts on Council’s approved LTP work programme and officers’ ability to deliver additional work for those EOIs which have been approved to go to the next stage.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

a. Wakatū Incorporation (Horoirangi, A2711258); and

b. Maitai Development Co “Mahitahi” (Kaka Valley, A2716113); and

c. Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited/Marsden Park Limited (Ngawhatu Valley/Marsden Valley, A2720023); and

3. Notes that the following proposal has been assessed as not meeting the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund eligibility criteria and is not recommended for a letter of support from Council:

a. Gibbons (Bishopdale, A2713299); and

· The required level of Council investment in infrastructure to support each qualifying development; and

· Whether or not this funding is included in the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 and which year(s); and

· The impact of prioritising any capital projects that support qualifying development on the phasing of other capital projects within the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 work programme; and

· The capacity of Council to deliver multiple additional infrastructure projects within the required timeframe.

4. Background

4.1 The Housing Minister, the Hon. Dr Megan Woods, announced on 22 June 2021 that at least $1 Billion of grant funding is available for territorial authorities, developers, and Māori under the IAF (part of the $3.8 Billion Housing Acceleration Fund). The Minister also provided information about the objectives, eligibility, and evaluation criteria for the IAF.

4.2 It is expected that the IAF will receive a large number of EOIs and that the IAF criteria will be strictly applied, with the result that not every EOI will make it to the next round.

4.3 The IAF is designed to allocate funding to new or upgraded infrastructure (primarily transport, three waters and flood management infrastructure) that unlocks housing development in the short to medium-term (with construction by December 2029) and enables a meaningful contribution to housing outcomes in areas of need. Nelson is identified as a tier two urban area, and projects must, therefore, provide a minimum of 100 additional dwellings. In summary, the four eligibility criteria are:

4.3.1 Must be for new or upgraded infrastructure;

4.3.2 Wholly or primarily for dwellings;

4.3.3 Minimum 100 additional dwellings (Nelson);

4.3.4 Must be an eligible cost.

4.4 The IAF funding is being administered by Kāinga Ora, which has provided further guidance on the process (Attachments 1 and 2). The application process consists of three steps:

4.4.1 An EOI to be lodged by 18 August 2021;

4.4.2 Applicants with successful EOIs will receive a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking more detailed information on their proposals by October-December 2021;

4.4.3 Applicants with successful proposals at the RFP stage will then be progressed to negotiation prior to Ministers’ final funding decisions expected by March-October 2022.

4.5 Four evaluation criteria have been developed by Kāinga Ora, summarised as follows:

4.5.1 Housing outcomes (40%): how will proposals, if delivered, contribute to the housing outcomes that are the purpose of the IAF?

4.5.2 Impact of funding (20%): how critical is this funding to advancing the infrastructure and housing development?

4.5.3 Cost and co-funding (20%): how cost-effective is the proposal and is everyone paying their fair share?

4.5.4 Capability and readiness (20%): if funding is approved, how certain is it that the project will advance, and at what pace?

4.6 Kāinga Ora will also take account of the following broader considerations:

4.6.1 Greenfield/brownfield developments;

4.6.2 Timing of housing delivery;

4.6.3 Construction sector capacity;

4.6.4 Capacity of the fund; and

4.6.5 Regional spread of funding allocation.

4.7 Kāinga Ora also provided an addendum on 26 July 2021 noting:

4.7.1 No extension to the deadline;

4.7.2 That all “internal development infrastructure” is not considered enabling infrastructure and is therefore not eligible for funding under the IAF; and

4.7.3 That affordable housing is preferred over social housing.

4.8 Applicants must submit a separate EOI for each specific housing development.

4.9 Council officers have engaged more widely with developers to understand what developer-led projects may meet the qualifying criteria. Whilst the IAF indicates councils should take the lead role, EOIs will be prepared by individual developers due to the very limited timeframe and resources for Council to undertake this. Their proposals will be strengthened if Council, having assessed them against the criteria for the IAF and having considered the implications on its own Council LTP priorities, has provided support for the EOI. If Council approves their support for the EOI’s, Council officers will on behalf of those developers submit the EOIs to the IAF with a covering support letter.

4.10 If any EOIs are successful in making the shortlist for the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, this provides an opportunity for developers to work with councils and include evidence of support with the RFP.

4.11 Should any of the EOIs and RFIs be successful in ultimately securing funding from the IAF, the beneficiaries will be the developers, Council, and importantly first home buyers. However, how this funding is allocated and prior to the signing of any funding contract with central government, detail will need to be worked through and agreed as to the private/public split.

4.12 Council will also consider submitting its own EOI to the IAF. Details of that potential development are still the subject of negotiations and further consideration by Council. That report has been placed on the Confidential Council agenda of 26 August 2021.

4.13 Council resolved on 1 July 2021 as follows:

“Notes that officers will bring back to the 12 August 2021 Council meeting draft expressions of interest to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund to confirm Council support”.

5. Discussion

5.1 The timeline for responding to the invitation for EOI is very short. To facilitate and publicise the opportunity and process, Council officers contacted 19 local developers directly and posted information on the Council’s website (Shape Nelson) to identify potential applicants. Developers were asked to signal their interest to Council (through Council’s Registration of Interest – ROI) by 16 July 2021 by providing a summary of their development project.

5.2 Fourteen developers acknowledged the letter and nine of those signalled initial interest. These developers were invited to discuss their proposals with Council officers in a face-to-face meeting with the Council project team. Four of the nine have sought to progress with their EOI, one as a combined group of three developers, and have submitted information to Council to seek its support for their proposals:

5.2.1 Wakatū Incorporation – 200-250 dwellings Stage 1: Horoirangi (307 Main Road, Wakapuaka);

5.2.2 Gibbons – Bishopdale – 60 Waimea Road and 46 Vista Heights;

5.2.3 Marsden Park Limited/Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited – 2,250 dwellings (Ngawhatu/Marsden Valleys); and

5.2.4 Maitahi Development Co “Mahitahi” (Kaka Valley) – 750 dwellings; and

5.3 A map (Attachment 3) showing the location of each of these developments is appended and summaries of each EOI from the developers who have indicated that they intend to submit an EOI to the IAF (Attachments 4-7) are attached.

5.4 Officers have met to assess these against the eligibility criteria (see 4.2) and the evaluation criteria set out in the invitation document (see 4.4). Consideration was also given to the contribution each development would make to Council priorities as set out in the Long-Term Plan (LTP) (in addition to housing affordability).

5.5 The Gibbons proposal was assessed as not meeting some of the key eligibility criteria and also did not score highly against some or all of the evaluation criteria and officers therefore recommend that Council does not support these EOIs. The development included lots that are already consented and did not require Council to contribute to additional infrastructure upgrades to enable build to commence.

5.6 The remaining three EOIs (Wakatū Incorporation, Mahitahi and the joint Marsden Park Limited/Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited) were assessed as meeting the eligibility criteria and to have a strong fit with the evaluation criteria. In total they would result in a potential additional 3,250 residential units being built in Nelson by 2029.

6. LTP, Council Priorities and Resourcing

6.1 Council should be clear that, whilst it is not committing to funding or agreeing to change the phasing of infrastructure projects to support any development at this stage, its support will be seen as a strong signal that it is willing to further investigate providing the supporting infrastructure to enable development to proceed. That decision will be considered at a later date, once the EOIs are approved by Kāinga Ora and officers will bring back a report to Council on those matters once projects have been made to the next stage of the process.

6.2 Council support at the RFP stage is likely to require a re-phasing of the capital programme in order to allow construction to meet the timelines of the IAF. As a result of the IAF requiring urgent EOI submissions, re-prioritisation of the work programme is not an unusual practice. Officers note that some, but not all, of the required works are already budgeted for some infrastructure within the ten years of the LTP 2021-31.

6.3 If new, unbudgeted infrastructure is required, or if there are significant changes to the phasing of budgeted projects, Council may have to consult on amendments to its LTP. Officers will provide further advice on the timing of this consultation in the subsequent report.

6.4 That report will also consider the requirements of any successful Council-led EOI, will identify other risks and impacts of any rephasing of the capital programme and the ability of Council to assist in delivering these works.

7. Options

7.1 Council has to decide which, if any, of the developer-led EOIs that have been received to date it wishes to support. Council can decide to support some, none or all of the EOIs.

7.2 Officers, after evaluation of the developer submissions, have recommended that Council supports the applications that are a strong fit with the IAF eligibility criteria. Three options are presented below - officers support option 1.

Option 1: Provide support for three developer-led EOIs that are a strong fit with the IAF eligibility criteria and do not support EOIs that don’t meet the eligibility criteria - Recommended option
Advantages	· Consistent with Council priorities in relation to housing affordability, infrastructure and partnership working with central government · Brings central government funding into Nelson to assist with infrastructure development · Supports the local development community, with flow on benefits to construction industry · Declining to support those projects that do not meet the eligibility/assessment criteria thresholds allows officers to focus on those projects with a realistic chance of progressing to the next stage of the funding process
Risks and Disadvantages	· Any EOI which is successful will require additional staff time to provide input into the developer’s detailed proposal. This resource is not currently provided for
Option 2: Do not provide support for any of the EOIs
Advantages	· No immediate impact on Council’s LTP programme
Risks and Disadvantages	· May be a lost opportunity to fund infrastructure that will provide significant benefits to the central city infrastructure and development potential · Council will not receive central government funding for infrastructure upgrades that Council may do in the future · Inconsistent with Council priorities in relation to housing affordability, infrastructure and partnership working with central government
Option 3: Provide support for all the EOIs
Advantages	· Consistent with Council priorities in relation to housing affordability, infrastructure and partnership working with central government · Brings central government funding into Nelson to assist with infrastructure development · Supports the local development community, with flow on benefits to construction industry
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not all the EOIs meet the IAF eligibility and evaluation criteria and those in that category would not make it past the EOI stage · Any EOI which is successful will require additional staff time to provide input into the developer’s detailed proposal. This resource is not currently provided for

7.3 Having assessed each of the developer-led EOIs against the Eligibility Criteria, the Evaluation Criteria and LTP priorities, officers recommend that Council provides a covering letter of support and submit to Kāinga Ora the applications for the following EOIs, for the reasons given in each summary attached to this report (refer to Attachment 8 for letter of support):

7.3.1 Wakatū Incorporation (Horoirangi);

7.3.2 Maitai Development Co “Mahitahi” (Kaka Valley); and

7.3.3 Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited/Marsden Park Limited (Ngawhatu Valley/Marsden Valley).

7.4 Officers also recommend that Council does not provide a letter of support to the Gibbons EOI, for the reasons given in the summary attached to this report.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The Government, through Kāinga Ora, has invited councils, developers and Māori to register EOI in the IAF.

8.2 Officers have put a process in place to consider developer-led projects. As a result, officers recommend that three EOIs are Provided with a letter of support with Council taking the lead in submitting these to Kāinga Ora.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Kāinga Ora will assess each EOI and invite successful applicants to respond to a detailed RFP process (October-December 2021).

9.2 Officers will report to Council on those applications and provide Council with information on the impacts of those projects on Council’s capital works programme as set out in the LTP.

9.3 Officers will identify what additional resource is required to develop detailed proposals, and the implication for the current year’s work programme.

9.4 Kāinga Ora will negotiate with Council (and developers) for funding and delivery of any proposals that are approved. At that stage, Council may have to consult on changes to its LTP if significant changes are required to its capital works programme.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2704700 - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund - Invitation for Expressions of Interest - 30Jun2021 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2714336 - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund EOI Addendum 1 - 26Jul2021 ⇩

Attachment 3: A3904008 - GIS - Proposed IAF EIO Applications ⇩

Attachment 4: A2711528 - Wakatu Incorporated ROI Summary for Council IAF Report ⇩

Attachment 5: A2716113 - Maitahi - ROI Summary for Council IAF Report ⇩

Attachment 6: A2720023 - Stoke Valley / Solitaire / Marsden Park - Marsden & Ngawhatu Valleys ROI Summary for Council IAF Report ⇩

Attachment 7: A2713299 - Gibbons Summary of ROI for the Council IAF Report ⇩

Attachment 8: A2719661 - Council Letter of Support for Developer IAF EOI Applications ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with purpose of Local Government

The Government has specifically asked territorial authorities to participate in this EOI process. Affordable housing development supported by good quality local infrastructure promotes social, economic, and environmental wellbeing.

2. Consistency with community outcomes and Council policy

The recommendations in this report align with the following community outcomes:

· Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

· Our communities are healthy, safe and resilient

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

3. Risk

The IAF process is a two-stage process and there is no guarantee that any EOI submitted or supported by Council will be successful. There will be additional officer time required if any of the EOI applications submitted from the NCC area are invited to respond to the second stage RFP.

This will most likely impact on Council’s wider work programme for this financial year, particularly for the City Development Team and Council’s Infrastructure Asset Managers and Capital Projects team.

4. Financial impact

Each EOI has a requirement for infrastructure to be provided by Council to support the development objectives. In some cases, budget has been provided in the LTP. If the applications are successful, Council may have to re-prioritise and re-phase its infrastructural programme over the next 5-10 years. Further analysis of these impacts will be provided for each project that passes to the RFP phase of the IAF application process.

There are significant positive financial impacts if Council is successful in attracting central government funding for its infrastructure programme.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to the community given the stage in the process. This decision is in line with Council’s LTP priorities of housing intensification and affordability, and of investing in infrastructure.

Any subsequent changes to the LTP 2021-31 capital programme may require further consultation.

6. Climate impact

Climate change impact will need to be considered during the design phase of any development that progresses. Council will work with developers to assist them in determining design options that address climate change impact in the development of their concept plans

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

The Council website information and registration of interest process was open to developers and iwi.

8. Delegations

This matter is a cross-committee matter as it falls within the delegations of both the Infrastructure Committee, and the Urban Development Subcommittee, and is therefore a matter for Council.

Item 10: Representation Review Initial Proposal

Council

12 August 2021

REPORT R25896

Representation Review Initial Proposal

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on the initial representation proposal for Nelson for the 2022 local government elections.

2. Summary

2.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) requires that a local authority complete a representation review at least every six years, through which the local electoral settings are put in place for at least the next local government election (and typically the next two elections).

2.2 An initial proposal must be agreed by Council by 31 August 2021 at the latest. Following adoption of an initial proposal, public notice of the proposal is given and opportunity provided to the community to submit on the proposal in line with the requirements of the LEA.

2.3 Council will deliberate on any submissions received and decide whether it is appropriate to adjust any parts of the proposal in response. Submitters who are unhappy with Council’s response may appeal it, and other members of the public who dislike any changes made may make objections. If this occurs, all appeals and objections are provided to the Local Government Commission for determination.

2.4 This report presents options for an initial proposal.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Representation Review Initial Proposal (R25896) and its attachments (A2712103, A2719650, A2715296, A2712591) and A2720247; and

2. Adopts the following initial representation proposal (Option 4a):

a. That the Nelson City Council consist of a mayor and 12 councillors; and

b. That two General Wards be established as follows:

Name

Boundaries

Central Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

Stoke-Tahuna Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

i. Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, a decision which cannot be appealed to the Local Government Commission; and

c. That a mixed system of voting be established, as follows:

	Members	Popn. per Ward councillor
At large (all voters)	Mayor Three councillors	N/A N/A
Central Ward (General roll)	Four councillors	6,458
Stoke-Tahuna Ward (General roll)	Four councillors	6,370
Whakatū Māori Ward (Māori roll)	One councillor	3,320

and

d. That no community boards be established; and

4. Background

Process

4.1 A local authority must undertake a representation review at least every six years, in line with Part 1A, Local Electoral Act 2001. This involves agreeing the local electoral settings that will apply for at least the next local election (and which can apply for the next two, assuming no decisions are made in the interim that would require a further review under the LEA). The local authority may choose to undertake a review after three years if it wishes.

4.2 These settings are the detailed arrangements for:

4.2.1 The total number of elected members that will make up the council

4.2.2 The basis of election for councillors – whether this will be by ward only, or there will be a mix of ward councillors and “at large” councillors voted for by the city as a whole (the mayor is always voted for at large)

4.2.3 Where there are ward councillors, the number of wards, and the boundaries, names and number of councillors for each

4.2.4 Whether community boards will be established, and if so, how many, where and what their boundaries will be, and how many members they will have including appointed members.

4.3 In addition to the above representation arrangements, local authorities can separately consider:

4.3.1 The electoral system to be used for their elections, choosing between First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV).

4.3.2 The establishment of Māori wards.

4.4 These decisions are not formally part of a representation review but are important contributors in structuring representation arrangements. Therefore, under the current legislation these decisions must be resolved before the detailed arrangements of a representation review are addressed. The decisions are for local discretion and cannot be appealed to the Local Government Commission.

4.5 Nelson City Council selected STV as its preferred electoral system for the 2022 election on 13 August 2020 and established a Māori ward for the 2022 and 2025 elections on 13 May 2021.

4.6 Council’s decision to establish a Māori ward for the 2022 and 2025 elections effectively means it cannot opt to have all councillors elected “at large”, as the LEA provides for Māori wards to exist only where there are other general wards (section 19H, and Schedule 1A). Council is, therefore, left with the options of having all ward councillors, or a mix of ward and “at large” councillors.

Partners

4.7 Local authorities are supported by, and must provide updates at different decision points to, a number of different agencies as they complete a representation review:

4.7.1 Local Government Commission

4.7.2 Remuneration Authority

4.7.3 Statistics New Zealand

4.7.4 Department of Internal Affairs

4.7.5 Land Information New Zealand

4.8 The Local Government Commission in particular plays an important role later in a review process. A local authority must refer its final proposal to the Commission if there are appeals and or objections that have been received against it, or where the proposal does not comply with the requirements for achieving fair representation. In these situations, the Commission must determine the representation arrangements for the local authority for the upcoming local election.

Principles

4.9 As well as the direct requirements outlined in Part 1A, LEA in relation to representation reviews, a local authority should bear in mind other statutory principles when considering what arrangements will be appropriate for their district.

4.10 The LEA intends to allow for diversity through local decision-making; this means local authorities can and should consider their particular community when agreeing representation arrangements. What works in one area of the country may not be right for another.

4.11 Decisions under the LEA must also take into account as far as practicable the following principles:

4.11.1 Representative and substantive electoral participation in local elections

4.11.2 Fair and effective representation for individuals and communities

4.11.3 Reasonable and equal opportunities to vote, and to nominate or be nominated as candidates

4.11.4 Public confidence in, and understanding of, local electoral processes.

4.12 The principle of fair and effective representation is outlined in more detail below, as it strongly informs much in relation to representation arrangements.

4.13 A local authority must also consider the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), including:

4.13.1 To provide for democratic and effective local governance, decision making and action by and on behalf of communities.

4.13.2 To provide for the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community.

4.13.3 To recognise the diversity of our communities and take account of the various views and interests in a community when making decisions.

4.13.4 To maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes and support their capacity to do so.

4.13.5 To think about interests of the future community as well as current.

Fair and Effective Representation

4.14 The LEA requires that representation arrangements be fair and effective for individuals and “communities of interest” (ss 19T, 19U and 19 V, LEA). This means that a local authority must give thought to:

4.14.1 What communities of interest exist within its electoral boundary,

4.14.2 How these communities can be effectively represented, and

4.14.3 How individual electors can most fairly be represented

4.15 Fairness and effectiveness are both considered to be important factors under the law. While it is recognised that it is not always easy to fully satisfy both requirements, the intention is to balance each as closely as possible in any representation arrangements.

4.16 The concept “community of interest” is not defined in the LEA. One definition regularly referred to by the Local Government Commission suggests contributors can be:

4.16.1 A sense of community identity and belonging, which may be reinforced by factors such as distinctive physical and topographical features, similarities in the demographics of the residents in the area, and also similarities in economic or social activities undertaken in the area,

4.16.2 A distinct local history,

4.16.3 The rohe of local iwi or hapū, and

4.16.4 Dependence on shared facilities and services in an area (such as schools, recreational facilities, retail outlets, transport options and so on).

4.17 When considering effective representation for Nelson, the following factors need to be addressed:

4.17.1 What communities of interest exist, particularly those that are geographically distinct.

4.17.2 How electoral subdivisions (such as wards) can best reflect the size, nature and diversity of the city as well as its communities of interest and contribute to participation.

4.17.3 How many members (excluding the mayor) should exist across Council and any community boards that may be established. Note that this decision will be impacted by the requirements of fair representation outlined below.

4.17.4 The relative merits of single member and multi-member wards (noting that multi-member wards are better suited to the STV electoral system already established for Nelson).

4.17.5 Whether members (excluding the mayor who is always elected “at large”) will be elected by ward only or through a mixed system of ward and “at large” positions, noting that the latter may be a better option if there are clear communities of interest across the entire city as well as specific geographically based communities of interest.

4.18 When considering fair representation for Nelson, the following factors need to be addressed:

4.18.1 A minimum of eight councillors must be elected by ward in order to maintain the ratio that allows Nelson to have one Māori Ward; this ratio is calculated based on the General electoral population and the Māori electoral population, and the number of potential Ward councillors, as outlined in Schedule 1A clause 2 of the Local Electoral Act 2001:

2 Calculation of number of Māori and general ward members

(1) The number of members to be elected by the electors of 1 or more Māori wards of the district of a territorial authority (Māori ward members) is to be determined in accordance with the following formula:

nmm = mepd ÷ (mepd + gepd) × nm

where—

nmm is the number of Māori ward members

mepd is the Māori electoral population of the district

gepd is the general electoral population of the district

nm is the proposed number of members of the territorial authority (other than the mayor).

(2) If a determination is made under clause 1(2)(b)(ii), the definition of nm in the formula must be applied as if for the words “proposed number of members of the territorial authority (other than the mayor)” there were substituted the words “proposed number of members of the territorial authority (other than the mayor and the members to be elected by electors of the district as a whole)”.

The Nelson City Maori Ward calculation was run as follows (using Department of Statistics estimates at June 2020 using 2018 census):

Total Māori Electoral population 3,320

Total General Electoral Population 51,300

Total Electoral Population 54,620 (difference is in the rounding)

The number of elected members is the total number elected from wards (i.e. it does not include those elected at large)

Currently Nelson has 12 members elected at large. To have a Māori Ward there will have to be a general ward too.

With 7 ward members 0.4530 = 0

With 8 ward members 0.5177 = 1

With 9 ward members 0.5825 = 1

With 10 ward members 0.6472 = 1

With 11 ward members 0.7119 = 1

With 12 ward members 0.7766 = 1

With 13 ward members 0.8413 = 1

4.18.2 As one councillor is to be elected in the Māori Ward, this means that a minimum of seven must be elected as General Ward councillors. The reference to ‘General’ is derived from the General roll which the voters for these councillors are registered on; the term ‘General’ is used as required to distinguish from the Māori Ward or roll.

4.18.3 Membership of General Wards is required to provide approximate population equality per member; that is, any member should have about the same number of voters able to vote for them, making all votes equal (referred to as the +/- 10% rule).

4.18.4 There are only a few reasons why a local authority may depart from the +/- 10% rule, which are outlined in s19V(3)(a) LEA:

· non-compliance is required for effective representation of communities of interest within island communities or isolated communities situated within the district of the territorial authority, or

· compliance would limit effective representation of communities of interest by dividing a community of interest between wards or subdivisions, or

· compliance would limit effective representation of communities of interest by uniting within a ward or subdivision 2 or more communities of interest with few commonalities of interest.

4.18.5 If it is felt there are grounds for non-compliance these must be clearly outlined to the Local Government Commission accompanied by all relevant information, and the Commission will decide on the matter.

5. Discussion

Communities of Interest

5.1 The factors contributing to communities of interest are outlined in paragraph 4.16.

5.2 Nelson is relatively compact in area and for many of the community, services and facilities may be accessed across the city, with the household being based in one suburb, seeking goods and services in others, and participating in recreational activities in yet others.

5.3 The geographical features and topography of the city do create some distinctions between the central city and more southern areas of the electoral boundary such as Stoke and Tahunanui.

5.4 Stoke and Tahunanui both also have quite strong community identities, contributed to by their history as separate settlements which have become a part of Nelson City over time. This may further support an argument that communities of interest could exist in these areas. This could also be said of Atawhai.

Community Feedback

5.5 A community survey was open from mid-June to mid-July 2021, seeking views on the factors Council must weigh up when forming an initial proposal. The survey received 253 responses with a demographic spread close to that of Nelson as a whole. Survey results are broken down by question below and give some indication of the range of community views.

5.6 The results of the feedback survey, and demographic spread of the respondents, are shown at Attachment 1 (A2712103).

Specific Views

5.7 The survey sought input on the following, in line with the required decisions that form a representation proposal:

5.7.1 Whether residents identify with Nelson as a whole or more strongly with some parts than others

· This question allows Council to form a view as to whether there are communities of interest for residents smaller than the city as a whole, and if so, where.

· If residents identify with particular areas more strongly than the city as a whole this would provide support for establishing multiple wards.

· Survey results: More survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole rather than with specific parts within the city. Where more specific areas were identified with, this occurred most frequently for southern areas such as Stoke and Tahunanui, with some emphasis on Atawhai.

· The total number of councillors residents would prefer

· Through the representation review Council must set the total number of councillors it believes will most effectively represent the community

· Survey results: While there was a spread of responses to this question, most respondents preferred that the existing total number of councillors (12) be maintained, with some support for slightly more or slightly less councillors also being expressed.

5.7.2 Whether residents would prefer to elect all their councillors by ward, or some by ward and some ‘at large’ (by the whole city and regardless of which electoral roll the voter is listed on)

· Council must decide whether electing councillors by ward only, or a mixed system where some councillors are elected by ward and some at large, will be fairest and most effective for Nelson.

· This decision interacts with the number of wards established, as some combinations are not able to meet statutory requirements.

· Survey results: Most respondents preferred a mixed system, where some councillors are elected by ward, and some by the city as a whole regardless of the electoral roll the voter is on.

5.7.3 Whether residents saw value in one or more community boards being established, and if so, where

· Council must decide if establishing one or more community boards is important to ensuring fair and effective representation in Nelson, and if so where and how many members each board should have.

· Survey results: Just over half of the respondents did not want community boards to be established. Additional comments noted that a community board or boards would add unnecessary layers of cost and bureaucracy to Council.

General Feedback

5.8 As well as the specific views on the particular questions asked, a number of themes were identified in the feedback received.

5.8.1 Many respondents associated a ward system with greater levels of accountability and communication directly back to the community. Others believed that Nelson is too small to divide into multiple wards, and or that several wards could create ‘factions’ within a Council.

5.8.2 Many respondents commented on wanting to see multicultural diversity on Council as a reflection of the make-up of our community.

5.8.3 A number of respondents commented in relation to Council’s 13 May 2021 decision to establish a Māori ward in Nelson, with a spread of views expressed. Under the current legislation this decision will next be open to review following the 2025 local government election.

5.8.4 Several respondents felt that increased alignment or integration with Tasman District Council would be useful.

5.8.5 Feedback also included comments on specific projects or decisions of Council which are out of scope for this report.

Potential Ward Options and Viability Assessment

5.9 As mentioned above, with the establishment of a Māori ward for the 2022 and 2025 elections, it is required that Nelson also have at least one General Ward.

5.10 In preparation for Council’s consideration of an initial proposal, a number of potential ward options have been assessed for viability under the requirements of the Act. Nelson has previously made a consistent case to the Local Government Commission that there are no communities of interest within the city significant enough to warrant the creation of electoral divisions. The establishment of a Māori Ward requires this to be reassessed.

5.11 27 potential ward options were reviewed in preparation for consideration of an initial proposal; of these, a number did not meet viability criteria for fairness and were discounted. A number of the viable options which also align with community feedback are outlined in Attachment 2 [A2719650]. Further discussion on each is shown within the Options section of this report.

Community Boards

5.12 Where community boards exist, the members primarily act as advocates for the area they represent. Community boards are not decision-making entities, except to the extent that Council might choose to delegate certain decisions to them.

5.13 Community boards can be useful to advocate for the interests of distinct areas where these interests are greater or more specific than the wider populace of a district. For example, they can be successful providing further voice for rural populations in districts that have large hinterlands. The Local Government Commission has also seen them as a useful tool in increasing visibility and voice for areas with higher deprivation indices that traditionally have lower representation and participation rates.

5.14 Nelson City has a relatively small electoral boundary and has never had community boards.

5.15 Community feedback suggests there is not a strong drive to change the current setting.

6. Options

6.1 There are a number of options that meet the fair representation test (meaning that where there is more than one General Ward proposed, the population per councillor across the General Wards meets the +/-10% rule). Several also reflect the feedback received through the recent survey, as well as anecdotal views shared over time by the Nelson community.

6.2 An arrangement including two General Wards alongside the Māori Ward and a mixed system of voting:

6.2.1 Reflects topography, local history and community feedback that suggests that communities of interest can be seen to exist particularly in the southern areas of Nelson (Stoke and Tahunanui),

6.2.2 Takes into account the preference of survey respondents for a mixed system of voting (that is, a combination of Ward councillors and ‘At Large’ councillors),

6.2.3 Provides opportunity for more balanced participation opportunities across General and Maori electors by providing ‘At Large’ councillors that can be voted for regardless of which Ward one is in,

6.2.4 Maintains the minimum number of Ward councillors required to maintain the ratio that supports a Māori Ward, and

6.2.5 Maintains the current number of councillors, reflecting the feedback received.

As there a number of advantages to this Option (Option 4a) it is the recommended Option.

Option 1: Single General Ward/ Ward-only voting

Single General Ward

o Named Nelson City Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the General roll

o 11 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,664

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 12 councillors (11 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Ward-only voting:

· All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Advantages

· A single general ward is most similar to the current ‘at large’ arrangement, which has been in place for around 30 years.

· A single general ward would align with the feedback of most survey respondents that they identify with Nelson as a whole.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Electors on the Māori roll will only have opportunity to vote for the mayor and the Māori councillor while those on the general roll will be able to vote for the mayor and all General Ward councillors; this creates an imbalance in participation opportunities between those registered for each roll.

· All councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in community feedback.

Option 2: Single General Ward/ Mixed system voting

Single General Ward

o Named Nelson City Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the General roll

o 7 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 7,329

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 12 councillors (4 At Large councillors, 7 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Mixed system of voting:

o 7 councillors – Nelson General Ward

o 1 councillor – Whakatū Māori Ward

o 4 councillors – at large (whole city)

No community boards

Advantages

· Electors would be able to vote for the At Large councillors regardless of the electoral roll they are registered on, particularly improving the participation opportunities for those on the Māori roll who would otherwise only be able to vote for 1 councillor and the mayor.

· A single general ward is most similar to the current ‘at large’ arrangement, which has been in place for around 30 years.

· A single general ward would align with the feedback of most survey respondents that they identify with Nelson as a whole.

· Provides a mixed system of voting in line with community feedback.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Because the Ward would encompass the full Nelson Electoral boundary, Ward councillors and At Large councillors would be campaigning for exactly the same area. It is anticipated that this could create a high level of confusion.

Option 3: Two General Wards/ Ward-only voting/ 13 councillors

Two General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3 (A2715296)

o 6 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,305

· Ward 2

o Named Stoke-Tahuna Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3

o 6 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,247

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 13 councillors (12 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Ward-only voting:

· All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Advantages

· Reflects topography, local history and community feedback that suggests that communities of interest can be seen to exist particularly in the southern areas of Nelson (Stoke and Tahunanui).

· The Population per Ward Councillor provides relatively even representation including between General and Māori Wards.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Increases the total number of councillors, which does not reflect community feedback.

· All councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in community feedback.

· Electors on the Māori roll will only have opportunity to vote for the mayor and the Māori councillor, while those on the general roll will be able to vote for the mayor and 6 General Ward councillors; this creates an imbalance in participation opportunities between those registered for each roll.

Option 4a: Two General Wards/ Mixed voting/ 12 councillors

Two General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3 (A2715296)

o 4 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 6,458

· Ward 2

o Named Stoke-Tahuna Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3

o 4 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 6,370

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 12 councillors (8 General Ward councillors, 1 Māori Ward councillor and 3 councillors at large)

Mixed system of voting:

o 4 councillors –Central Ward

o 4 councillors – Stoke-Tahuna Ward

o 1 councillor – Whakatū Māori Ward

o 3 councillors – at large (whole city)

No community boards

Advantages

· Reflects topography, local history and community feedback that suggests that communities of interest can be seen to exist particularly in the southern areas of Nelson (Stoke and Tahunanui).

· Provides a mixed system of voting in line with community feedback.

· General electors will be able to vote for the Mayor, the 4 General Ward councillors in their Ward and 3 at large councillors; Māori electors will be able to vote for the mayor, 1 Māori Ward councillor and 3 at large councillors. This provides a better balance in participation opportunities for those on the Māori roll.

· Maintains the current number of councillors in line with community feedback preferences.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Most survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole, although there is still evidence for communities of interest centred around the southern sections of the city.

Option 4b: Two General Wards/ Mixed voting system/ 13 councillors

Two General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3 (A2715296)

o 4 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 6,458

· Ward 2

o Named Stoke-Tahuna Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3

o 4 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 6,370

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 13 councillors (8 General Ward councillors, 1 Māori Ward councillor and 4 councillors at large)

Mixed system of voting:

o 4 councillors – Central Ward

o 4 councillors – Stoke-Tahuna Ward

o 1 councillor – Whakatū Māori Ward

o 4 councillors – at large (whole city)

No community boards

Advantages

· Reflects topography, local history and community feedback that suggests that communities of interest can be seen to exist particularly in the southern areas of Nelson (Stoke and Tahunanui).

· Provides a mixed system of voting in line with community feedback.

· General electors will be able to vote for the Mayor, the 4 General Ward councillors in their Ward and 4 at large councillors; Māori electors will be able to vote for the mayor, 1 Māori Ward councillor and 4 at large councillors. This provides a better balance in participation opportunities for those on the Māori roll.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Most survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole, although there is still evidence for communities of interest centred around the southern sections of the city.

· Increases the total number of councillors, which does not reflect community feedback.

Option 5: Three General Wards/ Ward-only Voting

Three General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Atawhai Rural Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 4 (A2712591)

o 2 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,650

· Ward 2

o Named City Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 4

o 5 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 5,002

· Ward 3

o Named Stoke Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 4

o 4 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,250

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 12 councillors (11 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Ward-only voting:

· All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Advantages

· A three ward system aligns with the self-identified communities of interest for some Nelson residents.

Risks and Disadvantages

· A three ward option is a distinct shift from the current electoral arrangement and may require increased justification to the Local Government Commission in support of a move.

· Most survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole, suggesting that while some residents do identify with smaller communities of interest the strongest identification remains with Nelson.

· This option can only achieve compliance if all councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in community feedback.

Option 6: Four General Wards/ Ward-only Voting

Four General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named North-East Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5 (A2720247)

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,080

· Ward 2

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,530

· Ward 3

o Named Southern Coastal Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,233

· Ward 4

o Named Southern Hills Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,170

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 13 councillors (12 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Ward-only voting:

· All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Advantages

· This model provides relatively balanced participation opportunities for electors on the General and Māori rolls.

Risks and Disadvantages

· A four ward option is a distinct shift from the current electoral arrangement and may require increased justification to the Local Government Commission in support of a move.

· Most survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole, suggesting that while some residents do identify with smaller communities of interest the strongest identification remains with Nelson.

· Increases the total number of councillors, which does not reflect community feedback.

· All councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in community feedback.

Option 7: Four General Wards/ Mixed System Voting

Four General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named North-East Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5 (A2720247)

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,080

· Ward 2

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,530

· Ward 3

o Named Southern Coastal Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,233

· Ward 4

o Named Southern Hills Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 5

o 3 General Ward councillors

o Population per Ward councillor 4,170

Single Māori Ward

o Named Whakatū Māori Ward

o Encompassing the full Nelson electoral boundary, for voters on the Māori roll

o 1 Māori Ward councillor

o Population per Ward councillor 3,280

(Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, and this decision is not subject to appeal to the Local Government Commission)

Mayor and 13 councillors (12 General Ward councillors and 1 Māori Ward councillor)

Mixed system of voting:

o 2 councillors – North-East Ward

o 2 councillors – Central Ward

o 2 councillors – Southern Coastal Ward

o 2 councillors – Southern Hills Ward

o 1 councillor – Whakatū Māori Ward

o 4 councillors – at large (whole city)

No community boards

Advantages

· This model provides relatively balanced participation opportunities for electors on the General and Māori rolls.

· Provides a mixed system of voting in line with community feedback.

Risks and Disadvantages

· A four ward option is a distinct shift from the current electoral arrangement and may require increased justification to the Local Government Commission in support of a move.

· Most survey respondents identified with Nelson as a whole, suggesting that while some residents do identify with smaller communities of interest the strongest identification remains with Nelson.

· Increases the total number of councillors, which does not reflect community feedback.

· All councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in community feedback.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council must complete a representation review every six years, the first stage of which is to adopt an initial proposal.

7.2 The representation arrangements Council puts in place must consider and balance the dual requirements of fairness and effectiveness.

7.3 In this review process, Nelson must establish at least one general ward and must have at least eight councillors elected by ward (seven general councillors and the Māori councillor).

7.4 Community views received through the representation survey suggest that the structures preferred by most respondents would be a single general ward (although some residents identified with smaller communities of interest), a mixed system of some councillors being elected by ward and some at large, the same total number of councillors and no community boards.

8. Next Steps

8.1 As required by the LEA, the initial proposal and the community’s opportunity to submit feedback on it will be publicly notified. As well as the statutory public notice, Council will also promote awareness of the initial proposal and the period within which submissions can be made through a variety of channels.

8.2 The submission period will open on 16 August 2021.

8.3 Submitters will have the option to speak to their views if they wish, following which Council will deliberate on and adopt a final proposal.

Author: Devorah Nicuarta-Smith, Manager Governance and Support Services

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2712103 Representation Review pre-engagement survey results ⇩

Attachment 2: A2719650 Ward Option assessments - complying options ⇩

Attachment 3: A2715296 Two Ward option - potential boundaries ⇩

Attachment 4: A2712591 Three Ward option - potential boundaries ⇩

Attachment 5: A2720247 Four Ward option - potential boundaries ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

While representation reviews are most directly related to the Local Electoral Act 2001, they are a fundamental process supporting democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, the community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

A representation review is the means by which Council agrees the ways in which its own governing body and arrangements will be structured. While this has an impact on every community outcome of Council, it most directly aligns with:

“Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.”

3. Risk

The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that an initial proposal be adopted by Council before 31 August 2021.

In agreeing an initial proposal, Council must consider the requirements of fair and effective representation and what arrangements will best provide these for the Nelson community. Not doing so creates a risk that Council cannot meet its purpose under the Local Government Act 2002 and increases the likelihood of the decision being challenged by the community and or the Local Government Commission.

4. Financial impact

There is no direct financial impact from a representation review. Budget has been agreed through the LTP for election services and support, once representation arrangements have been determined.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Representation arrangements are of high significance, and the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that consultation is undertaken on an initial proposal.

6. Climate Impact

There are no direct implications for climate impact from the matters in this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Regular discussion has taken place on representation matters through the Iwi-Council partnership hui.

8. Delegations

Council is responsible for establishing representation arrangements.