Agenda of Council - 19 October 2021

Item 5: Confirmation of Minutes – 05 October 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 Tuesday 5 October 2021, commencing at 9.05a.m.

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, 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 Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) and Governance Advisers (J Brandt and K McLean)

Apology: Councillors K Fulton and P Rainey

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

8. Apologies

Resolved CL/2021/206

That the Council

1. Receives and accepts apologies from Councillors K Fulton and P Rainey.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

9. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

10. Interests

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

11. Hearing Submissions to the Representation Review – Final Proposal

Document number R26276, agenda pages 5 - 11 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor advised that a submission was received after the agenda had been published, however it was provided before the closing date. The submission was tabled (A2748049).

Resolved CL/2021/207
	*That the Council* *1. Accepts an additional submission to the Representation Review – Final Proposal from:* · *Adam Lloyd (A2748049).*
Skinner/Courtney Carried
Attachments 1 A2748049 - Representation Review Public Engagement Feedback - Adam Lloyd 15Sep2021

Nelson Citizens Alliance representative, Murray Cameron, spoke to the submission. He said that the Alliance’s preference was for four wards as per option 6. He felt that the number of survey responses was low and noted the average age was 65+. He said that the Alliance was in support of wards. In regards to option 4A, Mr Cameron recommended getting external/independent input. He felt that option 4A would result in a lack of accountability, and would not be as fair as having four wards. He highlighted reasons in favour of option 6. He felt that if there was a Māori ward in Nelson, there should also be an Italian ward.

Mr Cameron agreed with the proposed geographical boundaries for option 6, and said that he was aware of the Electoral Act rule regarding 10% deviation from District average population per councillor.

12. Public Forum

12.1. Nelson Tasman Housing Trust - Housing Reserve

Document number R26279

Carrie Mozena, Director, Nelson Tasman Housing Trust, spoke about the Housing Reserve. She said that the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust (NTHT) was in support of Phase One to get prompt action on building affordable housing in Nelson, in support of prioritising projects that can commence in the next 12 months, and in support of the Housing Reserve being enduring. Ms Mozena noted that the NTHT was ready to put in an application to the Phase One grant application round. She spoke about NTHT’s standards regarding sustainability. Ms Mozena said that NTHT felt that it was important that grants go to registered Community Housing Providers to ensure long-term success.

Ms Mozena spoke about grant release conditions. She said Council needed to be mindful that delays could sometimes not be prevented. Ms Mozena explained how registered community housing providers were set up to ensure enduring affordability, e.g. through their progressive home ownership model.

12.2. Habitat for Humanity – Nelson Affiliate - Housing Reserve

Document number R26280

Nick Clarke, General Manager, Habitat for Humanity – Nelson Affiliate, spoke about the Housing Reserve. He said that his organisation was in support of the Phase One approach and would apply for grant funding. He spoke about Habitat for Humanity (HfH) – how it works, relationships with clients, funding approaches, housing models and quality.

In regards to project timeframes, Mr Clarke noted it was important to bear the current COVID-19 environment in mind, and its impacts on the supply chain, which in turn could impact deadlines and/or the resource consent process. Mr Clarke noted his reservations about making funding available for entities other than registered community housing providers.

When asked about the requirement to commence construction within 12 months, he felt that this should be made subject to the consenting process.

12.3. MP for Nelson – Hon Rachel Boyack - Housing Reserve

Rachel Boyack spoke about the Housing Reserve. She acknowledged its origins and that it was desirable to reinvest it in similar type housing. She said Nelson’s biggest need was social housing, as well as affordable rentals, affordable first home ownership and emergency accommodation. She said that she agreed that private developers were not appropriate unless there was a caveat that they were working in partnership with a Community Housing Provider.

13. Mayor's Report

Document number R26277

There was no Mayor’s report.

14. Phase One of the Housing Reserve

Document number R26236, agenda pages 12 - 27 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor vacated the Chair and invited Deputy Mayor Edgar to assume the chair.

Senior Adviser – City Development, Gabrielle Thorpe, presented the report, supported by Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton.

Ms Thorpe answered questions raised during the public forum about the ability of private developers to apply for Phase One grant funding, and the envisaged timeframe. Ms Thorpe noted that the intent was to make funding available to whomever put forward a project that best met the criteria, and that this could include private developers. She explained that the 12-24 months’ timeframe for start of construction was to ensure no one would be disadvantaged, and to factor in possible delays due to resource consenting or COVID-19, thus removing the need for exception reporting to Council, should delays arise.

Ms Thorpe clarified that Phase One grants would be eligible for proposals for affordable rentals and affordable home ownership.

During discussion about the evaluation criteria, suggestions were made to narrow the evaluation criteria to allow only registered Community Housing Providers to apply, to shorten the project readiness timeframe to 12 months, and to make universal design a must-have. Officers recommended against narrowing the criteria.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.42a.m. until 10.55a.m.

Exclusion of the Public
Resolved CL/2021/208
	*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:
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)
7	Phase One of the Housing Reserve – legal advice	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Phase One of the Housing Reserve – legal advice

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

The meeting went into confidential session at 10.56a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.11a.m.

The only business transacted in confidential session was for the Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, to note the legal advice received regarding the scope of who could access the Housing Reserve. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists therefore this business has been recorded in the open minutes.

Discussion continued on two evaluation criteria: the project readiness timeframe and the eligibility of who could apply for Phase One grant funding.

It was agreed to change the wording in the evaluation criteria to read as follows:

‘The Phase One of the Housing Reserve is only open to proposals from Community Housing Providers registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and/or local iwi trusts with a local presence that are well-positioned to deliver new affordable housing in Whakatū Nelson. Individuals are not eligible for funding and applications will not be considered’.

During discussion on the project readiness section of the evaluation criteria, officers noted that a higher weighting would be given to those projects that would be ready sooner. It was agreed to leave the wording for project readiness unchanged.

Resolved CL/2021/209

That the Council

1. Receives the report Phase One of the Housing Reserve (R26236) and its attachment (A2748972); and

2. Approves Phase One as set out in this report (R26236), including its proposed value of $2 million as grant funding; and

3. Notes Council may agree to approve funding to an aggregate total in excess of $2 million if applications that meet the specified objective and criteria are received; and

4. Approves the process, objectives, and outcomes for Phase One as set out in this report (R26236) (A2748972); and

5. Approves the evaluation criteria as set out in attachment 1 (A2748972), subject to the discussed amendments being made to the evaluation criteria; and

6. Approves, in recognition of the housing crisis that Nelson is facing, that officers’ recommendations on Phase One funding applications be brought directly to Council; and

7. Notes that officers will continue to investigate the use of the Housing Reserve and report on this to the Urban Development Subcommittee with final sign off by Council.

Edgar/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

Deputy Mayor Edgar vacated the Chair and Her Worship the Mayor Reese resumed the Chair.

Karakia Whakamutunga

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.37a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

Resolved

Item 7: Representation Review - Final Proposal

Council

19 October 2021

REPORT R26244

Representation Review - Final Proposal

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider feedback received on Council’s Initial Representation Proposal and adopt a Final Proposal.

2. Summary

2.1 Council must complete a Representation Review in 2021, both in line with the timing requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001, and because Council established a Māori ward for the 2022 Local Government Election at its meeting of 13 May 2021.

2.2 On 12 August 2021 Council adopted an initial representation review proposal, which was publicly notified along with the opportunity to provide feedback in line with section 19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

2.3 Council must now review the feedback received and consider whether it wishes to make any amendments prior to notifying its final proposal.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Representation Review - Final Proposal (R26244) and its attachments (A2751168, A2755743 and A2747943); and

2. Adopts the initial proposal as the Council’s final proposal, noting therefore that the final proposal is as follows:

a. That the Nelson City Council consists of a Mayor and 12 councillors; and

b. That two General Wards be established as follows:

Name

Boundaries

Central Ward

As outlined in attachment 3 (A2747943)

Stoke-Tahuna Ward

As outlined in attachment 3 (A2747943)

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 key reasons for its adoption of the final proposal, and for refusing submissions that advocated for a different approach, include:

a. A single general ward with ward-only voting would only allow those on the Māori roll to vote for the Mayor and the Māori ward councillor, while those on the general roll would be able to vote for the Mayor and 11 general ward councillors, creating a perceived imbalance in participation opportunities between those registered for each roll.

b. It is anticipated that a single general ward with mixed system voting would create a high level of confusion; as the general ward would encompass the full Nelson electoral boundary, ward councillors and at-large councillors would be campaigning for exactly the same area;

c. A three ward model can only achieve compliance if all councillors are elected by ward and also requires an increase in the total number of councillors which has not been supported by the community;

d. Models with larger numbers of wards also typically require a larger total number of councillors which has not been supported by the community; and

e. A four ward model and six ward model are not supported by information held on communities of interest in Nelson.

4. Background

4.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires local authorities to undertake a representation review at least every six years. Nelson was due to undertake a review in 2021. Should a local authority establish a Māori ward this also triggers a representation review.

4.2 The requirements of a representation review are outlined in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (‘LEA’). It is required by the LEA that Council adopt a single initial proposal, on which community feedback is then sought. Following the feedback period any submissions are reviewed and Council must decide on its final proposal, which may or may not include amendments from its initial proposal.

4.3 An early feedback survey was undertaken in June/July 2021 to seek community views on the various factors a local authority must consider as it weighs up the arrangements it believes will provide fairest and most effective representation for the community it serves. These factors include what communities of interest are believed to exist (which contribute to identifying ward boundaries), the total number of councillors, and whether community boards should be established.

4.4 On 12 August 2021 Council considered several potential options for its initial proposal, and resolved as follows:

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Representation Review Initial Proposal (R25896) and its attachments (A2712103 [survey feedback], A2719650 [Ward Option assessments], A2715296 [Two Ward boundary outline], A2712591 [Three Ward boundary outline]) and A2720247 [Four Ward boundary outline]; 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.

4.5 The proposal was publicly notified on 14 August 2021 and community feedback invited.

4.6 Council’s feedback period was from 14 August to 17 September 2021 in accordance with the LEA. Throughout this period a number of promotional activities were undertaken, and multiple ways to communicate with Council (either to seek further information or submit feedback) were provided to the community.

4.7 As well as the public notice itself, promotional activities included a media release, articles in multiple editions of Our Nelson and a series of social media posts. Large maps and information about the initial proposal, as well as supporting information packs to take away, were prepared for the customer service centre and libraries and published online. Regular drop-in sessions were scheduled during the weeks of the feedback period for the public to ask questions and discuss the options if they wished.

4.8 Within the feedback period, Nelson along with the rest of the country was impacted by a move to COVID-19 Alert Level 4 and subsequently Alert Levels 3 and 2.

4.9 Due to government health and safety requirements at COVID Alert Levels 3 and 4, in-person drop-in sessions and delivery of submissions were not possible. However, the public were able to submit by telephone to Council’s call centre team, as well as by email or online via Council’s website. Officers were available to take questions by phone or email throughout the full feedback period, and information packs were available online throughout and could be posted on request in Level 3. Increased information was also provided by way of newspapers throughout the lockdown.

4.10 An updated version of the public notice was re-published during the national COVID-19 response, providing up-to-date information on ways to access information while the customer service centre and libraries could not be entered in person.

5. Discussion

5.1 A total of 21 submissions were received during the feedback period. Most were received through Council’s online submission portal Shape Nelson. The submissions are shown in full at Attachment 1 (A2751168).

5.2 In comparison, for the last review in 2015, only two submissions were received.

5.3 Of the 2021 submissions:

· Seven made no specific recommendations in relation to the initial proposal,

· Six supported the initial proposal as is, and

· Eight made objections as follows:

o Five would prefer a single general ward.

§ Of these, two would prefer ward-only voting, one would prefer a mixed system, and two did not comment on this.

§ One of these submitters would also like to see a total of 11 councillors including the Māori councillor.

o Three would prefer a four ward model, two with ward only voting and one with a possible single at large councillor.

§ One of these submitters would also be comfortable with a three ward/ ward-only voting model.

§ One of these submitters also proposed as many as six wards.

· No submitters wanted to see community boards established.

5.4 As noted above, seven submitters did not make recommendations on the representation proposal but provided more general comment on representation and electoral processes as outlined below.

Population per councillor

5.5 Several submitters remarked on the ‘population per councillor’ difference for the Whakatu Māori ward and the proposed general wards. The LEA does not require that the fairness rule (+-10% rule) be applied between general wards and Māori wards. It must however be applied between general wards where there is more than one, and between Māori wards (where the calculation supplied in Schedule 1A of the LEA allows for more than one Māori ward and more than one has been established).

Representation and Electoral Processes

5.6 A representation review is undertaken under the LEA. The LEA requires that a local authority come to a single initial proposal which is tested with the community through a feedback period of at least a month. Council must then consider any feedback and adopt a final proposal within six weeks of the closing date of the feedback period. This final proposal may or may not include amendments from the initial proposal.

5.7 Those that submitted to the initial proposal may appeal points within the final proposal. If the final proposal differs from the initial proposal, any members of the community may lodge an objection specifying the matter/s within the proposal that they object to. If appeals or objections are received to a final proposal, the Local Government Commission will determine these appeals or objections and make a final determination on representation arrangements.

5.8 All councillors are voted for in elections. Only those who hold elected positions can vote at a full Council meeting. Although a local authority may invite someone to regularly attend and speak at a Council meeting at its discretion, that person may not participate in decision-making. Appointments that include voting rights may be made to committees of Council.

Māori Ward

5.9 Although the decision to establish a Māori ward is separate to the initial proposal (and is not subject to review by the Local Government Commission in the same way a final proposal can be), a number of submitters shared a variety of views on the Māori ward that was established in May 2021. These views included that Nelson should be divided into more than one Māori ward, that the population per councillor for the Māori ward was unfair in comparison to that of general wards, and that a Māori ward councillor will only focus on issues specific to Māori.

5.10 Nelson is currently able to establish only one Māori ward under the calculation provided in Schedule 1A of the LEA.

5.11 The population within the Māori ward is defined by the number of people on the Māori electoral roll for the Whakatū Nelson electoral boundary. The next opportunity to change to the Māori roll (called the Māori electoral option) is in 2024; the timing of the Māori electoral option is the subject of a current review by the Ministry of Justice.

5.12 Under the current law, where a local authority decides to establish a Māori ward, that ward must be in place for at least two local government elections following initial establishment; this means the Whakatū Māori ward is in place until at least after the 2025 election. Reviewing the establishment (or otherwise) of a Māori ward is not within the current mandate of the Local Government Commission.

5.13 Regardless of whether they are voted for by ward or at large, all councillors, including a Māori councillor, must make a formal public declaration as they take office that they will act in the best interests of the whole Nelson district.

6. Options

6.1 The options table below outlines the initial proposal and those other options recommended in submissions received. The report to the Council meeting of 12 August 2021 is shown at Attachment 2 (A2755743) for reference.

Option A: Adopt the initial proposal as the final proposal

Two General Wards/ Māori Ward/ Mixed system voting/ 12 councillors

Two General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Central Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3 (A2747943)

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

Table

Description automatically generated

Advantages

· Supported by six submissions.

· 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 respondents to the community survey undertaken in June/ July 2021 identified with Nelson as a whole, although there is still evidence for communities of interest centred around the southern sections of the city.

Option B: Amend the initial proposal so as to provide that the final proposal is as follows:

Single General Ward/ Māori Ward/ Ward-only voting/ 12 councillors

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:

o All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Table

Description automatically generated

Advantages

· A single general ward with ward only voting is supported by two submissions.

· 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 early 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 early community feedback.

Option C: Amend the initial proposal so as to provide that the final proposal is as follows:

Single General Ward/ Māori Ward/ Mixed system voting/ 12 councillors

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

Table

Description automatically generated

Advantages

· A single general ward with mixed voting is supported by one submission.

· 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 D: Amend the initial proposal so as to provide that the final proposal is as follows:

Three General Wards/ Māori Ward/ Ward-only Voting/ 12 councillors

Three General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named Atawhai Rural Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3

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 3

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 3

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:

o All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Table

Description automatically generated

Advantages

· Supported by one submission.

· 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 early 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 early community feedback.

Option E: Amend the initial proposal so as to provide that the final proposal is as follows:

Four General Wards/ Māori Ward/ Ward-only Voting/ 13 councillors

Four General Wards

· Ward 1

o Named North-East Ward

o Defined by the boundaries outlined in attachment 3

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 3

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 3

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 3

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:

o All councillors to be elected by ward

No community boards

Table

Description automatically generated

Advantages

· Supported by three submissions.

· 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.

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

· All councillors are elected by ward, which does not reflect the preference expressed in early community feedback although a few submissions to the initial proposal did support this.

7. Conclusion

7.1 On 12 August 2021 Council adopted its initial representation proposal, which was then notified to the community to seek feedback.

7.2 A total of 21 submissions were received. Six supported the initial proposal as is, eight raised a variety of objections and seven did not make specific recommendations for the initial proposal.

7.3 Council must now consider the feedback provided and adopt a final proposal.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Council must publicly notify its final proposal within six weeks of the close of the initial proposal feedback period. This means Council must publicly notify by 29 October 2021. At least one month must be provided for appeals and objections to be made to the final proposal. There is no provision under the LEA for the acceptance of late appeals or objections.

8.2 An appeal may be made by a submitter on the initial proposal about matters related to their original submission (section 19O, Local Electoral Act).

8.3 An objection may be lodged by any person or organisations if a local authority’s final proposal differs from its initial proposal (section 19P, Local Electoral Act 2001). The objection must identify the matters to which the objection relates.

8.4 Any appeals or objections to the final proposal are referred to the Local Government Commission (Council does not reconsider these).

8.5 The Commission must consider the appeals and or objections received, and the accompanying information, and make a determination on the representation arrangements for Council. It is able to make any enquiries it believes appropriate throughout this process, including hold meetings with the parties if it chooses. It must complete this process by 11 April 2022.

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

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2751168 - Full submissions on initial representation proposal ⇩

Attachment 2: A2755743 Report to Council meeting 12 August 2021 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2747943 Reference maps - potential two ward, three ward, four ward options ⇩

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 a final proposal be notified no later than six weeks of the close of the feedback period. Council must notify its final proposal by 29 October 2021. Time must be allowed for the preparation and publication of the formal notice by newspaper or there is a risk that Council will breach this requirement.

In agreeing a final 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 Long Term Plan 2021-2031 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 feedback process undertaken so far is proportionate to this level of significance. There will be opportunity for further feedback from submitters to the initial proposal through the appeals and objections process under the Local Electoral Act 2001, which requires that at least one month must be provided to the community to appeal or, if amendments are made between the initial proposal and final proposal, to object to the final 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.