Agenda of Council - Thursday, 5 September 2024

Nelson City Council

5 September 2024

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. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 1 August 2024 14 - 22

Document number M20677

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 1 August 2024, as a true and correct record.

6. Recommendations from Committees

6.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2 August 2024

6.1.1 NRSBU General Manager Update Report August 2024

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Activity Management Plan can be found here: https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans

Recommendation to Council

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Adopts the final Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2024 – 2034 Activity Management Plan (1080325921-753).

6.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 16 August 2024

6.2.1 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report August 2024

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Activity Management Plan can be found here: https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans

Recommendation to Council

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Adopts the final Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2024 – 2034 Activity Management Plan (1399367370-8789).

6.2.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Annual Report 2023 -2024

The NTRLBU Annual Report and Financial statements are attached under separate cover pages 3 - 44.

Recommendation to Council

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Annual Report 2023 -2024 and its Attachments (1399367370-10513 and 749984575-1602).

6.3 Consultation Panel - 15 August 2024

6.3.1 Activities in Public Places Deliberations Report

The Consultation Panel Agenda for the Activities in Public Places, including submissions can be found here: http://meetings.nelson.govt.nz/Open/2024/08/CP_20240815_AGN_6078_AT.PDF

The Commercial Occupation Policy (839498445-18767), the Licence Fee Schedule (839498445-18517) and the Amended Urban Environments Bylaw (839498445-18785) are attached under separate cover pages 45 - 83.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the amended Commercial Occupation Policy (839498445-18767) and the Licence Fee Schedule (839498445-18517); and

2. Notes that:

a. the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28586 in relation to sandwich boards, the definition of “occupy’ and clause 6.10, differ from the proposed amendments in the Statement of Proposal; and

b. the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report RR28586 respond to views presented on the proposed amendments in the Statement of Proposal; and

3. Agrees that the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28586 in relation to sandwich boards, the definition of “occupy’ and clause 6.10:

a. do not require additional consultation; and

b. are within the scope of decisions that can be taken following consideration of views presented on the Statement of Proposal; and

4. Determines, following consideration of submissions, that the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw as shown in Attachment 2 of report (R28745) are the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; are the most appropriate form of amendments to the Bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

5. Adopts the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw (839498445-18785) ; and

6. Determines that the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw will commence on 12 September 2024; and

7. Notes under section 80 of the Local Government Act, that clause 5.18 of the amended Urban Environments Bylaw (839498445-18785) which relates to the display of sandwich boards:

a. is inconsistent with the Nelson Resource Management Plan Rule AP20r.2.1.i which sets the permitted activity conditions for the location of signs; and

b. the reason for the inconsistency is that amending the Bylaw to align with the Nelson Resource Management Plan now, in the current economic climate, is likely to add to the financial pressures already being experienced by local Nelson businesses; and

8. That staff are considering whether the relevant section of the Nelson Resource Management Plan (Rule AP20r.2.1.i) needs to be amended to accommodate the decision in relation to the Urban Environments Bylaw and when any proposed amendment to the Nelson Resource Management Plan could be progressed.

7. Mayor's Report 23 - 86

Document number R28772

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28772) and its attachments (1118544611-7862, 1118544611-7861, 839498445–14252, 1118544611-7854, 118544611-7855, 1118544611-7853); and

2. Establishes the Forestry Transition Working Group to provide governance oversight on the implementation of Council’s decisions in relation to its transition from commercial forests to amenity forests; and

3. Adopts the Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference (1118544611-7862); and

4. Appoints to the Forestry Transition Working Group His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith (Chair), and Councillors Matthew Benge, Trudie Brand, James Hodgson, Kahu Paki Paki, Rachel Sanson and Aaron Stallard; and

5. Recommends that the Chief Executive bring forward the appointment of a Forest Systems Manager to lead the transition work; and

6. Notes that the Forest Systems Manager role will be funded from the Forests Account and that the Forestry Transition Working Group will be consulted about the job description for the role; and

7. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group (1118544611-7861), which replaces the Sister City Coordinating Group Procedures and Protocol (839498445 – 14252); and

8. Acknowledges and thanks Gail Collingwood for her dedicated voluntary service to the Sister City Coordinating Group since 2013 and her previous long service as a Councillor and Deputy Mayor, which included extensive work developing and supporting our sister cities; and

9. Appoints Councillor Trudie Brand as the Chair of the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group.

8. Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward 87 - 97

Document number R28659

Recommendation

1. That the Council

1. Receives the report Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward (R28659); and

EITHER

2. Resolves under the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 to retain the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020;

2a. Noting that a poll of electors must then be undertaken concurrent with the 2025 triennial local election on whether a Māori ward should be established in Nelson, and that the results of that poll will be binding and apply for the 2028 and 2031 elections

3. Resolves under the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 to disestablish the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020;

3a. Noting that Council must therefore undertake to complete a representation review to set arrangements for the 2025 triennial local election.

9. Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 98 - 103

Document number R28655

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (R28655) and its attachment (336940202-11407); and

2. Approves the amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (336940202-11407) to the glossary definition of social housing, as outlined in section 5.9 of this report (R28655), to read “Housing developments undertaken by a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority or developments that deliver a similar housing outcome. Social housing providers exempt from DCs are outlined in section 7.1 of this Policy”.

10. The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 104 - 107

Document number R28669

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (R28669) and its attachment (756385493-50372); and

2. Notes the Long Term Plan performance measure requiring an annual review of the effectiveness of the Strategy has been removed from the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan and the Compliance Strategy will now be reviewed in 2025, then as required after that.

11. Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw 108 - 130

Document number R28725

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw (R28725) and its attachment (596364813-11766) which includes the Statement of Proposal and the Draft Cat Management Bylaw, reasons for the proposal and the determinations required by section 155 of the LGA02; and

2. Determines that the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems related to the keeping of cats; it is the most appropriate form of Bylaw and any limits on rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 are reasonable and proportional, for the reasons set out in this report (R28725); and

3. Approves the commencement of the special consultative procedure on the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766) to run from 9 September to 9 October 2024; and

4. Adopts the ‘Statement of Proposal for a Cat Management Bylaw’ in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766)) for use in this special consultative procedure; and

5. Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal information is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

6. Delegates the hearing and deliberations process in relation to submissions on this proposal to a Consultation Panel of elected members, who will make recommendations to the Council on those submissions; and

7. Appoints a Consultation Panel to Hear and Deliberate on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw consisting of:

Councillor __________________ (Chair)

Councillor __________________

8. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 6.5 of Report R28725 and agrees:

(a) The approach includes sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

(b) The approach will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

12. Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding 131 - 140

Document number R28663

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (R28663) and its attachment (1511110536-1100); and

2. Approves the Memorandum of Understanding between Nelson School of Music Trust trading as Nelson Centre of Musical Arts (NCMA) and Nelson City Council, delegating His Worship the Mayor to sign on behalf of Council; and

3. Delegates His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to signing.

13. Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024 141 - 160

Document number R28718

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024 (R28718) and its attachment (839498445-8131); and

2. Notes that a review of Council’s Gambling Venue Policy (839498445-8131), which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report; and

3. EITHER

Option 1:

a. Agrees that the result of the review is that no change is needed to the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (839498445-8131); and

b. Determines that no further consultation or engagement on the decision to retain the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 with no changes is required.

Option 2:

a. Agrees to propose changes to the Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (839498445-8131), requiring a special consultative procedure to be undertaken; and

b. Directs staff to develop a Statement of Proposal for Council approval.

14. Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders 161 - 170

Document number R28757

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders (R28757) and its attachment (1373411589-1729); and

2. Updates Nelson City Council Standing Orders sections 11 and 13 outlined in clauses 4.6 – 4.7 of Report R28757 to allow for members joining a meeting remotely to be counted as quorum; and

3. Adopts Nelson City Council Standing Orders, effective from 01 October 2024.

15. Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034 171 - 177

Document number R28428

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034 (R28428) and its attachments (1833911234-1363, 1833911234-1364, 1833911234-1365, 1833911234-1366, 1833911234-1367 and 1833911234-1385); and

2. Adopts the revised Infrastructure Activity Management Plans

a. Wastewater (1833911234-1391),

b. Water Supply (1833911234-1392),

c. Stormwater (1833911234-1390),

d. Flood protection (1833911234-1389),

e. Transport (1833911234-1388), and

f. Solid Waste (1833911234-1394).

3. Delegates authority to His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve any minor amendments required to the documents prior to the public release of the Infrastructure Activity Management Plans.

Confidential Business

16. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

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 External Adviser, Melisa Kappely from Intepeople remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 3 of the Confidential agenda (Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review), as she has knowledge relating to the Chief Executive’s employment that will assist the meeting.

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 - 1 August 2024	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 7(2)(c)(ii) 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 otherwise to damage the public interest
2	Recommendations from Committees
	Chief Executive Employment Committee - 7 August 2024 Chief Executive Performance Assessment Report 2024	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
	Chief Executive Employment Committee - 7 August 2024 Draft 2024/2025 Chief Executive Performance 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
3	Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
4	Housing Reserve Grant Applications	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)
5	Board Remuneration - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Nelson Regional Development Agency, Nelmac Limited and Nelson Marina Management Limited	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)

Karakia Whakamutanga

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 1 August 2024, commencing at 9.01a.m.

Present: His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr N Smith (Chairperson), Councillors M Anderson, M Benge, T Brand, M Courtney, J Hodgson, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Mayor), P Rainey, C Rollo, R Sanson, T Skinner and A Stallard

In Attendance: Chief Executive (N Philpott), Deputy Chief Executive/Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Acting Group Manager Environmental Management (M Joubert), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (Robyn Byrne) and Senior Governance Adviser (Arnold Andrews)

Apology: An apology was received from Councillor K Paki Paki

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Resolved CL/2024/156

That the Council

1. Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor K Paki Paki.

His Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

His Worship the Mayor advised of one late item for the meeting, and that the following resolution is needed to be passed for the item to be considered:

2.1 Mayor's Report

Resolved CL/2024/157

That the Council

1. Considers the item regarding Mayor’s Report at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

His Worship the Mayor/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

3. Interests

Councillor Rainey noted an interest at the beginning of the confidential agenda Item: Venue Hire Fee Exception and stepped away from the table. He did not take part in the discussion and vote on the matter.

4. Public Forum

4.1. Kent Inglis - Council and Housing Developers Working Better Together

Document number R28687

Kent Inglis, gave a PowerPoint presentation (1982984479-8002) highlighted the ways in which Council and developers could work better together to deliver the housing our region needs and to shared his experience. He spoke about the process of consenting and responded to questions on correspondence with council officers and challenges with the current consenting process.

Attachments

1 1982984479-8002 - Council 01Aug2024 Kent Inglis PowerPoint

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 4 July 2024

Document number M20644, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/158

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 4 July 2024, as a true and correct record.

Skinner/Brand Carried

6. Confirmation of Minutes - Council 27 June 2024

Document number R28703, agenda pages 15 - 0 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/159

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 27 June 2024, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Sanson Carried

7. Mayor's Report

Document number R28717, late items agenda pages 3 - 7 refer.

His Worship the Mayor took the report as read and explained the purpose of the decision. He noted the importance of Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) and international students for the region. He responded to questions on Review of Vocational Education (ROVE), lack of central government support, international students in Nelson, studies/literature that supports the decision, vulnerabilities of NMIT with changing governments, opportunities for gifted land to be used by local education providers and impact on local students due to globalisation of NMIT.

Resolved CL/2024/160

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28717) and its attachment (1118544611-7829); and

2. Authorises His Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive to make a submission to Government, after all Councillors are circulated a draft and given the opportunity to comment, on the future of Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology broadly along the lines of the attached joint letter (1118544611-7829) from the Nelson, Marlborough and Tasman Mayors, the eight Te Tauihu iwi and four business organizations advocating for a standalone and locally governed tertiary education institution.

His Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 9.58a.m. until 10.06a.m.

8. Indicative Business Case - Community Hub, Library and Civic Centre

Document number R28651, agenda pages 26 - 167 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, Manager Property Services, Rebecca Van Orden took the report as read and tabled (714127617-21836) a document. Director, Twenty-Two, Dean Croucher, and Branch Manager, Beca, Jon Marshall, joined the meeting to support council officers. They responded to question cultural wellbeing considerations, prioritisation of options, affordable housing, decision making timelines, sale of Civic House, opportunities to split the Civic House and Library development, urgency of remedial works, Long Term Plan budgetary constraints, opportunities arising from potential amalgamation of TDC and NCC.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.13a.m. until 11.21a.m.

Questions continued:

Other library upgrades, energy consumption, insurance costs, council paying rates on its buildings, traffic light system to assess options, governance reporting and flexibility within the lease option.

The meeting was adjourned from 12.17p.m. until 12.23p.m.

Resolved CL/2024/161

That the Council

1. Receives the report Indicative Business Case - Community Hub, Library and Civic Centre (R28651) and its attachments (714127617-21277, 714127617-21797 and 714127617-21798); and

2. Accepts the recommendation of the Community Hub including Library (and Civic Office Facilities) Indicative Business Case (November 2023) (714127617-21277) for a single site solution for a central city Library, Community Hub and Civic Centre subject to the further work proposed confirming this is a cost effective and economically viable approach; and

3. Agrees that the priority objective of the project is the provision of a good quality community hub inclusive of library services and the civic and administrative functions of Council that is cost effective and provides value for money for the ratepayer; and

4. Agrees that the other objectives are as follows:

a) Stimulation for central city regeneration

b) Consideration of climate change mitigation and resilience

c) Supports social, cultural and economic wellbeing

d) A facility that supports Council’s goals in respect of accessibility and inclusivity.

5. Notes that the Civic House Redevelopment Option investigation (714127617-21797) was completed after the delivery of the Community Hub including Library (and Civic Office Facilities) Indicative Business Case (November 2023); and

6. Agrees to take forward three options for further investigation, being:

a) A new build owned by Council (option 1)

b) A new build leased by Council (option 2)

c) A Civic House redevelopment (option 3)

7. Approves the proposed Nelson Library, Community Hub & Civic Centre: Detailed Business Case Workplan (714127617-21798).

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Mayor Hon Dr Smith (Chairperson)

Cr Anderson

Cr Benge

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Hodgson

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Rainey

Cr Rollo

Cr Sanson

Cr Stallard

Against

Cr Skinner

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 11 - 1.

Rainey/Sanson Carried

Attachments

1 714127617-21836 - Updated Financial Comparison & Forecast Cost: July 2024

The meeting was adjourned from 1.10p.m. until 2.12p.m at which time Councillor Skinner left the meeting.

9. Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders

Document number R28631, agenda pages 168 - 173 refer.

Acting Group Manager Environmental Management, Michelle Joubert and Harbour Master, Stuart Whitehouse took the report as read. They answered questions on the regional response plan.

Resolved CL/2024/162

That the Council

1. Receives the report Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders (R28631) and its attachment (1940938042-2752); and

2. Agrees to end the appointment of Brent Edwards as primary Regional On-Scene Commander effective 1 August 2024; and

3. Approves Stuart Whitehouse to be the primary Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region effective 1 August 2024, in accordance with s.318 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994; and

4. Approves Kay Anderson to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region effective 1 August 2024 in accordance with s.318 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994; and

5. Approves Jake Oliver to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region effective 1 August 2024 in accordance with s.318 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Courtney/Stallard Carried

10. Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round June 2024

Document number R28592, agenda pages 174 - 186 refer.

Group Manager Community Services, Andrew White and Manager Community Partnerships, Mark Preston Thomas took the report as read.

Resolved CL/2024/163

That the Council

1. Receives the report Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round June 2024 (R28592) and its attachments (636034393-12457 and 636034393-12434); and

2. Receives the minutes from the Community Investment Fund meeting held on 5 June 2024 (unconfirmed) and notes the funding decisions taken.

His Worship the Mayor/Hodgson Carried

11. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2024/164

That the Council

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

His Worship the Mayor/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	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 4 July 2024	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
2	Venue Hire Fee Exception	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)
3	Tāhunanui Back Beach Remediation - Programme Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(c)(ii) 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 otherwise to damage the public interest

The meeting went into confidential session at 2.17p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.01p.m.

Karakia Whakamutanga

12. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

2	CONFIDENTIAL: Venue Hire Fee Exception
	4. Agrees that this decision and the Report R28689 remain confidential.

3	CONFIDENTIAL: Tāhunanui Back Beach Remediation - Programme Update
	6. Agrees that the report R28660, its attachments (196698121-58599, 196698121-58587 and 196698121-58585) and decision remain confidential at this time.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.01p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 7: Mayor's Report

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Mayor's Report

Report Author: Hon Dr Nick Smith - Mayor

Report Authoriser:

Report Number: R28772

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update on the Local Government New Zealand conference.

1.2 To establish the Forestry Transition Working Group to provide governance oversight of Council’s transition from commercial forests to amenity forests and adopt its Terms of Reference (1118544611-7862).

1.3 To reformat the Sister City Coordinating Group as the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group, adopt its Terms of Reference (1118544611-7861) and appoint a new Chair.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28772) and its attachments (1118544611-7862, 1118544611-7861, 839498445–14252, 1118544611-7854, 118544611-7855, 1118544611-7853); and

3. Adopts the Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference (1118544611-7862); and

5. Recommends that the Chief Executive bring forward the appointment of a Forest Systems Manager to lead the transition work; and

6. Notes that the Forest Systems Manager role will be funded from the Forests Account and that the Forestry Transition Working Group will be consulted about the job description for the role; and

9. Appoints Councillor Trudie Brand as the Chair of the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group.

3. Discussion

LGNZ 2024 SuperLocal conference

3.1 Nelson City Council was represented at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) AGM and 2024 SuperLocal conference by Deputy Mayor Rohan O'Neill-Stevens, Councillors Trudie Brand and Campbell Rollo, Chief Executive Nigel Philpott and myself. The conference was significant and eventful as it was the first since the change of government. Speeches by the Prime Minister, Minister of Local Government, Minister of Finance, Minister of Climate Change and Minister for Regional Development were informative, providing a clear sense of the Government’s direction. It was also good to hear the alternative perspective from the Leader of the Opposition.

3.2 The most significant announcement was around the Government’s intention to amend the Local Government Act and remove reference to council’s role in the “social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their communities”. These were added to the Act in 2002 and played a significant role in the surge in rates over the following years. The problem is that they create an expectation of Councils meeting a very broad range of community needs when our revenue from rates amounts to only 2% of GDP. I, as Minister of Local Government, proposed the changes that in 2012 resulted in the Key Government removing these wellbeings, replacing them with a focus on local infrastructure, services and regulatory functions. The Ardern Government subsequently reintroduced the wellbeings in 2019. I support the more focused approach of Councils’ role proposed by the new Coalition Government but will also be keenly interested in the legal drafting of what replaces these wellbeings. I appreciate that there will be a range of views around the Council table on this issue and expect when we submit on this bill we will need to acknowledge these different perspectives.

3.3 The second significant announcement at the conference was by Minister of Local Government Simeon Brown who outlined the framework for the Government’s programme of work on system improvements for the sector. I draw Councillor’s and senior management’s attention to the attached table (Attachment 4 1118544611-7854), which outlines the 12 areas of reform.

3.4 Minister Brown also released the strategic framework for Regional Deals at the conference (Attachment 5 118544611-7855). This model comes from the UK and Australia where it has been very successful in building long-term agreements between central and local government around investment in infrastructure and driving economic growth. The Chief Executive and I were very impressed with the presentation at the 2023 LGNZ Conference from Manchester on this concept and believe it has real potential for our region. I have had preliminary discussions with our neighbours in Marlborough and Tasman and I believe we are well positioned to work together on this opportunity. The initial intent is to be involved on a Te Tauihu basis. The Government has indicated that the first tranche will involve five regions being invited to participate in 2025 with one deal planned to be completed next year. It will be highly competitive, and I think it unlikely we will be the first. I am not surprised the Government is taking its time negotiating these Regional Deals as they represent a major policy shift. The Government is signalling that all regions are likely to move to this new framework over time. I am also encouraged that the Opposition has signalled support for the policy. We should, regardless of whether we are in the first tranche or not, prepare with Tasman and Marlborough to take up the opportunity created by this new policy. I encourage colleagues to read the Regional Deals Strategic Framework.

3.5 I was involved in presenting as Chair of the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group, which includes a range of Council representatives from across the country. A copy of the presentation I gave at the conference is attached (Attachment 6 1118544611-7853). I was encouraged by the poll LGNZ commissioned that showed public support for councils moving to a four-year term. I believe the electoral system belongs to the electors, and not us as the elected, and believe change to lengthen the term would best be advanced by a public referendum. The Coalition Government is committed to introducing a bill this year to provide for a referendum on a four-year term for Parliament and I would like it to include a four-year term for Councils. I strongly believe there needs to be a clear separation between local and national elections, that the terms for both should be four years and that the elections should be synchronised, so they are two years apart.

3.6 Deputy Mayor Rohan O'Neill-Stevens gave a good presentation on the main floor of the conference as co-chair of the Young Elected Members’ network. Deputy Mayor O'Neill-Stevens is the Zone 5 representative (top half of the South Island) as well as co-chair of the LGNZ Committee.

3.7 The AGM considered eight remits. Remits 1 (Representation reviews), 2 (Community Services Card), 3 (Local government constituencies & wards should not be subject to referendum), 5 (Graduated driver licensing system), 6 (Proactive lever to mitigate the deterioration of unoccupied buildings), 7 (Appropriate funding models for central government initiatives) and 8 (Goods and services tax (GST) revenue sharing with local government) were passed. Remit 4 (Entrenchment of Māori ward seats for local government) was lost.

3.8 I also took the time while in Wellington to meet with Taumata Arowai Chief Executive Allan Prangwell to discuss local government water regulation, and the Ambassador of Japan HE Mr Makoto Osawa about our Sister City relationship with Miyazu in Japan.

Governance Oversight of Forestry Transition

3.9 Council made the significant decision though the Long Term Plan 2024-34 to transition out of its 600ha of commercial forests to amenity forests. The Long Term Plan (LTP) notes that this will be an intergenerational project and will require the development of an implementation plan. I am proposing a Forest Transition Working Group to assist Council officers in developing this plan.

3.10 The Right Tree Right Place Taskforce did not specify the exact mix of what replacement species would be planted where. It noted that passive regeneration should not be attempted without a thorough assessment of Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) deforestation financial risks. It said that all forest stands should have a site-specific plan taking into account their soil, slope, aspect, weed profile, soil moisture and any cross-boundary impacts, and that all transitions should take into account realistic transition costs. Our LTP notes that the longer-term cost of transition could be from $4.6 million to $29.2 million depending on the detailed implementation choices.

3.11 The Taskforce Chair specifically requested the Chief Executive prioritise the replanting in 2024 of some harvested areas in the Maitai due to ETS deforestation liability risks. There is also an increasing risk of landslips for each year these areas are exposed. It is unfortunate that the tight timeframe between when the LTP was adopted on 27 June 2024 and the need to plant these areas this winter has meant these have had to occur prior to the transition plan being developed.

3.12 A key recommendation of the Right Tree Right Place Taskforce was that Council take a more holistic view of all its forested lands. The concern was that there was too much focus on the 600ha of commercial forests and too little on the 10,000ha of forested water, landscape, and conservation reserves. It recommended that Council create a senior-level forest systems leadership role and that it develop a long-term strategic plan for all Nelson City Council’s forested lands. I am proposing that we recommend to the Chief Executive that he bring forward the appointment of this Forest Systems Manager to lead the forest transition work including maximising the revenue from existing cutting rights and the development of this overall forest strategic plan.

3.13 There are difficult trade-offs to be made as we progress with this forestry transition. There will be those in the community who will advocate for all the previous commercial Pinus radiata forests to be replanted in natives, but this would come at a very significant cost to ratepayers. We also need to be mindful that we can get significantly greater biodiversity benefits from investing in improved pest and weed control in our 10,000ha of indigenous forest estate. The overriding objectives in managing the transition and total forest estate should be to maximise the amenity, recreational and biodiversity benefits, minimise the erosion and landslip risks, maximise the income from the sale of existing cutting rights and other sources and to minimise the costs to Council.

Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group

3.14 Nelson has sister city relationships with Miyazu (Japan) established in 1976, Huangshi (China) established in 1995, Eureka (USA) established in 2004, and Yangjiang (China) established in 2014. These relationships have been supported by a dedicated group of volunteers. The Nelson Miyazu Sister City Association and the Nelson Branch of the New Zealand China Friendship Society have been supported by a small Council grant each year. The Eureka group fell into abeyance, but work has been underway to establish a North America-Nelson Friendship Society to rekindle the relationship with Eureka (California) and explore a relationship with Portsmouth (New Hampshire) following a public forum presentation to Council in December 2023.

3.15 There is a need to refresh these relationships in the wake of COVID-19 disruptions that severely limited international travel and exchanges that resulted in reduced activity over the past four years. There has been discussion at the Sister City Coordinating Group with Co-ordinator Gail Collingwood recommending a change in approach. Gail has given tremendous service to the Council and community as a Councillor, Deputy Mayor and, since 2013, as a volunteer Co-ordinator and Chair of the Group. I also want to acknowledge her contribution to Global Cities NZ. To support the reactivation of the relationships and to ensure a better connection with the elected Council and staff, she recommends that the role be filled by a sitting Councillor.

3.16 I have also been reflecting on the sister city relationships and the makeup of Coordinating Group. This is a small area of Council’s work, but I want Nelson to be an outward-looking city that embraces other cultures and is well connected with the world. The economic recovery will depend on us rebuilding sectors such as tourism and international education and growing our export trade. In refreshing these sister city relationships, I think Council can do more to leverage the cultural and economic benefits for Nelson. I recommend that we invite a representative from Multicultural Nelson Tasman, the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce and the Nelson Regional Development Agency to join the Group.

3.17 I also believe there is an opportunity to better co-ordinate and leverage international and diplomatic visits to Nelson. I host at least one international visitor a month and often feel we miss connecting these guests with Nelson’s business and multicultural communities. I would like the group’s title to be extended to the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group with the intention to better maximise the opportunities for Nelson from this engagement.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1118544611-7862 Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference ⇩

Attachment 2: 1118544611-7861 Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group Terms of Reference ⇩

Attachment 3: 839498445-14252 Sister City Coordinating Group Procedures and Protocol ⇩

Attachment 4: 1118544611-7854 Overview of system improvements ⇩

Attachment 5: 118544611-7855 Regional Deals Strategic Framework ⇩

Attachment 6: 1118544611-7853 LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group breakfast presentation ⇩

Item 8: Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward

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

Report Authoriser: Nicky McDonald - Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Report Number: R28659

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 As required by the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024, that Council decide whether to retain or revoke its existing Māori Ward for the 2025 election, noting that if it retains the Ward a binding community poll on the Māori Ward must be undertaken alongside the 2025 triennial local election.

2. Summary

2.1 The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 came into force on 31 July 2024.

2.2 Under the transitional provisions of the Act, Council is required to decide by 6 September 2024 whether to:

(a) resolve to retain the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020; or

(b) resolve to disestablish the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020.

2.3 If Council maintains its Māori Ward for the 2025 election, it must run a binding community poll on the establishment of a Māori Ward for the 2028 and 2031 local elections concurrently with the 2025 local election.

If Council disestablishes its Māori Ward for the 2025 election, it must undertake a representation review with truncated timeframes to set its representation arrangements for the 2025 local election.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward (R28659); and

EITHER

3a. Noting that Council must therefore undertake to complete a representation review to set arrangements for the 2025 triennial local election.

4. Background

4.1 Prior to March 2021, the Local Electoral Act 2001 provided that a Council could establish a Māori ward or wards, with the proviso that a public notice must then be made of any such resolution and advising that the resolution would be countermanded should 5% or more of the electoral population disagree with it. This community poll on a Māori ward resolution was mandatory, and the results binding on Council.

4.2 Māori wards apply only to those on the Māori electoral roll. The number that may be established for an electoral area is contingent on a ratio of the Māori electoral population to general electoral population, the calculation for which is provided in Schedule 1a of the Local Electoral Act. Where they exist, those on the Māori electoral roll are able to vote for the Māori ward candidate/s and for candidates standing for any electoral issues held at large (including the mayoralty which is always elected at large).

4.3 In 2011, the Nelson City Council resolved to establish a Māori ward. However, this resolution was countermanded by the community poll required at the time.

4.4 In early 2021, the then Labour Government removed the mandatory and binding nature of the polls, expressing the view that the polls had been an unintended barrier to this form of Māori participation on councils. It was also noted that binding polls were not a requirement for other representation arrangements, meaning there was a substantial inconsistency in process.

4.5 The transitional provisions of the 2021 Local Electoral Legislation Amendment Act allowed councils to reconsider their Māori ward decisions for the 2022 election should they wish to, as long as this was completed by 21 May 2021. The number of Māori wards across the country increased by over three times during the transitional period.

4.6 The iwi of Te Tau Ihu requested that Council re-consider establishing a Māori ward at that time. Council did choose to consider the matter at its meeting in mid-May 2021, which resulted in a resolution to establish a Māori ward for Nelson. Under the legislation this resolution applied for the 2022 and 2025 elections.

4.7 On 4 April 2024, the Minister of Local Government for the Coalition Government formally announced a Government policy position to reverse the previous Government’s changes and reinstate mandatory binding community polls on Māori wards: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/coalition-government-require-referendums-m%C4%81ori-wards

4.8 The ensuing Bill was introduced to the House on 20 May 2024 and included:

4.8.1 changes to the timing of local elections (reflecting some of the contemporary challenges to completing a postal ballot),

4.8.2 reinstatement of the Local Electoral Act clauses related to mandatory binding community polls on Māori ward establishment which had been repealed in 2021 (the reinstatement to come into effect after the 2025 triennial local election), and

4.8.3 outlining transitional provisions for councils in relation to Māori wards established or proposed under the 2021 changes. These transitional provisions include two options which Council must choose between to apply for the 2025 election.

4.9 Nelson City Council established its Māori ward for the 2022 election and so is a “Group 1” Council under the Amendment Act. For simplicity, from this point on in the report, the options outlined apply to Group 1 councils only.

4.10 The changes to the election timing included in the Amendment Act are operational and will be applied by the Electoral Officer and Deputy Electoral Officer as the 2025 election project is initiated. They are not covered in this report.

4.11 It should be noted that the electoral system used for an election is not impacted by these changes, and Nelson must use the Single Transferable Vote system for at least the 2025 election.

5. Discussion

5.1 Under the transitional provisions of the Amendment Act, Council is required to decide by 6 September 2024 whether to:

5.1.1 resolve to retain the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020; or

5.1.2 resolve to disestablish the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020.

5.2 More information on each option is provided below.

Resolution to disestablish Māori Ward for 2025 local election

5.3 Council may choose to disestablish its current Māori Ward for the 2025 local election.

5.4 This resolution would take effect for the 2025 and 2028 triennial general elections of the local authority, and for any associated election (such as a by-election), continuing until

5.4.1 a future resolution of Council on the establishment of a Māori ward takes effect (the earliest it could take effect being 2031); or

5.4.2 the results of a future binding poll of electors held under section 19ZF of the Local Electoral Act 2001 takes effect (the earliest it could take effect being 2031).

5.5 In this instance, it must then resolve to complete a shortened representation review within 2024, meeting the following time frames:

Initial Proposal resolution	No later than 13 Sept 2024
Public notice of Initial Proposal	Within 7 days of resolution and no later than 20 Sept 2024
Notice period for submissions	Not less than 3 weeks, ending no later than 11 Oct 2024
Hearing of submissions and Final Proposal resolution	Within 6 weeks of end of notice period (i.e. no later than 22 November)
Public notice of Final Proposal and appeals period Those who submitted on Initial Proposal may appeal aspects of Final Proposal related to their first submission	3 week appeal period ending no later than 13 December 2024
Appeals to Local Government Commission (LGC) Any appeals received are immediately sent to LGC, Council does not consider these	No later than 23 December 2024
LGC determination on representation arrangements	No later than 11 April 2025

5.6 A representation review must then also be undertaken in line with the normal timing for Council under the Local Electoral Act – for Nelson this means another full review must be undertaken in the 2025 term.

5.7 A representation review must consider communities of interest that exist within the electoral boundary, effective representation of those communities of interest and fair representation of electors. This requires:

5.7.1 Identifying communities of interest, including ensuring opportunities are provided for community views on communities of interest to be considered and the views of vulnerable or under-represented communities are taken into account

5.7.2 Considering the basis of election that will best serve those communities (at large, wards or a mixed system of both)

5.7.3 Considering whether community boards should be established

5.7.4 Considering the appropriate number of councillors to ensure fair representation

5.8 Typically, a representation review is undertaken over an 18 month period, including pre-engagement to seek community input on communities of interest and what fair effective representation would look like from their perspective. If Council decided to revoke its existing resolution the ensuing representation review would need to be completed over a significantly shorter timeframe.

5.9 Based on previous reviews it is estimated that the financial cost of a representation review within the truncated timeframes set by the Amendment Act would be $10-15,000.

Resolution to retain Māori Ward for 2025 local election

5.10 Council may choose to retain its existing Māori Ward for the 2025 local election.

5.11 In this instance, a poll of electors must be undertaken alongside the 2025 triennial local election, asking whether the elector wishes for a Māori ward to be established in Nelson or not from 2028.

5.12 A poll is a statutory process undertaken by the Electoral Officer in line with the Local Electoral Act 2001. The Electoral Officer and Deputy Electoral Officer are fully neutral parties responsible under the legislation to ensure electoral processes including polls are compliant with the legislation and regulations relating to elections.

5.13 The required poll in this option must be run using the First Past the Post electoral system.

5.14 The results of a poll on Māori wards would be binding on Council and apply for at least the 2028 and 2031 elections. Council is due to complete a representation review in the 2025 term, and were Council to proceed with the poll option, the results would become a foundational factor to the representation considerations.

5.15 The forecast cost of a poll based on a 50% voter return rate is $60,000. A higher participation rate would mean higher costs as some of the contributing costs to the total are fixed fees and some are processing fees charged per item.

Supplementary poll questions

5.16 Should Council choose to maintain its Māori Ward for 2025 and therefore be required to undertake a poll, there is nothing that would preclude other representation related questions being asked alongside the question on Māori wards. Section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 allows for polls relating to the activities of Council to be undertaken at the same time as a local election.

5.17 While the results of the question on Māori wards would be binding on Council, the results of any supplementary questions would not be. They could however be considered during the representation review required in the 2025 term (noting that other pre-engagement would still be strongly encouraged for that process).

5.18 Information sheets providing neutral facts on the topics of any questions asked in a poll must be prepared by the Electoral Officer and included with the voting pack. This supports the ability of voters to make an informed decision about their preferences, without attempting to influence those preferences in a particular direction.

5.19 It is anticipated that the cost per supplementary question would be approximately $25,000 (based on a 50% voter return rate – again, higher returns would lead to higher costs) on top of the cost of the mandatory poll on Māori wards. There is no budget currently provided for any extra questions and Council would need to provide for this through the 2025/26 Annual Plan process if deciding to proceed with supplementary questions.

Engagement on Amendment Act options

5.20 The length of the transitional period provided in the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 was just over five weeks, making it challenging for Council to undertake any extensive engagement on the two legally available options.

5.21 However, the nature of the legally available options to Council has been conveyed to iwi and feedback sought on any preference between the two.

5.22 At the time of writing all feedback received from iwi was that the Māori Ward should be retained for the 2025 to 2028 term.

6. Options

6.1 Council has two options under the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024. The Amendment Act does not allow for Council to do nothing, or for another option than the two.

6.2 Due to the nature of the decision, both options carry the potential to surface deeply held views and emotions amongst the community. Historically conversations on Māori wards and mandatory binding community polls on their establishment have generated high public interest and can lead to community division when positions are expressed with low sensitivity and lack of respect.

Option 1: Resolve to disestablish Māori Ward for 2025 local election and complete a shortened representation review in 2024
Advantages	· Lower cost than undertaking a poll
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reputational risk to Council in overturning the 2021 decision which embedded a Māori ward for at least two elections · Challenging to complete a meaningful representation review within the timeframes set by the Amendment Act · Staff resourcing would need to be reallocated from other priority work to complete the representation review
Option 2: Resolve to retain Māori Ward for 2025 local election and undertake a concurrent poll of electors
Advantages	· Allows the existing Māori ward to continue for at least the period committed to through the 2021 decision and legislated embedding period · Better aligns with Nelson’s current legislated timing for reviewing all its representation arrangements · The poll becomes included as part of the election project with lower operational impact than Option 1 - staff resourcing for election processes and the existing legislated representation review requirements is already allowed for within the broader work programme
Risks and Disadvantages	· Higher cost than Option 1

7. Next Steps

7.1 Staff will prepare for the operational implications of whichever option Council pursues.

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision is required of Council by the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024.

The Act amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 which along with the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provides the legislative requirements and regulations as to how local governors will be elected democratically.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This decision most closely aligns with the following Community Outcome:

Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, including with iwi, fosters a regional perspective, and encourages community engagement

Risk

Historically conversations on Māori wards and mandatory binding community polls on their establishment have generated high public interest and can lead to community division when positions are expressed with low sensitivity and lack of respect.

The nature of the decision before Council creates the risk that progress made in developing strong relationships between mana whenua and Council will be undermined. It is also considered likely that there will be a negative impact on participation in local body elections by iwi and Māori. Council will wish to consider which legally available option is more likely to meet its obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 with regards to Māori participation in decision making.

Financial impact

A particularly conservative approach was taken to preparing the election services budget for the recently adopted Long Term Plan based on known and anticipated increases in costs for all suppliers – this has placed Council in a reasonably secure position to fund either option from the existing agreed budget, based on the indicative costs for an extra representation review or a poll with a 50% return rate.

If retaining the Māori Ward for 2025 (and therefore undertaking a poll) were to be the preferred option of Council, there would be opportunity to update budget requirements through the 2025/26 Annual Plan process to create more flexibility for funding a higher rate of returns.

There is currently no provision in the budget to provide for supplementary poll questions. Were Council of a mind to retain its existing Māori Ward for 2025 therefore undertaking a poll, and to add further questions to that poll, providing funding for the extra questions would need to be considered through the Annual Plan process.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter impacts on the whole Nelson community, as the option Council chooses will have implications for the representation arrangements in place for the 2025 triennial local election and beyond. As the matter directly relates to who makes decisions on the establishment of a Māori ward and how, there is a stronger impact on Māori as a whole, and those on the Māori electoral roll most specifically.

Māori wards and mandatory binding community polls on their establishment consistently generate wide public interest and the expression of deeply held views which historically have not always been expressed as respectfully as they could be, leading to community divisions.

The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 specifies that a Special Consultative Procedure does not need to be undertaken prior to this decision. However, typically engagement of a similar nature to an SCP would be undertaken on matters with this level of sensitivity and impact across the community.

It should be noted that the approximately five week period allowed for decision making on the two options under the transitional provisions of the Amendment Act has precluded engagement being undertaken to the extent that would usually be considered desirable for decisions of this nature.

Climate Impact

There is no direct climate impact from this decision.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Feedback was sought from iwi as to any preference held between the two legally available options to Council. At the time of writing all feedback received was that the Māori Ward should be retained for the 2025 to 2028 term.

Legal context

This decision is required of Council by the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024.

The Amendment Act specifies that a Special Consultative Procedure does not need to be undertaken prior to making this decision.

Delegations

This decision is required of Council by the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024.

Item 9: Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024

Report Author: Martin Kozinsky - Senior City Development Adviser

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28655

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To make a minor amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (the Policy).

2. Summary

2.1 The Policy was approved in conjunction with the Long Term Plan 2024-2034. However, there is ambiguity with the glossary definition of social housing in how it relates to developments undertaken by Iwi Trusts.

2.2 Officers recommend the definition be amended to “Housing developments undertaken by a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority or developments that deliver a similar housing outcome. Social housing providers exempt from DCs are outlined in section 7.1 of this Policy”. This minor change would better reflect Council’s policy intentions. This change is shown in attachment one.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (R28655) and its attachment (336940202-11407); and

4. Background

4.1 Developments are assessed for development contributions (DCs) when an application for resource consent, building consent, or service connection is received. Section 7 of the Policy defines which applications are exempt from DCs.

4.2 The current Policy was reviewed and adopted on 27 June 2024, at which time the exemption for social housing developments (section 7.1) was expanded to include those undertaken by Iwi Trusts. The Policy reads:

Section 7.1 Social Housing Developments

Council will not require DCs to be paid in respect of social housing developments undertaken by, or for:

- a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority, or

- Iwi Trusts, or

- any other partnership where Council has entered into an agreement to provide social housing.

4.3 The definition of social housing in the Policy glossary was not updated as part of the review. It reads:

Social Housing: Housing developments undertaken by a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority.

4.4 No Iwi Trusts based in Nelson are Community Housing Providers (CHPs), so they do not fit the current definition for social housing in the Policy glossary.

5. Discussion

5.1 To become a CHP, an organisation must register with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority (CHRA) and meet the following criteria:

5.1.1 They are a housing provider with the objective of providing community rental housing and/or affordable rental housing or have detailed plans to establish such a provider.

5.1.2 They have a governing body that supports their application to become a CHP.

5.1.3 The CHRA is satisfied that they have the capacity to meet and maintain compliance with their Performance Standards.

5.2 The process to become a CHP is intensive, requires substantial organisational capacity, and usually takes over a year to complete.

5.3 Iwi Trusts in Te Tauihu do not naturally fit within the CHP structure; however, their housing aspirations do fit within the spirit of community housing.

5.4 Officers could then consider housing developments undertaken by Iwi Trusts under the amended definition of social housing by using the CHRA Performance Standards and Guidelines as a guideline.

5.5 That would mean when assessing an application for social housing by an Iwi Trust, officers would evaluate:

5.5.1 if the applicant is a charitable organisation or acting on behalf of a charitable organisation, or

5.5.2 if the applicant can demonstrate an intention to provide enduring community rental housing or affordable rental housing, or

5.5.3 if the applicant is partnering with a CHP for management or tenancy services.

5.6 The other criteria within the CHRA Performance Standards and Guidelines are not applicable to Iwi Trusts, however the above three provide sufficient guidance to ensure any development fits within the definition of social housing.

5.7 Applications that generally meet these criteria will be assessed by officers for a DC exemption under section 7.1 of the Policy, in line with existing arrangements for exemptions.

5.8 Applications that don’t meet these criteria, or are marginal, may still seek an exemption under section 7.9 of the Policy on the basis of exceptional circumstances. This would require approval by the Group Manager Environmental Management and a report to Council for a final decision.

Options

5.9 The proposed amendment to the glossary definition of social housing reads:

“Housing developments undertaken by a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority or developments that deliver a similar housing outcome. Social housing providers exempt from DCs are outlined in section 7.1 of this Policy”.

5.10 The Council has two options to consider, to either amend the Policy so exemptions for social housing apply to Iwi Trusts as intended, or not.

5.11 A decision not to amend the glossary definition for social housing will mean the intended exemption for Iwi Trusts will not take effect and any future proposed exemption for an iwi trust would require an assessment of exceptional circumstances under section 7.9 of the Policy and a report to Council for final approval.

Option 1: amend the glossary definition type brief heading
Advantages	· Clarify the intended exemption for Iwi Trusts undertaking social housing · Enable DC exemptions for Iwi Trusts to be processed by officers
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: do not amend the glossary definition type brief heading
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· The exemption within section 7.1 of the Policy will not function as intended and any applications by iwi trusts would only qualify on the basis of exceptional circumstance and subject to final decision of full Council.

6. Next Steps

6.1 The amended Policy will be made available on Council’s website.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 336940202-11407 - Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The adoption of a Development Contributions Policy is required under the Local Government Act 2002 s102.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.”

Risk

This matter will clarify the Policy and make it easier for officers to provide exemptions to Iwi Trusts undertaking social housing. If Council does not approve this recommendation, then Iwi Trusts will not be exempt under this policy. This may lead to reputational risk with Iwi Trusts and may require greater officer workload to write an exemptions report to Council on a case-by-case basis.

Financial impact

This recommendation is not anticipated to have any additional financial impact as it is clarifying the Policy to function as intended.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it is simply clarifying the intention of exempting Iwi Trusts and won’t impact anyone as Iwi Trusts are already expecting to be exempt under this policy. Therefore, no engagement is required.

Climate Impact

The Policy supports the provision of intensification within the existing urban built environment in response to the community’s concerns regarding the effects of greenfield development on climate change.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. One written submission by Ngāti Rārua was received as part of the LTP 2024 consultation.

Legal context

Under Section 102(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), every local authority must adopt a policy on development contributions.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 10: The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020

Report Author: Chris Miles - Manager Consents and Compliance

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28669

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To review the effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (the Strategy) in accordance with the Long Term Plan performance measure.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (R28669) and its attachment/s (756385493-50372); and

3. Background

3.1 The Strategy was first approved by Council on 14 December 2017 (R8673) with the following resolution:

Resolution CL/2017/577

That the Council

Approves the Compliance Strategy 2017 to guide staff and contractors in the exercise of enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council.

3.2 A strategic approach to monitoring and enforcement is considered best practice to ensure Council resources are focussed to achieve the best possible outcome for our community. In 2017 the Strategy was developed to be consistent with the Regional Sector Strategic Compliance Framework 2016-2018. This framework was designed (with support from regional council chief executives) to give councils a comprehensive set of principles and guidelines to assist in the development of individual council monitoring and enforcement strategies.

3.3 The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) published “Best practice guidelines for compliance, monitoring and enforcement under the Resource Management Act” in July 2018. The Regional Sector Strategic Compliance Framework was updated in 2019 to be consistent with MfE’s guidelines. Accordingly, Council’s Compliance Strategy was updated in 2020 to be more consistent with these documents (see Attachment 1). On 22 October 2020 the Environment Committee resolved the following:

Resolved EC/2020/037

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Compliance Strategy 2020 (R19200) and its attachment (A2275547); and

2. Adopts the Compliance Strategy 2020 (A2275547) effective from 1 November 2020.

3.4 A Long Term Plan performance measure introduced for 2021/22 requires the Strategy be reviewed for effectiveness and reported to Council annually. This report is the last management styled review as the performance measure has been removed from the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan. Instead, the content of the Strategy will be workshopped when the whole Strategy is reviewed (in 2025) then as required after that.

4. The Effectiveness of the Strategy

4.1 To understand how effective the Compliance Strategy has been for the 2023/24 year, there are two aspects to consider:

· Is there improvement in outcomes compared to previous years for Nelson?

· Is the Nelson City Council enforcement statistics in alignment with other councils’ results?

4.2 Decreasing numbers of reactive incidents while continuing and enhancing proactive monitoring would indicate people are increasingly deterred from offending. Less serious enforcement action indicates less impact on the environment and the community. From the information below the level of response is generally comparable to last year, with exceptions of a 58.8% increase in resource consent monitoring and a 30.4% decrease in noise nuisance incidents. The resource consent monitoring increase is largely attributed to refining practice for how records are kept (i.e. each notification registered as a single incident), noting also that some resource consent monitoring responses are preventative and are not incidents.

4.3 Level of responses:

Activity	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
Parking	1427	1544	1063	1182	1290
Dog Control	1693	1613	1500	1678	1939
Resource consent monitoring	2496	1436	1318	1013	1609
Noise nuisance	1360	1453	1533	1428	994
Bylaw / Building / Planning	560	544	444	484	509
Pollution	256	317	307	245	259
Stock	78	84	82	68	87

4.4 Level of enforcement:

Activity	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
Parking – total - safety	12659 1259	13781 2289	22465 1919	18305 1344	12494 1585
Dog – impounding - infringements - menacing - dangerous - prosecutions	270 274 89 8 0	248 264 93 9 2	164 198 74 8 0	157 245 79 5 0	163 240 9 4 0
RMA – abatements - infringements - enforcement order - prosecutions	24 14 0 0	17 13 1 0	36 28 0 0	21 14 0 0	29 17 1 1
Noise – directions - seizures	148 8	103 3	55 4	121 0	28 1
Freedom Camping Bylaw	244	118	3	146	1

Activity

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

Parking – total

- safety

12659

1259

13781

2289

22465

1919

18305

1344

12494

1585

Dog – impounding

- infringements

- menacing

- dangerous

- prosecutions

270

274

248

264

164

198

157

245

163

240

RMA – abatements

- infringements

- enforcement

order

- prosecutions

Noise – directions

- seizures

148

103

121

Freedom Camping Bylaw

244

118

146

4.5 Comparison of most activities with other Councils is difficult as the bylaws are different and parking, dog and noise activities vary depending on how urbanised an area is. However Regional and Unitary Councils resource management compliance, monitoring and enforcement activities are compared and reported annually. The comparison of 2022/2023 data shows Nelson:

· Is one of six Councils that monitor all resource consents requiring monitoring (national average is 84%)

· Has a low percentage of consents in moderate or significant non-compliance (6%)

· Has not needed to prosecute in the last five years of Metrics reporting, with one case currently in progress.

See Attachment 2 for the full analysis of the 2022/2023 Metrics report.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 756385493-50372 Compliance Strategy 2020 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: 756385493-55269 CME Metrics report 2022-23 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Item 11: Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw

Report Author: Richard Frizzell - Environmental Programmes Officer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28725

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the commencement of a special consultative procedure in relation to making a Cat Management Bylaw and to adopt a Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 - 596364813-11766), which includes a Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Draft Bylaw), the reasons for the proposal and a report on the determinations required by section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02)).

2. Summary

2.1 The Draft Cat Management Bylaw (in Attachment 1) requires microchipping, microchip registration and desexing of domestic cats.

2.2 To be able to make a new bylaw, section 155 of the LGA02 requires that Council must determine what the perceived problem is and whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing that problem, before commencing the process of making a bylaw. If Council determines a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must then determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of the bylaw, and whether it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), before making the bylaw. If the bylaw does contravene the NZBORA it will not be permissible.

2.3 The Council is required under LGA02 to consult with the public on the Draft Bylaw before it can be finalised and considered for adoption. Officers are recommending this is done by way of special consultative procedure as this will allow anyone who may be affected by, or has an interest in, the Draft Bylaw requirements to provide feedback on the proposal.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

3. Approves the commencement of the special consultative procedure on the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766) to run from 9 September to 9 October 2024; and

4. Adopts the ‘Statement of Proposal for a Cat Management Bylaw’ in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766)) for use in this special consultative procedure; and

5. Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal information is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

7. Appoints a Consultation Panel to Hear and Deliberate on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw consisting of:

Councillor __________________ (Chair)

Councillor __________________

8. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 6.5 of Report R28725 and agrees:

(b) The approach will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

4. Background

4.1 On 4 April 2024 Council considered a report about establishing a cat management bylaw and passed a resolution to “commence establishing a Cat Management Bylaw which considers desexing and microchipping”.

4.2 Council invited feedback on domestic cat management issues and options via Shape Nelson from 30 May to 23 June 2024 and received 1,100 responses. In summary, 88% supported mandatory microchipping, 84% supported mandatory registration and 91% supported mandatory desexing.

4.3 As a result of the feedback received, and considered at a workshop on 12 July 2024, Council is proposing to address cat management issues identified through a new bylaw. Officers have drafted a Statement of Proposal and Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw for consideration by the Council.

4.4 Tasman District Council has undertaken a very similar process and submissions closed its Draft Bylaw with the same provisions on 30 August 2024, with a planned adoption date of 28 November 2024.

5. Discussion

5.1 Before a bylaw can be made by the Council, there must be a relevant statutory empowering provision that authorises such a bylaw to be made.

5.2 Council has specific bylaw-making powers under section 146(1) of the LGA:

Without limiting section 145, a territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for the purposes—

(a) of regulating 1 or more of the following:

(v) keeping of animals, bees, and poultry:

5.3 Accordingly, the Council does have the power to place constraints on the keeping of cats through a bylaw. In making a bylaw, Council is required to follow the process set out in the LGA02.

Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002

5.4 Before making a new bylaw, Council needs to consider the following questions under section 155 of the LGA02 (and the Council's determinations on these issues need to be included in the Statement of Proposal):

· What is the perceived problem?

· Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

· Is the form of the draft bylaw (the content) the most appropriate form?

· Will the draft bylaw give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) implications?

Problems to be addressed the Draft Bylaw

5.5 Public submissions on the Long-Term Plan, presentations to the Council, especially from the SPCA and NZ Veterinary Association, and feedback from a survey carried out from 30 May to 23 June 2024, have highlighted the following cat management problems in Nelson.

5.6 Problem 1: Many cats roam beyond their owner’s property, which creates a risk of them becoming injured, lost or a nuisance to neighbours. There is also a risk of domestic cats entering high value conservation reserves, where feral and stray cats may be managed for pest control reasons, under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Unless a cat is microchipped it is difficult to identify it as a domestic cat and be returned to their owners, rather than treated as a stray or feral cat. Figures from the NZ Companion Animals Register indicate that only 57% of domestic cats may be microchipped in Nelson.

5.7 Problem 2: Female cats can have up to four litters per year, with an average of four to six kittens per litter. This results in large numbers of unwanted kittens being taken to the SPCA for rehoming (an average of 155 cats and 152 kittens each year in Nelson) as well as kittens being left in public areas to become strays (and to continue to breed with stray and feral cats, further increasing the population). Nearly half the kittens taken to Nelson SPCA Centre are due to owner surrender, which is often due to a person not able to keep kittens their domestic cat had. These are considered unwanted kittens and are often from unplanned breeding. Nearly a third of the cats that come to the Nelson SPCA Centre are reclaimed.

5.8 More microchipping and microchip registration will help to address the first problem and enable lost or injured cats, or those caught in trapping programmes, to be returned to their owner. More desexing of cats will help to address the second problem.

5.9 A full analysis of the Draft Bylaw is provided on pages 3–9 of the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1.

Most appropriate way to address the identified problems

5.10 The Draft Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems outlined in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of this report because:

5.10.1 It will help ensure Nelson’s domestic cats are easy to identify and return to their owners, and to reduce unwanted litters of kittens which end up at the SPCA or abandoned; and

5.10.2 The Council has considered various alternatives to creating a bylaw, such as education campaigns and financial support through ‘snip‘n’chip’ campaigns. An assessment of the options available to the Council are provided on pages 6 to 8 of Attachment 1. The Draft Bylaw provides a clear framework that addresses the issues that cats who are not microchipped, have unregistered microchips, or are not desexed cause. The presence of a bylaw will support vets in their good ownership conversations and will align with the practice of other councils, including Tasman District Council.

5.10.3 These matters are most effectively addressed through bylaw provisions because they give Council the ability to reduce the occurrence of domestic cats impacting unreasonably on others.

Most appropriate form of bylaw

5.11 The Draft Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw because it is:

5.11.1 Authorised by statutory authority (section 146(1)(a)(v) of the LGA02);

5.11.2 Not considered to be in conflict with, or incompatible with, the general laws of New Zealand;

5.11.3 Certain, and provides clear direction;

5.11.4 Reasonable, and not overly restrictive, not unduly onerous on any person, and not impractical.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications

5.12 The Draft Bylaw gives rise to some implications under the NZBORA (discussed below) but officers consider that the restrictions imposed by the Draft Bylaw are reasonable limitations on any rights in the NZBORA and are demonstrably justified.

5.13 Some of the proposed provisions of the Draft Bylaw potentially infringe on members of the public’s rights to freedom of thought and belief (protected under section 13 of the NZBORA) and freedom from discrimination (protected under section 19 of the NZBORA).

5.14 For example, if someone is strongly opposed to microchipping and registering their cats due to their beliefs about microchips (and how they could be used), they may consider they are being discriminated against, as it would mean their current or future ownership of a cat would be an offence under the Draft Bylaw.

5.15 Similarly, if a cat owner is not able to afford to have their cat microchipped and desexed, it would mean their current or future ownership of a cat would be an offence under this bylaw. They may consider that they are being discriminated against, due to their inability to pay, and fear losing the right to own a cat.

5.16 Officers do not consider that the restrictions imposed by the Draft Bylaw unreasonably infringe on these freedoms as Council intends to take an ‘education first’ approach to compliance with the Draft Bylaw, which reflects the Compliance Strategy 2020. This means Council will be focused on resolving any issues related to non-compliance. While in principle, seizure and impoundment of property is another enforcement option under the LGA02, this has some complexity and risk as well as resource implications so is not a viable option.

5.17 For these reasons, the restrictions in the Draft Bylaw are considered proportional and reasonable limits for the purposes of managing the impacts of Nelson’s domestic cat population on the social and environmental wellbeing of the wider community.

6. Consultation

Use of the special consultative procedure

6.1 Section 156 of the LGA02 requires the Council to use the special consultative procedure before making a bylaw, if the bylaw concerns a matter identified as being of significant interest to the public in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, or Council considers there is likely to be a significant impact on the public due to the Draft Bylaw.

6.2 It is considered appropriate to use the special consultative procedure because the Draft Bylaw directly affects the large proportion of the population who have cats, and this proposal will also be of interest to Nelson residents who are concerned about the impacts of cats on the wider community.

6.3 The Statement of Proposal for a Draft Bylaw is in Attachment 1 of this report. It complies with section 83 and 86 of the LGA02. Section 86 sets out the specific matters to be included in a Statement of Proposal related to a bylaw (in addition to what is required by section 83 of the LGA02). These are: the Draft Bylaw, the reasons for the proposal, and a report on the relevant determinations of the matters listed in section 155 of the LGA02.

6.4 Under section 83(1)(a) of the LGA02 the Council also needs to determine if a summary of the Statement of Proposal information is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal. It is considered that a summary is not required because the Statement of Proposal is not overly long or complex.

Consultation approach

6.5 The communication plan for the special consultative procedure includes the following actions:

6.5.1 Inform stakeholders, including the SPCA, local vets and people who have previously made submissions to the Council on this topic about the Statement of Proposal and invite submissions on it.

6.5.2 Inform iwi of the proposal and invite submissions on it.

6.5.3 Build on local media interest and discussion in the Draft Bylaw with local media to discuss this proposal.

6.5.4 Publicise the Statement of Proposal, the consultation process (including the ability to be heard) and submissions timeframe through Council’s public communication channels and make the Statement of Proposal available on Council’s website and in public libraries.

6.5.5 Schedule the hearing on 1 November 2024.

6.5.6 Promote the fact that people can advise they wish to speak at the hearing even if they don’t make a written submission, as provided for by section 82(d) of the LGA02.

Consultation Panel

6.6 It is intended that a Consultation Panel of elected members will consider written and oral submissions on the Draft Bylaw and make recommendations on those to full Council. The membership of this Panel will be determined by elected members at the Council meeting.

7. Options

7.1 If the Council accepts that the Draft Bylaw is the most appropriate way forward, it has two options to consider.

Option 1: Commence consultation on the Draft Bylaw (the preferred option)
Advantages	· The microchipping and microchip registration provision will make it easier to identify and return domestic cats to their owners. · The desexing provision will reduce the burden of unwanted kittens on the SPCA and the wider community. · It will enhance the effectiveness of responsible cat ownership education and potential ‘snip ‘n’ chip’ campaigns. · The Draft Bylaw responds to community concerns raised with Council. · Commencing consultation in early September will enable Council to decide whether to adopt a new bylaw by late 2024/early 2025.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Costs for consultation and decision making, and compliance related to the Draft Bylaw. · Mandatory costs for cat owners for microchipping ($60) microchip registration ($15) and desexing ($252 for female cats and $145 for male cats). A three year transition period is proposed to enable time for existing cat owners to comply with the Bylaw.
Option 2: Do not commence consultation on the Draft Bylaw and rely on non-regulatory measures to manage the impacts of Nelson’s domestic cat population
Advantages	· No costs or time required for consultation and decision-making, or ongoing compliance costs if a Bylaw is adopted. · No mandatory costs for cat owners for microchipping ($60) microchip registration ($15) and desexing ($252 for female cats and $145 for male cats).
Risks and Disadvantages	· A lost opportunity to manage the impacts of Nelson’s domestic cat population including: - Limited ability to identify the owners of lost and injured cats. - No reduction in the numbers of unwanted kittens for the SPCA to rehome. - No reduction in the numbers of unwanted litters of domestic cats contributing to stray and feral cat populations in Nelson. · Lack of alignment with Tasman District Council’s proposed approach to cat management.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Consulting on the Draft Bylaw is recommended. This will provide Council with the power to require microchipping, microchip registration and desexing of domestic cats to promote responsible cat ownership and reduce the negative impacts of cats on the social and environmental wellbeing of the community.

8.2 The results of early engagement with the community indicate there is strong support for adopting the Draft Bylaw. Commencing formal consultation of the Draft Bylaw using the special consultative procedure will meet the requirements of sections 83, 86 and 156 of the LGA02 and give the community another opportunity to provide feedback on the issues.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Invite submissions on the Draft Bylaw from 9 September to 9 October 2024.

9.2 The Consultation Panel hears submissions on 1 November 2024.

9.3 The Consultation Panel deliberates on 15 November 2024.

9.4 Council meeting to decide whether or not to adopt the Consultation Panel’s recommendations on 5 December 2024.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 596364813-11766 Statement of Proposal for a Draft Cat Management Bylaw ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Draft Bylaw supports the social and environmental wellbeing of the Nelson community by reducing impacts associated with the keeping of cats.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft Bylaw supports the following community outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

Risk

Introducing a bylaw that is not realistically enforceable by the Council carries a level of risk which could lower trust in local governance or lead to legal ambiguity and potential challenges. Several other Councils have introduced cat management bylaws without legal challenge. Officers consider this a low risk.

There is also a reputational risk if the Council decides not to proceed with the proposed draft Bylaw after receiving significant public feedback in support of what is proposed.

Not progressing the Draft Bylaw would place more of a burden on the SPCA and vets to persuade owners to invest in microchipping, microchip registration and desexing of their cats, more time will be spent trying to identify and return domestic cats to their owners and it would result in a higher number of unwanted kittens. It would also limit the effectiveness of education related to responsible cat ownership and ‘snip ‘n’ chip’ campaigns.

Financial impact

There are no immediate funding implications over and above the current costs for development and adoption of a bylaw, and compliance costs. SPCA and local vets have indicated willingness to assist with compliance.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

These matters are of high significance because of the degree of public interest.

The Draft Bylaw potentially affects the proportion of the population who have cats which aren’t already microchipped and desexed and is also of significant interest to Nelson residents who are concerned about the impacts of cats on the wider community.

Climate Impact

Climate change has been considered in relation to the Draft Bylaw. However, the scope of its provisions do not have the capacity to assist with (or to affect) climate change mitigation or adaptation.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. However, officers will directly contact iwi to inform them of the proposal and invite feedback as part of the special consultative procedure.

Legal context

· Council has the power to make this decision under the LGA02.

· Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Parts 6 and 8 of the LGA02. In relation to this decision, this requires specific consideration of consultation requirements when making, amending or revoking bylaws made under section 156 of this Act.

Delegations

Council is responsible for final adoption of a bylaw but can delegate the following matters:

· Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate

· Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes other than final approval.

Item 12: Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding

Report Author: Martin Croft - Strategic Adviser Community Services

Report Authoriser: Andrew White - Group Manager Community Services

Report Number: R28663

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Nelson School of Music Trust (The Trust).

2. Summary

2.1 A MOU will establish how Council and the Trust intend to work together to deliver shared outcomes and goals, which include those outlined in He Tātai Whetū – Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (R28663) and its attachment (1511110536-1100); and

2. Approves the Memorandum of Understanding between Nelson School of Music Trust trading as Nelson Centre of Musical Arts (NCMA) and Nelson City Council, delegating the Mayor to sign on behalf of Council; and

3. Delegates His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to signing.

4. Background

4.1 The Trust is a not-for-profit charitable Trust trading as the Nelson Centre of Musical Arts (NCMA). It is one of two Council Organisations (CO), the other being the Nelson Festivals Trust.

4.2 A CO is an organisation for which a local authority controls any proportion of the voting rights, or rights to appoint directors or trustees. Council appoints two trustees to the Trust.

4.3 Council provides an annual grant to the NCMA, which is used for operational purposes.

4.4 Following a review in 2021 to look at the NCMA’s business relationship with Council and financial performance and sustainability, Council’s Community and Recreation Committee resolved that a MOU would be established, and a Statement of Intent (SOI) would be received by Council every three years, with an update on the SOI provided annually.

4.5 Council received the NCMA’s first SOI in 2023.

5. Discussion

5.1 Council’s Memorandum of Understanding Policy states that a MOU:

5.1.1 defines the terms under which the partners will co-operate by establishing a framework for effective cooperation, recognising that the relationship between the parties is long term.

5.1.2 can be established with organisations with which Council might also have a formal contract.

5.1.3 can express a range of expectations that both parties have of each other, wider than just funding.

5.2 It also states: Council will consider undertaking the development of a MOU with another organisation or group in the following circumstances:

5.2.1 Where there is an ongoing and closely involved relationship with the other party or parties, with significant overlap in mandate, services or projects and frequent collaboration, and/or

5.2.2 Where there is a transfer of the provision of services from Council to another entity;

5.2.3 Where there is a long-term funding agreement with an organisation; or

5.2.4 Where there have been problems in an ongoing relationship with another party or parties that are likely to be resolved through the increased clarity of expectations, and

5.2.5 It is clearly in the interest of the Council and community to enter into such an agreement, and it is consistent with achieving some or all the community outcomes.

5.3 An MOU with the Trust fits well with the criteria as outlined in points 5.1 and 5.2.

5.4 Although not a statutory requirement, the Trust’s inaugural three-year SOI was received by Council in April 2023. The intent of the SOI was to help build the relationship with Council by providing transparency and accountability, setting out what is expected for the funding provided by Council. The SOI had been recommended in the 2021 review of the business relationship, along with an MOU.

5.5 Rather than setting out what is expected from Council’s funding, the objective of the MOU is to continue to build and grow the positive relationship that has been developed between the Trust and Council since the 2021 review. Although not legally binding, it sets out how both parties intend to work together to achieve shared outcomes and goals.

5.6 The NCMA play a key role in the Arts in Nelson and is an important partner in the delivery of the objectives and goals outlined in He Tātai Whetū, Nelson’s Arts and Creative Strategy. A key outcome of the MOU is to affirm NCMA’s commitment to the delivery of the Strategy.

5.7 The proposed MOU has been circulated and approved by the Trust, and it has been reviewed by Council staff. The Trust is now waiting for Council to sign it.

6. Options

6.1 Council has the option of approving the attached MOU, with amendments as necessary, or not approving it. It is recommended that the MOU be approved.

Option 1: Approve the MOU
Advantages	· The MOU provides clarity around roles and responsibilities of the parties and sets out common objectives.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Commits Council to a high level of cooperation and collaboration with the Trust
Option 2: Do not approve the MOU
Advantages	· No obvious advantages
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would be a disappointment to the Trust and could damage the relationship.

7. Next Steps

7.1 The Trust will be informed of the decision.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1511110536 - 1100 MOU - NCC and NCMA ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Collaboration with the NCMA supports the social, economic and cultural well-being of the community in the present and in the future.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decisions in this report support our Community Outcomes as follows:

“Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity”; and

“Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities”.

NCMA has a mission that reads - ‘Inspired by our iconic venue, and within a secure financial environment, we strive to create a community around a shared love of musical experiences both on the stage and in the studio.

Risk

There is a risk the relationship with the NCMA will be damaged if the MOU isn’t supported and their commitment to the supporting the delivery of He Tātai Whetū is lessoned.

Financial impact

There is no impact financially on the decision.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matter is of low significance because it only aims to clarify the relationship between Council and the NCMA and is not legally binding on either party. Therefore, no community consultation is planned.

Climate Impact

Climate impact is addressed in the NCMA Statement of Intent.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Legal context

There is a small risk that the MOU could be viewed as legally binding.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 13: Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024

Report Author: Ailish Neyland - Policy Adviser

Report Authoriser: Nicky McDonald - Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Report Number: R28718

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To review Council’s Gambling Venue Policy 2018, as required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020, to assess whether the Policy is still fit for purpose and put forward options in response to the review.

2. Summary

2.1 Council is legally required to review its Gambling Venue Policy within three years of each prior review. Staff have undertaken community
pre-engagement as part of the review process as well as analysing available data and research on Class 4 gambling in Nelson and nationally. Staff have outlined two options, following the review, for Council to consider.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024 (R28718) and its attachment (839498445-8131); and

3. Either

Option 1:

a. Agrees that the result of the review is that no change is needed to the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (839498445-8131); and

b. Determines that no further consultation or engagement on the decision to retain the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 with no changes is required.

Option 2:

a. Agrees to propose changes to the Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (839498445-8131), requiring a special consultative procedure to be undertaken; and

b. Directs staff to develop a Statement of Proposal for Council approval.

4. Background

4.1 The Department of Internal Affairs is the primary regulator of gambling, undertaking licensing, compliance and enforcement functions to achieve the purpose as set out in the legislation. Under these Acts territorial authorities can grant consents for Class 4 and TAB venues and must adopt a policy setting out requirements for consent to establish and operate these venues in the district.

4.2 Gambling in New Zealand is scaled into four classes. Class 1 is the lowest risk, low-stakes gambling activities and Class 4 gambling is the highest-risk, highest turnover forms of gambling.[1]

4.3 A council’s Class 4 and TAB venue policy can regulate the number and location of Class 4 venues and electronic gaming machines (ie pokies), Class 4 venue mergers and relocations and the number and locations of TAB venues. A policy cannot regulate closing current venues or removing Class 4 machines, online or casino gambling or TAB offerings in pubs and clubs.

4.4 Council needs to review its Policy every three years and when adopting and reviewing these policies, it must have regard to the social impact of gambling within the district. As an outcome of a review, Council can either decide to retain the Policy with no changes, or to undertake a special consultative procedure to propose changes to the Policy and subsequently adopt an amended or new Policy. Council needs to complete a review of its Policy by September 2024.

Previous Council decisions

4.5 Council’s current Policy was adopted in December 2018 and was reviewed by Council in 2021 with a decision to retain the Policy with no changes. In 2018, a number of changes were made to the Policy, including limiting the overall machine numbers in Nelson to 162 (from 273) and changing maximum machine numbers for new venues from nine (the maximum allowed under the Gambling Act 2003) down to five machines.

4.6 Geographic and zoning restrictions on new venues, including the 100 metre minimum distance requirements from automatic teller machines (ATMs) and community, child and family focused facilities, were unchanged.

4.7 At both the 2018 and 2021 reviews, there was consideration by Council of whether to include a sinking lid policy, which means that when a gaming machine stops operating or has its licence suspended, it effectively drops the district cap for gaming machines. However, there was strong opposition from some in the community and no such changes were approved.

5. Discussion

Overview of gambling in Nelson

5.1 Nine venues operate in Nelson City, outlined in Table 1, with 131 Class 4 machines operating. There are 135 active licences, however, one venue is voluntarily operating fewer machines than its licence allows. This leaves 27 machines available to new venues as the current cap for the district is 162 machines.

5.2 Eight of Nelson’s venues are in areas that have a medium to high deprivation rating (6-10) and one venue is in a medium to low deprivation area (1-5), also outlined in Table 1.

5.3 The number of venues has stayed consistent at nine between 2021 and 2024. Between 2018 and 2020 venue numbers dropped from 11 to nine. Nationally, there is a trend of decreasing venue numbers. From March 2015 to March 2024, venues have decreased nationally by 278 (-21.8%).

5.4 Nelson machine numbers dropped from 140 to 131 in 2022 and are currently still at 131. Nationally machine numbers are also showing a decline.

5.5 Standalone TAB venues are regulated through the Gambling Policy but there are currently none in Nelson. There are four venues which operate New Zealand Racing Board self-service terminals (outlet type kiosks) in pubs and clubs and one publican managed TAB, which fall outside the scope of the policy.

Table 1: Summary of venues and gaming machines in Nelson
Venue	Deprivation level[2] *	Machines currently operating	Society name
Hardys Bar (noting this is also a TAB venue)	Decile 9	18	Air Rescue Services Limited
Ocean Lodge	Decile 9	18	New Zealand Community Trust
O’Shedigans Irish Bar	Decile 6	18	The Lion Foundation 2008
Post Boy Hotel	Decile 9	14	The Lion Foundation 2008
Rattle & Hum	Decile 6	9	Pub Charity Limited
The Buxton	Decile 9	9	The Lion Foundation 2008
The New Street Steakhouse	Decile 6	9	The Lion Foundation 2008
The Sands Brewery Bar and Kitchen	Decile 3	18	The Lion Foundation 2008
Turf Hotel	Decile 9	18	Mainland Foundation Limited
Total		131

*Decile 1 represents areas with the least deprived scores and Decile 10 represents areas with the most deprived scores.

Gaming machine profits (GMP)

5.6 Class 4 GMP is the amount of expenditure or player loss on electronic gaming machines (this does not include TAB profits). A minimum of 40% of GMP has to be allocated for community grants, as specified under the Gambling (Class 4 Net Proceeds) Regulations 2004. It is not required that the funding be distributed back into the community where it came from.

5.7 TAB New Zealand states in its guidelines for distributing net proceeds under its ’Sports’ Authorised purposes that it will mainly put the proceeds back into support for the New Zealand Racing Industry. However, it does also state that up to 20% of its total net proceeds will be distributed in the community to support amateur sport in New Zealand. We do not have clear information about how much is allocated to Nelson organisations.

5.8 There was a gradual upward trend in GMP in Nelson from 2015 to 2023, as shown in Table 2, noting 2020 was an outlier due to the COVID-19 lockdown. In 2021 and 2022 GMP remained relatively similar ($10.8 million and $10.9 million respectively), with a slight drop in 2023 to $10.5 million. For 2023, the national GMP was estimated at $1.06 billion.[3] However, the latest information on GMP for Nelson for the year to March 2024 showed a 6.6% decrease over the previous year to March 2023. National GMP, which had been tracking upwards, showed a small decline of 1.6% from March 2023 to March 2024.

Table 2: GMP for Nelson
Year	GMP for Nelson	40% of Nelson’s GMP ($m)	Value of grants to organisations in the tagged to the Nelson district[4]*
2015	$9.2m	$3.7m	-
2016	$9.0m	$3.6m	-
2017	$10.1m	$4.2m	-
2018	$10.5m	$4.2m	-
2019	$10.9m	$4.4m	$4.1m
2020	$9.4m	$3.8m	$2.8m
2021	$10.8m	$4.3m	$3.9m
2022	$10.9m	$4.3m	$4.9m
2023	$10.5m	$4.2m	$4.7m

* Please note, the figures in column three over-estimate the grant funding actually going back into Nelson City. This is because the figure includes some national organisations where we don’t know where the funding is going, along with a small number of grants that are for organisations based in other districts such as Tasman and Canterbury.

Grants provided to Nelson organisations

5.9 The Granted website, which provides data about how grants from GMP have been distributed across the country, shows the below split of funding by sector and organisation for the Nelson district in 2023.[5]

Table 3: By sector
Sector	Amount
Sport	$2,900,000
Community	$631,549
Health/welfare/research services	$471,495
Research and education	$354,576
Arts and Culture	$246,521
Environment and animals	$25,133
Unspecified	$4,500

Table 4: Highest grant amounts received by organisation in 2023 (top 10)
Organisation	Grant amount
Tasman Rugby Union	$651,289
Nelson Suburbs Football Club	$322,027
Nelson Cricket Association	$229,125
Nelson Tasman Regional Hospice	$206,661
Nelson Marlborough Helicopter Trust	$154,664
Rotary Club of Whakatu Trust	$142,730
Nelson Marlborough Helicopter Trust Board	$95,073
Gymnastics Nelson Inc	$89,525
Stoke Rugby Football Club Inc	$78,695
Basketball Development Nelson Trust	$74,900

Overview of Council’s Gambling Venue Policy 2018

5.10 The key elements of Council’s current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (in attachment 1) are outlined in Table 5, noting that Council did consider including a sinking lid clause in both the 2018 and 2021 review, but this was not approved for inclusion in the Policy.

Table 5: Key elements of Council’s Policy

Objective of the Policy

· To have regard to the social impact of gambling within the Nelson City Council District in determining applications for consent to Class 4 and standalone TAB venues

Class 4 and TAB venues may be established in the district subject to the following geographic restrictions:

· Cannot be on land zoned Residential or Open Space and Recreation in the Nelson Resource Management Plan

· Cannot be located in the meshblocks in Nelson South, Tāhunanui and Stoke (shown in a map attached to the Policy)

· Cannot be located within 100m of any playground, kindergarten, early childhood centre, school, place of worship or ATM

Cap on machine numbers

· Overall Cap for Nelson City is 162 gaming machines

· New venues shall be allowed a maximum of five gaming machines

Club mergers permitted

· Clubs are allowed to merge. The number of machines permitted will be considered on a case by case basis and will not exceed a maximum 30 machines per venue

No relocations allowed

· There is no relocations policy included, meaning venues cannot relocate to another site and maintain their existing licence. It would be classed as a new licence with a limit of five machines.

Comparison of Council’s Policy with other New Zealand councils

5.11 Staff compared a sample of Class 4 venues policies of 11 other councils across the country of a similar population size to Nelson City (within 15,000 of Nelson’s population)[6]. The findings are summarised below.

5.11.1 Seven of the 11 councils have a sinking lid policy.

5.11.2 Three councils do not allow relocations, five do allow relocations, and three only allow relocations where the venue cannot continue to operate at that site for reasons outside of the operator’s control, such as earthquake strengthening being required.

5.11.3 Five councils allow mergers, four do not and two councils do not mention anything specific about mergers in their policies.

5.11.4 Ten of the 11 councils have a specific policy objective on minimising the harm caused by gambling.

5.12 Based on this comparison, it could be said that Nelson’s Class 4 venue policy is a restrictive policy, as although it doesn’t have a sinking lid, the five machine limit for new venues, no relocations and the constraints imposed by proximity to an ATM, appear to severely constrain the ability for new venues and machines to become established in the district.

Pre-engagement feedback on how the current Policy is working

5.13 To inform the review, staff contacted approximately 70 stakeholders, including gaming societies, the hospitality sector, community and social organisations, healthcare providers, and individuals who have shown an interest in the Policy in the past.

5.14 Nineteen responses were received from those who staff contacted, with a mix of views that are consistent with submissions made by organisations and individuals during previous reviews.

5.15 Thirteen additional responses were received from those who heard about the pre-engagement by other means. All of these additional responses were from sports or community organisations emphasising the importance of grant funding to their organisation/cause and asking for no changes to be made to the Policy.

5.16 Table 6 shows the overarching view expressed by respondents.

Table 6: Views from the pre-engagement
View expressed	No in support	Sectors the respondents were from/represent	Examples of suggested changes
Retain current Policy	21	- Grant recipients – e.g. Sporting or community organisation (19) - Organisation representing the hospitality sector (1) - Class 4 venue operator (1) - Individual community member (1)
Loosen Policy restrictions	4	- Representative of Gaming Machine Association of New Zealand (1) - Corporate society (2) - Venue operator (1)	- Add a relocation clause - Increase the machine cap for new venues from five to nine. - Reduce geographic restrictions (particularly requirements of 100 metres from an ATM)
Tighten Policy restrictions	7	- Individual community member (3) - Public Health (1) - Community and public health organisations with a focus on gambling harm (3)	- Add a sinking lid policy - Do not allow mergers - Include stronger harm minimisation objectives

Research and data to analyse current effectiveness of Council’s Policy

The reduction in Class 4 venue and machine numbers

5.17 There is a clear trend in the reduction of Class 4 machines and venues nationally. Two studies concluded that policy interventions, such as per capita caps on machines and introducing sinking lid clauses, have been effective in reducing machine and venue numbers.[7] [8] However, despite this downward trend, there has still been a generally upward trend in gambling expenditure and GMP in New Zealand over recent years.

Nelson machine numbers dropped to 154 in 2018, with some fluctuations but stabilised at 140 in 2020. It dropped again in September 2022 to 131 and has remained at this level since then. It is not possible to know if Council’s policy has influenced this decline as machine numbers have been trending down nationally and it is also difficult to know how the growth in online gambling is factoring into trends.

The introduction of sinking lid clauses

5.18 One study found that, in comparison to a reference group, a sinking lid policy is one of the most effective policy interventions at reducing GMP. However, it also noted a limitation in not being able to identify what proportion of the drop in GMP was from casual gamblers compared to problem gamblers. [9]

5.19 As at June 2024, 36 out of 65 (55%) New Zealand councils have adopted a sinking lid policy. Although Nelson does not have a sinking lid, the number of restrictions within the policy could be viewed as delivering a similar level of constraint.

Problem gambling and harm in New Zealand

5.20 Under the Gambling Act 2003, harm is defined as harm or distress of any kind arising from, or caused or exacerbated by, a person’s gambling and includes personal, social or economic harm suffered by the person, their partner, family, wider community, in the workplace or society at large.

5.21 The Ministry of Health (MoH) is responsible for services for problem gamblers and people affected by others’ gambling. The MoH provides a number of reports, including its overarching gambling strategy, ongoing research into problem gambling and its effects, and data on the number of people receiving help.

5.22 A gambling harm needs assessment in 2021 found that most people gamble for leisure and recreation and estimated that in 2020 69.3% of the adult population in New Zealand had participated in some form of gambling in the last 12 months.

5.23 Te Whatu Ora undertakes a biennial Health and Lifestyles Survey. The 2020 survey indicated that 10.9% of adults (an estimated 448,000) played on gaming machines in a pub, club or one of the six casinos in the last 12 months and 0.9% (an estimated 36,000 adults) played gaming machines or pokies in a pub or club weekly or almost weekly in the last 12 months[10]. It estimated that approximately 65,000 people aged 16 or older were either at a moderate or high risk of harm from gambling.

5.24 The results of the 2018 Health and Lifestyles Survey found that gaming machine players were more than twice as likely to be at-risk of some level of gambling related harm compared to other gamblers and that about a third of people who played gaming machines at least monthly were at-risk gamblers (against the Problem Gambling Severity Index which assesses people’s experiences of gambling related harm in the last 12 months).[11] The Problem Gambling Foundation notes that pokies are “addictive by design”.

5.25 While a minority of those who gamble identify as problem gamblers or at risk of problem gambling, research has found that Māori and Pasifika communities, as well as some Asian communities disproportionately experience gambling harm, as well as young people. A clear association has also been found with problem gambling and living closer to a gambling venue. So, gambling harm is not spread evenly within a community and is likely to affect those living in areas with higher deprivation rates.[12]

5.26 MoH data shows how many people are engaging with intervention services for gambling. Table 7 outlines the new clients and total clients assisted in Nelson City for the last three years, which shows an upward trend in those engaging intervention services in the district. However, apart from this indicator, there is limited regional data to indicate the level of harm experienced from problem gambling in Nelson.[13]

Table 7: Clients assisted in Nelson city
Financial year	New clients assisted	All clients assisted
2020-2021	73	123
2021-2022	82	131
2022-2023	118	166

6. Options

6.1 Council has two options in response to the review of its Gambling Venue Policy 2018, which are outlined below.

6.2 Option 1: decide to retain the Gambling Venue Policy with no changes. Given the pre-engagement that was undertaken in June-July 2024 as part of this review, and that the views were consistent with submissions Council has received on the Policy in the past, staff do not see it as necessary to consult if Council decides to retain the current Policy with no changes.

6.3 Option 2: to decide to propose changes which would require Council to consult the community using a special consultative procedure. Staff would come back to a future Council meeting with a Statement of Proposal and consultation approach for approval. These changes could include one or more of the following:

6.3.1 Including a sinking lid policy

6.3.2 Including a relocations policy

6.3.3 Changing the current machine cap

6.3.4 Changing geographic or machine restrictions on new venues opening.

6.4 If Council decided to propose changes to the Policy, a workshop would be held with elected members to canvas potential changes for consultation. Following this, staff would draft a statement of proposal to be presented to a future Council meeting with a proposed approach and timeline for consultation.

Option 1: Decide to retain the Gambling Venue Policy 2018 with no changes as a result of the review
Advantages	· Continues to restrict the number of machines and new venues in Nelson, through the existing elements of the policy. · No impact on grant funding availability for community and sporting groups. · Council and community resources saved through not having to undertake a special consultative procedure.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Individuals and groups who were advocating for change (either a tightening or loosening of policy settings) will be disappointed in Council’s decision.
Option 2: Decide to propose changes to the Gambling Venue Policy 2018 and that a special consultative procedure is required
Advantages	· If Council considers the Policy could be improved this provides an opportunity to hear community views through a more formal and widely advertised process.
Risks and Disadvantages	· There is a resource requirement on the community and Council in undertaking a special consultative procedure. · Consulting could create tension between those advocating for a tightening or loosening of policy settings.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council is legislatively required to review its Gambling Venue Policy every three years. Following the review of the current Policy, staff have outlined two options for Council to consider and decide as to how to proceed.

8. Next Steps

8.1 If Council decides to retain the current Policy, no further action is required. If Council decides to propose changes to the Policy, staff will develop a statement of proposal to bring back to Council at a future meeting.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 839498445-8131 - Nelson City Council - Gambling Venue Policy 2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020, Council must review its Gambling Venue Policy every three years.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Maintaining a Policy that controls the number of gambling venues, machines and their locations contributes to the following community outcome:

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

Risk

There is a risk with both options that sectors of the community with opposing views will not support Council’s decision. This can be mitigated by clear messaging of the reasons for the decision.

Financial impact

There are no costs associated with retaining the Policy with no changes. The costs of a consultation, if Council proposes changes, can be met within existing budgets.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to the wider community but will be of high interest to businesses, corporate societies, community organisations and public health agencies involved in gambling and dealing with gambling harm and to individuals and families directly affected.

If Council decides to retain the Policy with no changes, staff do not see further consultation as necessary given pre-engagement was undertaken with approximately 70 interested stakeholders and parties as part of the process to review the Policy. If Council decides to propose changes to the Policy a special consultative procedure will be undertaken.

Climate Impact

The recommendation in this report will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or into the future.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

It is a requirement of the Gambling Act 2003 to provide notice of any proposed draft policy changes to organisations representing Māori. Should Council decide to propose any changes to the Policy, this will happen as part of public consultation, with iwi in Nelson being notified directly by Council.

Legal context

Under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020, Council must adopt a Gambling Venue Policy and review it every three years. If Council proposes to make changes to the Policy, it must undertake a special consultative procedure (as specified in Section 101 of the Gambling Act and Section 97 of the Racing Industry Act).

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 14: Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders

Report Author: Robyn Byrne - Team Leader Governance

Report Authoriser: Nicky McDonald - Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Report Number: R28757

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Standing Orders to continue to allow members joining remotely to be counted as part of quorum.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders (R28757) and its attachment (1373411589-1729); and

2. Updates Nelson City Council Standing Orders sections 11 and 13 outlined in clauses 4.6 – 4.7 of Report R28757 to allow for members joining a meeting remotely to be counted as quorum; and

3. Adopts Nelson City Council Standing Orders, effective from 01 October 2024.

3. Background

3.1 Council has used audiovisual technology for participating in meetings for many years and this has increased significantly in the past few years. However, members that have used this technology have not been able to be counted as quorum as, until recently, while the Local Government Act allowed for audiovisual presence it did not allow for quorum inclusion.

3.2 During the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently post Cyclone Gabrielle, government amended legislation to allow for members joining the meeting remotely to be counted as quorum. This allowed councils to continue to carry out their business.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 amended Schedule 7 s25A(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 to allow for members joining the meeting remotely to be counted as quorum, so long as the provision is catered for within the Standing Orders of that territorial authority.

4.2 The amendment by the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act 2023 to allow for remote attendance to be counted as quorum (whether or not this was included in standing orders) is to be repealed on 1 October 2024.

4.3 It is prudent to add provision for this in Standing Orders, noting that conditions in clauses 13.11 (requiring the chair’s approval) and 13.12 (covering reasonable warning and available technology) have to be met.

4.4 There are times when an online meeting might be needed, and this would provide an ability for that to continue beyond the repeal of the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act.

4.5 It should be noted that with any changes proposed for the Standing Orders, a majority of 75% must be achieved by members present and voting.

Proposed changes

4.6 The following changes to Standing Orders are recommended in order to allow remote participants to be counted as quorum and to clarify the process to request to attend by audio of audio visual link:

4.6.1 Clause 11.1 (a) and (b) remove ‘physically’

The quorum for a meeting of the council is:

(a) Half of the members ~~physically~~ present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and

(b) A majority of the members ~~physically~~ present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

4.6.2 Clause 13.8 noting that members attending by electronic link will be counted:

Members who attend meetings by electronic link will ~~not~~ be counted as present for the purposes of a quorum

4.6.3 Clause 13.9 remove ‘determined by the number physically present’:

Where a meeting has a quorum~~, determined by the number physically present,~~ the members attending by electronic link can vote on any matters raised at the meeting.

4.6.4 Clause 13.12 clarify how to request to attend by audio or audio visual link

A member will submit a request in writing and where possible, ~~a member~~ will give the chairperson and the chief executive at least 2 working days’ notice when they want to attend a meeting by audio or audiovisual link. Should, due to illness or emergency, that not be possible the member may give less notice.

Where such a request is made and the technology is available, the chief executive must take reasonable steps to enable the member to attend by audio or audiovisual link. However, the council has no obligation to make the technology for an audio or audio-visual link available.

The chairperson will not unreasonably withhold approval.

If the member’s request cannot be accommodated, or there is a technological issue with the link, this will not invalidate any acts or proceedings of the local authority or its committees.

4.7 Sections 11 and 13 of Standing Orders are attached (1373411589-1729) for completeness.

5. Options

Option 1: Adopt updated Standing Orders (recommended)
Advantages	· Reflects the practice that has been happening since Covid lockdowns · Reflects current legislation
Risks and Disadvantages	· None identified as this reflects current practice
Option 2: Do not update Standing Orders
Advantages	· None identified
Risks and Disadvantages	· Fully online meetings would not be able to continue after 1 October 2024 · There is more chance of losing quorum when holding mixed online/in person meetings

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1373411589-1729 NCC Standing Orders - amendment to quorum 05Sep2024 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by allowing members to join remotely to be counted as quorum. This means that members can continue to represent the community despite the fact that they cannot be physically present at a meeting.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This decision supports the community outcome:

Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, including with iwi, fosters a regional perspective, and encourages community engagement.

Risk

There are no risks associated with this decision.

Financial impact

There is no financial impact.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This is a procedural item.

Climate Impact

There is no impact on climate as this is a procedural item.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Legal context

· Council has the power to make this decision under Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 25A(4) ].

The Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 amended schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002:

In Schedule 7, replace clause 25A(4) with:

(4)

A member of the local authority or committee who attends a meeting by means of audio link or audiovisual link, in accordance with this clause, is to be counted as present for the purposes of clause 23.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 15: Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034

Council

5 September 2024

Report Title: Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034

Report Author: Phil Ruffell - Manager Utilities Activity Management

Lyndon Hammond - Team Leader Transport Activity Management

Report Authoriser: Alec Louverdis - Deputy Chief Executive / Group Manager Infrastructure

Report Number: R28428

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Infrastructure Activity Management Plans (AMPs) 2024-2034 following Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) decisions.

2. Summary

2.1 This report seeks approval for all Infrastructure AMPs:

2.1.1 Flood Protection;

2.1.2 Water Supply;

2.1.3 Wastewater;

2.1.4 Stormwater;

2.1.5 Transport, and

2.1.6 Solid Waste.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

2. Adopts the revised Infrastructure Activity Management Plans

a. Wastewater (1833911234-1391),

b. Water Supply (1833911234-1392),

c. Stormwater (1833911234-1390),

d. Flood protection (1833911234-1389),

e. Transport (1833911234-1388), and

f. Solid Waste (1833911234-1394).

4. Background

4.1 A series of workshops were held with elected members to consider the Draft AMPs to inform the development of the LTP, its Consultation Document and supporting information.

4.2 Council deliberated on the submissions on the LTP on 23 and 24 May 2024 and adopted the final Plan on 27 June 2024. The AMPs have been amended to reflect those decisions and are ready for Council approval.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Executive Summaries of the revised AMPs are appended as attachments to this report.

5.2 The revised AMPs will be updated on the Council’s website, 2024-34 Activity Management Plans page https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans.

5.3 The key changes made to each AMP to ensure consistency with the final LTP together with issues raised by Councillors in workshops are summarised in section 6 below.

5.4 Other minor updates and edits have also been made that generally update tables, graphs and work activities, record minor changes to legislation, update details of new construction and fix typographical errors.

6. Key changes made to AMPs

6.1 All AMPs updated to match following LTP sections:

6.1.1 Financial Budgets.

6.1.2 Council’s Vision, Priorities and Outcomes.

6.1.3 Levels of Service.

6.1.4 Activity Negative Effects statements.

6.1.5 Accounting Significant Forecasting Assumptions.

6.2 All Waters Utilities AMPs

6.2.1 Asset valuation and associated asset summary.

6.2.2 Iwi engagement platform and iwi partnership agreement.

6.2.3 Activity High Risks.

6.2.4 Legislation section:

· Resource Management Act reform

· Water Services Act

· Central Government Water Reforms

6.2.5 Actual expenditure added to renewal budget graphs.

6.2.6 August 2022 severe weather event.

6.3 Flood protection AMP

6.3.1 Reference to Nature based solutions/nature based infrastructure.

6.3.2 New Flood Protection property rating.

6.4 Water Supply AMP

6.4.1 Legislation section:

· The Building (Dam Safety) Regulations

· Drinking Water Standards

6.4.2 Align network upgrades with Future Development Strategy sites.

6.4.3 August 2022 storm event/forestry slash/natural hazards impacts on the raw water pipeline.

6.4.4 Clarification of references to revegetation in the water catchment.

6.5 Wastewater AMP

6.5.1 Nelson Waste Water Treatment Plant renewal application.

6.5.2 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit budget forecasts.

6.6 Stormwater AMP

6.6.1 Allow for tide gates quick fixes.

6.6.2 Update text for separate Storm Water & Flood Protection property rates and rateable areas for stormwater.

6.7 Transport AMP

6.7.1 Text updated to reflect New Zealand Transport Agency review and requirements post the 2024 Government Policy Statement. Additional changes are expected as NZTA announce subsidised funding levels.

6.7.2 Programme risks have been added from the 2021 AMP, with updates.

6.7.3 Drainage section updated to link to the customer satisfaction survey results.

6.7.4 Drainage section cost - service - risk graphs updated to reflect new street sweeping contract.

6.7.5 Reference to the City Centre Street Palette and potential trial of footpath materials has been removed while the palette is under review through the city development programme. Will be re-instated in future AMP.

6.8 Solid Waste AMP

6.8.1 Text updated to reflect residential kerbside foodwaste collection no longer mandatory by 2030.

6.8.2 Text updated to reflect residential kerbside recycling service post 2025 Council ownership of commodities and elimination of commodity subsidies.

6.8.3 Text updated to reflect Construction and Deconstruction diversion started at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre in April 2024.

7. Options

7.1 Two options are presented. Adopt the Infrastructure AMPs, or not adopt the Infrastructure AMPs. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Adopt the AMPs
Advantages	· Implements the decisions Council made following consultation and deliberations on the Long Term Plan. · Supports delivery of recently adopted Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would not have an opportunity to make major changes to the document.
Option 2: Do not adopt the AMPs
Advantages	· This option would be appropriate if Council considered that the AMPs do not adequately reflect the Council’s decisions on the Long Term Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This option would require further work by staff and reconsideration of the AMPs by Council.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The AMPs have been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the LTP 2024-34 process and now need to be adopted.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Following approval of the AMPs, the final AMPs will be uploaded to Council’s website, https://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/plans-strategies-policies/2024-2034-activity-management-plans.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1833911234-1363 Flood Protection AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: 1833911234-1364 Water Supply AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 3: 1833911234-1365 Wastewater AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 4: 1833911234-1366 Stormwater AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 5: 1833911234-1367 Transport AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 6: 1833911234-1385 Solid Waste AMP Executive Summary (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The LTP development and consultation process leading to these final AMPs enabled Council to democratically make decisions on behalf of its community, and to consider its services, work programme and budgets in terms of the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of its community.

Adopting the AMPs fits with the purpose of local government as this/these documents set out the services Council intends to provide, how these services will be measured, and how each service will be funded.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Implementing the AMPs is a key method used by Council to support delivery of all Council’s Community Outcomes.

Risk

Adopting the AMPs is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects the relevant Long Term Plan decisions. Adopting the AMPs helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets for operations, maintenance, renewals and capital expenditure.

There are continued areas of uncertainty that present risks to the 10 year work programme, such as from legislative and regulatory change, climate change and natural disasters, and the economic environment (as outlined in the assumptions contained in the AMPs).

Financial impact

The financial impacts of the content of the AMPs have been considered by Council during the preparation of the Long Term Plan and during deliberations on submissions.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decisions on the content of the AMPs are of moderate significance to residents and ratepayers of Nelson because of the financial and services implications. The public consultation undertaken on the Long Term Plan, using a special consultative procedure, ensured that Council had a good understanding of the view of the public prior to deciding what services and projects would be included in the final Long Term Plan and the AMPs.

Climate Impact

The decisions in this report will impact on Council’s ability to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future. The impact of climate change has been considered as part of development of the AMPs. Some work programmes in the AMPs contain expenditure to support Council to adapt to climate impacts and reduce its emissions. The Long Term Plan consultation process has allowed the community to provide feedback on Council’s climate response budgets and activities.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement has occurred with iwi during the draft AMPs preparation process and through an iwi summit on the Long Term Plan.

Legal context

Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of LGA2002.

Council has the power to make these decisions in accordance with sections 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegations

The decisions contained in this report are within Council’s area of responsibility.