AGENDA
Ordinary Council Meeting
Thursday, 3 October 2019
Time: |
10:00 am |
Location: |
Council Chamber Memorial Avenue Kaikohe |
Membership:
Mayor John Carter - Chairperson
Cr Tania McInnes
Cr Ann Court
Cr Felicity Foy
Cr Dave Hookway
Cr Colin (Toss) Kitchen
Cr Sally Macauley
Cr Mate Radich
Cr John Vujcich
Cr Kelly Stratford
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
3 October 2019 |
COUNCIL MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS
Name |
Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc) |
Declaration of Interests |
Nature of Potential Interest |
Member's Proposed Management Plan |
Hon John Carter QSO |
Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme |
Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme |
|
|
Carter Family Trust |
|
|
|
|
Felicity Foy |
Director - Northland Planning & Development |
I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees.
Property owner of Commerce Street, Kaitaia |
|
I will abstain from any
debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District
Plan. |
I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team. |
||||
I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner. |
||||
Flick Trustee Ltd |
I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties on Weber Place, Seaview Road and Allen Bell Drive. |
|
|
|
Elbury Holdings Limited |
This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King. |
This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight, Allen Bell Drive. |
|
|
Foy Farms partnership |
Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm in three titles on Church Road, Kaingaroa |
|
|
|
Foy Farms Rentals |
Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 6 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwelling on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia |
|
|
|
King Family Trust |
This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane. |
These trusts own properties in the Far North. |
|
|
M and F Foy properties |
1 property at Panorama Lane, Ahipara, and 1 property Church Road, Kaingaroa |
|
|
|
Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16 |
I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends |
|
|
|
Partner Felicity Foy |
Employed by Justaplumber Taipa |
|
|
|
Friends with some FNDC employees |
|
|
|
|
Dave Hookway |
Resident shareholder in Kerikeri Irrigation |
|
|
Declare if issues arise. |
Shareholder in Farmlands. |
|
|
Declare if issues arise. |
|
Employee – Northland District Health Board – Public Health Unit – Health Improvement Advisor |
|
Am employee have no personal gain. |
Declare employment should issues concerning the Northland DHB arises. |
|
On property in Waipapa West Rd. |
|
Possible issues relating to the street or zoning. |
Declare when appropriate. |
|
Colin Kitchen |
No form received |
|
|
|
Tania McInnes |
Director – GBT Ventures Ltd |
Company not currently operational |
|
Will notify Council if company becomes operational. |
Member of Northland Conservation Board |
|
Conservation matters not aligned with Council policy. |
Will notify Council should a perceived conflict arise. |
|
Trustee – Northland Youth Education Trust |
|
No perceived conflicts |
Will notify Council should a perceived conflict arise. |
|
Founder – Bay of Islands Women’s Nexus |
No perceived conflicts. An informal organisation |
|
|
|
Own a section on Seaview Road, Paihia 0200 |
|
|
|
|
Having worked within the organisation in the early 2000’s, I know a number of staff, none of which I am close with. |
|
|
|
|
Mate Radich |
No form received |
|
|
|
Ann Court |
Waipapa Business Association |
Member |
|
|
Warren Pattinson Limited |
Shareholder |
Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer |
No FNDC Controls |
|
Kerikeri Irrigation |
Supplies my water |
|
No EM intervention in disputes |
|
Top Energy |
Supplies my power |
|
No other interest greater than the publics |
|
District Licensing |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Top Energy Consumer Trust |
Trustee |
crossover in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lighting. |
Declare interest and abstain from voting. |
|
Ann Court Trust |
Private |
Private |
N/A |
|
Waipapa Rotary |
Honorary member |
Potential community funding submitter |
Declare interest and abstain from voting. |
|
Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa |
Owner Shareholder |
Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse) |
Declare interest and abstain from voting. |
|
Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa |
Financial interest |
|
|
|
Flowers (I get flowers occasionally) |
Ratepayer 'Thankyou' |
Bias/ Pre-determination? |
Declare to Governance |
|
Coffee and food |
Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage |
Bias or pre-determination |
Case by case |
|
Consider all staff my friends |
N/A |
Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined! |
Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair. |
|
|
My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff |
|
|
|
Warren Pattinson (Husband) |
Warren Pattinson Limited |
Director |
Building Company. FNDC is a regulator |
Remain at arm’s length |
Air NZ |
Shareholder |
None |
None |
|
Warren Pattinson Limited |
Builder |
FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer. |
Apply arm’s length rules |
|
Kurbside Rod and Custom Club (unlikely) |
President NZ Hot Rod Association |
Potential to be linked to a funding applicant and my wife is on the decision making committee. |
unlikely to materialise but would absent myself from any process as would Ann. |
|
Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa |
Owner |
any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development. |
Would not submit. Rest on a case by case basis. |
|
Worked with or for Mike Colebrook and Kelvin Goode |
Paid employment |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Sally Macauley |
Chairman |
Northland District Health Board |
Matters pertaining to health issues re Fluoride and freshwater as an example. |
Declare a perceived conflict. |
Chairman |
Oranga Tamaraki - Ministry of Vulnerable Children- Northland Community Response Forum |
Matters pertaining to this ministry |
Declare a perceived conflict. |
|
Judicial Justice of the Peace |
Visitations to Ngawha Prison |
Matters pertaining to Judicial Issues re Ngawha Prison |
Declare a perceived Interest |
|
The Turner Centre |
FNDC Representative |
Observer, acknowledging FNDC financial contribution. |
Note FNDC partnership |
|
Trustee |
Kaikohe Education Trust |
Providing students laptops - possible request for written support to funders |
Declare a conflict |
|
Executive member |
Kaikohe Business Association |
Matters pertaining to request for written support to funders. |
|
|
Chairman |
Bay of Islands Arts Festival Trust |
Issues pertaining to the application of support funds |
Declare a conflict of interests |
|
Trustee |
Bay of Islands Radio Marine |
Issues pertaining to the application of support funds |
Declare a conflict of interets |
|
Secretary/Trustee |
Kerkeri International Piano Competition |
Issues pertaining to the application of support funds |
Declare a conflict of interests |
|
Trustee/Director |
Kaikohe Community and Youth Trust |
Possible application of support funding |
Declare a conflict of interests |
|
Commercial |
Palmer Macauley Offices- Kerikeri and Kaikohe |
Infrastructural matters with FNDC |
Declare a conflict |
|
Private property of which there would not be any conflict. |
|
|
||
Paihia, Kerikeri, Kaikohe |
|
|
|
|
Peter Macauley (Husband) |
Senior Partner |
Palmer Macauley |
|
|
Peter Macualey |
Barristers and Solicitors- Kerikeri, Kaikohe and Mangonui |
Legal matters with FNDC |
|
|
Director/Trustee |
|
|
||
St John NZ Priory Chapter |
St John Priory Chapter |
Legal matters with FNDC |
Declare a conflict |
|
Senior Partner |
Peter Macauley- Palmer Macauley Barristers and Solicitors Kaikohe, Kerikeri AND Mangonui |
Legal matters with FNDC |
Declare a conflict |
|
St John NZ |
Priory Trust Board |
Writing of policies and legal matters as an example |
Note Interests |
|
Lions Club of Kaikohe |
Director |
Legal matters etc |
Note Interests |
|
Kaikohe Rugby Club |
Patron |
Legal Matters |
|
|
Viking Rugby Club, Whangarei |
Life Member |
Legal Matters |
|
|
Private Property |
|
|
||
Kerkeri, Paihia - no contents. |
|
|
|
|
John Vujcich |
Board Member |
Ngati Hine Health Trust |
Matters pertaining to property or decisions that may impact of their health services |
Declare interest and abstain |
Board Member |
Pioneer Village |
Matters relating to funding and assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Waitukupata Forest Ltd |
Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Rural Service Solutions Ltd |
Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Director |
Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust |
Potential funder |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Partner |
MJ & EMJ Vujcich |
Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Member |
Kaikohe Rotary Club |
Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects |
Declare interest and abstain |
|
Member |
New Zealand Institute of Directors |
Potential provider of training to Council |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
Member |
Institute of IT Professionals |
Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
Member |
Kaikohe Business Association |
Possible funding provider |
Declare a Conflict of Interest |
|
Mike Edmonds |
Chair |
Kaikohe Mechanical and Historic Trust |
Council Funding |
Decide at the time |
Committee member |
Kaikohe Rugby Football and Sports Club |
Council Funding |
Withdraw and abstain |
|
Adele Gardner |
N/A - FNDC Honorarium |
|
|
|
The Far North 20/20 , ICT Trust |
Trustee |
|
|
|
Te Ahu Charitable Trust |
Trustee |
|
|
|
ST Johns Kaitaia Branch |
Trustee/ Committee Member |
|
|
|
I know many FNDC staff members as I was an FNDC staff member from 1994-2008. |
|
|
|
|
Partner of Adele Gardner |
N/A as Retired |
|
|
|
Terry Greening |
Greening Family Trust |
Beneficiary |
|
Highly unlikely to interface with FNDC |
Bay of Islands Walking Weekend Trust |
|
Potential of seeking funds |
Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests |
|
Russell 2000 Trust (Chairman) |
|
|
Trust is about to wind up. |
|
Russell Centennial Trust (Chairman) |
Manages Russell Museum |
Seeks funds from council |
Step aside from any requests or decisions regarding requests |
|
Residence at Kaha Place, Russell |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
|
Terry Greening (Wife) |
Greening Family Trust |
Beneficiary |
N/A |
N/A |
Residence at Kaha Place, Russell |
|
|
|
|
Cr Kelly Stratford |
Office manager at Kinghans. |
|
|
|
Denture assistant at
Kawakawa denture Services |
None |
None |
|
|
KS Bookkeeping and Administration |
Business owner, bookkeeping and development of environment management plans for clients. |
None perceived |
I’d step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts. |
|
Kinghans Accounting |
Office Administration |
None perceived |
I’d step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts. |
|
Waikare Marae Trustees |
Trustee |
May be perceived conflicts |
Case by case basis |
|
Kawakawa Business & Community Association |
Committee member/newsletter editor and printer |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Bay of Islands College |
Parent elected trustee |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Karetu School Bay Cosmos Soccer |
Parent elected trustee. Committee member and coach |
None perceived |
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Property in Waikare and Moerewa |
|
|
If there was a perceived conflict, I will step aside from decision making |
|
Sister is currently employed by the Far North District Council. |
|
|
Will not discuss any matters regarding her role or my role as Councillor that are confidential.
|
|
Coffee and food |
Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage |
Bias or pre-determination |
Case by case |
|
Kelly Stratford (Husband) |
Property in Moerewa |
|
N/A |
N/A |
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
3 October 2019 |
Ordinary Council Meeting
will be held in the Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe on:
Thursday 3 October 2019 at 10:00 am
Order Of Business
2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
5.1 Notice of Motion - Bus Park Hours Blencowe Street Kaitaia
6 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
6.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
7 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
7.1 3 Waters and District Facilities Asset Condition Assessment Programme
8 Strategic Planning and Policy Group
8.1 Kerikeri Domain Governance Report
8.2 Adoption of the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019
8.4 Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019
8.5 Wandering with Ancestors (Ventnor) Memorial Rawene Cemetery
9.1 Lease - Houhora Heads Motor Camp
9.2 Adoption of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019
10.1 Elected Member Report - 2019 LGNZ Conference
10.2 Resident Opinion Survey 2018/19
10.3 Results from the Organisational Survey 2019
11.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded.
11.2 Extension of Current Swimming Pools Operations and Maintenance Contract
11.3 Further Supporting Information for Consideration of Options to Build a Southern Animal Shelter
11.4 Procurement Report for Panguru Flood Mitigation – Road Raising
11.5 Loan to Manea Footprints of Kupe
11.6 Te Pu o Te Wheke - Risk Identification …………………………(under separate cover)
1 Prayer
2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.
If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Governance Support (preferably before the meeting).
It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
No requests for deputations were received at the time of the Agenda going to print.
10:15 am Friends of the Kerikeri Domain
3 October 2019 |
5.1 Notice of Motion - Bus Park Hours Blencowe Street Kaitaia
File Number: A2674268
I, Councillor Felicity Foy, give notice that at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 3 October 2019, I intend to move the following motion:
That the hours of bus usage for the bus park on Blencowe Street in Kaitaia be reviewed to allow for more public use, and that the CEO/Staff complete diligence on the proposal in order to achieve a decision by 01 November 2019. |
Rationale
This motion is proposed to reflect that bus parking is now provided at Te Ahu for the large coach buses and the building on the corner of Blencowe Street, Kaitaia is not utilised as a bus operation business. The bus operations are now undertaken from Te Ahu, which has suitable bus parking and manoeuvering.
This is not a significant issue for the general public, with the exception of the parking issues that are created for the current business operating from the corner of Blencowe Street, being Haze Real Estate. It would be appreciated if this matter can be sorted at these meetings through this notice of motion, as this matter has been on-going for many months.
I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.
1. Notice of Motion Cr Foy 2 Sept 2019 - A2674232 ⇩
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
3 October 2019 |
For Far North District Council meeting 3 October 2019
Bus Park Hours Blencowe Street Kaitaia
Pursuant to clause 26.1 of Standing Orders
Date: Monday 2 September 2019
I give notice that at the next meeting of the Far North District Council to be held on 3 October 2019, I will move the following motion ‘That the hours of bus usage for the bus park on Blencowe Street in Kaitaia be reviewed to allow for more public use, and that the CEO/Staff complete diligence on the proposal in order to achieve a decision by 01 November 2019’.
This motion is proposed to reflect that bus parking is now provided at Te Ahu for the large coach buses and the building on the corner of Blencowe Street, Kaitaia is not utilised as a bus operation business. The bus operations are now undertaken from Te Ahu, which has suitable bus parking and manoeuvering.
This is not a significant issue for the general public, with the exception of the parking issues that are created for the current business operating from the corner of Blencowe Street, being Haze Realestate. It would be appreciated if this matter can be sorted at these meetings through this notice of motion, as this matter has been on-going for many months.
Councillor Felicity Foy
3 October 2019 |
6 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
6.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
File Number: A2564574
Author: Melissa Wood, Meetings Administrator
Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Governance Support
Purpose of the Report
The minutes of the previous Council meeting are attached to allow the Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record
That Council confirm that the minutes of: a) the meeting of the Far North District Council held 29 August 2019 are a true and correct record. b) the extraordinary meeting of the Far North District Council held 5 September 2019 are a true and correct record. c) the extraordinary meeting of the Far North District Council held 18 September 2019 are a true and correct record. |
1) Background
Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 clause 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.
2) Discussion and Options
The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.
Reason for the recommendation
The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.
1. Council meeting - unconfirmed minutes 29 August 2019 - A2633741 ⇩
2. Extraordinary Council meeting - unconfirmed minutes 5 September 2019 - A2647816 ⇩
3. Extraordinary Council meeting 18 September (12 pm to 1:30 pm) - unconfirmed minutes - A2670749 (under separate cover)
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
This is a matter of low significance |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report. |
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
3 October 2019 |
MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council
Meeting
HELD AT THE Council
Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 29 August
2019 AT 10.00
am
PRESENT: John Carter (His Worship the Mayor),Cr Tania McInnes (Deputy Mayor), Cr Ann Court, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Dave Hookway, Cr Colin (Toss) Kitchen, Cr Sally Macauley, Cr Mate Radich, Cr John Vujcich, Cr Kelly Stratford
IN ATTENDANCE: Mike Edmonds - Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson, Terry Greening - Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Chairperson, Adele Gardner - Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson, Rachel Smith – Member of Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board, Louis Toorenburg – Member of Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board
STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke - Chief Executive Officer, Andy Finch - General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management, Dean Myburgh - General Manager District Services, Darrel Sargent – General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy, William J Taylor MBE – General Manager Corporate Services, Darren Edwards – General Manager Environmental, Community and Customer Services, Janice Smith – Chief Financial Officer, George Swanepoel – In-House Counsel, Richard Edmondson – Manager Communications, Jill Coyle – Manager People and Capability, Glenn Rainham – Manager Infrastructure Operations, Roger Ackers – Manager Strategic Development, Sheryl Gavin – Manager Corporate Planning and Community Development, David Clamp – Manager Infrastructure Project Delivery, Caroline Wilson – Manager District Administration, Aram Goes – Manager Operations and Maintenance, Kaye Lethbridge – Property Legalisation Officer, Trevor Green – Senior Roading Engineer, Aisha Huriwai – Team leader Governance Support, Kim Hammond – Meetings Administrator
1 Prayer
His Worship the Mayor commenced the meeting with a prayer.
2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
That apologies from Cr Colin Kitchen be received and accepted.
The Mayor advised that he would be departing shortly to attend a family members funeral.
3 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTs
- Oruru Hall update.
4 Deputation
Cr Sally Macauley introduced Sophie Kelly from Bay of Islands Arts Festival.
At 10:16 am, Mayor John Carter left the meeting and Cr Tania McInnes (Deputy Chair) took the Chair.
5 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTs continued
- Ombudsman Report.
- Election Announcements.
- Acknowledged the Bay of Islands Watchdogs and their work.
6 Notice of Motion
6.1 Notice of Revocation - Revoking previous resolution for Kerikeri Bus Stop Agenda item 5.1 document number A2609323, pages 14 - 15 refers |
Resolution 2019/13 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Tania McInnes That Council agrees that the resolution 10.1 titled Cobham Road Bus Stop that was passed at the meeting of Council on 27 June 2019 be rescinded. “a) Council approves in principle the relocation of bus services out of the Kerikeri CBD as a matter of urgent public safety. b) Council agrees the appropriate mechanism for this matter to be resolved, in a timely manner, is for this matter to be delegated for action at an officer level. c) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to negotiate with FNHL for the interim use of the BOI airport terminal for coach parking facilities. d) once the new coach park facility is operational the designation for a bus stop on Cobham Road, Kerikeri be revoked. e) the Chief Executive Officer to report back to Council on costs / financial option”. Carried |
7 Confirmation of Previous Minutes
7.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes Agenda item 6.1 document number A2577042, pages 16 - 46 refers |
Resolution 2019/14 Moved: Cr Sally Macauley Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy That Council: a) confirms the minutes of the Council meeting held 27 June 2019 as a true and correct record based on the following amendments: i) Cr Dave Hookway voted against Item 12 Resolution to Exclude the Public and Item 17 Resolution to Exclude the Public and requested that his vote be recorded. ii) Add the report on the District Wide Unsealed Roads Prioritisation of the roads to the tabled attachments. Carried |
Resolution 2019/15 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford b) confirms the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held 4 July 2019 as a true and correct record Carried Against: Cr Dave Hookway |
8 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board
8.1 Easement over local purpose (utility reserve) lot 33 DP166614 - Landing Road, Kerikeri (RC 2190583) Agenda item 7.1 document number A2609022, pages 47 - 54 refers |
Resolution 2019/16 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford That the Far North District Council: a) In its role as administering body of the local purpose (utility) reserve and pursuant to its powers under Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, grants an easement over the local purpose (utility) reserve held in RT NA101A/441 being Lot 33 DP 166614, shown in Donaldson’s plan 7202a, in favour of Lot 29 DP 166614; and b) In its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to the granting of the aforementioned easement. Carried In Favour: Crs Tania McInnes, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Sally Macauley, Mate Radich, John Vujcich and Kelly Stratford Abstained: Cr Dave Hookway carried 7/1 |
9 Audit, Risk, and Finance Committee
9.1 Risk Management Policy Agenda item 8.1 document number A2589255, pages 55 - 60 refers |
Resolution 2019/17 Moved: Cr John Vujcich Seconded: Cr Ann Court That Council adopt the 2019 Risk Management Policy. Carried |
10 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
10.1 Roland's Wood Trust Agenda item 9.1 document number A2519787, pages 61 - 82 refers |
Resolution 2019/18 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Ann Court That Council: a) confirms its previous decision made at the Council meeting of 5 May 2016: “THAT the responsibility for development, maintenance, operation and administration of Roland’s Wood is transferred to the Trust established by the Friends of Roland’s Wood, along with the balance of the funds settled with Council for the purpose of maintaining Roland’s Wood in accordance with the Roland’s Wood Trust Deed, subject to a) agreement from the High Court; and b) an agreement between the Trust and Council regarding future planning, funding, reporting and liaison
b) notes that the land that Roland’s Wood sits on will continue to be in the ownership of Council.” Carried |
11 Strategic Planning and Policy Group
11.1 Regional Plan - Genetically Modified Organisms Decision Agenda item 10.3 document number A2594359, pages 111 - 114 refers |
Resolution 2019/19 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford That Council resolve to appeal Northland Regional Councils decision on the Proposed Regional Plan as it relates to the inclusion of provisions to control genetically modified organisms under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In Favour: Crs Tania McInnes, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Dave Hookway, Sally Macauley, Mate Radich, John Vujcich and Kelly Stratford Against: Nil Carried |
12 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group continued
12.1 KERIKERI WASTE WATER ADDITIONAL BUDGET FUNDING Agenda item 9.2 document number A2594359, pages 83 - 85 refers |
Resolution 2019/20 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Sally Macauley That Council approves a Project Budget increase of $1,500,000.00 (One million five hundred thousand dollars) to enable completion of the Kerikeri Wastewater Treatment Plant within current scope and timeframe. In Favour: Crs Tania McInnes, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Sally Macauley, Mate Radich, John Vujcich and Kelly Stratford Against: Cr Dave Hookway Carried |
13 Strategic Planning and Policy Group
13.1 Proposed Speed Limit Changes - Okaihau - Kaeo - Waimate North Areas Agenda item 10.1 document number A2577016, pages 86 - 106 refers |
Resolution 2019/21 Moved: Cr Ann Court Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford That Council: a) Adopts the attached “Statement of Proposal – Speed Limits Review – Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate Review Area – Proposed Variable School Zones” for consultation. b) Undertakes consultation on the proposed changes to speed limits set out in the attached Statement of Proposal in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedures set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. c) Commences consultation in late October 2019, following the completion of local body elections. d) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the attached Statement of Proposal and to approve the final design and layout of the documents prior to printing and publication. Carried Note: Cr Stratford requested that further Speed Limit Reviews in low social economic parts of the district be reviewed and addressed. |
13.2 Governance Diagnostic Assessment Agenda item 10.2 document number A2578079, pages 107 - 110 refers |
Resolution 2019/22 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Ann Court That Council: a) approves the LGNZ.EquiP recommendations and instructs the Chief Executive Officer to develop an implementation plan based on the recommendations. b) the Chief Executive Officer returns to Council with an update report before the end of March 2020. Carried |
13.3 Sister City Relationship Between Far North District and Chaozhou City, China Agenda item 10.4 document number A2607807, pages 115 - 127 refers |
Resolution 2019/23 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Sally Macauley That the request for a sister city relationship with Chaozhou City, China be deferred for consideration until 2020. Carried Against: Cr Mate Radich |
The meeting was adjourned from 11.15 am to 11.24 am.
14 Corporate Services Group
14.1 Capital Carry Forwards June 2019 Agenda item 11.1 document number A2603944, pages 128 - 136 refers |
Resolution 2019/24 Moved: Cr John Vujcich Seconded: Cr Tania McInnes That Council approves the capital budgets identified in the report “Carry Forward for Capital Programme 2018-19” totalling $26,394,452 be carried forward to the 2019-20 financial year. Carried |
14.2 Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer during the Election Period Agenda item 11.2 document number A2608403, pages 137 - 140 refers |
Motion Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Ann Court That Council: a) Delegates all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, other than those that are statute based, to the Chief Executive from 4 October 2019 until 30 October 2019. This will be subject to a requirement that the Chief Executive Officer: i. may only attend to those matters that cannot reasonably await the first meeting of the new Council and; ii. shall report any decisions made beyond his usual delegation to the first ordinary meeting of the new Council. Amendment Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford Seconded: Cr Dave Hookway That Council a) delegates all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, other than those that are statute based, to the Chief Executive from 22 October 2019 to 30 October 2019. b) delegations will be subject to the limitations set out in the Local Government Act set out in Clause32(1) of the seventh schedule and to a requirement to consult with the person elected to the position of Mayor and will only be used to matters that cannot wait for the first meeting of the new Council. c) any urgent decisions that need to be made during this period will require calling an extraordinary council meeting. d) delegation will exclude the awarding of the Swimming Pools contract. In Favour: Crs Tania McInnes, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Dave Hookway, Sally Macauley, Mate Radich, John Vujcich and Kelly Stratford Against: Nil carried 8/0 resolution 2019/25 The amendment became the substantive motion That Council a) delegates all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, other than those that are statute based, to the Chief Executive from 22 October 2019 to 30 October 2019. b) delegations will be subject to the limitations set out in the Local Government Act set out in Clause32(1) of the seventh schedule and to a requirement to consult with the person elected to the position of Mayor and will only be used to matters that cannot wait for the first meeting of the new Council. c) any urgent decisions that need to be made during this period will require calling an extraordinary council meeting. d) delegation will exclude the awarding of the Swimming Pools contract. In Favour: Crs Tania McInnes, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Dave Hookway, Sally Macauley, Mate Radich, John Vujcich and Kelly Stratford Against: Nil Carried |
15 Chief Executive Officer
15.1 CEO Report to Council 01 June 2019 - 31 July 2019 Agenda item 12.1 document number A2602047, pages 140 - 183 refers |
Resolution 2019/26 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Ann Court That the Council receive the report “CEO Report to Council 01 June 2019 - 31 July 2019“. Carried Note: Councillors request that information on the Animal Shelters and statistics on the Council’s compliance with monitoring and hygiene be included in future CEO reports. Note: Councillors wish to thank the Footpath and Cycleways Project Manager for his work being undertaken on the Footpaths with the Community Boards. |
16 Information Reports
16.1 Elected Member Report - Road Controlling Authorities Forum 2 August 2019 Agenda item 13.1 document number A2609439, pages 184 - 191 refers |
Resolution 2019/27 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr John Vujcich That Council note the report entitled “Elected Member Report - Road Controlling Authorities Forum dated 10 August 2019”. Carried |
The meeting was adjourned from 12.13 pm to 12.48 pm.
17 Public Excluded
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Resolution 2019/28 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr John Vujcich That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject matter 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 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
Against: Cr Dave Hookway Carried |
19 Confirmation of Information and Decisions in Open Meeting |
Resolution 2019/29 Moved: Cr Tania McInnes Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy That Council confirms: a) that the information contained in the part of the meeting held with the public excluded is not to be restated in public meeting; and b) the following decisions contained in the part of the meeting held with the public excluded be restated in public meeting: 18.4 Kaeo Wastewater Scheme Telemetry System Upgrade That Council: a) endorses the Kaeo Wastewater Scheme Telemetry System Upgrade works be directly awarded to REDACTED. 18.5 Approval of Three Additional Building Consultants to BCA Supplier Panel That the Council: a) approve an addition of three suppliers to the Building Consent Supplier Panel. 18.6 Priority Seal Extension Programme 2019-2020 That Council approves: a) the sealing of unsealed sections of Porotu Road, Puketi Road and Koropewa Road, Kumi Road, Otangaroa Road and Church Road. 18.7 Chief Executive Performance Agreement 2019/20 That the Council adopts the Chief Executive Performance Agreement for 2019-20 in Attachment 1 (A2610874), with the addition to 1. Critical Success Factors for the CE - Council Climate Change road map 2020 (notwithstanding any earlier requirement to prepare for a national resilience and adaptation deadline within 2020). 18.8 Options and Recommendation to build Animal Shelters at Ngawha and Kaitaia That Council: a) approves the construction of additional kennels at Bonnets Road, Kaitiaia c) That the CEO undertake a re-examination of location preferences for the primary Southern Animal Care Facility and present a new proposal to Council. Carried |
20 Meeting Close
The meeting closed at 3.20 pm.
The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 3 October 2019.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
3 October 2019 |
MINUTES OF Far North District
Council
Extraordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial
Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 5 September 2019 AT 12:30pm
PRESENT: Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Cr Tania McInnes (Deputy Mayor), Cr Ann Court, Cr Colin (Toss) Kitchen, Cr Sally Macauley, Cr Mate Radich, Cr John Vujcich, Cr Kelly Stratford
IN ATTENDANCE: Adele Gardner - Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson, Shaun Riley – Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Member, Jane Hurst – Tattico Limited
STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke - Chief Executive Officer, Andy Finch - General Manager Infrastructure & Asset Management, Dean Myburgh - General Manager District Services, Darren Edwards – General Manager Environmental Community and Customer Services, Darrell Sargent – General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy, Richard Edmondson – Manager Communications, Roger Ackers – Manager Strategy Development, Chris Sargent – Team Leader Strategy, Louise Wilson – Team Leader Resource Consents, Brad Hedger – Resource Consents Engineer, Kim Hammond – Meetings Administrator
1 Prayer
His Worship the Mayor commenced the meeting with a prayer.
2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest
That the apology received from Cr Dave Hookway for absences and Cr Sally Macauley who will need to leave the meeting at 12.45 pm be accepted.
3 Deputation
Nil
4 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Nil
5 Strategic Planning and Policy Group
5.1 Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 Deliberations Agenda item 5.1 document number A2630417, pages 14 - 19 refers |
Resolution 2019/30 Moved: Mayor John Carter Seconded: Cr Ann Court That Council agree to make the following changes to the Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 prior to the adoption: a) Modify section 7.1 to read as follows; 7.1 Where a Resource Consent for earthworks and/or filling is not required under the Far North District Plan, then no person shall carry out or cause to be carried out, any excavation, cellar construction of filling until the Council’s approval has been obtained and a permit has been issued for earthworks:
b) that is beyond 3 metres of any boundary or water body, in any zone, except Mineral zone and Rural Production zone, and: i. exceeds 500mm in depth, over an area that exceeds 50m2; or ii. exceeds 50m3 Carried Against: Cr John Vujcich |
At 12:45 pm, Cr Sally Macauley left the meeting.
At 12:47 pm, Cr Tania McInnes left the meeting. At 12:49 pm, Cr Tania McInnes returned to the meeting.
6 Meeting Close
The meeting closed at 1:03 pm.
The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Council Meeting to be held on 3 October 2019.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
3 October 2019 |
6.2 Alteration of Previous Decision - Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer During the Election Period
File Number: A2681899
Author: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Governance Support
Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services
Purpose of the Report
To seek clarification about the intent of a decision made at the 29 August 2019 Council meeting regarding delegations to the Chief Executive Officer during the election period.
Executive Summary
· Council considered a report at their 29 August 2019 meeting.
· The report sought Council’s approval to increase the Chief Executive’s delegations during the election period.
· At the meeting members amended the motion.
· This report seeks clarification on the intent of the decision as the decision recorded is contradictory.
That the Council alters its decision of 29 August 2019 to read as follows: a) delegates all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, to the Chief Executive from 22 October 2019 to 30 October 2019 subject to; i. the limitations set out in the Local Government Act set out in Clause32(1) of the seventh schedule, ii. a requirement to consult with the person elected to the position of Mayor, iii. matters that cannot wait for the first meeting of the new Council. b) delegation will exclude the awarding of the Swimming Pools contract. |
1) Background
At the 29 August Council meeting, a report titled Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer during the election period was considered.
During debate, amendments were made and the decision recorded in the unconfirmed minutes was:
That Council:
a) delegates all of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, other than those that are statute based, to the Chief Executive from 22 October 2019 to 30 October 2019.
b) delegations will be subject to the limitations set out in the Local Government Act set out in Clause32(1) of the seventh schedule and to a requirement to consult with the person elected to the position of Mayor and will only be used to matters that cannot wait for the first meeting of the new Council.
c) any urgent decisions that need to be made during this period will require calling an extraordinary council meeting.
d) delegation will exclude the awarding of the Swimming Pools contract.
A copy of the original report is available in the 29 August 2019 Council meeting as item 11.2 or online at https://infocouncil.fndc.govt.nz/default.aspx?committee=1&year=2019&month=8
2) Discussion and Options
The recommendation in this report includes some formatting changes:
a) splitting out ‘part b’ into ‘parts a(i), a(ii) and a(iii)’,
b) removing ‘terms other than those that are statute based’, as it is clearly stated as part a(i)
Part c) of the resolution, contradicts part a) so this report seeks clarification of the intent, and recommends that the decision be altered to remove ‘part c, any urgent decisions that need to be made during this period will require calling an extraordinary meeting.’
Option 1
If the intent was to approve a delegation to the Chief Executive, as per part a, then there would be no need for an extraordinary meeting from 22 October to 30 October, this can be with the exemptions covered in parts b and d (part a(i)(ii)(iii) and b, as recommended)
If this is the intent then ‘part c - any urgent decisions that need to be made during this period will require calling an extraordinary council meeting’, should be removed from the motion.
Option 2
If the intent was for any urgent decisions to require an extraordinary or emergency meeting, there would be no need for any delegation, and this would have been status quo.
An emergency meeting was recently added to the Local Government Act to provide for the Chief Executive to call an emergency meeting, where an extraordinary meeting needs to be called by the Mayor or resolution of Council.
Given that Council has since passed a resolution, if this was the intent then the Council would now need to pass a motion to revoke its decision of 29 August 2019.
Reason for the recommendation
To clarify the decision made at the 29 August 2019 Council meeting.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provision.
Nil
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
This is a matter of low significance. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Although this is standard practice, there is no legislation to support the decision. Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act however is referenced as the specific legislation that states the powers that cannot be delegated to a subordinate decision making body, community board or member of office of the Far North District Council. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
This report is of district relevance. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
There are no implications of Māori in shifting delegations form the Council to the Chief Executive. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities. |
This report requests the delegation be shifted from the Council to the Chief Executive Officer and does not impact any other persons. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provisions. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report. |
7 Infrastructure and Asset Management Group
7.1 3 Waters and District Facilities Asset Condition Assessment Programme
File Number: A2639671
Author: Kirsty Farrow, Team Leader - Asset Management
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To seek approval to commence a 3 Waters and District Facilities asset condition assessment programme.
Executive Summary
· Roading asset management and condition assessments are undertaken by the Northern Transportation Alliance.
· The need for better asset condition data has been identified at a strategic level
· Minimal asset condition date is currently collected
· Renewal programmes are mainly determined through aged based asset profiles
· Increased investment in asset condition data collection is required to enhance the quality and robustness of decision making
· Improved condition data will support key asset management objectives
· The cost of undertaking condition surveys is significant and currently unbudgeted.
That Council: a) Approves $250,000 unbudgeted Operational expenditure for 2019/2020 to commence the programme of condition surveys b) Notes the requirement for $9 Million Operational funding over 10 years to implement a 3 Waters and District Facilities asset condition assessment programme. This requirement to be reflected in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan and 2021/2031 Long Term Plan c) Notes that there will be an ongoing requirement for Operational funding post 2031 for ongoing asset condition monitoring. |
1) Background
Historically asset management for 3 Waters and District Facilities within Council has been the responsibility of a small team located within the Infrastructure and Asset Management Group. This largely ignored the need for a wider focus for asset management activity across the multiple functions of Council.
Roading asset management is, and will continue to be, delivered through the Northern Transportation Alliance (NTA). The NTA use Road Assessment and Maintenance Management (RAMM) software as their asset management system, supported through regular condition surveys of the roading network. This arrangement will not change as a result of this proposal.
One of the ‘significant issues’ identified in the 2018-28 Infrastructure Strategy was “A largely age based approach to asset management and the need to strengthen asset condition information, processes and systems increases the risk of sub-optimal investment decisions”.
This theme of improving the quality of asset data was also echoed in the 2017 Council Mark assessment, and again in the Council Mark shadow review undertaken in July/August 2019, where the need for aspirational intent to be translated into actioned delivery was noted.
Asset Management is included in Council’s Top 12 Risk Dashboard:
Council has recently launched Programme Darwin, a transformational change programme to build Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) capability.
The vision for Programme Darwin is to build a strong enterprise asset management capability that uses data to inform decision-making on our assets. There are four interlinked work streams to deliver this vision:
1. implementing an asset management system
2. managing the asset management lifecycle (LAMP)
3. people & culture
4. data & analytics.
Put simply, we cannot achieve the vision for Programme Darwin to optimally manage our assets and enable robust financial decision-making if we don’t collect and maintain data on asset condition.
The Council meeting held on 27 June 2019 approved the appointment of INFOR as Council’s supplier for its asset management system. Full implementation of the system will take until 2021, noting that the quality of information produced is still subject to the quality of the input data.
Understanding the health of our assets plays an important part in evidence-based decision making; condition is a key element of asset health. It also allows Council to make informed decisions around budget, risk and level of service. There is currently no planned condition assessment programme and no specific budget.
Currently condition assessments are done on an ad-hoc basis and do not form part of a planned and scheduled activity. They are generally reactive with information generally coming from the reports from Council suppliers responding to specific issues, which in turn prompts investigation that may include an assessment of condition. This reactive approach, along with financial depreciation models, has been driving the renewals programmes in the absence of the good quality condition data.
Historically there has been no standard condition grading approach or storage of condition data for each asset in the asset register. Any condition information collected was typically in the form of one-off reports or surveys that were used for short term / localised decision making rather than building up a picture of overall asset condition.
The benefits of undertaking a planned and managed approach to asset condition monitoring are:
§ Accurate renewal forecasting and budgeting
§ Reduced risk of early asset failure
§ Better understanding of the type, timing, and cost of future maintenance (e.g. repairs) to optimise asset life
§ Reduced reactive renewal and maintenance spend
§ Less unplanned disruption to service
§ Opportunities to coordinate with other Council activities (e.g. renewal of failing pipes ahead of road renewal)
§ Better management of risks associated with critical assets
§ Identification of H&S issues
§ Maintaining the required levels of service
§ Accurate asset valuations and levels of insurance
§ Improved reporting to elected members.
2) Discussion and Options
The need for improved asset condition data has been identified and to achieve this a planned and proactive approach is required. A rolling programme of condition assessments is proposed, which ensures assessments are undertaken at the required frequency and are to an agreed standard.
The condition of an asset can be assessed through physical inspection (such as CCTV survey) or through use of theoretical models (based on the expected deterioration of a particular asset). Theoretical models are a cost-effective tool for long-term planning, but should be supported by physical inspection data.
An example of how FNDC can benefit from investment in good quality condition assessment is included in Attachment 1. This example considers stormwater pipes and is based on CCTV survey data that has recently been collected through the professional fees budget.
Option 1 (recommended option): That Council invest in a programme of asset condition surveys across 3 Waters and District Facilities.
A condition assessment cost schedule, detailed below, has been produced for all 3 Waters and District Facilities assets based on the following:
§ Assessment method
§ Assessment frequency
§ Asset quantity
§ Unit rates
§ Criticality
§ Backlog
The cost schedule has been based on a balance between annual cost impact and deliverability. The overall programme could be reduced but the annual cost would increase.
Financial year |
Wastewater |
Stormwater |
Water supply |
District facilities |
Total |
FY 21 |
$528,519 |
$246,582 |
$279,644 |
$135,864 |
$1,190,608 |
FY 22 |
$528,519 |
$224,691 |
$241,644 |
$105,424 |
$1,100,278 |
FY 23 |
$528,519 |
$186,880 |
$241,644 |
$34,152 |
$991,195 |
FY 24 |
$440,433 |
$176,267 |
$218,370 |
$145,572 |
$980,641 |
FY 25 |
$396,389 |
$181,061 |
$206,733 |
$99,618 |
$883,801 |
FY 26 |
$396,389 |
$140,160 |
$142,733 |
$106,814 |
$786,096 |
FY 27 |
$396,389 |
$160,693 |
$104,733 |
$46,126 |
$707,941 |
FY 29 |
$396,389 |
$178,176 |
$104,733 |
$122,214 |
$801,512 |
FY 28 |
$396,389 |
$177,971 |
$104,733 |
$99,618 |
$778,711 |
FY 30 |
$396,389 |
$160,693 |
$104,733 |
$45,379 |
$707,195 |
TOTAL |
$4,404,326 |
$1,833,174 |
$1,749,700 |
$940,780 |
$8,927,980 |
The schedule was developed using the best available information and will be further developed and refined as our understanding of the cost of collecting asset condition information improves.
The funding requirement spans the current Long Term Plan period. According Council approval of funding beyond the current year 2019/2020 will be subject to future deliberations through the Annual Plan (2020/2021) and the next Long Term Plan (2021/2031).
However, to ensure that work can commence on asset condition surveys during this year (2019/2020), approval is sought for $250k of unbudgeted operational funding.
Once the planned programme of condition surveys is completed, there will be an ongoing requirement for additional operational funding to update and refresh the condition data held. It has not been possible to quantify this at this time.
Option 2: Maintain status-quo with no annual budget allocated to asset condition assessment
This results in a continued reliance on a largely theoretical (age-based) condition data and reactive (ad-hoc) assessment of 3 Waters and District Facilities for asset planning. This carries increased risk for Council.
The current annual expenditure on condition surveys is less than $50,000.
Reason for the recommendation
The recommended Option 1 is proposed to deliver increased investment to improve our understanding of asset condition and support effective management of Council 3 Waters and District Facility assets.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Asset condition surveys are an operational cost and are therefore rate funded.
The rating implications of budget changes to be reflected in 2020/2021 will be considered by Elected Members during the Annual Plan deliberations. Equally budgets required beyond 2021 will be considered during the next Long Term Plan process.
However, to commence the programme of condition surveys an unbudgeted Operational budget of $250k is required in the current financial year.
1. Example of the benefits of additional investment in condition assessment - A2656641 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
The report is considered to be of high significance as one of the ‘significant issues’ identified in the 2018-28 Infrastructure Strategy was “A largely age based approach to asset management and the need to strengthen asset condition information, processes and systems increases the risk of sub-optimal investment decisions”. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
As stated above - One of the ‘significant issues’ identified in the 2018-28 Infrastructure Strategy was “A largely age based approach to asset management and the need to strengthen asset condition information, processes and systems increases the risk of sub-optimal investment decisions”. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
This is a Council decision and sits outside of any Community Boards delegations. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
This is an internal assessment and funding will have an impact district wide on ratepayers. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities. |
This will have an impact on ratepayers districtwide in the short-term however, long-term benefits is stable, accurate and condition based infrastructure for the district. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
This is outside of any current budgets and will have an impact on ratepayer’s districtwide. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report. |
3 October 2019 |
8 Strategic Planning and Policy Group
8.1 Kerikeri Domain Governance Report
File Number: A2594185
Author: Rachael Pull, Specialist Planner - Urban Design
Authoriser: Sheryl Gavin, General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
To report back to Council on the options for the governance of Kerikeri Domain as directed in the 27 June 2019 Council meeting and recommend the establishment of an incorporated society.
Executive Summary
· At the 27 June 2019 Council meeting the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board (Community Board) recommended that the Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan (Management Plan) be adopted subject to changes that resulted from submissions on the proposed Management Plan. The changes included an action for the Council ‘…to consider the establishment of an incorporated society representing the community to manage and oversee the [Kerikeri] Domain”.
· This report recommends the establishment of an incorporated society as it will represent the users of the Kerikeri Domain and it will have the ability to fundraise and implement the actions within the Management Plan.
That Council a) supports the creation of an incorporated society whose purpose is to manage the Kerikeri Domain. b) approves administration calls for expressions of interest from the public for people willing to establish an incorporated society and facilitate the establishment of it. c) agrees to enter into a formal agreement with the incorporated society and establishes a budget in accordance with the Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan.
|
1) Background
The Management Plan was prepared under section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977. It sets out how the Kerikeri Domain will be used and managed over the next ten years. During the consultation process and in the submissions received, there were multiple requests from the public to re-establish a governing body for the Kerikeri Domain. This was incorporated by the Community Board into the Management Plan and adopted by Council on 27 June 2019. The action states:
“Within six months, Council in partnership with the Community Board and community consider the establishment of an incorporated society representing the community to manage and oversee the Domain”.
As part of the resolution to adopt the Management Plan, Council also resolved that they would receive a report outlining the options for the establishment of a reserve management committee. This is a different governance body to that preferred by the Community Board and included as an action item in the Management Plan.
The attached Kerikeri Domain Governance Report discusses the options for both types of governing bodies as well as governance remaining with Council. There is no option for a reserve management committee that is also an incorporated society as Council has received legal advice against this.
2) Discussion and Options
The purpose of looking at alternative governance bodies has come out of several factors:
· The special significance of Kerikeri Domain;
· The previous difficultly in providing new infrastructure and activities in the Kerikeri Domain;
· The potential for fundraising to implement the actions in the Management Plan; and
· The long history of the Kerikeri Domain being managed directly by the public.
All governing bodies are required to be consistent with the Management Plan. The types of governing bodies that are considered are:
Option 1 – Status Quo – governance remains with Council
Status quo is the governance remaining with Council. Activities within the Management Plan are discussed with administration to ensure that they are implemented correctly, but can be fundraised and implemented by anyone. Activities not provided for in the Management Plan are taken to Council for consideration.
Option 2 – Community Board
Option two is the delegation of the governance of the Kerikeri Domain to the Community Board. The majority of reserves are delegated to the community boards to administer on behalf of Council.
Activities within the Management Plan are discussed with administration to ensure that they are implemented correctly, but can be fundraised and implemented by anyone. Activities not provided for in the Management Plan are taken to the Community Board for consideration.
Option 3 – Reserve Management Committee
Option three is the establishment of a reserve management committee (committee). This would be a committee of Council that would be appointed every election cycle to manage the Kerikeri Domain on behalf of Council. They would oversee the daily management of the Kerikeri Domain and make recommendations to Council as required. There would be at least one elected member on the committee.
Activities within the Management Plan are discussed with administration to ensure that they are implemented correctly, but can be fundraised and implemented by anyone. New activities would be considered by the committee who would make a recommendation to Council.
Option 4 – Incorporated Society
Option four is the establishment of an incorporated society to manage the Kerikeri Domain on behalf of Council. This involves administration supporting community members to create an incorporated society which will then create a formal agreement with Council to manage the Kerikeri Domain. Under this option the community will have to work together to establish the incorporated society and then create the agreement with Council. Council’s control over the Kerikeri Domain would be limited to what is set out in the agreement with the incorporated society.
Each governance option is compared against the factors the raised during consultation on why a governance body was required. These factors are listed earlier in this report.
Governance Body |
Recognition of significance |
Difficultly in implementing actions |
Fundraising potential |
Community Input |
Council |
High – By remaining with Council the Kerikeri Domain remains a significant district wide asset. |
Low – Actions within the Management Plan can be implemented once the maintenance costs are approved by Administration. |
Medium – Community Groups can use the Management Plan to help raise funds to implement actions. However this is on an ad hoc basis. |
Low – Community input limited to consultation for the Management Plan and submissions during the Ten Year/Annual Plan process. |
Community Board |
Medium – The Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan states its significance. |
|||
Reserve Management Committee |
High – A separate governance group and budget for the Kerikeri Domain which recognises its value to the community. |
Medium – Some actions will need to go through the governance body as well as Council. |
Medium – Committees are usually limited to the day to day running of the reserve. |
|
Incorporated Society |
High – As a body independent from Council but with the mandate to fundraise, there will be the ability and the drive to achieve funding outside the Ten Year/Annual Plan process. |
High – The current incorporated society governing a reserve on behalf of Council is directly responsible for implementing parts of the Management Plan. |
Reason for the recommendation
It is recognised that the community has a long history of investing time and energy into the Kerikeri Domain, and the submissions received during the Management Plan process reconfirmed that the community wished to continue to be involved as much as possible. Since the adoption of the Management Plan, community interest in the makeup of any governance body has remained high.
It is recommended that an incorporated society is established (option 4) to manage the Kerikeri Domain because it will achieve the best outcomes for the community based on the criteria above.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED OPTION
Appointment of members of the governance body
Should the Council resolve to establish either a reserve management committee or an incorporated society to govern the Kerikeri Domain, the Council will also need to consider how it is established. Two options are provided below:
Option A - Direct appointment of members
Council has the ability to directly appoint members. The advantage of this option is that the members can be selected to represent a particular Kerikeri Domain user. The last group that managed the Kerikeri Domain were made up of:
• The Mayor
• A Councillor
• A Community Board member
• A sport representative
• A school representative
• A Kerikeri residents representative
• Chair
It is recommended that an iwi representative is added to this list as well as other user groups. This option is the quickest to implement. The risk is that Council may miss a key user, as many users of the Kerikeri Domain are not part of a club.
Option B – Call for nominations
This involves creating a form and advertising for nominations. For the committee, Council could then appoint from the nominations. For the incorporated society, administration can then facilitate meetings with the nominated people while they create the incorporated society. This option allows Council to consider a wider range of Kerikeri Domain users, including those who may not have an organisation to belong to. This process takes longer and until completed, the status quo would remain.
Implementation Recommendation
It is recommended that administration calls for expressions of interest to draw out members of the community who wish to be a part of managing the governance body (option B). This allows for a transparent and fair establishment of the governing body. Once established, Council can enter into a formal agreement regarding the management of the Kerikeri Domain and what level of funding Council should provide.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There will have to be a budget allocation once the incorporated society is established and this will come out of the operations budget for District Facilities as there is no current budget specifically for Kerikeri Domain. This will not happen until next financial year (2020/2021) and be reflected in the Annual Plan.
1. Kerikeri Domain Governance Report - A2611239 ⇩
2. Legal Advice regarding committees - A2611236 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
Although this is a legislative requirement and has already been consulted on during the Management Plan process, it involves the potential transfer of control of a strategic asset and is therefore of high significance. There is also a high level of local public interest in the establishment of a governing body. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Reserves Act 1977 – implementation of reserve management plans. Local Government Act 2002 – committees and Long Term Plan. Reserves Policy – reserve management committees.
|
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
The Community Board’s views were considered by the adoption of their recommendations to the Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan. An item informing them of this Council item went to the 23 September 2019 meeting. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
Māori were consulted with as part of the Kerikeri Domain Reserve Management Plan process. It is recommended that there is iwi representation on any governance body. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
As part of the legislative process, the Management Plan was open to the public for three months for submissions, which were heard by the Community Board. To address their submissions, an action to consider the governance of the Kerikeri Domain was put in the Management Plan which has led to this recommendation. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
This decision will result in funds being reallocated from the District Facilities operations budget to a new budget for the governance body next financial year (2020/2021). |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report. |
3 October 2019 |
8.2 Adoption of the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019
File Number: A2613923
Author: Chris Sargent, Team Leader - Strategy
Authoriser: Sheryl Gavin, General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide information to enable Council to deliberate on submissions received during the public consultation period for the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019.The report also provides the necessary information to enable Council to adopt the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 as per Attachment 2.
Executive Summary
· The Far North District Council’s proposed Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 was adopted on 27 June 2019 for public consultation. Consultation opened 8 July 2019 and closed on 9 August 2019.
· Eight submissions were received.
· A hearing was held to allow submitters to present in support of their submissions.
· This report:
o Contains information to allow Council to consider the submissions received and to determine whether the recommended changes to the draft bylaw will meet the purpose of the bylaw. Review of submissions received and additional discussions with Far North District Council staff have informed the recommendations to be included the final Land Drainage Bylaw 2019.
o Contains an assessment of the new Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 against the bylaw-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, and confirms that the new bylaw complies with these provisions.
o Recommends the new bylaw, in Attachment 2, be adopted.
That Council: a) agree to make the following changes to the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 prior to its adoption: i) Modify section 3 Application to read as follows: This bylaw applies to the land drainage areas identified in the schedule to this Bylaw. ii) Modify section 4 Purpose as follows: 1) Amend Clause 4.1 to read: The
purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate land drainage assets within the
(2) Insert new Clause 4.3 is inserted: “Note that this bylaw does not remove the need for any necessary resource consents (under the Resource Management Act 1991) from the Northland Regional Council.” (iii) Add a note to the Definition of “Council”: “Note that this bylaw does not remove the need for any necessary resource consents (under the Resource Management Act 1991) from the Northland Regional Council.” (iv) Within the bylaw, clarify approval requirements by distinguishing between resource consents and approvals under the bylaw by making the following changes to the following sections: 6.1 “Without the prior 6.2 “…without
having first obtained the prior written 7.1 “… without
obtaining the prior written 7.2 “…Any owner
applying for such 8.1 “…without the
prior written 10.1 “…without
the prior written 12.1 “…without
the prior written 12.2 “… without
the prior written 13.2 “… without
the prior written 14.1 “… without
the prior written The draft bylaw text has been amended in accordance with the staff discussion.
b) Determines under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that Land Drainage Bylaw 2019: i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; ii) does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; c) Makes the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 contained in Attachment 2 to come into effect on 7 October 2019.
|
1) Background
The Land Drainage Bylaw 2009 was automatically revoked in October 2016 when it expired.
The purpose of this bylaw is to enable regulation of privately-owned drainage assets within four specific drainage areas in Far North District, i.e. the Kaitaia, Kaikino, Waiharara and Motutangi drainage areas. These four drainage districts are overseen by Land Drainage Committees. The bylaw is used as a mechanism to require landowners to maintain and keep drains clear. It also ensures FNDC has access to maintain the flow of water within the drainage channel. It does this primarily through weed control. Overall, the Land Drainage Bylaw is fundamentally intended to address issues of public health and safety, property damage, nuisance, and environmental protection.
Given its revoked status, the Land Drainage Bylaw 2009 was included in the Revoked Bylaw Review Programme which was carried out by FNDC staff and consultants Tattico. The initial review of the purpose, need and risk associated with the revoked status recommended that this bylaw should have high priority for renewal. The risk of not having a bylaw means that there is potential for damage and obstruction to the channels, which could have significant impacts on contiguous properties and affected landowners. Furthermore, FNDC’s ability to require remediation works and recover costs would be affected.
Specific bylaw provisions are required relating to matters such as access, maintenance, remediation, and penalties.
The Revoked Bylaw Review Programme recommended that the Land Drainage Bylaw could be enacted in its current form, with some updates to ensure it is easy to understand.
Consultation on the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 followed the requirements for making, amending, or revoking bylaws set out in Section 156 of the LGA. Consultation opened on July 8, 2019 and closed on August 9, 2019. In addition, Administration directly notified landowners paying targeted rates to fund the annual maintenance programme for each drainage districts by letter or email.
Eight submissions were received. Based on commentary provided in submissions, Administration undertook further consultation with its in-house Subject Matter Experts (‘SMEs’) to understand the concerns raised by submitters. Discussions with SMEs are recorded in the Summary of Submissions included in this report. Furthermore, an opportunity arose to update the Land Drainage Boards at their September (six-monthly) meeting regarding progress towards the reinstatement of the bylaw.
Given the minor nature of recommended changes following further in-depth discussion with SMEs on submissions received, it is anticipated that Council is in a position to deliberate on and adopt the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 at this meeting.
2) Discussion and Options
The table below summarises submissions and provides Administration’s recommendations for each submission. Administration will be at the deliberations meeting to provide further clarity or advice if the Elected Council requests it.
Submission area: |
Submission point: |
Submission ID |
Staff response and discussion of alternatives: |
Recommendation |
Definitions:
|
Define “minor damage”
|
LDB19/6 |
“Minor damage” is referred to in Clause 8.9 with reference to any permitted development potentially affecting any drainage channel will no cause “more than minor damage”. Discussions with SMEs found that minor damage could be described as incurring a cost of less than $1000, which would be cost recovered. Cost recoveries can be detailed in the Drainage Area Management Plans. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
|
Staff note |
Further discussions to receive explanation on submission points highlighted the purpose section, as also quoted in submission LDB19/3 “4.1 The purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate land drainage assets within the Far North District.” FNDC SMEs have explained that the purpose of the bylaw is not the regulation of all land drainage assets in the Far North district, but that it applies to identified land drainage areas. The definition of “Drainage Assets” in Section 5. Interpretation refines the purpose to those channels included in the Schedules to the Bylaw. |
It is recommended to amend: a) Section 3. Application to: “This bylaw applies to the land drainage areas identified in the schedule to this Bylaw.”
b) the purpose of the Bylaw to: “The purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate land drainage assets within land drainage areas identified in schedules to this Bylaw.
|
|
Replace the term ’consent” with permission or approval” |
LDB19/4 |
The term “consent” is not defined in Section 5 of the Bylaw. It appears in: 6.1 “Without the prior consent approval of Council…”; 6.2 “…without having first obtained the prior written consent approval of Council…”; 7.1 “… without obtaining the prior written consent approval of Council…”; 7.2 “…Any owner applying for such consent approval shall… 8.1 “…without the prior written consent approval of Council 10.1 “…without the prior written consent approval of Council”; 12.1 “…without the prior written consent approval of Council…”; 12.2 “… without the prior written consent approval of Council…”; 13.2 “… without the prior written consent approval of Council…”; 14.1 “… without the prior written consent approval of Council…”.
|
It is recommended that the bylaw text is clarified to distinguish between resource consents and approvals. The draft bylaw text has been amended in accordance with the staff discussion. |
Bylaw application: |
Applies to Far North District lands except that it does not apply to lands administered by the Department of Conservation. Relief requests the amendment of Clause 3 to read: This Bylaw applies to the Far North District except that is does not apply to land within the Far North District that is administered by the Department of Conservation. |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC SMEs provided that the Proposed Bylaw and its pre-cursor apply to drains created in accordance with the Land Drainage Act which includes DoC lands. These drains have been in existence for approximately 100 years, as discussed with the land drainage board and FNDC SMEs. FNDC SMEs explained that they cannot reduce the setback because of maintenance requirements that also apply to DoC lands. There is a need for a consistent approach to ensure that build-up of weed and pooling of water is prevented. FNDC has applied for a concession from DoC for the purpose of using the stream setback set out in the bylaw for maintenance purposes. This concession is currently being processed by DoC. Following the presentation by DoC at the hearing on August 22, 2019, FDNC staff have contacted DoC to further discuss the progress of the concession approval, however we did not receive a response. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
The application of the bylaw to public conservation land would be ineffective and unnecessary. FNDC is legally unable to undertake any activities on these land drainage assets within public conservation land without a legal agreement (a concession) from DoC. A concession, if granted, would provide for FNDC to undertake land drainage maintenance activities, subject to conditions intended to protect important ecological freshwater and wetland values. |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC SMEs disagree with DoC’s submission. The Bylaw enables maintenance staff to carry out maintenance without DoC’s approval and therefore the Bylaw is required. SMEs have stated that maintenance on DoC land is minimal and only undertaken where and when a concern has been identified. In addition, a concession application from FNDC staff to DoC is currently being processed to address access and maintenance. It is understood that FNDC is currently awaiting a response from DoC.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
Application of the Draft Drainage Bylaw to public conservation land would be ineffective and unnecessary. |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC SMEs provided that the Proposed Bylaw and its pre-cursor apply to drains created in accordance with the Land Drainage Act which includes DoC lands. These drains have been in existence for approximately 100 years, as discussed with the land drainage board and FNDC SMEs. FNDC SMEs disagree with DoC’s submission. There is potential for material to be flushed through DoC land, creating potential build-up of material. SMEs have stated that maintenance on DoC land is minimal and only undertaken where and when a concern has been identified. In addition, a concession application from FNDC staff to DoC is currently being processed to address access and maintenance. It is understood that FNDC is currently awaiting a response from DoC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
Access and setbacks |
Contractor access must be available within fences, drain crossings and boundaries
|
LDB19/2 |
Where maintenance work determines that insufficient access is available, the targeted rates, determined based on the maintenance work programme, may include and offer the installation of gates in fences to create such access. Discussions at Drainage Board meetings are robust and attended by FNDC staff to observe and understand where concerns have been identified. A drone has been funded to simplify ongoing maintenance work. Appropriate legal agreements and Civil Aviation Authority approvals may have to be in place for the operation of the drone over private land, while it’s use may have to be written into the management plans for each drainage area. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
Reduction of required cleared access along the edge of drains within any indigenous wetland or any area of indigenous wetland or in any culturally significant area to no more than 5 metres width; or such further reduced width as may be appropriate given the ecological or cultural significance |
LDN19/8 |
A concession application from FNDC staff to DoC is currently being processed to address access and maintenance. It is understood that FNDC is currently awaiting a response from DoC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. It is anticipated that the concession will be issued in due course. Management programmes can be built into the Management Plan associated with this bylaw until the bylaw will be reviewed in accordance with the required 5 year timeframe for new bylaws in the LGA. |
|
The current and proposed restrictions on development and access are excessive. Setback distances for access to and along drain should be reduced to 3m. Landscaping should be enabled within the setback of 3 without prior consent.
|
LDB19/6 |
This submission point relates to the setback from a drain where the adjacent lands were subdivided or developed; it is understood in discussion with SMEs that while in the case of a subdivision on Matthews Drain in Kaitaia the zone remained rural, the subdivision is residential and urban in nature. SMEs have explained that maintenance of the drain is paid for by FNDC/drainage boards, where stormwater drains into the drain. It is considered that where development where development concerns exist, that these are raised with the resource consent group at the time of the application for a subdivision or resource consent. Costs to pipe are drain should fall to the developer. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. Where open drains are upgraded to piped drains as a result of urban growth, the Bylaw Schedule must be updated to reflect this. In accordance with legal advice received, consultation to update the bylaw has to be in accordance with the significance of the amendment sought, but may be limited to directly affected parties.
|
Fencing: |
Drain fencing on either side of the drains required and gated access is provided. |
LDB19/2 |
The Bylaw does not require that the drains are fenced, but requires in Clause 6.1 that fences are not constructed within 10m from the bank of the drain. The Bylaw implies fencing where stock may graze up to 2m from the bank of a drain to avoid stock access in Clause 8.7. Clause 6.1 requires that no fencing is to be installed without the prior approval of the Council to ensure that adequate access can be provided to the drains for maintenance purposes. Maintenance and monitoring of drainage channels and reports back to the Land Drainage Committees highlight where fencing is required. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
No direct stock access to drains, given that drains also serve as water supply. |
LDB19/4 |
Clause 8.7 provides that stock may graze up to 2m from the drain to avoid adverse effects such as damage to the banks or sedimentation. Fencing is the responsibility of landowners, and Council may use the bylaw to enforce fencing. The use of the drains as water supply falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Council and is outside of the scope of this bylaw. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point |
|
Requests that setback for stock grazing and crops is increased to 10m. |
LDB 19/7 |
Stock grazing is permitted up to 2m from the bank of the drain, provided that fencing is in place to keep stock out and maintenance access to the drain is available. FNDC SMEs and discussions with drainage boards confirmed that increasing the setback for grazing would increase maintenance costs and would result in wasted feed. The bylaw does not specifically address cropping within the 10m setback, however where cropping would hinder maintenance access, the operator/landowner would be in breach of Clause 6.1 |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
There is no need to have setback controls if these are not observed (regarding the 2m grazing setback) |
LDB19/4 |
The submitter questions the application of the access Clause 6.1 which requires that fencing is set back by 10m from the bank of the drain, yet cattle may graze up to 2m from the bank. Fencing may be installed subject to approval from the Council (Clause 6.1), however it would have to provide gated access or be electric fencing. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
Protection of drainage assets: |
Requests explanation for how drain profiles and battering are managed |
LDB19/2 |
FNDC SME’s explain that drain profiles have largely been set by earlier work on the drains and that this profile is generally not changed. SMEs have also confirmed that battering of the drains is the responsibility of the landowner; it does not fall under the maintenance components as agreed to annually with the drainage boards, resulting in a targeted rate.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. However, depending on the soil conditions, battering guidelines can be provided in the management plans for each drainage district. |
Drain inventory and schedules/ mapping: |
Some drains are not shown and must be added (i.e. Spains road drain, Kaitaia area); Some drains must be removed (Kareponia which is a SH 1 road side drain). Matthews outfall is now within the urban environment, not managed in accordance with bylaw. |
LDB19/2 |
FNDC has commenced the collection of GPS coordinates to accurately locate the drains and to allow the development of a GIS overlay to provide resource consent and building consent staff with the location of the drains for consideration in resource consent building and applications. FNDC has also received approval to purchase a drone to map the drains. FNDC staff have received a legal opinion which requires an assessment of the significance of a schedule change to assess whether public consultation is required.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. The bylaw schedules will require updating at a later date once the maps have been updated. While schedules can be confirmed with relative ease through the drainage boards, the timing of drainage board meetings means that this would not be completed until March 2020 at the earliest. It is therefore recommended that the bylaw and schedules are adopted in their current form to ensure a bylaw is in place, it is understood that some compliance and enforcement is required and cannot be undertaken in the absence of an adopted bylaw. The updated schedules could then be updated a later date subject to a further consultation process, or at the latest as part of the five year review. |
|
FNDC building and planning staff should have access to drainage information (e.g. subdivision permits) to enable the placing of consent notices or covenants on title |
LDB19/2 |
FNDC has commenced the collection of GPS coordinates to accurately locate the drains and to allow the development of a GIS overlay to provide resource consent and building consent staff with the location of the drains for consideration in resource consent building and applications. The bylaw schedules will require updating. While IAM staff have commenced a GPS survey, limited resourcing means that this survey may not be complete until late 2020. FNDC staff have requested fee estimates from consultant groups to understand costs of such a the project and timing. A further update may be presented to the drainage boards, the community board and Council when available for discussion of inclusion of such fee as part of the targeted rate, apportioned to drainage areas. This work is not required to continue the deliberations process of the proposed bylaw. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. The bylaw schedules will require updating. While schedules can be confirmed with relative ease through the drainage boards, the timing of drainage board meetings means that this would not be completed until March 2020 at the earliest. It is therefore recommended that the bylaw and schedules are adopted in their current form to ensure a bylaw is in place, it is understood that some compliance and enforcement is required and can not be undertaken in the absence of an adopted bylaw. The updated schedules could then be updated a later date subject to a further consultation process, or at the latest as part of the five year review. |
|
Show key features such as crossings points, culverts and bridges on the maps so we understand what is authorized. |
LDB19/4 |
The bylaw schedules will require updating. While IAM staff have commenced a GPS survey, limited resourcing means that this survey may not be complete until late 2020. FNDC staff have requested fee estimates from consultant groups to understand costs of such a project and timing. Showing key features would increase survey costs. A further update may be presented to the drainage boards, the community board and Council when available for discussion of inclusion of such fee as part of the targeted rate, apportioned. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
Amenity value |
Bylaw reduces amenity value and development potential adjoining the drainage channels through limitations on plantings within 10m from the drain or the construction of a building or fence. Such setbacks should apply to open, above ground drains. |
LDB19/6 |
Retaining the rural profile of drains within or adjacent to residential subdivisions is a matter that must be management through the resource consent or subdivision consent process; piping drains is costly and costs will fall on the developer. Where an urban drain profile is provided, mitigation for flood protection is required by the developer, however SMEs can be approached to negotiate setback requirements. FNDC has commenced the collection of GPS coordinates to accurately locate the drains and to allow the development of a GIS overlay to provide resource consent and building consent staff with the location of the drains for consideration in resource consent building and applications.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. The bylaw schedules will require updating. While schedules can be confirmed with relative ease through the drainage boards, the timing of drainage board meetings means that this would not be completed until March 2020 at the earliest. It is therefore recommended that the bylaw and schedules are adopted in their current form to ensure a bylaw is in place, it is understood that some compliance and enforcement is required and can not be undertaken in the absence of an adopted bylaw. The updated schedules could then be included as part of the 5 year review for a new bylaw, or, when available, subject to an further consultation process. |
Requirements for Resource Consents |
Resource consents required shall be lodged with Council. The definition of Council refers to FNDC only. Relief sought is to either insert specific reference in section 19 to clarify that a resource consent may be required from the Regional Council; or to amend the purpose statement of the bylaw (Clause 4.1 in the proposed bylaw) to read: The purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate land drainage assets within the Far North District. Please note that this bylaw does not remove the need for any necessary resource consents (under the Resource Management Act 1991) for land drainage activities from the Northland Regional Council.” |
LDB19/3 |
This submission point addresses two separate aspects, a) the need to define “Council”, and b) the description of the bylaw purpose. a) Resource consents b) Purpose FNDC SMEs have explained that the purpose of the bylaw is not to regulate land drainage assets within the Far North District; but that is extends to the maintenance of the drainage network within the four drainage districts. .
|
It is recommended that Clause 4.1 is amended to: “The purpose of this Bylaw is to regulate land
drainage assets within the Add new Clause 4.: “Note that this bylaw does not remove the need for any necessary resource consents (under the Resource Management Act 1991) from the Northland Regional Council.” That a note is added to the Definition of “Council”: “Note that this bylaw does not remove the need for any necessary resource consents (under the Resource Management Act 1991) for land drainage activities from the Northland Regional Council.”
|
Private drain connections |
Revise the clause to make it clear that deepening of a connected private drain is not allowed, and that no new drains will be allowed within 100 metres of any significant indigenous wetland or other water body or area of significance to Māori. Include a requirement to identify any wetland and/or indigenous vegetation within 200 metres of an area proposed to be drained. |
LDB19/8 |
An outright prohibition to deepen the drain is not considered a practical alternative. Deepening of a private drain is not permitted under the bylaw; it would require the approval from FNDC staff in accordance with the bylaw and the management plans, if not a resource consent from Northland Regional Council. Where flow concerns are identified on private lands, these should be discussed with the drainage boards and addressed through maintenance programmes. Wetlands are identified in the GIS system and are also available through the NRC website. Applications to deepen a connected drain would be circulated to DoC for their advice prior to approval. This is also specified in the draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
Environmental Protection |
FNDC has to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being which includes the protection of indigenous vegetation and aquatic ecosystems...” There are provisions within the bylaw which are inconsistent with this. |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC SMEs disagree with DoC’s submission in part. SMEs have stated that maintenance activities on DoC land is minimal and only undertaken where and when a concern has been identified, using hand-held applicators to avoid spray drift, while spraying in windy conditions is avoided. Only sprays approved by the Northland Regional Council are used, and any change in sprays will require the approval from NRC. This is also specified in the draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan. Maintenance of the drains is important for viable agriculture operations as well as flood protection and therefore contributes to the Far North’s social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. In addition, a concession application from FNDC staff to DoC is currently being processed to address access and maintenance. It is understood that FNDC is currently awaiting a response from DoC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Revise the clause to ensure a minimum of 10%of instream and riparian (10m setback) plant growth to protect aquatic fauna. Restrict spraying to times when indigenous freshwater fish will not be impacted. |
LDB19/8 |
Discussions with FNDC SME clarified that the riparian areas up to the 10m setback are not clear sprayed and left bare as this would be environmentally irresponsible. In addition grazing is permitted up to 2m from the bank of a drain. A concession application from FNDC staff to DoC is currently being processed to address access and maintenance, including spraying. Spraying cannot be limited to winter times a requested by DoC, as drain levels are high and it is in winter when the drains need to be able to discharge water. In addition, rainfall prevents the spray from being effective. Despite this, SMEs have explained that DoC land is entered and maintained only when absolutely required, and that handheld applicators are used to minimise the area sprayed protect surface water and to minimise run-off and thereby contamination. It is understood that FNDC is currently awaiting a response from DoC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Ongoing water quality monitoring is needed in the Motutangi Stream and Houhora Harbour due to increased sediment loading flowing through the drainage channel into the harbour. |
LDB19/5 |
Water quality monitoring is the responsibility of the Regional Council. However, further discussions with SMEs explained that current maintenance is undertaken based on a programme discussed with the drainage boards, based on which the targeted rate is set. Maintenance is undertaken as required and determined appropriate through the Land Drainage Committees and work programme set. In addition, the bylaw requires in Clause 6.1 that there is no “planting or permission to grow any tree, shrub or hedge, or erect or maintain any fence, building, bridge or other construction or make any excavation in such a position as to interfere without prior consent within 10 m from the bank of the drain, with cattle not permitted to graze within 2m. The reason for these provisions is to protect bank and soil stability and to avoid erosion. The draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan further discusses how this drainage area is managed, and a DoC concession application has been made. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Consider the value of riparian plantings along the Motutangi Stream to increase stream health as opposed to spraying; investigation of kaitiaki status of landowners bounding the stream.
|
LDB19/5 |
The proposed bylaw requires in section 6.1 that there is no “planting or permission to grow any tree, shrub or hedge, or erect or maintain any fence, building, bridge or other construction or make any excavation in such a position as to interfere without prior consent within 10 m from the bank of the drain, with cattle not permitted to graze within 2m. The reason for these provisions is the protection of the bank and soil stability and the avoid erosion. In addition the 10m setback is required for safe contractor access depending on bank conditions. The draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan further discusses how this drainage area is managed, and a DoC concession application has been made. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Revise clause 10.1 so that no application will be considered for deepening of a drain within 100m of any significant wetland or other water body of Maori significance. |
LDB19/8 |
The deepening of drains falls under the responsibility of Northland Regional Council. Deepening of drains is not permitted under this clause of the bylaw. Where an application is received for deepening of a drain, GIS systems will be reviewed to ascertain the presence of wetlands and water bodies. A referral to the appropriate agencies will be undertaken by FNDC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
Revise Clause 19.1 to require necessary applications from NRC at the same time that an application is lodged for written approval from FNDC under this draft bylaw. |
LDB19/8 |
Where an application is received for written approval from FNDC, referrals will be made in accordance with the management plan for the drainage district. to the appropriate agencies will be undertaken. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point.
|
|
Insert a further clause providing for works with respect to drains intended to mitigate or remedy existing adverse effects of drainage of significant indigenous wetlands and on other ecological and cultural values. |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC disagrees with this request. The bylaw seeks to maintain the flow within existing drainage channels which have been used for approximately 100 years. The mitigation and remedy of existing adverse effects through additional works is not funded through the work programme approved by the drainage boards, and therefore in not part of the targeted rate. FNDC has also confirmed that the Motutangi DoC lands are not rate-able. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. It is recommended that this clause is outside of the scope of the bylaw purpose and should therefore not be included. |
Suggested maintenance |
Suggests a series of weirs (at the cut) with datum heights within the Motutangi area to filter water and remove sediment every 6 months. This would also allow water to be in the peat ground and not dry out as much. It is unclear if datum heights are taken on the Motutangi Drainage Scheme. |
LDB19/7 |
The purpose of the bylaw is the regulation of drainage assets to retain access to maintain access for flow maintenance activities. Fencing and grazing setbacks are in place to reduce or avoid sediment discharge into the drain or the collapse of the bank. Installation of weirs or other flow obstructions require approval through the bylaw or resource consents from NRC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Installation of sand traps within the Motutangi area would remove the need for excavator access. |
LDB19/7 |
The purpose of the bylaw is the regulation of drainage assets to retain access to maintain access for flow maintenance activities. Fencing and grazing setbacks are in place to reduce or avoid sediment discharge into the drain or the collapse of the bank. Installation of weirs or other flow obstructions require approval through the bylaw or resource consents from NRC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
A flat bottomed barge with weed hook could remove weed and bale it. |
LDB19/7 |
A barge would most likely damage the drain profile and would not be sufficient in cleaning the channel. It could also result in sediment discharge and movement into water. A draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan is currently being prepared for approval by the drainage boards to manage maintenance activities in accordance with DoC’s Conservation Management Strategy. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
The main cut (of the Motutangi channel) has been covered over the last 10 years at least 1 m which is illegal. |
LDB19/7 |
Clearing on this main cut occurred a number of years ago with material deposited beside the drain. A DoC concession is needed to clear the material off the site. A budget of $35,000 has been set aside for this by Council. A draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan is currently being prepared for approval by the drainage boards to manage maintenance activities in accordance with DoC’s Conservation Management Strategy |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Oxygen weed progression and need for drain to be pumped out and helicopter sprayed.
|
LDB19/7 |
SME advise that a maintenance plan is being agreed to between landowners and Council which informs the setting of targeted rates. Pumping the drain is considered to have considerable adverse effects on aquatic and riparian ecosystems. SME have also advised that spraying occurs via hand-held devices as opposed to helicopter spraying to reduce the effects on water quality and aquatic fauna |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Suggestion for every private drain entering the Motutangi Stream drainage to have an approved sediment filtration device. |
LDB19/7 |
A draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan is currently being prepared for approval by the drainage boards to manage maintenance activities in accordance with DoC’s Conservation Management Strategy |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Request to reinstate stream heights to a reasonable level. |
LDB19/7 |
The private drains connecting into the Motutangi Stream and draining adjacent lands have been in existence for the past 100 years. A draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan is currently being prepared for approval by the drainage boards to manage maintenance activities in accordance with DoC’s Conservation Management Strategy |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Consult with elders about if and at what cost the beaches can be reinstated. |
LDB19/7 |
It is NRC’s responsibility to monitor sediment build-up on beaches. However, maintenance of the drainage networks is undertaken to minimise sediment discharge into the water. Some sedimentation occurs through natural processes including storm events. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Key highly productive properties that require particular levels of water table height protection should be identified and pay extra costs for cleaning weeds and supervisory costs.. |
LDB19/7 |
Submission LDB19/7 was mainly in relation to the Motutangi area and therefore it is assumed that this point also relates to this area. The approval of ground and surface water takes are the responsibility of the Northland Regional Council. Furthermore, the management of the water table is not within the scope of this bylaw. Where additional fees are required for maintenance purposes, a request should be forwarded to the respective drainage board, who approve a maintenance programme and budget and also inform the management plans. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Widen stream bed to create multiple series of weirs. |
LDB19/7 |
Submission LDB19/7 was mainly in relation to the Motutangi area and therefore it is assumed that this point also relates to this area. Stream bed widening, installation of weirs or other flow obstructions require approval through the bylaw or resource consents by NRC. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
It is noted that water flow measurements confirm that the drains passing through the Motutangi- Kaimaumau Wetland are not merely conveying water from farmland but are also lowering the water level in the wetlands in the vicinity of the drains |
LDB19/8 |
FNDC’s SME explain that it is expected that the wetlands drain into the Motutangi Stream. To follow-up to the hearing, FNDC received a further explanation from DoC’s representatives with respect to “drains, potentially artificial, within the Kaimaumau-Motutangi Wetland that were lowering the watertable in the wetland” (email received on August 27, 2019). It is noted DoC themselves submitted this. “I have checked with Dr Hugh Robinson, Principal Science Advisor-Freshwater in the Aquatic Unit of the Department of Conservation, about this alleged drain. His recollection is that this is a natural creek flowing into the Motutangi Stream at that location shown in the map provided by the submitter. He also notes that: ‘while there is a natural outflow, it needs to be recognised that the drainage system has increased the outflow of water from the wetland via lateral flow along the length of the drain. That is, there are several sites along the drain where visible lateral flow (through the banks of the drain) are visible.’” It is noted that the Motutangi Drain has existed for approximately 100 years, as per the discussions with the drainage board and FNDC SMEs. Further management is detailed in the draft Motutangi Drainage Management Plan. Any new private drain connections to the current drainage network or the installation of independent drains therefore will undergo an approval process both within FNDC and the Northland Regional Council and as part of this seek DoC’s advice through circulation of such applications. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
Process |
Clarify enforcement triggers and the monitoring and enforcement process |
LDB19/4 |
FNDC in conjunction with the drainage boards is funding a drone which will simplify monitoring and compliance of the drains. Appropriate processes and approvals will be put in place for the use of the drone. Monitoring and enforcement is undertaken through robust discussions by the Committee and follow up through the Bylaw. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Ensure that any cost recovery referenced refers to responsible parties rather than landowners (Clause 8.8). There is inconsistency in current wording.
|
LDB19/4 |
Monitoring and enforcement is undertaken through robust discussions by the Committee and follow up through the Bylaw, with recovery at cost. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Outline a clear process for Council-landowner contact procedure to access private land. This is important to cover landowners and orchard managers from a H&S perspective as well as we could potentially provide easier and safer access through our site. This should provide minimum notice periods unless deemed an emergency |
LDB19/4 |
The Bylaw enables access to the drains for maintenance purposes. Through the committee work, there is a general understanding that contractors will access the land for that purpose. Contractors advise landowners when access is required, and contractors will comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Specify who approvals required under this bylaw need to be sought from. |
LDB19/4 |
The bylaw specifies that consent is required from Council, which is defined as FNDC. Clarification is required that in some instances consent is required from NRC. The submitter is seeking clarification of process with respect to making applications subject to the bylaw. This is a process matter and should not be contained in a bylaw. In its forward-work programme Council will place greater emphasis on implementation and clarity on process. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Specify how fair and reasonable inspections fees or requests for information are determined, particularly where complaints are submitted which may be deemed unfounded. |
LDB19/4 |
The submitter is seeking clarification of process with respect to the setting of inspection fees or addressing of information requests, particularly when a complaint is received. In its forward-work programme Council will place greater emphasis on implementation and clarity on process, including complaint procedures. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Outline a clear process for Council-landowner contact procedure to access private land. This is important to cover landowners and orchard managers from a H&S perspective as well as we could potentially provide easier and safer access through our site. This should provide minimum notice periods unless deemed an emergency. |
LDB19/4 |
Such information should be contained in the management plan.
|
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
|
Ensure that any cost recovery referenced refers to responsible parties rather than landowners (Clause 8.8). There is inconsistency in current wording. |
LDB19/4 |
Cost recovery is referred in Clause 9.1 referring to the removal of debris or obstruction, stating that “Council may do the work required and recover the cost thereof from such owner or owners”. Relevant discussions generally occur through the Land Drainage Committees. |
An amendment to the proposed bylaw is not required as a result of this submission point. |
The Local Government Act (LGA) prescribes the process for making and replacing bylaws. Before making the bylaw, Council must consider whether the bylaw complies with the relevant provisions of the LGA. The provisions, and an assessment of the bylaw against them, are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Assessment of new bylaw against provisions in LGA
Section number |
Provision |
Assessment |
155(2)(a) |
The proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. |
Council determined the bylaw was the most appropriate form of bylaw when it adopted the statement of proposal for a new Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 at its meeting on 27 June 2019. The reasons for this determination are set out in the statement of proposal in attachment 1. |
155(2)(b)
|
Whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
|
The proposed Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. |
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda |
3 October 2019 |
Analysis of submissions received identified a need for clarification of some terminology used within the bylaw to avoid ambiguity. Recommended changes are discussed in the Summary of Submissions provided above, and are illustrated in the revised bylaw in Attachment 1.
A number of submissions highlighted a need for improved communication of bylaw processes with affected landowners and parties. While such processes sit outside of the bylaw process, Administration will improve communication through its applicable channels.
Administration recommends the Land Drainage Bylaw in Attachment 1 be adopted by Council to:
• continue to ensure the safe and efficient creation, operation, maintenance and renewal of all public land drainage networks;
• continue to ensure proper hazard management to prevent or minimise flooding and erosion;
• continue to minimize adverse effects on the local environment particularly freshwater ecological systems quality, and assists in maintaining receiving water quality;
• continue to ensure that land drainage networks are properly maintained;
• continue to ensure protection of Council land drainage assets and the health and safety of employees;
• continue to set out acceptable types of connection to land drainage networks. The new bylaw meets the requirements of sections 155 of the LGA.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications that will result from the adoption of the recommendation in this report.
1. Draft Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 (tracked changes) - A2665604 ⇩
2. Land Drainage Bylaw Submissions - A2665638 ⇩
3. Statement of Proposal - A2665637 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
The content of this report and the adoption of the recommendation in this report do not exceed any of the thresholds currently contained in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Local Government Act 2002 Land Drainage Act 1908 |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
The recommendation in this report has relevance within the identified drainage districts. The Land Drainage Committees were informed of the proposed Bylaw and Drainage Committee were attended. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
The recommendation in this report has implications for Māori in that the adopted land drainage affects the intrinsic value of receiving water bodies as understood by Manawhenau. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities. |
The draft Land Drainage Bylaw 2019 was subject to the consultation requirements as specified in the Local Government Act. The draft bylaw was publicly notified with opportunities for submissions in accordance with s156 of the LGA. In addition, targeted ratepayers received a letter or email from Administration to notify them of the review and consultation period for the Land Drainage Bylaw 2019. Submitters where provided with the opportunity to be heard on their submission |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There are no financial implications that will result from the adoption of the recommendation on this report. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report. |
3 October 2019 |
File Number: A2659491
Author: Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development
Authoriser: Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy
Purpose of the Report
To seek approval for the Koha Policy, in order to provide staff with guidance around the obligations associated with payment or giving koha.
Executive Summary
· The need to provide guidance to staff and elected members on engaging with the community to meet the obligations associated with payment or giving koha has been identified within the organisation.
· The Koha Policy formalises a practice already adopted by some Council staff members.
· The report provided the Committee with three options to consider including adopt the policy, maintain the status quo or defer the decision to a later date.
· This report was considered by the Audit, Risk, and Finance Committee at their meeting on 26 September 2019, however at the time of printing the Council agenda the Committee meeting had not yet taken place. In the event of changes recommended by the Committee a supplementary paper will be prepared for Council.
That Council adopt the Koha Policy. |
1) Background
The customary practice of giving and receiving koha is widely observed in the Far North District.
Administration identified that staff and elected members engaging with external parties on projects or attending meetings on marae needed some guidance to meet the obligations associated with payment or giving koha.
The Koha Policy aims to take an overarching organisational approach to support staff members and elected members who may be unaware or unsure of what to do when meeting externals or attending meetings on marae. Furthermore, it is important to take an organisational approach to the behaviour of staff to ensure there is consistency.
Council is currently in a process of change whereby a greater emphasis is placed on strengthening relationships and enhancing engagement with key external groups in the community. With this in mind, engagement with groups on marae throughout the region will increase. The Koha Policy supports this change from a relationship management perspective by assisting staff and elected members to behave consistently and in good faith.
2) Discussion and Options
Option One: do nothing
Under Option One no policy will be adopted and subsequently no guidelines (attached) put in place to support staff when considering giving a koha. The practice of giving koha will continue on a case by case basis.
Audit New Zealand, in past audits, have raised concerns when reviewing sensitive expenditure and have recommended that a koha policy be adopted to address the concerns that they have raised in regards to koha.
If this option is adopted Council loses the opportunity to take an overarching organisational approach to managing the obligations and expectations associated with giving koha. There is a risk that the adequate approval and reporting processes will not be put in place. This option is not recommended.
Option Two: Adopt the policy (recommended option)
Option Two proposes an approach to support staff and elected members by putting guidelines in place to manage obligations and expectations. This approach also supports recent developments in the Council to improve its relationship management. Approving the policy and allowing for a period of implementation provides Council with an opportunity for a further review in three years to determine its level of compliance.
If this option is adopted Council will have a koha policy that assists staff and reflects the move towards strengthening and enhancing relationships within the community.
Option Three: Address the policy once the new Council is formed
Option three proposes considering the policy once the new Council has been formed post the elections in October 2019. Option three would see the Koha Policy considered at the first committee meeting post the election.
If this option is adopted implementation of the policy will be delayed. Administration has identified the need to provide guidance to staff and elected members on when and what koha is appropriate. This need could be addressed by the implementation of the attached guidelines. However further delay in the adoption of a koha policy means that the concerns raised by Audit New Zealand remain. These concerns could manifest themselves as real issues for the Council in the absence of an adopted policy.
This option is therefore not recommended.
Reason for the recommendation
Option two is recommended for the following reasons:
1. It addresses the concerns regarding sensitive expenditure and koha raised by Audit New Zealand
2. it addresses the issue of uncertainty around the expectations and obligations associated with giving koha;
3. it adopts a best practice approach;
4. It supports the move towards strengthening relationships in the community.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
Adopting the policy will have the following financial implications:
The koha policy requires new methods of reporting and a new process for approval. An annual budget of five thousand per locality totalling $15,000 per annum is appropriate and in line with current expenditure. Ongoing operational costs will be resourcing to implement the policy. It is recommended that the Te Hono business group be considered as the appropriate group for implementation of the policy.
1. Koha Policy - A2656774 ⇩
2. Koha Implementation Guideline and Process - A2646574 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
The recommendation in itself contained in this report does not meet the thresholds as set in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
The recommendation in this report is aimed at complying with Part 6 – Planning, Decision Making and Accountability of the Local Government Act. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
Reviewing a policy has District wide relevance and therefore does not require involvement from the Community Boards. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
The recommendation in this report has no direct impact on Maori. However the recommendation supports the relationship with Maori and has been developed in conjunction with the Maori Development Advisor. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
The recommendation has no direct impact on any particular interested party or individual. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
The financial implications have been considered and discussed in the report. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report. |
3 October 2019 |
Koha Guideline and Process
1. Purpose
Far North District Council (FNDC) recognises the requirement to give appropriate amounts of koha from time to time. The Koha Policy provides guidance to staff and elected members in order to meet the obligations associated with payment or giving koha to organisations and individuals.
2. Scope
This policy applies to all employees and elected members of FNDC.
3. What is koha?
Koha is a Maori customary practice, concept and process and is an extremely important part of the Maori culture.
Koha is considered a treasure by Maori and may be either tangible or intangible, It can be a physical thing such as food, money, reciprocal activity, certain rights and privileges to resources, land, heirloom, treasured item, or an intangible thing like a vision, thought, feeling, emotion, supernatural manifestation, concept, idea.
Because Koha is imbued with spirituality and cultural beliefs and practices, there is no clear-cut English translation and it has often wrongly been interpreted as a gift. The giving of Koha acts to seal a relationship and is part of the protocol of reciprocation. To minimise any likelihood of causing offence through misunderstanding, it is incumbent upon managers and staff involved in giving Koha to develop an in-depth understanding and empathy of the concept.
Koha is a ‘Tikanga Maori’ which means, according to the Resource Management Act 1991, a customary value and practice. In Section 39 part (2)(b) it states Tikanga Maori should be recognised where appropriate.
Koha is also a Taonga which, according to the Resource Management Act 1991, means something that is highly prized. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledges the term ‘Taonga’.This acknowledgement confirms and guarantees the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of taonga to Iwi and Hapu. Therefore in certain situations it is up to Iwi and Hapu to declare when Koha might be considered as Taonga.
Non monetary examples of koha might include taonga, e.g. greenstone, carvings, kai (food), or resources readily available to FNDC (e.g., staff time and expertise, use of vehicles, facilities or outdoor equipment, such as marquees and seating, etc).
4. Definition
For the purposes of this policy, Koha will be defined according to the IRD
“An unconditional gift is defined as a donation made to a non-profit body, where the giver (or any relative) does not receive any goods or services in return for the donation. This carries with it no obligations to account for tax”.
4. When to give koha
It depends on the occasion whether it is appropriate to give Koha. However the following are examples of when to give Koha.
Elected members and/or Council staff attend a gathering representing the Council, on a marae that involves a powhiri or welcome.
Elected members and/or Council staff attend a gathering representing the Council at a building that accommodates a Runanga or Iwi Authority and involves a powhiri or welcome.
Attendance by Elected members and/or Council staff representing Council at a tangihanga held on a marae or in a private home.
To any Kaumatua and Kuia or group supporting Council at any function involving a Whakatau or Powhiri.
7. When is Koha not given
Situations where koha would not normally be expected include:
When attending any hui as an individual not representing Council
Staff attendance at a regular meeting held at a marae
informal or ongoing discussions between staff and iwi representatives about a Council matter.
8. How to give koha
It is good practice to consult with a member of the Te Hono team before giving koha to ensure that it is given in a way that is appropriate for the occasion.
As a general rule, whenever a group goes on to a marae, and is welcomed, it is customary for the last speaker of the visitors to present money from the group, the “koha”, in an envelope.
Sometimes, it is fine to give the koha envelope quietly to the person who is running the hui, at the back later, however once again consult with a Te Hono team member to get the correct advice for the occasion.
9. How much should be given?
In determining an appropriate amount of koha for any particular occasion, Council must give due regard to standards of probity and financial prudence while being mindful of the cultural imperative of giving adequate or reasonably generous koha.
Another consideration and equally as important is that the amount of koha given should adequately reflect the status of Council’s representative/s mana.
Here are some examples with suggested koha. Note that these examples only provide a guide. They are not prescriptive. Staff must assess the amount on a case by case basis , if in doubt check with Te Hono.
Example 1 A Council department is invited for a noho marae (overnight stay). The marae does not ask for a fee. This is clearly a case where koha should be given. Estimate the cost of meals and accommodation per person, and add a 'top up' in acknowledgement of hospitality.
Example 2 Two councillors and four staff hold a hui on the marae with local people about the preparation of a plan. The hui lasts four hours and lunch is served. Council gives a koha of $200, plus any additional costs associated with lunch.
Example 3 A respected kaumatua, dies. A group of councillors and staff pay respects on behalf of the Council at his tangi. Council gives a koha of $300.
Example 4 The Council decides it would like to hold a Treaty of Waitangi training workshop on a marae. The marae charges a fee for hire of the venue. Council pays the fee, and also gives a koha of $150 in appreciation of the hospitality shown.
Example 5. The council is holding a citizenship ceremony and has invited a school group to perform waiata during the ceremony. Council gives a Koha of $300
10. Process for payment of koha
When staff/elected members attend a function on behalf of the Council, and koha is appropriate, a dollar figure or koha ‘in kind’ should be discussed and pre-approved by the appropriate General Manager. NOTE It is advisable that General Managers consult with a member from Te Hono to advise whether koha is appropriate.
The koha should be recorded on the Request for Koha form. Koha should be charged against the relevant department’s GL code. If koha is monetary it should, where practicable, be given via a bank transfer, made out to the relevant iwi organisation/entity.
The Koha form should be given to the Finance Department at least three days before the koha is needed. Finance will process the form and make payment to the bank account specified.
If the payment is to be in cash then a petty cash request form (obtainable from the Finance Team) should be completed at least 2 days prior to the payment being required and then the cash can be collected directly from the bank by the relevant staff member and handed to the Group’s General Manager.
3 October 2019 |
8.4 Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019
File Number: A2660406
Author: Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development
Authoriser: Sheryl Gavin, General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy (Acting)
Purpose of the Report
To make the Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 in Attachment 1.
Executive Summary
· Council’s Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2009 will expire on 20 February 2020. Council has consulted on making the Earthworks Bylaw 2019 to replace the expiring bylaw.
· This report:
o contains an assessment of the new Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 against the bylaw-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002
o confirms the new bylaw complies with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002
o recommends the new bylaw, in Attachment 1, be made.
That Council determines under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019: a) Is the most appropriate form of bylaw. b) Does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. c) Makes the Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 contained in attachment 1 to come into effect on 7 October 2019.
|
1) Background
The Far North District Council’s proposed Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 was adopted on 27 June 2019 for public consultation. Consultation opened 8 July 2019 and closed on 9 August 2019.
One submission was received from a submitter who did not wish to be heard.
On 5 September Council deliberated on the draft Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 that resulted from public consultation. The Council deliberations resulted in no change to the draft Control of Earthworks Bylaw that was consulted on.
2) Discussion and Options
Legislative requirements for making the bylaw
The Local Government Act (LGA) prescribes the process for making and replacing bylaws. Before making the bylaw, Council must consider whether the bylaw complies with the relevant provisions of the LGA. The provisions, and an assessment of the bylaw against them, are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Assessment of new bylaw against provisions in LGA
Section number |
Provision |
Assessment |
155(2)(a) |
The proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. |
Council determined the bylaw was the most appropriate form of bylaw when it adopted the statement of proposal for a new Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 at its meeting on 27 June 2019. The reasons for this determination are set out in the statement of proposal in attachment 2. |
155(2)(b)
|
Whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
|
The proposed Control of Earthworks Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. |
Reason for the recommendation
Administration recommends the Control of Earthworks Bylaw in Attachment 1 be adopted by Council to:
· Continue to protect the public from harm that may be caused as a result of unsafe earthworks activities
· Continue to ensure neighbouring properties are not affected by uncontrolled earthworks activities
· Continue to safeguard the districts environment from uncontrolled earthworks activities
· Continue to meet the current social, cultural, environmental and economic well being of the community.
The new bylaw meets the requirements of sections 155 of the LGA.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
The new Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 will result in no change to administrative overheads that are currently in place to administer the Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2009.
1. Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 - A2662151 ⇩
2. Statement of Proposal - Proposed Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 - A2658992 ⇩
3. Control of Earthworks Bylaw 2019 Submission - A2661342 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
|
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
The recommendation to adopt a new Control of Earthworks Bylaw does not meet any of thresholds in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
|
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Local Government Act 2002.
|
|
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
The recommendation to adopt a new Control of Earthworks Bylaw will result in a new bylaw that is applicable across the entire district. |
|
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
|
|
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities. |
The proposed new Earthworks Bylaw is not significantly different from the expiring bylaw therefore there are minimal impacts on those persons planning earthworks as a result of the recommendation in this report. |
|
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There are no financial implications and budgetary provisions as a result of the recommendation in this report. |
|
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |
3 October 2019 |
8.5 Wandering with Ancestors (Ventnor) Memorial Rawene Cemetery
Item 8.5 “Wandering With Ancestors (Ventnor) Memorial Rawene Cemetery” has been pulled from the agenda.
3 October 2019 |
9.1 Lease - Houhora Heads Motor Camp
File Number: A2593622
Author: Rob Koops, Property Services
Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management
Purpose of the Report
To initiate the public consultation process for a new lease of the camping ground at Houhora Heads as shown on the attached aerial photograph “Houhora Heads Motor Camp Proposed Lease Area”, and to appoint the Te Hiku Community Board to hear submissions and make a recommendation to Council.
Executive Summary
· The Houhora Heads Motor Camp spans across two property titles and is classified Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
· The Reserve Act 1977 requires public consultation before Council can enter into a new lease on Reserve land.
· Since 1993 the lessee has made significant investment and is prepared to continue to invest in the upgrade and renewal of the camp ground facilities and infrastructure.
· The current lease is due to expire on 30 September 2026.
· In order to retain existing and secure future funding and get a return on investment the lessee has requested a new lease of 21 years with a further 21 year right of renewal.
· The Te Hiku Community Board considered this report at their meeting on 20 August and makes the following recommendation to Council.
That Council a) Approves a public consultation process commence for a new lease on the Houhora Heads Recreation Reserve being Lot 1 & 2 DP 402482. The proposed lease is to the existing lessee; Houhora Head Motor Camp Limited and the main terms proposed are: Term: 21 years. Rent: Commercial rate determined by valuation. Right of Renewal: One further term of 21 years. b) Appoints the Te Hiku Community Board to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation process and to make recommendations to the Council in respect of the granting of the lease. |
1) Background
Houhora Heads Motor Camp spans over two titles being Lot 1 & 2 DP 402482 both being Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and directly on the waterfront at Houhora Heads.
The current lessee, Houhora Heads Motor Camp Ltd first managed then leased the Reserve land and has operated the motor camp since 1993.
A valuation carried out in 1996 shows lessor (Council) improvements (ie. small dwelling, original ablution and sewer, two water tanks, and four satellite toilets) valued at $80,000 were in place.
The same valuation shows lessee improvements (improvements to ablution and switch room, water supply and additional water tank, site development and power sites) valued at $70,000. Over time further improvements added to and paid for by the lessee include a recreation shelter, a swimming pool and a new manager’s residence.
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease repair and maintenance has been paid for by the lessee. Council has not contributed to the up-keep.
The current lessee is planning further upgrades and renewals of the improvements on the Recreation Reserve land. In order to maintain current and secure further bank funding and to recoup the investment the lessee requests new leases on the Reserve land.
2) Discussion and Options
Option 1 – recommended.
It is proposed that a new lease is a straight ground lease whereby the lessee owns all the improvements on the land. This removes ambiguity over the responsibility to renew the improvements when they come to their end of life and brings the lease in line with Policy # 5020 – Council-Owned Campgrounds. It also gives the operator of the camp ground the ability to plan and execute upgrades and renewals when they deem necessary rather than rely on Council plans and budget provisions.
Camping ground leases are typically registered and serve as security to obtain bank funding for improvements on the land. Operators need time to recoup their investment in these improvements. A lease term of 21 years with a further right of renewal of 21 years is therefore recommended. The lease will be on industry standard commercial terms, comply with the requirements of S54 the Reserves Act 1977 and be subject to the Camping Ground Regulations 1985 and Council’s Motor Camp Policy # 5020.
In accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 public consultation on a new lease on Reserve land is required. It is recommended that Council appoints the Te Hiku Community Board to hear submissions on the proposed lease and make a recommendation to Council.
Option 2.
Retain the status quo and let the current lease which still has 6 years to run, run its course. Under this scenario, as the lease gets closer to the expiry date, there will be less and less incentive on the lessee to maintain, let alone upgrade or renew the lessor improvements and the onus will be on Council to renew the assets at some point. In addition, under the terms and conditions of the current lease Council committed that on termination of the lease it would “purchase the Lessee’s interest in any buildings or other improvements of a structural nature which the lessee has erected on the Leased Area since the 1st of October 1996 and for which it is impractical for the lessee to remove …. at market value”.
Reason for the recommendation
To encourage ongoing investment in the infrastructure improvements at Houhora Heads Motor Camp and for these to be fully funded and maintained by the camp ground operator without cost to the ratepayer in accordance with Council Policy 5020 – Council Owned Campgrounds, a long term lease is recommended and to achieve this public consultation is a requirement under the Reserves Act 1997.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
At the commencement of the lease the improvements that existed on the land where valued at $70,000. The current “book value” of the improvements is $120,796. It is proposed that they will be disposed of and the value written off to retained earnings. This is an accounting entry only and has no financial impact on rates.
Rental income to FNDC (valuation 2016) is $22,000+GST per annum and is reviewed to market rent every 3 years.
1. Houhora Heads Motor Camp Proposed Lease Area - A2569710 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
Low |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Reserves Act 1977 Camping Ground Regulations 1985 Policy #5020 – Council-owned Campgrounds |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
Delegation to the relevant Community Board enables them to hear submissions and provide recommendations to the Council.
|
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
Local Iwi have been identified as Ngati Kuri, Ngai Takoto, Te Aupouri and Ngati Kahu. These Iwi will be invited to put forward submissions which will form part of deliberations by the Community Board prior to a recommendation being made. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
Public consultation will determine this and submission will form part of deliberations prior to a recommendation being made. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
|
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report |
3 October 2019 |
9.2 Adoption of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019
File Number: A2620123
Author: Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer
Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services
Purpose of the Report
To adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019
Executive Summary
· The Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019 has been prepared and has been audited by Audit New Zealand.
· The onsite audit was completed by the 6th September 2019 but work continued offsite and verbal clearance was pending as at the time of this agenda going to print.
That Council: a) Adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019. b) The General Manager Corporate Services is authorised to make any grammatical changes that may be required.
|
1) Background
The Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to prepare an Annual Report within 4 months of the financial year end.
The Annual Report is subject to audit by the Auditor appointed by the Office of the Auditor General. In the case of Far North District Council this is Audit New Zealand.
2) Discussion and Options
The Annual Report has been audited and Audit New Zealand have issued an unmodified audit opinion.
Reason for the recommendation
Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt the Annual Report before 31 October.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications arising from this report
1. Far North District Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019 - A2646593 (under separate cover)
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
Low |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
Local Government Act 2002 part 6, sub part 2 s98 and Schedule 10. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
N/A |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
N/A |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities. |
N/A |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
None |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has prepared this report |
3 October 2019 |
10.1 Elected Member Report - 2019 LGNZ Conference
File Number: A2628992
Author: Melissa Wood, Meetings Administrator
Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Governance Support
Purpose of the Report
An Elected Member’s attendance at a conference, course, seminar or training event is subject to the provision of the Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy. This policy requires the Elected Member to provide a report to Council after attending an event in order to provide transparency to the public that ratepayer funds are being used effectively.
Executive Summary
· Councillor Kelly Stratford attended the 2019 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) annual conference and Excellence Awards held in Wellington 7-9 July 2019.
That Council note the report entitled “Elected Member Report - 2019 LGNZ Conference” |
1) Background
The Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy sets out the provisions which apply to an Elected Member’s attendance at a conference, course, seminar or training event.
The policy provides that each Elected Member may attend on conference or professional development event per representative body to which they are elected or appointed per annum.
The conference, course, seminar or training event must contribute to the Councillor’s ability to carry out Council business and be approved by His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, or the Council, depending on the request.
Following attendance a report must be written by the Elected Member to the next meeting of Council.
2) Discussion and Options
The Elected Members report attached report discusses information from the Forum.
Reason for the recommendation
To provide information to the Council on the consequential travel expenses, feedback on what elected members have learned and the value to the organisation from attendance at the conference that is the subject of this report. The aim is to provide transparency and confidence to the public that ratepayer funds are being used effectively.
3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required as a result of this report.
The total cost to ratepayers is approximately $2,948.
1. Cr Stratford - 2019 LGNZ Conference Attendance Report - A2628884 ⇩
Compliance schedule:
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:
1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,
a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and
b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and
c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.
2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.
Compliance requirement |
Staff assessment |
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy |
This is an information only report. |
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision. |
The recommendation is consistent with the Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy. |
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought. |
This is an information only report. |
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. |
This is an information only report. |
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences. |
This is an information only report. |
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision. |
There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provisions. |
Chief Financial Officer review. |
The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report. |
3 October 2019 |
10.2 Resident Opinion Survey 2018/19
File Number: A2651049
Author: Richard Edmondson, Manager - Communications
Authoriser: Shaun Clarke, Chief Executive Officer
Purpose of the Report
To highlight key findings of the 2018/19 Resident Opinion Survey and to advise Council of plans to make the report available to communities.
Executive Summary
· The survey shows that most residents are satisfied with most Council services or have no strong opinion about these. However, satisfaction levels are lower than in 2017/18 across most services measured.
· The Council’s reputation score is also lower, although still on a par with a reputation baseline established by LGNZ in 2017.
· The timing of this year’s survey and other factors may account for these variances. Staff will review the survey before the next one is due in May-June 2019 to ensure this provides an accurate picture of satisfaction levels.
· Staff will also discuss resident feedback about operational issues with contractors and consider feedback about levels of service when they begin planning for the Long Term Plan 2021-31.
That the Council receive the report “Resident Opinion Survey 2018/19”.
|
Background
The Council undertakes an annual resident opinion survey to measure satisfaction with its services and to gauge public perceptions of its overall performance. The Council publishes the results in its Annual Report and uses the feedback to improve services. Market research company Key Research conducted a resident opinion and reputation survey on behalf of the Council in May-June 2019. Key results from the phone survey of 500 people in the District are listed below and detailed in the attached survey report. A comparison of the 2018/19 and 2017/18 survey results is also provided, with a commentary about each service area.
Survey results
Satisfaction levels were:
· Above 75% in 7/23 service areas
· Between 50-75% in 8/23 service areas
· Below 50% in 8/23 service areas
· Satisfaction levels were the same or higher than 2017/18 satisfaction levels in 6/23 service areas and the same or higher than 2016/17 levels in 13/23 areas.
· Satisfaction levels were lower than 2017/18 levels in 17/23 service areas and lower than 2016/17 levels in 10/23 areas.
· 31% of respondents were satisfied with the Council’s overall performance, compared with 38% in 2017/18 and 24% in 2016/17.
· The Council’s reputation score was 27%, compared with 33% in 2017/18
Service/Facility/Activity |
2019 % satisfied/ very satisfied residents |
2018 % satisfied/ very satisfied residents |
2017 % satisfied/ very satisfied residents |
Public libraries |
93% |
89% |
90% |
Community recycling stations |
82% |
85% |
90% |
Kawakawa Pool |
81% |
88% |
57% |
Wastewater |
80% |
80% |
70% |
Cemeteries |
80% |
86% |
77% |
Awareness of community board |
78% |
85% |
83% |
Refuse transfer stations |
77% |
80% |
78% |
Kerikeri Pool |
69% |
88% |
69% |
Kaitaia Pool |
65% |
75% |
67% |
Service received when contacting Council |
65% |
68% |
64% |
Water supply |
60% |
69% |
69% |
Parks and reserves |
60% |
59% |
56% |
Public toilets |
55% |
63% |
56% |
Access to the coast |
51% |
59% |
56% |
Kaikohe Pool |
50% |
92% |
67% |
Stormwater drainage |
48% |
41% |
28% |
Car park facilities |
41% |
48% |
44% |
Local roads |
37% |
43% |
21% |
Local footpaths |
35% |
38% |
34% |
Informed about what Council is doing |
28% |
26% |
17% |
Informed about what Council is doing (Māori) |
26% |
24% |
17% |
Aware of changes to the District Plan |
24% |
29% |
21% |
Informed about District Plan |
18% |
23% |
20% |
Overall performance
· 31% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with Council’s overall performance, compared with 38% in 2017/18 and 24% in 2016/17. 36% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral).
Reputation
· 27% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with Council’s overall reputation, compared with 33% in 2017/18. 35% of respondents were neutral.
Overall quality of services and facilities
· 30% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with the overall quality of services and facilities, compared with 35% in 2017/18. 41% of respondents were neutral.
Rates provide value for money
· 29% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied that rates provided value for money, compared with 31% in 2017/18. 26% of respondents were neutral.
Vision and leadership
· 25% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with Council’s vision and leadership, the same percentage as 2016/17. 37% of respondents were neutral.
Faith and trust in Council
· 22% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with Council’s trustworthiness, compared with 29% in 2017/18. 34% were neutral.
Financial Management
· 22% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with Council’s financial management, compared with 24% in 2017/18. 33% of respondents were neutral.
Discussion and Next Steps
Understanding the results
It is difficult to account for the lower satisfaction levels across 17 of the 23 service areas measured. The Council has not reduced levels of service or made operational changes that might have led to widespread dissatisfaction. Data reliability may be an issue. Some variances between the 2018/19 and 2017/18 survey results were within the 4.3% margin of error.
Other unfavourable results may be the result of small sample sizes. For example, only 17 people were surveyed about Kaikohe Pool where the percentage of satisfied/very satisfied pool users dropped from 92% last year to 50% this year. It is important to note that no respondents were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the pool.
Other results may not be reliable because respondents provided invalid feedback. For example, some respondents were critical of kerbside collection services that are provided by private companies. One respondent was dissatisfied with refuse transfer stations, because they erroneously believed that there wasn’t a refuse transfer station in Kaitaia.
The timing of the survey may also have influenced results. Key Research conducted the survey at the start of May this year, instead of at the end of the month. Final rates demands for 2018/19 were posted to ratepayers two weeks before the survey, so these might have affected public mood and resulted in less favourable feedback. The Council was also the subject of a spate of negative news stories in the months leading up to the survey. This may partly explain the lower levels of trust.
As with previous surveys, a high percentage of respondents (up to 38%) gave neutral/don’t know responses to most survey questions. This ambivalence may reflect the fact that respondents were unable to recall whether their experience of a Council service they had used - months ago in some cases - was positive or negative. It could also be a result of the survey company cold calling residents. It is reasonable to assume that most people don’t have ready opinions of all 23 services measured by the survey and some respondents chose the neutral option when asked to rate these services. Staff will consider whether an annual phone survey is the most effective way of measuring satisfaction with services in 2019/20. A shorter, quarterly survey with clearer and more realistic questions, complemented by surveys of transactional services, might produce a more accurate picture.
Listening and responding
The purpose of the annual resident opinion survey is to better understand residents’ views of the Council and to use this information to improve services. The 2018/19 survey results highlight community concerns about the level and quality of some services the Council provides, particularly footpaths, roads, parking facilities and stormwater. Staff will encourage elected members to consider this feedback when they start preparing the Long Term Plan 2021-31. Staff will also address specific operational issues about other services, including water, public toilets and parks and reserves, with contractors.
It is pleasing to see a small increase this year in the percentage of people who feel informed about what Council is doing. This continues an improving trend started in 2017. Staff will continue to keep communities informed about Council projects and services and review communication channels in light of survey feedback.
It is disappointing that fewer respondents felt well-informed about the District Plan, given the extensive community engagement exercise staff conducted about the District Plan Review in 2018/19. Staff will rethink how best to engage with communities about land use issues in the new triennium. Staff will also consider how to better publicise community recycling stations, given that only 18% of survey respondents had used one in the last year.
The Council’s reputation score of 27% remains unacceptably low, but is in line with a baseline of 28% LGNZ established for the local government sector in 2019 after surveying New Zealanders. Improving this score is the collective responsibility of elected members, council staff and contractors, because reputation is based on perceptions of service quality, vision and leadership, faith and trust in Council and financial management. This will be a key challenge for the Council and community boards that are elected in October.
The Council aims to be open and transparent about its performance. It has published previous resident opinion survey reports on its website so the public can view these. Staff propose to post the 2018/19 survey report and other reports, including LGNZ’s CouncilMARK™ report and the Ombudsman report on LGOIMA practices at the Council, on a transparency and performance-themed page of the new website currently being built.
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required as a result of this
report.
1. Far North District Council 2019 Resident Opinion Survey - A2651043 ⇩
2. 2018 & 2019 Resident Opinion Surveys - Comparison & Commentary - A2651045 ⇩
3 October 2019 |
10.3 Results from the Organisational Survey 2019
File Number: A2656778
Author: Michael Boyd, Manager - Talent and Development
Authoriser: Jill Coyle, Manager - People and Capability
Purpose of the Report
This report provides the results of the Annual Staff Survey 2019.
Executive Summary
· Far North District Council has used the same survey/questions since 2014.
· The attached survey results report provides an overview of the results from 2018 compared to 2019.
· Across the board improvement is shown in all areas with significant improvement in:
o Health & Wellbeing
o Common Purpose
o Job Satisfaction
o Quality & Performance
That the Council receive the report “Results from the Organisational Survey 2019”.
|
Background
The Council undertakes an annual staff survey which provides the chance to get feedback from FNDC employees as to what they think of FNDC as a place to work. Using the data from the survey allow us to make changes within the organisation to help create a better workplace environment. 237 participants engaged in this year’s survey which is a significant increase from 2018 which saw 188 staff partake in the survey.
Discussion and Next Steps
The report of the survey findings is a clear measure of the effectiveness of continuous improvement and progressive initiatives in the workplace. Entitled ‘Your Voice’ the survey is also an opportunity for staff to provide recommendations or voice concerns regarding their role in FNDC. An increasing response rate indicates higher levels of engagement in the workplace and will continue to provide valuable feedback on the strategic direction of the organization
Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision
There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required as a result of this report.
1. Results from the Organisation Survey 2019 - A2656693 ⇩
3 October 2019 |
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC