Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

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
Hon John Carter QSO	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
Partner Felicity Foy	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
Mike Edmonds	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
Terry Greening (Wife)	Residence at Kaha Place, Russell
Cr Kelly Stratford	Office manager at Kinghans.
	Denture assistant at Kawakawa denture Services self-employed as book keeper Kelly@ksbookkeeoing.net	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

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.

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:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
14.1 - Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.2 - Ground Lease Horeke Playcentre	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.3 - Letter of Assurance to Provincial Growth Fund	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.4 - Kaeo Wastewater Scheme Telemetry System Upgrade	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.5 - Approval of Three Additional Building Consultants to BCA Supplier Panel	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.6 - Priority Seal Extension Programme 2019-2020	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.7 - Chief Executive Performance Agreement 2019/20	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.8 - Options and Recommendation to build Animal Shelters at Ngawha and Kaitaia	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
14.9 - Supporting information for consideration of options to build Animal Shelters	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

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.

Recommendation

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.

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.

Attachments

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.

Recommendation

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.

Attachments

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

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.

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

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.

Recommendation

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.

Attachments

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

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.

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 ~~Far North District~~ the land drainage areas identified in the schedule to the Bylaw. 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.

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

8.3 Koha Policy

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.

Recommendation

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.

Attachments

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

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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

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.

Recommendation

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.

Attachments

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

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.

The recommendation in this report has implications for Māori. Opportunities to contribute to the decision making were provided through the public consultation process.

It should be noted that earthworks that have the potential to damage archaeological, heritage, sites of significance and waahi tapu are already subject to rule in the Operative District Plan. Where they are not subject to rules they may still be protected under s.17 – Duty to avoid adverse effects.

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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

3 October 2019

9 Corporate Services Group

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.

Recommendation

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 1^st 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.

Attachments

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

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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

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.

Recommendation

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.

Attachments

1. Far North District Council 2019 Resident Opinion Survey - A2651043 ⇩

2. 2018 & 2019 Resident Opinion Surveys - Comparison & Commentary - A2651045 ⇩