Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

COUNCIL MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon Mayor John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon Mayor John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Deputy Mayor Ann Court	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	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	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	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.
	Warren Pattinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	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
	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.
David Clendon	Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Member of Vision Kerikeri	None		Declare if any issue arrises
	Joint owner of family home in Kerikeri	Hall Road, Kerikeri
David Clendon – Partner	Resident Shareholder on Kerikeri Irrigation
David Collard	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
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 Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	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 and Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms Partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	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.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
	Shareholder of Coastal Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastal Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Mate Radich	No form received
Rachel Smith	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
Kelly Stratford	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Will not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest I would step aside from decision making
Moko Tepania	Teacher	Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe.	Potential Council funding that will benefit my place of employment.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Chairperson	Te Reo o Te Tai Tokerau Trust.	Potential Council funding for events that this trust runs.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa	As a descendent of Te Rarawa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rarawa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Kahukuraariki Trust Board	As a descendent of Kahukuraariki Trust Board I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Kahukuraariki Trust Board Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
John Vujcich	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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD ELECTRONICALLY, VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
ON Thursday, 13 August 2020 AT 10.00 am

PRESENT: Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Cr David Clendon, Cr Dave Collard, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Mate Radich, Cr Rachel Smith, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Moko Tepania, Cr John Vujcich

IN ATTENDANCE: Adele Gardner (Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson), Belinda Ward (Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board)

STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke (Chief Executive Officer), Andy Finch (General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management), Dean Myburgh (General Manager District Services), William J Taylor, MBE (General Manager Corporate Services), Darrell Sargent (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy)

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

Cr John Vujcich commenced the meeting with the Council prayer.

2 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

- The Hundertwasser Toilets are currently closed due to a leak in the roof. Alternatively toilets can be found at Johnson Park, as well as portaloos placed at the Hundertwasser Toilets.

- Currently in Level 2 lockdown due to COVID-19. Council may need to a hold an Extraordinary Council meeting if there are issues that need to be addressed.

- Iwi/Hapu leaders have activated their support groups for their local communities again during this lockdown.

suspension of standing order 20.2 - time limits

Resolution 2020/49

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council temporary amend Standing Order 20.2 - Time limits, on speakers to allow the following time limits - for this meeting only.

a) movers of motions when speaking to the motion, may not speak for more than 3 minutes.

b) movers of motions when exercising their right of reply – may not speak for more than 2 minutes.

c) other members may not speak for more than 2 minutes.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

3 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2020/50

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That Council note an apology for absence from, Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson Mike Edmonds.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

4 Deputation

Letter from Cathy Wagner in regards to item 7.5 – Charges for Waste Water Treatment Houhora Heads Motor Camp was read to the members.

5 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS continued

- The Mayor thanked the Elected Members for their support with the passing of his mum.

- Acknowledged the passing of Lawrie Atkinson, member of Te Hiku Community Board.

- The Mayor and Cr Tepania will attend and vote at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General meeting. This meeting may be postponed due to the COVID-19 lockdown.

6 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

6.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2920677, pages 11 - 40 refers.

Resolution 2020/51

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council confirms the minutes of the Council meetings held 25 June 2020, 30 June 2020, 14 July 2020 and 30 July 2020 as a true and correct record.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

7 Reports

7.1 Right of Way Easement Over Reserve, Lot 3 DP 70169 NA26D/425, 69 Landing Road, Kerikeri

Agenda item 6.1 document number A2930615, pages 41 - 46 refers.

Resolution 2020/52

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council:

a) in its role as administering body of the reserve and pursuant to its powers under Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, grants a vehicular right of way easement over the reserve held in NA26D/425 being Lot 3 DP 70169; and

b) in its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to the granting of the aforementioned easement.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Cr David Clendon

Carried

7.2 Ground Lease of 28 Matai Bay Road, Karikari to Fire & Emergency NZ

Agenda item 6.2 document number A2919494, pages 47 - 56 refers.

Resolution 2020/53

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a) grant a new 33-year ground lease to Fire & Emergency NZ on 2,467.5 square meters of land at 28 Matai Bay Road, Karikari being part Lot 103 DP 54644, being 1.0390ha and part Record of Title NA4C/203 and vested in Far North District Council as a recreation reserve.

b) authorise the General Manager Infrastructure & Asset Management to negotiate and agree the final terms and conditions of the lease.

c) transfer ownership of the existing improvements to Fire and Emergency NZ for $1.00 and writes off the book value against retained earnings.

d) proceed with the classification of the 2,467.5 square meters of land subject to the lease as Local Purpose (community building) Reserve and the balance as Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1997.

e) in its role as administering body of the Matai Bay Road recreation reserve and as the delegate for the Minister of Conservation, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, grants and consents to a new lease of part of the Matai Bay Road recreation reserve being Lot 103 DP 54644 and part Record of Title NA4C/203. The term of the lease shall be:

i) a term: 33 years without right of renewal.

ii) approximately 2,467.5 square meters as highlighted on the plan attached as Attachment 1.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

7.3 Nothing But Net Far North Digital Strategy

Agenda item 6.3 document number A2930340, pages 57 - 108 refers.

Resolution 2020/54

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council:

a) adopt the Nothing But Net Far North Digital Strategy and commits to delivering on the actions in the plan as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

b) note that a progress update report be provided to the Strategy and Policy Committee, in alignment with the 2022/2023 Annual Plan to track progress.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

7.4 Kerikeri Sports Complex Proposed Playground

Agenda item 6.4 document number A2878825, pages 109 - 168 refers.

Resolution 2020/55

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council:

a) approve Kerikeri Sports Complex Incorporated permission to build a new playground on a District Wide Significant Asset located at 71 Waipapa Road, Kerikeri.

b) note the requirement for operational expenditure of $600 annually (GST exclusive) for the Community Services and Maintenance Contract, to be added to the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

7.5 Charges for Waste Water Treatment Houhora Heads Motor Camp

Agenda item 6.5 document number A2920838, pages 169 - 174 refers.

Resolution 2020/56

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a) approve unbudgeted capital expenditure of $86,000 to replace the sand in the filters at the Houhora Heads wastewater treatment site to enable the safe treatment of waste along with the cost of the dispose of the contaminated sand.

b) approve unbudgeted capital expenditure of $26,000 for the urgent replacement of a treatment tank.

c) agree that the Houhora Heads Motor Camp make annual contribution towards wastewater treatment at Houhora equivalent to the connected rate of the Kaitaia sewerage scheme.

d) agree that future charges to the Houhora Heads Motor Camp are determined on this basis for the duration of the lease period.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 Council Deputation - Letter from C Wagener

7.6 Approval for an Agile Procurement Strategy

Agenda item 6.6 document number A2925358, pages 175 - 230 refers.

motion

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council:

a) delegate, to the Chief Executive Officer, the authority to Direct Award Professional Services contracts up to a value of $500,000 per contract for MBIE funded projects for a period of three years, effective 13 August 2020.

b) delegate, to the Chief Executive Officer, the authority to award construction contracts for all MBIE funded projects for a period of three years, effective 13 August 2020.

c) approve Agile Procurement Strategies for MBIE funded projects only, effective 13 August 2020.

d) instruct the Chief Executive Officer to provide a quarterly information only report to the Council for MBIE funded procurement activity.

e) review the efficiency and effectiveness of these strategies three years after approval.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council add:

c) delegate, to the Chief Executive Officer, the authority to direct award construction contracts up to a value of $1,000,000 for all MBIE funded projects for a period of three years, effective 13 August 2020.

In Favour: Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs Dave Collard and Felicity Foy

Against: Mayor John Carter, Crs David Clendon, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

lost

RESOLUTION 2020/57

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council:

b) delegate, to the Chief Executive Officer, the authority to award construction contracts for all MBIE funded projects for a period of three years, effective 13 August 2020.

c) approve Agile Procurement Strategies for MBIE funded projects only, effective 13 August 2020.

d) instruct the Chief Executive Officer to provide a quarterly information only report to the Council for MBIE funded procurement activity.

e) review the efficiency and effectiveness of these strategies three years after approval.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Cr Rachel Smith

Carried

6.7 Remits for Consideration at the 2020 LGNZ AGM

Agenda item 6.7 document number A2920655, pages 231 – 284 refers.

motion

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a) agree the following stances to inform His Worship the Mayor’s vote for remits at the 2020 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting:

1.	Public Transport Support	Abstain
2.	Housing Affordability	Support
3.	Returning GST on Rates for Councils to Spend on Infrastructure	Against
4.	Natural Hazards and Climate Change Adaption	Support
5.	Annual Regional Balance of Transfers	Against
6.	Local Government Electoral Cycle	Support
7.	Water Bottling	Abstain
8.	Quorum when Attending Local Authority Meetings	Support
9.	Use of Macrons by Local Authorities	Support
10.	Rates Rebates for Local Income Property Owners	Support
11	Local Governments CO2 Emissions	Support

b) note that Deputy Mayor Court and Councillor Tepania will also attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting as observers.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council:

a) agree the following stances to inform His Worship the Mayor’s vote for remits at the 2020 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting:

1.	Public Transport Support	Support
3.	Returning GST on Rates for Councils to Spend on Infrastructure	Support
5.	Annual Regional Balance of Transfers	Support
7.	Water Bottling	Support

b) note that Deputy Mayor Court and Councillor Tepania will also attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting as delegates.

CARRIED

The amendment became the substantive motion.

resolution 2020/58

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council:

a) agree the following stances to inform His Worship the Mayor’s vote for remits at the 2020 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting:

1.	Public Transport Support	Support
2.	Housing Affordability	Against
3.	Returning GST on Rates for Councils to Spend on Infrastructure	Support
4.	Natural Hazards and Climate Change Adaption	Support
5.	Annual Regional Balance of Transfers	Support
6.	Local Government Electoral Cycle	Support
7.	Water Bottling	Support
8.	Quorum when Attending Local Authority Meetings	Support
9.	Use of Macrons by Local Authorities	Support
10.	Rates Rebates for Local Income Property Owners	Support
11.	Local Governments CO2 Emissions	Support

b) note that Deputy Mayor Court and Councillor Tepania will also attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting as delegates.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Cr Kelly Stratford

Carried

6.8 Voting System for 2022 and 2025 Local Body Elections

Agenda item 6.8 document number A2897009, pages 285 - 318 refers.

Resolution 2020/60

Moved: Cr Moko Tepania

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That Council adopt Single Transferable Voting as Far North District Council electoral voting system for the 2022 and 2025 local body elections.

In Favour: Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Mayor John Carter

Carried

6.9 2022 Triennial Elections - Order of Candidate Names on Electoral Voting Documents

Agenda item 6.9 document number A2908789, pages 319 - 321 refers.

Resolution 2020/61

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council adopt alphabetical ordering of candidate names on voting documents for the 2022 local body elections.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

6.10 Election Hoardings Policy #2112

Agenda item 6.10 document number A2908944, pages 322 - 326 refers.

motion

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council adopt the Election Hoardings Policy #2112 with the following amendments

a) addition of the text “This policy covers the erection of election hoardings on Council property whereas rules for erecting election hoardings on private property are included in Chapter 16 of the District Plan – Signs and Lighting” in the Background section;

b) addition of the letter B to the following wording “The Electoral Act 1993 section 221B – Display of Advertisement of a Specified Kind in the Legislative Compliance section;

c) in the Policies section, replace the following wording:

i) Delete the text “The Far North District Council considers elections hoardings as temporary signs that are controlled by the Control of the Use of Public Places Bylaw”;

ii) Delete the text “The Bylaw states….” in clause 1;

iii) Add new clause 4 “Election hoardings on the state highway corridor are not permitted at or above the 70kmph speed limit zone. Candidates should contact the New Zealand Transport Agency for advice”;

iv) Replace the wording “two calendar months” with the wording “nine weeks” in clause 7;

v) Add new wording “by midnight the day ….. ” in clause 7.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

That Council.

iv) Replace the wording “two calendar months” with the wording “six weeks” in clause 7 and that the District Plan be amended accordingly;

In Favour: Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Mayor John Carter and Deputy Mayor Ann Court

carried

The amendment became the substantive motion.

resolution 2020/62

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council adopt the Election Hoardings Policy #2112 with the following amendments

b) addition of the letter B to the following wording “The Electoral Act 1993 section 221B – Display of Advertisement of a Specified Kind in the Legislative Compliance section;

c) in the Policies section, replace the following wording:

i) Delete the text “The Far North District Council considers elections hoardings as temporary signs that are controlled by the Control of the Use of Public Places Bylaw”;

ii) Delete the text “The Bylaw states….” in clause 1;

iv) Replace the wording “two calendar months” with the wording “six weeks” in clause 7 and that the District Plan be amended accordingly;

v) Add new wording “by midnight the day ….. ” in clause 7.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Carried

8 Information Reports

8.1 CEO Report to Council 01 May 2020 - 30 June 2020

Agenda item 7.1 document number A2913339, pages 327 - 383 refers.

Resolution 2020/63

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Council receive the report “CEO Report to Council 01 May 2020 - 30 June 2020“.

The meeting was adjourned from 1.02 pm to 1.32 pm.

In Favour: Crs John Carter, Ann Court, David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

9 Community Board Updates/Issues

Adele Gardner – Te Hiku Community Board

- Te Hiku Community Board meeting on 25 August 2020, Te Rarawa Rugby Club, Ahipara.

Belinda Ward – Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

- Tourism operators are concerned with the amount of cancellations since COVID-19 Level 2 lockdown was implemented.

- Members are getting word out to hall users about COVID-19 and Level 2, lockdown, however unsure how well the message has been spread.

- Far North Holdings Limited held two successful public meetings that were well attended for their Provincial Growth Fund project in Paihia. Iwi/Hapu representatives are upset as they felt they had not been consulted with on this project.

- Residents in Paihia are concerned with the lack of permanent full time jobs.

- Residents in Paihia are concerned about short term accommodation being turned into emergency housing which is leading to an increase in violence in the area.

10 Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution 2020/64

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

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
8.1 - 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
8.2 - Far North Holdings Limited Reappointment of Director	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
8.3 - Recommendation to Award FNDC Portions of Contract for Street Light Infill Improvement Works	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
8.4 - Extension of Contract 7-14-600 - Education and Promotion of Waste Minimisation and Sustainability Practices within the Far North District	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
8.5 - Extension of Contract 7-15-603 Waste Management and Minimisation Services – Southern	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
8.6 - Extension of Contract 7-15-603 Waste Management and Minimisation Services – Northern	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
8.7 - Kaitaia Water Project Approval	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

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

11 Confirmation of Information and Decision in Open Meeting

Resolution 2020/57

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council confirms that the following decisions or information contained in the part of the meeting held with public excluded be restated in public meeting.

Item 10.1 – Kaitaia Water Project Approval

Cr Felicity Foy declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 10.1 – Kaitaia Water Project Approval and left the meeting. The Councillor requested that the minutes note that she did not receive a copy of the report, but that she did not hear any of the discussion or vote on this particular item.

Item 10.3 – Far North Holdings Limited Reappointment of Director

Resolution 2020/58

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That Council approve the re-appointment of Kevin Baxter as a director of Far North Holdings Limited for a further period to January 2022, at which point he will stand down from the board.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

10.4 - Extension of Contract 7-14-600 - Education and Promotion of Waste Minimisation and Sustainability Practices Within the Far North District

Resolution 2020/59

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a) authorise the extension of Contract 7-14-600 ‘Education and Promotion of Waste Minimisation and Sustainability Practices’ to Community Business and Environment Centre (CBEC) from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2022.

b) approve the extension of the contract to the total value of $REDACTED (excluding GST).

c) delegate to the Chief Executive any final negotiation of non-material variation and the signing of the contract extension.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Deputy Mayor Ann Court and Cr Rachel Smith

Carried

10.5 – Extension to Contract 7-15-603 Waste Management and Minimisation Services – Southern

Resolution 2020/60

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council:

a) authorise the extension of Contract 7/15/604 ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Services – Southern’ from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2022 to Waste Management NZ Ltd for the estimated sum of $REDACTED.

b) authorise variations to contract totalling approximately $REDACTED.

c) authorise cost fluctuations as specified in the contract for the period of the contract extension estimated at $REDACTED.

d) authorise performance payments as specified in the contract for the term of the contract extension at an estimated $REDACTED.

e) delegate to the Chief Executive any final negotiation of non-material variations and signing of the contract extension.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Kelly Stratford and John Vujcich

Against: Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs Rachel Smith and Moko Tepania

Carried

10.6 – Extension to Contract 7-15-603 Waste Management and Minimisation Services - Northern

Resolution 2020/61

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That Council:

a) authorise the extension of Contract 7/15/603 ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Services – Northern’ from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2022 to Northland Waste Ltd for the estimated sum of $REDACTED.

b) authorise variations to contract totalling approximately one hundred and fifty one thousand dollars $REDACTED.

c) authorise cost fluctuations as specified in the contract for the period of the contract extension estimated at $REDACTED.

d) authorise performance payments as specified in the contract for the term of the contract extension at an estimated $REDACTED.

e) delegate to the Chief Executive any final negotiation of non-material variations and the signing of the contract extension.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Kelly Stratford and John Vujcich

Against: Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs Rachel Smith and Moko Tepania

Carried

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Crs David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

13 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Cr Moko Tepania closed the meeting with a Karakia.

14 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 4.00 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 25 August 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE virtually via Microsoft TEAMS
ON Tuesday, 25 August 2020 AT 4.00 pm

IN ATTENDANCE: Adele Gardner (Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson), Belinda Ward (Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board), Andy Nock (Far North Holdings Limited)

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

Cr Vujcich commenced the meeting with a prayer.

2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Nil

3 Deputation

Lau’rell Pratt, Rowena Tana, Shirley Bradshaw, and Pita Tipene representing Kawakawa Hundertwasser Park Charitable Trust spoke regarding the Kawakawa-Hundertwasser Toilet Facility.

Centre opening in October and would like the members to attend.

4 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

- $900,000 allocated through TPK for Holianga Collective Water Projects in Opononi, Hihi, (sending note to Aisha).

- Freese Park, requesting a report to be brought to Council.

- Opononi Wharf, needs to be discussed at Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board for a recommendation to Council.

5 Reports

5.1 Approval of Unbudgeted Funds for Drought Resilience Work in 2020/2021 Financial Year

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2922119, pages 12 - 19 refers

Resolution 2020/50

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council, subject to adequate funding from other sources being approved, approve

a) unbudgeted capital funding of $1,184,000 for a new water supply bore in the deep aquifer at Monument Hill in Kaikohe.

b) unbudgeted capital funding of $15,000 for pH treatment at the Opononi/Omapere water treatment plant.

c) unbudgeted capital funding of $70,000 for amending the Kawakawa water take consent to remove the residual flow requirements.

d) unbudgeted capital funding of $100,000 for a new self-cleaning screen at the intake for the Paihia water treatment plant.

e) unbudgeted capital funding of $150,000 for the design, consenting and construction of a permanent weir at the Awanui River intake for the Kaitaia water treatment plant.

f) unbudgeted capital funding of $500,000 for the design, installations and commission of new clarifiers at the Kerikeri water treatment plant.

g) unbudgeted capital funding of $100,000 for the purchase of leak detection equipment to be use across the district on all water supplies.

In Favour: Crs John Carter, Ann Court, David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Abstained: Cr Mate Radich

Carried

5.2 Three Waters MOU with the Crown for Tranche One Reforms and Access to Stimulus Funding

Agenda item 5.2 document number A2923885, pages 20 - 28 refers

Resolution 2020/51

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council:

a) Note that:

i) in July 2020, the Government announced an initial funding package of $761 million to provide a post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain and improve water networks infrastructure, and to support a three-year programme of reform of local government water services delivery arrangements; and

ii) initial funding will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the initial stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan.

iii) this initial funding will be provided in two parts: a direct allocation to individual territorial authorities, and a regional allocation. The participating individual authorities in each region will need to agree an approach to distributing the regional allocation

iv) the Steering Committee has recommended a preferred approach to the allocation of regional funding, being the same formula as was used to determine the direct allocations to territorial authorities

b) Agree to sign the Three Waters Service Reform Memorandum of Understanding at Appendix A and Funding Agreement at Appendix B.

c) Agree to nominate the Chief Executive as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the Three Waters Service Review Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the MoU.

d) Agree to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Chief Executive, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Northland region is required to access the regional allocation

e) Note that the Three Waters Service Reform Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and doing so would void these documents.

f) Note that participation in this initial stage of the Three Waters Service Reform is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of the agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the MoU).

g) Note that the Council has been allocated $5,900,000 of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed MoU and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the MoU).

h) Note that the Northland Region has been allocated $14,130,000 of funding. Our portion of which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed MoU and Funding Agreement, and notice of agreed Regional allocations as determined by 2/3 of Territorial Authorities in the region are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the MoU).

i) Note that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

i) supports economic recovery through job creation; and

ii) maintains, increases, and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

j) Agree to authorise the Chief Executive to finalise the Delivery Plan, to address feedback from Government and to obtain the approval needed to release funding.

In Favour: Crs John Carter, Ann Court, David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

Carried

5.3 Tai Tokerau Worker Redeployment Package - Storm Response Funding Variation

Agenda item 5.3 document number A2942013, pages 70 - 73 refers

Motion

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That the Council:

a) note that approval is being sought from Whangarei District Council to vary the existing funding agreement with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to receive an additional $4m of funding for storm repair program acceleration and associated operational and capital expenditure to address flood damage in Northland (specifically $2m funding in Far North and $2m funding Whangarei Districts) related to roads, culverts, drains, parks, stormwater and other storm impacted Council Infrastructure

b) approves the variation to the previously approved back to back contractual agreement with Whangarei District Council for an additional sum of $2m, bringing the total Funding Contract value to $4.32m, to ensure delivery of the FNDC projects included in the agreement in item a)

c) delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to finalise the terms and conditions of the agreements in b).

In Favour: Crs John Carter, Ann Court, David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Nil

carried 10/0

6 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Cr Tepania closed the meeting with a Karakia

7 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 5.18 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 24 September 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

6 Reports

6.1 Freese Park, Omapere - Erosion Issues

File Number: A2917344

Author: Tania George, EA to GM - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To obtain approval for unbudgeted expenditure to address coastal erosion issues at Freese Park Omapere. That this matter be considered in light of ongoing coastal erosion issues across the District, and the need to address how this Council responds to coastal areas where there is a high degree of risk that affects property and people.

Executive Summary

· The coastline at Freese Park has been eroding for several years. Recently this has accelerated.

· The community are asking what measures Council are proposing to protect the Council assets, which are now at risk, at Freese Park; namely a children’s playground and public toilet.

· Council needs to be aware of the legal considerations when deciding what action, if any, to take.

· Four options are available to Council:

i. do nothing;

ii. managed retreat;

iii. advance the line;

iv. managed realignment;

· The preferred option will need to be identified through hydraulic modelling and community consultation. It has been estimated that this will cost approximately $200k.

· The cost of undertaking the required work to identify an optimum solution at this location is an unbudgeted operational cost.

· There is no current Council strategy or policy defining a district-wide response to coastal erosion issues.

· Coastal erosion is becoming a district-wide issue, with other examples being Ahipara Foreshore, Taupo Bay, Tapeka Bay and Kaimaumau.

· There are no existing resources within Council to progress this unplanned work, and accordingly an external resource is needed.

Recommendation

That Council approves:

a) the requirement for unbudgeted operational expenditure of approximately $200k to appoint a consultant project manager, undertake hydraulic modelling, and community consultation to identify the optimal solution to address coastal erosion issues and thereby protect Council owned assets at Freese Park, Omapere.

That Council notes:

b) that unbudgeted capital expenditure may be needed to address coastal erosion issues at Freese Park, Omapere.

c) that the Resource Consent to be issued by Northland Regional Council required for this work will take approximately six to nine months to obtain.

d) that the final cost of the work will be dependent upon the conditions associated with the Resource Consent.

e) an external consultant will be procured to manage this project. For urgency this will be through a direct appointment.

f) that there is no overall strategy or policy for addressing coastal erosion issues across the district.

g) a further report will be brought to Council outlining the preferred option and confirming required capital budget.

1) Background

Coastal erosion around the coastline of the Far North and New Zealand has always occurred as the coastal environment is dynamic. However, with Sea Level Rise associated with climate change and the level of coastal erosion has been increasing. Along with the issue at Freese Park, Ahipara foreshore, Taupo Bay, Tapeka Bay and Kaimaumau are some other local examples which remain unresolved.

Coastal erosion has become particularly apparent adjacent to Freese Park, where recent storms have accelerated the process of erosion. Significant land loss is now occurring.

This coastal erosion has already affected several Council assets including a picnic table, fencing, rubbish bin and what appeared to be old reticulation. Adjacent properties have already installed sea defences. These may have contributed to the acceleration of land loss.

However, the speed of this deterioration is now putting not only other Council assets at risk, including the children’s playground and public toilet facilities, but also neighbouring properties.

New Zealand Transport Authority have recently undertaken coastal protection work along the State Highway to protect the road and footpath from erosion.

Photo images in the attachment (A2917483) captures the rate of coastal erosion affecting the Freese Park foreshore area since December 2018.

2) Discussion and Options

Council has received communication from the Omapere community highlighting the accelerating land loss and requesting remedial action to protect Council assets.

However, at present Council does not have a clear strategy or policy to deal with coastal erosion, noting that protecting the existing foreshore is only one of several options that it could choose to adopt. Other options are no active intervention, managed realignment or advancing the line.

There are many other examples of coastal erosion from around the District. Responding to the issue at Freese Park will raise expectations from other communities, particularly as there is not yet a clearly formed strategy and policy to guide decision making. The overall potential cost of dealing with coastal erosion around the District would be significant.

Indicative costings suggest that approximately $1.5m of unbudgeted capex may be needed to provide a suitable erosion protection scheme at Freese Park acceptable to the Northland Region Council. Approximately six to nine months would be needed to obtain a Resource Consent.

The recommendation is focussed on undertaking preliminary work to identify an optimum response to the coastal erosion that is occurring, and to confirm an overall project budget. When this work is completed a further report will be brought to Council to obtain a further approval to proceed.

Legal Considerations

Freese Park is a recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (“the Act”). Section 40(1) of the Act states:

“The administering body shall be charged with the duty of administering, managing, and controlling the reserve under its control and management in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act and in terms of its appointment and the means at its disposal, so as to ensure the use, enjoyment, development, maintenance, protection, and preservation, as the case may require, of the reserve for the purpose for which it is classified.”

The construction of a physical measures to prevent erosion would appear to be in accordance with section 40(1).

If Council were only looking at the matter from the standpoint of the Reserves Act, the Council as the administering body of the reserve under the Act, could permit the proposed construction of a seawall if the Council decided that the work was desirable and necessary to preserve the stability of the land.

The bigger consideration is that if the Council approves work, or undertakes such works for coastal protection, whether as owner of the land on which those works are undertaken or as resource management regulator; then Council will have difficulty in avoiding liability upon the failure of such works at some future date. The fact that such works have failed will be evidence of the negligence of the Council. Having done, or approved something that has failed, the Council is likely to be liable.

It is also necessary to ensure that works do not merely shift the risk of loss from one location to another. Protective works at one site may simply divert the water flow so that it creates loss at another point on the coast. Council approving works that merely divert the problem elsewhere will not divert liability from the Council.

If Council is unable to mitigate against the above risks and Council chooses to do nothing there is a defence of non-feasance. This is where nothing has been done. Non-feasance has been a defence that has long been relied upon by public bodies against allegations of negligence. The Council has no liability to adjoining property owners on account of incursion by the sea first through Council land and then causing loss or damage to neighbouring private land. The Council has no duty, by positive action, to protect the neighbouring land in these circumstances,

Resourcing

Existing staff resources are fully committed in the delivery of the established programme of work aligned to the Annual Plan and the emerging Long-Term Plan, along with the additional funding coming from Government’s COVID-19 Recovery funding. Accordingly, the project management of this proposed unprogrammed work will need to be outsourced to consultants. In respect of urgency this procurement will be made as a direct appointment. There is no existing capacity to progress this unplanned work within existing staff resources.

It is anticipated that Elected Members may wish to take the lead on community engagement.

Reason for the recommendation

To note the immediate issue of coastal erosion at Freese Park, Omapere, and to provide funding to undertake work to identify an optimal response.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The requirement for hydraulic modelling and community consultation to identify the optimal solution is anticipated to require unbudgeted operational budget of $200k.

The final solution to address coastal erosion at Freese Park will need to be identified through hydraulic modelling and community consultation. Accordingly, the rates impact is unknown.

Attachments

1. Freese Park, Omapere - Erosion Issues - Images June 2020 - A2917483 ⇩

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	High- the decision effectively sets a precedent across the district.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Not applicable.
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.	District wide.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	N/A.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	All residents of the Far North.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As detailed in the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

6.2 District Wide Housing for the Elderly

File Number: A2935558

Author: Jeanette England, Assets Manager - District Facilities

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To recommend short term actions that are required to bring the Council’s Housing for the Elderly service up to legislated standards, and to provide longer term options on how that service may best be delivered in the future.

Executive Summary

The Council owns and manages a Housing for the Elderly portfolio of 147 units in 12 locations around the district. Many of these units are no longer fit for purpose and do not meet the standards required for tenanted properties.

Provision of a quality, affordable and sustainable Housing for the Elderly service in the district to address both current demand and projected increased demand is an important outcome for the Council and the community.

While there are a number of short-term improvements that should be made to the units to meet legislative requirement, the key issue that the Council needs to consider is whether it is the best deliverer of the service that the elderly living in these units require, or is there some other entity such as a registered community housing provider that may be able to provide a better service.

The report considers several options for the future of the service and suggests that due to these units being classified as significant assets, that the community be consulted with on some of these options during the upcoming Long-Term Plan (LTP) engagement process.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) agrees that the options, as presented, for the future of the Housing for the Elderly Portfolio be consulted on with the community through the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan engagement process.

b) requests that a detailed asset condition survey of the Housing for the Elderly Portfolio be undertaken as soon as practical to ensure that information is available to help inform any decisions on the future of the portfolio.

c) confirms that the 10-year budget for Housing for the Elderly asset renewals be retained in the 2021/31 Long Term.

1) Background

The Far North District Council (the Council) currently manages a portfolio of 147 Housing for the Elderly (HFTE) units at 12 locations across the Far North district. The majority of these units are either bedsits or one-bedroom units.

The units are predominantly leased to the elderly with priority given to people sixty years of age or older. Some units are leased to a third-party service provider for mental health housing. Many of the units were built 50 plus years ago and most would be considered substandard by today’s standards.

Council’s policy for the HFTE activity is that it should operate largely on a cost neutral basis. This approach has resulted in a significant amount of deferred maintenance, leading to numerous units deteriorating into a poor condition.

Many of the units have received exterior upgrades overtime, generally to resist rapid disrepair and maintain overall structural integrity. However, limited internal upgrades have occurred, largely limited to responses to fix breakages or failures. This inconsistent approach to maintenance has led to many aspects of the units being past their useful life and in some cases, not fit for purpose.

However, as tenants often stay in a unit for decades, this approach is sporadic and frequently deficient in a renewal approach. Consequently, there is a significant amount of deferred maintenance and currently no programmed strategy to manage this. The current asset value is $22.64m.

The Council is seeing an increased demand for these units, an increase in the tenant age profiles, a lifestyle expectation away from bedsits to one-bedroom units and a desire from tenants for a higher standard of services and facilities.

The introduction of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) has set the bar higher on what is an acceptable standard of living in any rental unit.

The HHS require specific interventions around heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture and drainage and draft stopping. The Council has until June 2021 to ensure all its HFTE units comply with those standards.

While compliance with those standards will go some way towards improving the living conditions in the HFTE units, matters that are now usually expected in HFTE properties such as universal access via ramps, level and wider door thresholds; and provision for mobility scooter parking do not currently exist in many of the locations.

Council staff commissioned two pieces of work to inform the discussion on the future of the Housing for the Elderly Portfolio^{^[1]}. That work has provided staff with information on:

· condition of the existing assets;

· legislation requirements under the Healthier Homes Standards;

· accessibility evaluation;

· options relating to the delivery of tenancy management services;

· options relating to how best to achieve a quality, affordable HFTE service in the future;

· information on what other councils are doing in relation to ensuring there are housing for the elderly units provided in their districts.

After considering the information provided by that research, and after discussions with a number of community housing providers, Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities, there are some short-term and longer-term issues which Council needs to consider and provide direction on

2) Discussion and Options

High level asset reviews have been conducted across Council’s 12 housing locations to provide an understanding of the condition of the HFTE units so to inform the likely level of required renewals, upgrades and budgets. That work was not intended to be a detailed condition survey of the housing assets therefore, it is recommended that a further detailed condition survey should be commissioned to fully capture the full housing asset condition.

The high-level review indicates;

of the 147 units, most of the exteriors are in fair to good condition with the bulk of the buildings having been reroofed, and in many cases, partially or fully re-clad.all buildings have R2.8 ceiling insulation and R1.5 underfloor insulation installed in 2003 as part of the government’s healthy home initiative.buildings older than 1977 appear to not have wall insulation.

Many of the structures are nearing, or over 50 years old which is generally considered past end of useful building life.with considered envelope and internal renovations to a modern-day standard, dwellings may continue to provide sustainable, safe, well maintained living environments for many years.

Most of the units require some level of renewals, particularly interior fitout and accessibility modernisation, few of the units have any form of mechanical heating, venting or cooling (HVAC). Most units have lighting in its original condition (50 years old) predominantly a single hanging bulb, including in the bathrooms, which is considered inefficient as well as hazardous. Much of the kitchen and other joinery is also in original and poor condition.

A number of renewal projects have been completed over the past few years; however much of this work was ‘like for like’, perpetuating a dated and ill‐adapted living environment making living conditions challenging for many people, especially those confronted by mobility or nearing end of life.

Expenditure of $3.87m has been allocated in Council’s LTP for HFTE renewals over the next ten years but many of the units’ risk entering an uninhabitable condition over the next 5 years if renewals are not implemented sooner. Feedback from community housing providers is that renewing bedsit units is inappropriate as that form of housing is no longer considered appropriate for elderly or any permanent social housing provision.

In light of the different options (discussed later in the report) regarding the future delivery of the HFTE portfolio is would be prudent to reconsider what, when and how renewals to the existing units happen in the future.

There are four options to consider:

· option 1 - Do Nothing.

· option 2 - Undertake basic renewals as programmed ‐ only providing ‘like for like’ replacement ($3.87m).

· option 3 - Provide renewals with modernisation upgrades ($3.97m excludes cost of legislative and accessibility upgrades discussed below).

· option 4 - Retain the current budget for renewals in the Long-Term Plan but review the strategy for renewal once an option for the future of the HFTE portfolio is made.

As a provider of rented housing, Council is required to maintain its rental properties in a reasonable state of repair. This means ensuring that the HFTE units are safe and healthy to live in and meet all legal building, health, and safety requirements.

In 2019 the Crown introduced the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These Regulations set new standards that all rental property must comply with. There are five key standards that specifically relate to the provision of Council’s housing for the elderly. These are heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and draught stopping.

As Council cannot be a registered Community Housing Provider, it is considered a landlord type housing provider under these Regulations. Therefore, all of Council’s HFTE units must be fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standard by 1st July 2021.

The cost of meeting those Regulations is likely to be on average $2,983 per unit. In the 2020/21 budget the Council has already included $ 438,405 to pay for the work required. Work should be progressed to ensure the Council meets its obligations on time.

A separate issue to meeting the HHS is the provision of fit for purpose HFTE. Council has committed to maintain a set of core values in response to its housing assets. These are accessibility, affordability, health and safety, quality and sustainability. These values were identified through consultation with the community via annual plan submissions and consultation process. In addition, the NZ Building Code determines that people should be able to use buildings safely without endangering their health, and that buildings must have facilities that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence, and wellbeing of people with disabilities e.g. access ramps, level door thresholds

Limited accessibility upgrades have been carried out on some of the HFTE units. Although this goes some way towards supporting occupant mobility to and in the buildings, several of the upgrades appear deficient in compliance with NZS4121:2001 (Design for Access and Mobility for Buildings and Associated Facilities). This standard provides best practice approaches for accessibility design relating to buildings.

Council’s elderly housing tenants are over 60 years of age with many in their 70s and 80s or older. Given the potential vulnerabilities of these residents coupled with the fact that most of these people age in place, provision of accessible upgrades is considered essential to safe and positive living. Implementation of accessibility upgrades on the elderly housing also future proofs Council’s built assets for the growing ageing population, as well as enhancing asset desirability and capital value of the assets.

Council in its “Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy” recognises that access is an issue for people experiencing disabilities, and as an advocate for all citizens of the Far North, Council acknowledges its responsibly as advocate for access and equity, especially relating to people with disabilities, and commits to facilitating this these outcomes with its own properties.

Using information from the high-level asset condition review, the estimated costs of providing compliant accessibility features in the HFTE units is $327,690. Once the detailed condition survey is undertaken of all the units then a more definitive cost can be determined. The detailed condition survey would also identify whether it is appropriate to add accessibility features to units that may have a limited life under one or more of the options for the future of the HFTE portfolio.

There are four options to consider;

· option 1 - Do nothing.

· option 2 - Attempt to remediate some of the existing conditions.

· option 3 - Provide accessibility upgrades as outline.

· option 4 - Do nothing at present but revisit the additional work to address accessibility. issues after there is a decision on the preferred option for the future of the Housing for the Elderly Portfolio.

Longer Term Issue

Looking to the future there are some key questions that the Council needs to answer.

1. Is there a need now and in the future for the provision of affordable housing for the elderly in the district?

The Council is already seeing a greater demand by people over 60 years of age for housing support as the waiting list for its housing for the elderly units has increased since 2015. Due to this demand, Council is not currently accepting applicants that are under the age of 60 years for HFTE units.

In August and September 2018, the waiting list was reviewed, and applicants removed who were uncontactable, below the age criteria, or have secured alternative accommodation. The waiting list at the beginning of March this year was 69 and reflects those who are genuinely in need of housing assistance and meet the Council criteria.

2. Can that need be met by the current number of housing for the elderly units provided for by the Council or does there need to be an increase in that number?

Statistics NZ Population projections, by age, for the Far North district indicate that between 2018-2038, under the medium growth scenario, the total number of people aged 65 years and over is likely to increase by 57% (or another 7,200 people).

While not all the expected growth in people aged 65 or more will require housing support, considering the increasing unaffordability of housing to the general population, it would be expected that the proportion of elderly requiring support to access affordable housing would increase. As a result, more housing for the elderly would be required if that demand was to be met.

3. Who is best placed to deliver a quality, sustainable and affordable housing for the elderly service in the Far North – Council or some other provider?

While local government has had a tradition of providing some form of social housing (usually housing for the elderly/pensioner housing) there is no legislative requirement for councils to do so. This means that any decision a council makes around the provision or otherwise of housing for the elderly is discretionary.

Councils who do chose to provide or enable the provision of social housing in their districts look to section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 to give them the mandate to undertake that function.

Section 10 Purpose of Local Government includes

“Subsection 1(b) to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future”.

Provision of social housing by local government has been seen by some councils as one of the mechanisms for promoting well-being. However, as with any mechanism provided by councils such provision must be tested against the prudent stewardship (sec 14 (g)) and cost-effectiveness (sec 17) tests of that same Act.

In 2018 Local Government New Zealand commissioned a stocktake of council owned social housing. The report from that stock take found that as at November 2018, 60 of New Zealand’s 67 territorial authorities owned 12,881 housing units. Seven councils did not own any housing and a further two decided through the 2018 long-term planning process to divest their current housing portfolio in full.

Matters to Consider

Access to Government Funding

The Social Housing Reform Act 2013 saw a shift towards more non-government organisations such as charitable trusts, iwi and not-for-profit organisations providing social housing, including housing for the elderly. If these organisations become approved registered community housing providers, they become eligible to access Crown provided capital grants (to assist with funding of redevelopment costs and the cost of supplying new housing) and income related rents subsidies – neither of which are available to councils.

This means that for councils, the options available for ongoing funding of social housing that they own, remain rates, borrowing or recovery through rents. Many councils find that while charging market or close to market rents can cover the costs of tenancy management and day to day maintenance, the major issue is how to fund major refurbishments/improvements or undertake redevelopment or expansion of their existing asset.

As a result, some Councils have decided to either lease or sell their housing to a community housing provider so the benefits provided by the Government can be applied to achieve a more sustainable operation. Community housing providers can also source funding from local charitable trusts, funding agencies and philanthropic organisations as well as being able to raise debt finance against rental streams to fund new developments, redevelopments and modernisation programmes.

These community housing providers range from those that build affordable housing and work with low income families to become homeowners through to those that undertake long term management of affordable rental accommodation.

Condition of Asset

Earlier on in this report information has been provided on the condition of the current HFE units, what it might cost to bring them up to not only legislative compliance but also society’s expectations. Compliance with the HHS is a matter that must be progressed to meet the deadline on the 1^st July 2021. However, the other upgrades/ renovations and who undertakes them should be part of the consideration as to who is the best deliverer of the service in the future.

Tenancy Management

Currently, the day to day tenancy management process including applications, interviews, signing up, managing rents and bond payments is carried out in house.

The service currently provided is largely a landlord tenancy management service. Council does not provide any wrap around services to support the needs of its tenants. Wrap around services can include the coordination of support agencies and networks such as budgetary support, education on subsidies, grants and entitlements and providing links to other social and/or health agencies. Such services enable elderly tenants to remain in independent living for a longer period, delaying or eliminating the need for high dependency housing or care home housing.

Many community housing providers do provide wrap around services to support tenants with complex social needs, and they provide resources and facilities that create a sense of community within each housing development.

Any decision on whether the Council should continue to inhouse manage the HFTE tenants or outsource that tenancy management function should be part of the consideration as to who is the best deliverer of the service in the future.

Can Councils or their Council Controlled Organisations become a registered Community Housing Provider?

The Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992 indicates;

“community housing provider means a housing provider (other than Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities) that has as one of its objects, the provision of one or both of the following types of housing;

(a) social rental housing;

(b) affordable rental housing;

“registered community housing provider means a community housing provider that is registered by the authority under Part 10 as a community housing provider”.

The ‘authority’ referred to is the Community Housing Regulatory Authority which sits within the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The eligibility criteria that the Authority uses to determine whether a community housing provider can become registered and so access benefits provided by the Government indicates

“Exclusions from Registration

Housing New Zealand Corporation cannot currently register as a CHP under the legislation.

Local authorities and council - controlled organisations also cannot register. However, a subsidiary of a local authority or council-controlled organisation may apply to register as a CHP if it is operating at arm’s length. The subsidiary must be genuinely operating independently from the parent as if not part of its corporate structure. This should be evident from its constitution, membership of its governing body, and its governance and financial management structures.”

In order to access the advantages of a registered community housing provider, still retain some level of ownership over their HFTE portfolios and overcome the above exclusion rules, a number of councils (Auckland, Christchurch, Queenstown-Lakes) have either entered into partnership arrangements with a registered community housing provider where the council holds the minority share or; have set up a trust, where the council has a minority representation on the trust’s board, with the trust becoming a registered community housing provider.

Council does have a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (a Council Controlled Trading Organisation that operates a trading undertaking for the purpose of making a profit.) the Far North Holdings Ltd (FNHL) whose Statement of Intent 2019-2022 describes its purpose as being the Far North District Council’s commercial vehicle that facilitates and develops commercial and infrastructural assets and business growth in the Far North District.

The Council owns 100% of the shares and appoints 100% of the directors to the FNHL and the Council monitors FNHL’s performance. Fifty percent of any profit generated by FNHL activities is required to be paid to the Council while the remaining fifty percent is required to be reinvested into the company’s activities. Prior Council approval is required for several decisions by FNHL including those that impact on any service levels and those that commit Council to future provision of funding.

These aspects of FNHL set up and operation do not appear to demonstrate that it is genuinely operating independently from the Council.

Principles and Options

Principles

In considering the options for the future the following principles are applicable;

The preferred option should:

· enable the ongoing provision of housing for the elderly, both current and future demand, in the Far North district.

· provide quality, sustainable, affordable housing, fit for purpose which meets the needs and expectation of today’s seniors i.e. warm, healthy, safe, ramps, accessible facilities, communal areas for social interaction.

· be properly managed by people with the right skills and resources to not only maintain the buildings but provide wrap around services to the tenants.

· secure existing tenants’ welfare and tenure,

· as a minimum retain the current number of housing for the elderly units albeit not necessarily retain the current units.

· be financially viable and sustainable.

· reduce risks to Council.

Options

There are four main options to consider;

· option 1 - Council continues to own and operate its current HFTE portfolio – status quo.

· option 2 - Council retains ownership of its current asset and outsources the day to day management of its portfolio to another party.

· option 3 - Council partners with an existing registered community housing provider.

· option 4 - Council divests its portfolio to other party/parties with a number of requirements attached e.g. existing tenant arrangements are protected; number of HFTE units increased over time.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

Discussions with Registered Community Housing Providers in Northland

Discussions have been had with senior people from several registered community housing providers who operate or intend to operate in Northland, including one iwi-based provider. The discussions involved providing information on the current HFTE portfolio, its condition and an explanation that the Council was considering whether, in the future, its role should be as the deliverer of that service or should it work to ensure there are other providers that are able to deliver a higher quality, sustainable service for the community.

Two key questions were asked;

1. “from you point of view as a Community Housing Provider what kind of matters do you think the Council should be thinking about as it considers the future of the portfolio?”

2. “what role do you think Community Housing Providers could play in helping the Council achieve its outcomes?”

A summary of the responses to these two questions is set out below.

Council should be considering:

· what kind of future does it want for housing for the elderly in the future e.g. does it want to see an increase in the number of HFTE units? Does it want to see HFTE as part of a mixed tenure/typology development. Providing this view of the future helps the community and other housing providers understand what the desired outcome is.

· is the Council’s main focus on the best opportunity for ongoing (or one off) revenue or the best opportunity to deliver affordable fit for purpose HFTE units?

· creating the opportunity for more HFTE units in its district and for mixed communities i.e. most responses talked about the need to ensure the elderly were not isolated but part of a wider community.

· that ensuring that the current HFTE units meet the Healthy Homes Standards is critical for the short term but committing further expenditure to upgrading the current portfolio should be guided by the preferred delivery option e.g. if the Council is to retain ownership of the portfolio and lease out the tenancy management expenditure should be set aside for upgrades. However, if the delivery option is to partner or divest to a community housing provider then that provider would have a view on what might need to be upgraded and what might need to be replaced with new units.

Potential roles for Community housing providers:

· all of the providers agreed that there was an increasing need for additional HFTE units in the Far North as well as a need for more affordable housing for all ages.

· while some of them do provide tenancy management services the preference was the ability to acquire land and redevelop it to provide additional HFTE, units and in some instances, other types and tenure of affordable housing.

· acquisition enabled the provider to design the best outcome for a site whereas only leasing or having tenancy management rights meant they had to rely on council to put aside the budget for major upgrades or replacements.

· acquisition also can provide opportunity to use part of a large site for development that generates revenue to plough back into the HFTE development.

· if the Council is considering divestment to a community housing provider, it should not expect market value for the land on which the current HFTE units sit as that would impact on the feasibility of any redevelopment for the community housing provider.

· due to the number of different locations of the council HFTE units some of the providers saw an opportunity for sites to be considered differently i.e. a more bespoke approach. They also saw an opportunity for iwi, hapu and community housing providers to partner in different locations.

· in acquisition of an existing portfolio with existing tenants (all providers were clear on the need to protect those tenants’ rights and involve them in any discussions on the future) clarity would need to be sought from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) regarding whether existing tenants would be able to access the Income Related Rent Subsidy(IRRS). If not, there may be a transition period where the provider would look to the Council to subsidise the difference between market rent and the IRRS.

· all the community housing providers contacted indicated that they would like to be kept in the loop and get updates on the process the Council choses to follow going forward.

Discussion with Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities

A discussion was also held with a senior official at Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) to understand if that organisation would want to play a role in any future HFTE service in the Far North. A summary of the key points in that discussion is outlined below:

· Kāinga Ora is being approached by several councils who are looking at the future of their HFTE portfolios.

· Kāinga Ora tend to acquire additional land/units in locations where there is already a state housing presence (in the Far North district the main locations are Kaikohe, Kaitaia, Kawakawa and Kerikeri) or where the social housing register has identified a significant gap.

· matters that they consider are the condition of the existing units (in regard to compliance with legislation) and any deferred maintenance; whether the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development agrees with the acquisition in terms of wider public housing strategy; whether the Income Related Rent Subsidy is available to existing tenants.

· Kāinga Ora does not want to compete with any registered community housing provider so if the Council wished to partner or divest its portfolio then Kāinga Ora would wait to see if a provider was interested first.

· in relation to acquiring any sites Kāinga Ora only pays the value as per its current use.

· Kāinga Ora would like to be kept in the loop and get updates on the process the Council choses to follow going forward.

Reason for the recommendation

Decisions on the future of the HFTE portfolio will be of importance to the Far North community. In particular if the decision is to either partner or divest some or all of the portfolio to a registered community housing provider then the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy relating to high significant issues (transfer or divesting of assets on the strategic assets list which includes the HFTE portfolio) is triggered. The policy requires the Council to consult with the community on any such proposal and consider the feedback from the community in any decision.

Consultation with the community can occur either by using a standalone special consultation process or through the annual plan/long term plan process. A standalone special consultation process would incur a separate and unbudgeted cost to the Council.

After consideration of the opportunities and limitations of each of the options, the current asset condition, and the feedback from the registered community housing providers and Kāinga Ora, it is recommended that in the short term the Council continues to take action to ensure its HFTE units comply with the Residential Tenancy (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations by the 1^st July 2021. In addition, a detailed condition assessment of its HFTE portfolio should be done as soon as possible as this will be necessary to inform any discussion about the future of the portfolio.

The long-term future of the HFTE portfolio will be determined as part of the upcoming 2021- 2031 Long Term Plan process whereby the Council consults with the community on the four options outlined above. Council will need to have a preferred option and financial impacts will need to be provided in the approved consultation document.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Costs of recommendations	· Renewals and Upgrades	$3.87m in Long Term Plan
	· Legislative Upgrades	$438,405 in 20/21 Budget
	· Detailed asset condition survey	$33,000 in 20/21 Budget

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, consider 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	Any changes to the way the current HFTE portfolio are managed i.e. partnership or divestment, triggers the requirement to consult with the community under the 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.	Housing for the Elderly Policies and Information 2018. The Residential Tenancy (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
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.	Community Boards will be consulted as part of the wider discussion with the community during the LTP consultation process. Community Boards will have an interest in the future of any HFTE units in their areas.
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.	A discussion was also held with a senior official at Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities (Kāinga Ora) to understand if that organisation would want to play a role in any future HFTE service in the Far North. (Discussed in the report).
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	Existing tenants in the HFTE units. They have been advised of the Council’s intention to consider options for the future of the HFTE portfolio. LTP Special Consultative Procedures will allow for other parties, who may have an interest, to submit to Council.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Budgets to meet the compliance standards has been allocated in the 2021/22 LTP.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

6.3 Kerikeri Basin Road Stopping and Transfer of Ownership

File Number: A2940982

Author: Ana Mules, Team Leader - Community Development and Investment

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval from Council to;

a) stop the redundant road on both sides of the river that once connected to the vehicle bridge across the Kerikeri Basin, and;

b) once stopped, amalgamate the stopped road with the reserve land owned by the adjoining government departments, the Department of Conservation (DoC) and Heritage New Zealand (HNZ).

Executive Summary

· The Kerikeri Heritage Bypass project was completed in 2008.

· The project involved removing the vehicle bridge in the Kerikeri Basin as this acted as a dam in heavy rain and contributed to flooding of Kemp House and the Stone Store.

· The 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin states that those areas of the existing road no longer required for public vehicle access will be stopped and incorporated into the Basin's reserve system. The redundant pieces of legal road are part of the lawn in front of Kemp House on the western bank and at the end of Landing Rd on the eastern bank.

· These pieces of road were never stopped when the bridge was removed and remain legal road.

· Stopping the road is a historic administrative oversight that needs to be finalised.

· This matter has become urgent as Ngāti Rehia have Provincial Growth Fund funding to develop the Basin Area, which includes building a whare waka (waka house) on the redundant piece on Landing Rd.

· The most expedient way to stop the road is by using the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA).

· A temporary License to Occupy a portion of the road to be stopped is proposed to be issued to assist the project to continue whilst the road stopping process is in play.

· Should the road stopping not go ahead, Ngati Rehia will be required to remove the whare waka at their own expense.

· The road stopping process will be funded out of existing budgets.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) declare the two sections of road on either side of the Kerikeri Basin, that once connected to the vehicle bridge, surplus to requirements and consent to stopping both sections of road in accordance with the Public Works Act 1981 requirements; and

b) once stopped, that the land be amalgamated with the adjoining land owned by the central government departments (Heritage New Zealand on the western bank and the Department of Conservation on the eastern bank), so the stopped road can be formally incorporated into the Basin reserve as per Section 7: Use Management of the 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin.

1) Background

The Kerikeri Heritage Bypass project was first proposed in the 1980s, after a major flood threatened to sweep Kemp House away and caused significant water damage to the Stone Store. The removal of the vehicle bridge was critical to mitigating the flooding risk, as in heavy rain and high river levels the bridge acted as a dam. The project was completed in 2008 and opened by the then Prime Minister Helen Clark.

The Kororipo Heritage Park Management Group was born out of the bypass project. The group oversees initiatives in the Kerikeri Basin area, working under the guidance of the 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin [Attachment 1]. The group has representation from the Far North District Council (both staff and elected members), Heritage New Zealand, the Department of Conservation, Ngāti Rehia, Far North Holdings, and Northland Inc. As kaitiaki, Ngāti Rehia are closely involved in all developments in the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin area.

In the above plan, under the section Use Management - 7.4.5.5 Roads, tracks and footbridges, section ‘c’ states that “Those areas of the existing road no longer required for public vehicle access will be stopped and incorporated into the Basin's reserve system”.

This however was not carried out, and the road on either side of the river that once connected to the bridge was not stopped as part of the bypass project and remains a legal road. This “road” is currently the front lawn of Kemp House on the western bank and the small section of formed road at the end of Landing Road on the eastern bank [Attachment Two - A24941005].

This report seeks to rectify this administrative oversight and follow the guidelines in the 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin, to stop and amalgamate both sections of road with the land held by the appropriate central government departments - Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) on the western bank and the Department of Conservation (DOC) on the eastern bank, so that the stopped road can be formally incorporated into the Basin reserve.

Urgency to correct this administrative oversight increased in June of this year when Ngāti Rehia received $1.25 million from the Provincial Growth Fund to upgrade Rewa’s Village. This includes the building of a whare waka (waka house) on the redundant section of Landing Road. The resource consent has been issued for this project and Ngāti Rehia have applied for a temporary licence to occupy (LTO). These both enable construction on the whare waka to start, pending building consent. The opening of the whare waka and other planned improvements is to be led by the Prime Minster and is scheduled for January 31^st, 2021.

The Kororipo Heritage Park (which includes the Stone Store, Kemp House, Kororipo Pā and Rewa’s Village) is culturally and historically one of the most important sites in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a place where Māori and Europeans lived side-by-side and some of the most important early meetings between these two very different cultures took place. With iconic European buildings like the Stone Store and Kemp House, an upgrade to Rewa’s Village and the inclusion of the new whare waka will both enhance the area and help to present a more balanced narrative in the built environment of this popular recreation and tourism precinct.

2) Discussion and Options

Applications for road stopping are considered either under the Public Works Act (PWA) 1981 or the Local Government Act (LGA) 1974.

The PWA process is more streamlined and can only be used in certain circumstances and requires the approval of the Minister of Lands and LINZ. Public consultation is not required. Staff have been advised that the PWA process will take approximately 30 weeks. Under this process a LINZ accredited agent will be engaged to manage the process and seek the necessary approvals on Council’s behalf.

The LGA process is used when the proposed road stopping has a wider public interest. This process requires public notification and allows for an objection process which, if not resolved, may involve Environment Court proceedings.

As prescribed by the 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin, these two sections of road should have been stopped and incorporated into the Basin reserve 12 years ago. They were not and this report therefore seeks to address this administrative oversight.

Stopping the eastern side will create two sections [Attachment Three – A2941004] – Section One, will become Recreation Reserve (773m2) and Section Two, will automatically become an Esplanade Reserve (1012m2) due to its proximity to the water. Once stopped the western side will create one section of Coastal Marine Area [Attachment Four – A2945651].

Currently the western side is unformed and makes up the front lawn of Kemp House. HNZ believed this section had already been stopped and have been maintaining this grassy strip for over 10 years. The eastern side is approximately 26m of formed road and still marked as such. It is expected that public interest in stopping these sections of redundant road will be low. Therefore, staff recommend Council use the Public Works Act to consent to the road stopping and amalgamation.

Once stopped, staff also recommend that ownership be amalgamated with the adjoining/appropriate central government departments (i.e. HNZ on the western bank and DOC on the eastern bank) so the land can be formally incorporated into the Basin reserve. Both HNZ and DOC have agreed to take ownership and manage these reserves. [Attachment Five – A2941000 and Attachment Six – A2941003].

Alternatively, Council may wish to enter into a management agreement with HNZ and DOC for the management of these reserves, however this is not recommended given HNZ and DOC manage all the adjoining land. Stopping these two sections of road and amalgamating ownership does not trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This proposal has the full support of the Northland Transport Alliance and ‘Support for the further development of Kororipo Heritage Park’ is in the current Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Strategic Plan.

Not stopping the road(s) impacts on Ngāti Rehia’s whare waka build. Staff have received an LTO application, which is necessary to allow Ngāti Rehia to hit the tight timeframes they are working under to meet their PGF project milestones. The LTO permits the use of the road while road stopping ensues and is only in place until the road stopping process is complete.

Options

Option 1: (recommended by staff)

Use the Public Works Act to stop the road on each side of the river. This process is the most expedient to rectify the historical oversight of road stopping and land amalgamation.

Option 2:

Use the Local Government Act to stop the road(s). This requires public notification and will likely extend the timeframe significantly.

Option 3:

Do not start the process to stop the road(s). Department of Conservation and Heritage New Zealand will be informed of the decision and Ngāti Rehia will be informed to look elsewhere for land to house the whare waka.

Reason for the recommendation

The road stopping and amalgamation tidies up an historic administrative oversight and allows the 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin to be realised for future generations to enjoy.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Both closure options require surveying which has associated costs. On the eastern bank, Ngāti Rehia have agreed to cover the surveying costs as part of their Provincial Growth Fund project. On the western side these costs will be covered by Council’s Roading Team. Note that the standard road marking of the Landing Rd piece will no longer be required.

The PWA process requires outsourcing to an agent at a cost not expected to exceed $10,000.

The LGA process would not need to be outsourced but external legal input would be required. The expected cost could be similar to the PWA process as the LGA process also requires public consultation. Though costs will increase if Court intervention is required.

The most significant differences between the two processes is that the PWA is more expedient and does not require public consultation.

Attachments

1. 2007 Sustainable Development Plan for the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin - A2941002 ⇩

2. Kerikeri Basin Road Closures Map - A2941005 ⇩

3. Landing Road Stopping Plan - A2941004 ⇩

4. Kemp House Front Lawn Road Stopping Plan - A2945651 ⇩

5. HNZ Letter Approving Land Transfer - A2941000 ⇩

6. Department of Conservation Letter Approving Landing Road Transfer - A2941003 ⇩

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	This report has low degree of significance. The financial implications are minimal, as are the impacts on the Kerikeri community. It is unlikely to generate considerable interest or deeply divide the community because neither section of road has a practical function. Many Kerikeri residents would probably expect that the road was stopped when the bypass works were completed 12 years ago.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rehia Environmental Management Plan 2015. · Public Works Act (PWA) 1981. · Local Government Act (LGA) 1974.
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 of interest to the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board and the Chair has been informed. ‘Support for the further development of Kororipo Heritage Park’ is in the current Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Strategic Plan, however road stopping sits outside of the Community Board’s 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.	Ngāti Rehia are kaitiaki of the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin area. Council has a strong and valued partnership with Ngāti Rehia. Not granting the road stopping - on Ngāti Rehia’s ancestral land - will result in the forced removal of the whare waka. This will impact on Ngāti Rehia’s culture, traditions and economic development. It will also significantly damage the good relationship Council has with Ngāti Rehia.
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.	Visitors and locals will be positively affected by the road stopping and amalgamation as it will ensure the reserve status is correct, allowing the right type of activities to occur while amalgamating the land into the Kororipo-Kerikeri Reserve for future generations to enjoy.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	No financial implications. All associated costs for stopping and transfer will be covered by the Council Roading Team’s existing budget, offset by not having to pay for road marking on the redundant part at the end of Landing Road.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

Meeting: Council - 24 September 2020

Name of item: FNDC 2020/21 Seal Extension Program and Associated NZTA Business Case Update

Author: Aram Goes – NTA Maintenance and Operations Manager

Date of report: 27 August 2020

1 Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide an update to Council on:

· Completed Seal Extensions in 2019/20;

· The planned 2020/21 FNDC Sealing Extension programme including:

o 2019/20 Carry Forward unsubsidised sites;

o Waka Kotahi NZTA approved subsidised sites;

o Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF) site, and;

o Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) sites.

· Update on the NZTA Seal Extension Business Case application outcomes.

2 Recommendations

That Council:

a) Notes the sites identified for completion of Seal Extension Works in 2020/21;

b) Notes that updated traffic count data validation has been completed for the Treatment Lengths (TLs) submitted to Waka Kotahi NZTA on Church Road (SH10 end), Koropewa Road and Otangaroa Road (SH1 end);

c) Reaffirms resolutions 2019/18, 2019/19 and 2019/20 (Council Meeting - August 29^th, 2019) and approves proceeding with contract award and construction of the approved Waka Kotahi NZTA subsidised Treatment Lengths (TLs) on Church Road (SH10 end) and Koropewa Road;

d) Notes that the proposed Treatment Lengths (TLs) on Otangaroa Road (SH1 end) no longer meets the criteria for NZTA subsidised funding and will therefore be removed from the current Sealing Program, and;

e) Supports recommendation for no additional sites to be added to the 2020/21 Sealing Construction Program due to the already high volume of sealing to be undertaken in the District due to 2019/20 Covid-19 related carry forwards and Central Government funded projects.

3 Background

At the Council meeting of 29^th August 2019 (Agenda item 18.6 document number A2604208, pages 54 – 98) the following resolutions related to the Priority Seal Programme 2019/20 were made:

Resolution 2019/18

Moved: Cr Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council approves:

a) contract of $1,297,000.00 be awarded to Broadspectrum Limited through the current FNDC Road Maintenance and Renewals Contracts for the sealing of unsealed sections of Porotu Road, Puketi Road and Koropewa Road.

Carried

Resolution 2019/19

Moved: Cr Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

b) contract of $2,703,000.00 be awarded to Fulton Hogan Limited through the current FNDC Road Maintenance and Renewals Contracts for the sealing of unsealed sections of Kumi Road, Otangaroa Road and Church Road.

Carried

Abstained: Cr Felicity Foy

Resolution 2019/20

Moved: Cr Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

c) authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to award the two contracts for the 2019-2020 Priority Seal Extensions Programme within the approved budget of $4,000,000, plus $140,000 contingency.

Carried

Note: Councillors recommend the Chief Executive Officer nominate Transport and Roading Project Manager for a local government excellence award for the work done in developing the Priority Seal Extension Programme.

At 1:14 pm, Cr Mate Radich left the meeting.

Note: A personal attack against Cr Foy, Cr McInnes (Deputy Mayor) and Adele Gardner by Cr Radich and requested that the Communications Team contact the media to ensure that any comments from Cr Radich do not include false information.

4 Discussion

4.1 2019/20 Unsubsidised Seal Extension Programme progress update

Subsequent to the August 2019 Council resolutions, roading staff commenced the process of designing, planning, procuring and construction associated with the approved unsubsidised seal extension sites at Kumi Road, Porotu Road and Puketi Road

Construction commenced on each of the above sites in early 2020 however, due to the Covid-19 Level 4 lockdown restrictions, only Kumi Road was fully completed. Total 2019/20 progress is provided in the table below.

Road Name	Approx. Total Sealing Length	2019/20 % Complete
Kumi Road	3.9km	100%
Puketi Road	1km	20%
Porotu Road	1.4km	5%

The balance of the budgets associated with the remaining sites (Porotu Road and Puketi Road) have been carried forward to 2020/21 with completion scheduled for early in the summer construction season.

4.2 2019/20 Subsidised Seal Extension Programme progress update

Following the above resolutions, the NTA began the process to submit Business Cases to Waka Kotahi NZTA for funding assistance on the following three highest ranked sites (at that time) under the NZTA’s Circular 16.04 Criteria:

· Otangaroa Road;

· Church Road, and;

· Koropewa Road.

Business Cases were submitted in the early part of 2020 and Waka Kotahi NZTA assessed these, including site visits to verify the details and context of these applications in the field.

Waka Kotahi NZTA insisted on rigorous review of Traffic Count data on these, plus other roads ranked high in the NZTA Circular 16/04 assessment criteria, and additional traffic counts were completed.

In 20^th July 2020 Waka Kotahi NZTA confirmed the Business Cases were approved for the submitted Treatment Lengths (TLs) on Church Road and Koropewa Road and qualify for Waka Kotahi NZTA subsidy, with the most recent available actual Traffic Count data applied.

The TL on Otangaroa Rd failed to meet Business Case criteria when log harvesters re-directed their haulage route, reducing the Traffic Counts.

Due to the time required to confirm data, develop business cases and obtain Waka Kotahi NZTA approval of subsidy, no construction was able to be completed in 2019/20 with the associated budgets carried forward to 2020/21.

4.3 Central Government Funded Seal Extensions

Through the combination of Tourism Infrastructure (TIF) and Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) funding, Far North District Council have received government funding for the completion of seal extension works on the following roads:

· TIF Pungaere Rd Approx. 3.7km

· PGF Peria Road Approx. 4.8km

· PGF Ngapipito Road Approx. 5km

· PGF Ruapekapeka Road Approx. 5.1km

Initial investigation and design works are underway on each of the above sites, with sealing construction work scheduled for the 2020/21 summer season.

4.4 2020/21 Seal Extension Programme

Information on all FNDC sites programmed for Seal Extension work to be undertaken in the coming year is provided below.

In addition to the above, there is approximately $1m of unallocated unsubsidised seal extension budget. Given the size of the 2020/21 Seal Extension programme it is recommended that no further sites be added to this year’s programme, with this budget allocation either carried forward to 2021/22 or reallocated to higher priority works (i.e. drought mitigation) within the current year.

5 Summary

5.1 Subsidised Sealing of Unsealed Roads

Subsequent to the FNDC Council resolution in late 2019 the NZTA have confirmed funding for the identified sections of Church Road and Koropewa Road qualify for NZTA subsidy.

Site investigation and testing has been completed and design work is in progress with these projects currently programmed for construction this 2020/2021 summer (completion due by 30 April 2021), subject to Infrastructure Committee reaffirming the resolution to proceed with these sites.

NZTA is considering the possible inclusion of the short (approx. 400m) sealing on Parapara Road (SH10 end) in lieu of Otangaroa Road site, with Waimanoni Road still eligible for consideration, subject to updated Traffic Counts. Construction of these sites, if NZTA approval is obtained, would likely be in 2021/2022.

5.2 Non-Subsidised Sealing of Unsealed Roads

Following the resolution of Council in late 2019 Kumi Road has been successfully sealed with Porotu and Puketi Roads both in progress (completion due in the 2020/21 Construction season).

Further unsealed road sections for possible sealing remain unconfirmed at the time of this report to Council and it is recommended that in lieu of adding any further additional sites to the 2020/21 programme, efforts are focussed on confirming sites for 2021/22 to enable commencement of initial investigation and design work.

5.3 Central Government Funded Sealing of Unsealed Roads

Recent award of Central Government funding for seal extensions to be completed and four sites within the District (Pungaere Rd, Peria Road, Ngapipito Road and Ruapekapeka Road) will provide a significant boost to the FNDC Sealing programme. Investigative and design work has commenced for these sites and, despite tight timeframes, we are confident of delivering these works in the 2020/21 construction season.

6 Attachments

1 Church Road Business Case Report

2 Koropewa Road Business Case Report

3 Council Agenda Paper (29/08/19) - “Priority Seal Extension Programme 2019-20”

7 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

27^th August 2020

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

Meeting: Council - 24 September 2020

Name of item: FNDC Dust Matrix Prioritisation Tool update

Author: Aram Goes – NTA Maintenance and Operations Manager

Date of report: 27 August 2020

1 Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide Council with an update on progress and further developments with the Dust Matrix Prioritisation tool.

2 Background

In 2019 FNDC/NTA staff developed the Dust Matrix prioritization tool to help inform the Council decision making process of investments for seal extensions, with dust nuisance management a key driver. The use of this prioiritisation matrix was endorsed through the following Council resolution on 27^th June 2019.

· Agenda item 13.4 document number A2472399, pages 34 - 42 refers

Resolution 2019/27

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Ann Court

That Council:

a) Approve the RAMM-sections based prioritisation methodology (inclusive of criteria and weightings) to inform the four funding streams being:

i) NZTA Dust Mitigation Initiative

ii) Provincial Growth Fund Applications

iii) Tourist Infrastructure Fund Applications

iv) FNDC Dust Management Fund

b) Approve a scrutiny-based optimisation process for roads identified to fall under FNDC’s unsubsidised funding scheme.

c) Mandate the Northland Transport Alliance to develop appropriate applications under:

i) the NZ Transport Agency 16/04 Dust Mitigation Initiative

ii) the Provincial Growth Fund

iii) the Tourism Infrastructure Fund

Carried

The benefits of sealing roads, many anecdotal, are briefly summarized in layman’s terms as:

· Elimination of dust (Health and Environmental benefits);

· Improved air quality;

· Reduced stormwater runoff / sediment contaminant;

· Improved water catchment quality;

· Elimination of gravel road corrugations, thus improved ride quality;

· Reduced high-frequency maintenance interventions with gravel pavements retained and reduced gravel consumption;

· Increased sustainability of finite quarry resources;

· Reduced carbon footprint through reduction in high frequency grader/truck operations, and;

· Increased lifecycles of road pavements.

The Dust Matrix measures available data relating to road sections (Treatment Lengths or TLs) including:

· Types and numbers of traffic movements and speeds;

· Number of and distance to houses;

· The terrain/exposure of the houses, and;

· Function/hierarchy of the road importance etc.

These parameters are all informed with the best data available and sites (TLs) on roads ranked accordingly. The Dust Matrix seeks to inform decision making when investing in sealing of unsealed roads based on objective data, for FNDCs 100% funded sites, NZTA’s subsidy funded sites and any external funding submissions (PGF / TIF etc.). Data accuracy is therefore important and there are 22 criteria to be informed across more than 1,840 Treatment Lengths (TLs), totalling more than 40,500 data entries to date. As such, rankings generated from the Dust Matrix prioritisation tool, are not absolute.

3 Discussion

3.1 Traffic Count Data – Count Station Locations and Seasonal Variances

Traffic Count data generates significant debate for stakeholders with challenges relating to:

· lack of actual counts (many road sections have estimates only),

· locations of the count station (often only one per road) and

· period the counts were taken (not reflective of seasonal traffic peaks).

Where we do traffic counts and there is an unusually high number of HCV movements recorded, this is questioned, and another verification count completed. Waimanoni Road is a recent example of this, where it had an unusually high HCV count that we and NZTA queried, hence has been removed from the NZTA Circular 16/04 priority list until verified.

Nonetheless seasonal traffic counts peaks are important to understand (vs. random one-off localised activities). To that end the NTA has a project underway on behalf of FNDC of defining roads with high seasonal traffic changes to further inform the Dust Matrix prioritisation tool. It will also include looking at how we can do counts on the same road at different locations to better understand the change in traffic count further down that road, with effort on trying to gain better visibility of subdivisions and land-use changes that may generate new traffic movements.

3.2 Understanding Dust Generation vs Social / Economic Benefits

The Dust Matrix seeks to score and calculate both the factors the generate dust and weigh up the benefits to residents and communities.

To improve interaction with residents affected by dust nuisance it is helpful to understand what locations suffer the most and not only focus on an optimised investment calculation. Clearly it is sensible to understand the economic benefit of the capital investment, however this detracts from first understanding and communicating with stakeholders about their site-specific circumstances.

The Roading Department has applied the Dust Matrix using “multiple passes” and then initially ranking roads by the factors that generate dust (i.e. traffic/environment / exposure) to enable visibility of those locations suffering the most. Thereafter followed by ranking those roads based on social and economic benefits (i.e. numbers of houses / schools / marae / churches / milking sheds / logging routes / horticulture / resilience and tourism routes etc.).

The application of “multiple passes” consistently highlighted the following roads as being listed in the top 20 sites that have high dust generation factors (based on current data, in alphabetical order).

Based on this the Roading Department can now focus a targeted review of the respective data sets for improved accuracy, including traffic count locations and target seasonal variances for the upcoming summer program.

3.3 Sealing of Targeted Dust Nuisance Locations vs Carriageway Sections

The complexity of the scoring and associated weightings when endeavouring to calculate the best site is currently significantly influenced by the length of road being assessed. Originally the Dust Matrix applied pre-defined road Carriageway Sections, as classified within the Road Asset Maintenance Management data base (RAMM software). These Carriageway Sections were not linked to the respective house locations, it simply applied the numbers of houses, plus the other 21 factors, to that existing Carriageway Section.

This saw locations where one or two houses, that suffer significant dust nuisance, being on a Carriageway Section that is over 1.5km long and therefore would never rank high for sealing – despite their exposure to dust being very high. Conversely some roads with low dust generation factors, that had more houses within a short, defined carriageway section, ranked higher. These disparities left Council unable to confidently answer to stakeholders that we understand their unique circumstances.

The Roading Department has subsequently reviewed the Dust Matrix to identify each house along every road and identified specific Treatment Lengths (TL). Based on dust clouds dissipating around 150m the nominal minimum TL is 300m (NB: 1x seal spray tanker delivers just enough to achieve 300m long by 6m wide seal coverage). Where houses are within suitable proximity the TLs are joined. This now enables Council to understand each household’s unique dust nuisance in comparison to others, instead of previously being defined by the RAMM Carriageway Length.

Discussion of pros-and-cons of sealing more numbers of targeted house frontages (i.e. dust strips) instead of sealing full road Carriageway Sections is required to guide investment decision making.

Analysis of the benefits of sealing several 300m sections on a single road vs sealing the road continuously remain possible by use of the Dust Matrix, by changing the length to suit.

4 Summary

The Dust Matrix is a ‘tool’ and as such the tool can only do so much by itself. The tool relies on updated and verified information combined with field validation by Roading Department engineers exercising their skills and experience in finalising site selection, all-the-while keeping Elected Members will informed of the risk, benefits and opportunities for final endorsement.

There will be a comprehensive traffic count project planned for this summer 2020/2021 to capture anticipated traffic increases on forestry routes, tourist destinations and summer holiday locations. The updated count data will further inform the accuracy of the Matrix and will likely see continued adjustment of the rankings.

5 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

27^th August 2020

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

6.10 Review of Road safety Promotion Activity Services

File Number: A2950912

Author: Sandi Morris, Road Safety and Traffic Planning Engineer

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To seek Council approval to implement the recommendation of the report named ‘Northland Transportation Alliance Road Safety Promotion Activity Services – Service Delivery Review April 2020’.

Executive Summary

· A workshop was held with Councillors on 27 August 2020 to discuss review findings and the Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA) recommendations.

· The workshop introduced strategic fit with Central Governments Road Safety Strategy ‘Vision Zero’ and noted external funding risks if straying from these aspirations.

· Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA) supports the establishment of the “Collaborative Model under the NTA Umbrella (Option 6)” as the preferred option from the review report.

· Next steps are now urgent to ensure the procurement plan, scope of services and NZTA funding approvals are agreed by December 2020.

· It is proposed the service providers be appointed early 2021, with a view to commencing delivery from July 2021.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) approve the ‘collaborative model under the NTA umbrella’ as recommended by Northland Transportation Alliance for Far North District as detailed under the ‘reason for recommendation’ on page 4, and;

b) delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to approve and sign the final procurement plan, and;

c) approve compliance with national strategies and policies, specifically ‘Road to Zero’, to seek further funding assistance from Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency, for the Far North Community Road Safety Programme from July 2021.

1) Background

Currently Far North District Council delivers its Road Safety Community Promotion Activity by way of a negotiated contract with the Far North Rural Education Activity Programme (REAP).

This contract currently employs two staff, based in Kaitaia. Far North REAP are contracted service providers which also engage external sub-contractors to deliver agreed outcomes.

A further summary of the local delivery and how the programs align with national strategy, is provided within the ‘Northland Transportation Alliance Road Safety Promotion Activity Services – Service Delivery Review April 2020’ report, at the councillor workshop on 27 August 2020.

The Road Safety Promotion Activity is a Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency funded activity; at the Council’s normal Financial Assistance Rate (FAR) of 66% for the Far North District Council. This rate has recently been reviewed and to be increased to 69% for Far North District.

Council could risk funding across all work categories with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency if it does not comply.

Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency required the Councils to undertake a review of the delivery of the Road Safety Promotion Activity, the procurement methods, the objectives, the deliverables and whether the outcomes are providing value for money.

2) Discussion and Options

Northland Road Safety Promotion Activity Services Review

Early 2019, the NTA committed to a review of the Northland Road Safety Activity Programmes across the Northland region, which includes Far North, Whangarei and Kaipara District Councils.

An external independent consultant was engaged (July 2019) to undertake a review of the current service provisions with an objective to ‘ensure the optimum outcomes for future road safety promotion activity services’.

Rationale Limited, led the enquiries and workshops, on behalf of the NTA. Rationale Ltd findings are detailed in the review report, titled ‘Northland Transportation Alliance Road Safety Promotion Activity Services – Service Delivery Review April 2020’. (Apr20 copy provided).

The objective of the review was to assess how Councils can improve the delivery of the Road Safety Promotion Activities across Northland region to ensure good quality services that are cost effective and are ‘getting the message across’.

The review has considered the following:

· what is the purpose / driver of the Road Safety Promotion scheme – where and when did it originate?

· what are the current arrangements across Northland including the contract scope, costs and terms?

· what are the current funding sources and level of funding?

· how do the services vary across the Region?

· performance – delivery on contract requirements?

· what do other Councils do?

· what is the Central Government direction?

A summary of the Review is shown on page 4 of the Review Report. This shows the main points of the review, the outcomes, the options, the benefits and what happens next. Some of those details are expanded on below.

Options (page 35 of the Report).

As discussed at the workshop of 27 August 2020, a long list of options was developed to present a wide range of potential delivery options, informed through workshops and interviews, an assessment of the current arrangements and the strategic case:

· option 1 - Discontinue Road Safety Promotion Activity

· option 2 - 3 separate contracts for delivery

· option 3 - One single Region wide contract for delivery

· option 4 - Status Quo, 2 separate contracts for delivery

· option 5 - Enhanced status quo, 2 separate contracts but higher level of management of outcomes included.

· option 6 - Fully collaborative under an NTA umbrella, 2 contracts with an NTA Coordinator.

· option 7 - Full delivery by in-house NTA staff

· option 8 - Alliance, third party entity working collaboratively with NTA staff.

Preferred Option

The review considers the delivery of the Road Safety activity across Northland, including Northland Regional, Far North, Whangarei and Kaipara Districts.

It summarises Central Governments strategic direction and alignment with its Transport Outcome Framework, which will now be a Minister of Transport requirement through the Government Policy Statement.

The review fulfils the NZTA requirements for Business Case analyses and is suitable for supporting future funding applications to NZTA.

Each of Northland districts’ delivery of Road Safety Programmes and success/performance measures are analysed as part of the review. It also considers how other councils in New Zealand are delivering its road safety obligations.

The geographic spread of the Northland region coupled with the high proportion of rural roads (92% for Far North and Kaipara / 82% for Whangarei) means that the region is at risk from high speed crashes on its winding rural roads and with long travel times, getting the message across to our communities can be challenging.

The review looked at the challenges and issues being faced across the region which were summarised under three problem statements:

· are we getting the right messages across to our communities?

· limited resources to deliver the Road Safety Promotion Activity.

· geographic area / remoteness makes it difficult to deliver our message.

Several options were evaluated by way of a multi-criteria analysis (refer Section 5 of the report) to address those issues and deliver on three investment objectives:

· a collaborative and regional approach will deliver a more effective Road Safety Promotion activity.

· effectiveness is demonstrated through reduced death and serious injuries on our roads.

· barriers to road safety education are reduced.

NTA management supports the establishment of the “Collaborative Model under the NTA Umbrella (Option 6)” as the preferred option.

Reason for the recommendation

With Option 6, there is still a reliance on external providers such as the Northland Road Safety Trust and the Far North REAP.

The proposed delivery model simplifies a very complex and ‘hands-off’ approach to Road Safety delivery within Northland.

The proposed structure has the following key benefits:

i) it will facilitate a potential significant step change in delivery of the road safety programme towards ‘Vision Zero’ with a more proactive, flexible and collaborative model that will better support improved delivery of the service.

ii) a collaborative partnership between the parties will facilitate better sharing of information, knowledge, skills and ideas / service providers will be better supported.

iii) there is likely to be minimum impact on business as usual to the customer but with potential for significant improvements.

iv) a high level of council control will be maintained in service expectations, development and implementation of programmes and performance monitoring.

v) continuous improvement will be driven though the Road Safety Action Group.

vi) a more efficient option may deliver cost reductions.

vii) with the umbrella arrangement, succession planning is better provided for.

This option recommends a more collaborative form of service delivery where the providers would work with the NTA to develop appropriate programmes which are continually monitored.

Next Steps

Should the preferred option as detailed above be agreed, the following requirements are needed:

1. roles and responsibilities of the Road Safety Action Group in relation to the new model to be defined.

2. NTA Programme Manager to be appointed.

3. scope to be developed – performance, reporting, collaborative approach etc.

4. service providers / Road safety Coordinators to be procured.

Once the preferred way forward has been confirmed a procurement plan will need to be prepared to determine the most appropriate method of procurement - direct appointment or open tender.

As previously noted, there is unlikely to be external interest or suitable suppliers other than those already engaged. The cost of implementing an open tender process where the incumbent would likely to be the successful tenderers is unlikely to deliver value for money. NZTA approval for the procurement plan is required.

As noted in section 6.3 of the review, the current Road Safety contract agreements expire in June 2021. If Northland Region, Far North, Whangarei and Kaipara Districts support the NTA recommendation, then the following indicative delivery timeframe will apply:

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There is existing provision within Council’s Long-Term Plan to continue delivering the Far North Road Safety Programme Activity at its current funding rate.

Attachments

1. Appendix One - NTA Northland Road Safety Review_30April2020 - A2950941 ⇩

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.	N/A
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.	District Wide.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	N/A
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	N/A
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	N/A
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

6.11 Three Waters Reform Funding Draft Delivery Plan

File Number: A2955534

Author: Melissa Parlane, Team Leader - Infrastructure Planning

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

This report requests the Council to approve a Draft Delivery Plan for submission to Crown Infrastructure Partners in order to secure $11.8M grant funding from the Government.

Executive Summary

· Initial funding from the three waters stimulus package will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the first stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan.

· At the 25 August 2020 meeting, Council agreed to sign the Three Waters Service Review Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Crown.

· The Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan is required to be submitted by the end of September 2020.

· The Draft Delivery Plan in Appendix A sets out a portfolio of projects to be completed prior to March 2022. The projects are split roughly 60% capital in nature, and 40% operational.

· Funding is set out to support key projects including:

§ Kaitaia new water source

§ Kaikohe new water source

§ Update water safety plans across the district

§ Network model upgrades

§ Enhanced water leak management

Recommendation

That Council:

a) approves the Three Waters Reform Draft Delivery Plan at Appendix A.

b) authorises the Chief Executive to finalise the Three Waters Reform Delivery Plan, to address feedback from Government and to obtain the approval needed to release funding.

1) Background

In July 2020, the Government announced a $761 million funding package to provide post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain, improve three waters infrastructure, support a three-year programme of reform of local government water service delivery arrangements (reform programme), and support the establishment of Taumata Arowai, the new Waters Services Regulator.

A Joint Central/Local Government Three Waters Steering Committee has been established to provide oversight and guidance to support progress towards reform, and to assist in engaging with local government, iwi/Māori, and other water sector stakeholders on options and proposals.

The reform programme is designed to support economic recovery, and address persistent systemic issues facing the three waters sector, through a combination of:

• stimulating investment, to assist economic recovery through job creation, and maintain investment in water infrastructure renewals and maintenance; and

• reforming current water service delivery, into larger scale providers, to realise significant economic, public health, environmental, and other benefits over the medium to long term.

Initial funding from the stimulus package will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the first stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan. The MoU has been signed. The Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan must be submitted by the end of September 2020.

2) Discussion and Options

Workshops held on 25 and 31 August 2020 discussed options for how the funding could be spent.

The funding stimulus can be applied to capital or operational expenditure on three waters service delivery consistent with the reform and stimulus objectives.

Stimulus objectives are

• Supporting economic recovery through job creation.

• Maintaining*, increasing and/or accelerating investment in core water infrastructure delivery, renewals and maintenance.

Where maintain* refers to previously planned investment that may have otherwise been deferred as a result of COVID-19. It is seeking to allow investment in water related infrastructure at pre-COVID levels and cover investment, maintenance, renewals and other three waters spend deferred due to COVID-19. The intention is that funding supports economic stimulus, and therefore is additional to planned investment.

Generally, activities funded in annual plans are not eligible. However, some expenditure that is included within already approved annual plans may be eligible for funding. For example, where a project was included in the annual plan on the basis of receiving shovel ready funding - but has not done so.

Reform objectives are detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Three Water Reform Objectives

Reason for the recommendation

As a result of workshops with Council the Draft Delivery Plan has funding split roughly 60/40 on capital and operational expenditure respectively. Capital expenditure in the draft delivery plan focuses on drought resilience. Operational expenditure in the draft delivery plan includes developing new Water Safety Plans to meet the updated standards and network model upgrades. Network model upgrades are an expensive operational task which will help inform land use planning, development and provide evidence for good policy including potential development contributions policy.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

This funding is a grant and Council are not required to pay back the money under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The funding can be used to renew, replace or improve assets (capital) or it can be used for operational activities such as maintenance, training or development of best practice management plans.

Any spend that is capital in nature may impact on future rates of that scheme as the value of the assets in that scheme will likely increase as a result of the work and additional depreciation will need to be collected via rates. New assets may also increase future operating costs of the scheme.

Spending the grant on operational activities is unlikely to increase future rates. If we accelerate future planned or required operational work, then it is possible that we can see a decrease in operational spending in the first few years of the 2021-31 LTP.

Attachments

1. 2020-09-24 Three Waters Reform Draft Delivery Plan - A2955535 ⇩

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	Legal opinion sought by SOLGM from Simpson Grierson states that signing the MoU does not trigger the need to consult. There are no projects proposed in the draft delivery plan of a high significance.
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 will contribute to the community outcome “Connected and engaged communities prepared for the unexpected” by improving resilience in our 3 waters assets. The recommendation will contribute to the community outcome “Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable” by reducing risks relating to drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.
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 is for a programme of work which will impact on communities differently. The Community Board’s views have not been sought.
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.	Iwi and hapu in the Far North District will have an interest in how the 3 waters reforms progress. Meaningful engagement with iwi and hapu on the District’s position on 3 Waters Reforms is absolutely necessary prior to Tranche Two of the reforms.
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.	Water and wastewater services are some of the most basic human rights. Council intends to use this funding to continue to provide those services in an efficient and accessible manner.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Financial implications are discussed in section 3 of the report. The recommendation is to accept up to $11.80M in grant funding from the government for the projects outlined in the delivery plan and no budgets are required.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

6.12 Appointment of Council Trustees to the Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust

File Number: A2956560

Author: Vicki Begbie, Manager - Business Development

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To nominate Councillor John Vujcich as a Council appointed Trustee to the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust.

Executive Summary

· The Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust was set up to provide community led governance to the Twin Coast Cycle Trail.

· Council adopted the Charitable Trust governance model at its meeting on the 16^th February 2017.

· Council appointed John Law and Anton Haagh as Council appointed Trustees to the Trust, at its meeting on 22 June 2017.

· Council approved the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust Deed at its meeting on the 28 March 2018, together with the service level agreement and associated funding.

· Following the resignations of Anton Haagh on 18 June 2020, and John Law on 29 April 2020, Council needs to appoint two new Trustees to the Trust.

· It is proposed that Councillor John Vujcich is nominated and appointed as one Trustee to the Twin Cycle Trail Trust.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) appoints Councillor John Vujcich as a Trustee to the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust.

b) notes that further consideration be given to nominate a Trustee from the community with a suitable skill set and experience that would complement the Trust.

1) Background

The Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust was set up to provide community led governance to the Twin Coast Cycle Trail. Council adopted the charitable trust governance model at its meeting on the 16^th February 2017.

The features of the governance model are:

· Trustees are community appointed from each section of the trail. Preferably two trustees per section with one vote;

· Council shall have the power to appoint two trustees each with voting rights;

· rotation of trustees to ensure retention of skills and continuity;

· No liability of trustees;

· disclosure of conflict of interest;

· no private pecuniary benefit;

· not to affect tax status;

· residual assets transfer to Council upon dissolution of trust;

· funding opportunities not available to Council;

· Service Agreement between Council and the Trust which details the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Trust and Council.

Appointment of Trustees

For community support and buy-in of the Twin Coast Cycle Trail, the length of the Cycle Trail was divided into seven sections.

From February 2017 to April 2017, public meetings were held with the communities adjacent to the seven sections of the Cycle Trail. Two Trustees were elected and ratified for each section of the trail.

The Trust’s Chairman is Blue Newport and Deputy Chairman is Walton Davis. Both have been Trustees since the commencement of the Trust.

Richard Green, Trustee and Treasurer, is the Trust’s representative and aDirector of Northland Adventure Experience Ltd (NAX Ltd).

Council Appointed Trustees

Per the Trust Deed, Council has the right to appoint two Trustees. Consideration was given to potential community and business leaders that are passionate about the potential that the Cycle Trail could bring the Far North, in terms of and the tourism, economic development, recreation and employment opportunities.

Both John Law and Anton Haagh were willing to become Council appointed Trustees and represent Council and ratepayers. The two Council appointed Trustees bring skills and experience plus commitment and vision to see the Cycle Trail become a key attraction and enabler for economic development in the district and balanced the skills and experience held by the community appointed Trustees.

Council approved the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust Deed at its meeting on the 28 March 2018, together with the service level agreement and associated funding.

Since 2018, both John Law and Anton Haagh have worked as a Trustee with the Cycle Trail and with Council to transition the Trust into a community led governance entity, provided marketing and business expertise that implemented a business model that has provided leadership and management to the strategic, cultural and operational aspects of the Trust’s responsibilities.

Both Anton Haagh and John Law have now resigned as Council appointed Trustees on the 18 June 2020 and 29 April 2020. Council can appoint two new Trustees to the Twin Cycle Trail Trust.

The Cycle Trail Trust and the Cycle Trail is commencing a new phase of its life, with the construction of the permanent Cycle Trail between Taumarere and Opua and future extensions to the Cycle Trail.

2) Discussion and Options

Per the Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust Deed, Council has the right appoint two Trustees to the Trust.

Councillor John Vujcich is nominated for the one of the Trustee positions.

Council also need to appoint one further trustee, preferably from the community, with the following skills and experience;

· Tourism

· Marketing, sales and promotions

· Financial and Risk management

· Small business development

At the time of writing, consideration is being given as to whom can be approached with the right skill set, business acumen and collaborative approach to add benefit and balance the skill set of the existing Trustees.

The Trust is currently focused on the permanent Taumarere to Opua Cycle Trail and rail re-alignment project now that funding has been secured from the Provincial Growth Fund.

Council has agreed to fund the first stage of the Cycle Trail construction, a funding agreement is in place between MBIE and Northland Adventure Experience Limited, and a Memorandum of Agreement has been agreed and signed by the main parties to the project.

This paper formalises the appointment of Councillor John Vujcich as a Council appointed Trustee to the Twin Cycle Coast Trust.

Reason for the recommendation

Councillor John Vujcich has willingly taken on the role of Trustee, attending the Trust’s meetings, and working with Council, the Trust, Far North Holdings Ltd and the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust in regard to the permanent Taumarere to Opua Cycle Trail and rail re-alignment project.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The Trustee positions are essentially unpaid and performed on a voluntary basis.

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

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 significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Council have committed to community led governance and leadership for the Twin Coast Cycle Trail.
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 nomination of Council Trustees is discussed at the open Council meeting, with Community Board Chairs participating.
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 Trustees for the Twin Coast Cycle Trail are Community appointed and represent their community’s views and opinions.
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.	As above.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications in this appointment.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

24 September 2020

7 Information Reports

7.1 2020 Resident Survey Results

File Number: A2950594

Author: Richard Edmondson, Manager - Communications

Authoriser: Shaun Clarke, Chief Executive Officer

Purpose of the Report

To highlight key findings of the 2019/20 Resident Opinion Survey and to advise Council of plans to make the report available to communities.

Executive Summary

· This year’s Resident Opinion Survey shows that most residents of the district continue to be satisfied with most Far North District Council services or have no strong opinion about these.

· Satisfaction levels are higher this year than in 2018/19 across most of the services measured.

· Roading is a stand-out performer, with 56% of respondents satisfied with the roading network, compared with 37% in 2018/19.

· Satisfaction with the Council’s overall performance and its reputation score also increased. However, these are still well below the 50% mark. Business units will comment further on the results for services in the Annual Report 2019/20.

Recommendation

That the Council receive the report 2020 Resident Survey Results.

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 from 13-18 June 2020. Key results from the phone survey of 500 people in the District are listed below and detailed in the attached survey report.

Survey results

Satisfaction levels

The percentage of respondents who were satisfied was:

· above 75% in 9/23 of the services measured.

· between 50-75% in 9/23 of the services measured.

· below 50% in 5/23 of the services measured.

Satisfaction levels were the same or higher than 2018/19 satisfaction levels in 22 of the 23 services measured.

Overall performance

36% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied with the Council’s overall performance, while 38% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied with overall performance in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 31% and 38% respectively.

Overall quality of services and facilities

38% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied with the overall quality of services and facilities. A further 38% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 30% and 35% respectively.

Reputation

The Council’s reputation score in 2019/20 was 33%, compared with 27% in 2018/19 and 33% in 2017/18.

Rates provide value for money

33% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied that rates provided value for money, while 32% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 29% and 31% respectively.

Vision and leadership

32% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied with the Council’s vision and leadership. A further 32% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 25% each year.

Faith and trust in Council

28% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied when asked to think about how transparent, honest and fair the Council was, while 33% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 22% and 29% respectively.

Financial management

27% of respondents in 2019/20 were satisfied/very satisfied with the Council’s financial management, while 31% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral). The percentage of respondents who were satisfied/very satisfied in 2018/19 and 2017/18 was 22% and 24% respectively.

Discussion and Next Steps

Understanding the Results

It is pleasing to see higher satisfaction levels than in 2018/19 across all but one of the service areas measured. It should also be noted that the percentage of respondents who were satisfied/dissatisfied was greater than 50% for all but five service areas. As with previous surveys, a high percentage of respondents (on average about a third of respondents across the survey) gave neutral/don’t know responses to survey questions. A satisfaction level of 36% for overall performance doesn’t therefore mean that 64% were dissatisfied. Thirty-eight percent of respondents had no strong opinion, leaving 26% dissatisfied. Some results need to be viewed with caution. In nine instances, variances between 2019/20 and 2018/19 results were within the 4.4% margin of error. Satisfaction results for Kaitaia, Kerikeri and Kaikohe pools were also based on small samples, so these results may not reflect the views of all pool users. The 44% increase in those satisfied/very satisfied with Kaikohe Pool is a case in point.

· Business units have been invited to comment on results for each service area in the Council’s 2019/20 Annual Report. The following is intended as a commentary on the overall results. Key Research uses a Customer Value Management Framework to calculate perceptions of overall performance, reputation, services and facilities and whether rates provide value for money. The framework is explained in the survey report. Key findings from Key Research’s analysis of this year’s survey results are as follows:

· higher levels of satisfaction with the Council’s reputation were the main driver of improved perceptions of the Council’s overall performance, although perceptions of services and facilities were a key driver as well.

· in 2019, the key drivers of reputation were leadership and quality of services. In 2020, the key drivers of reputation were financial management and faith and trust, both of which had higher levels of satisfaction.

· in 2019, the main driver of satisfaction with services and facilities was roads, footpaths and walkways, but satisfaction in this service area was relatively low. In 2020, roads, footpaths and walkways had the second highest impact on perceptions and satisfaction levels rose significantly. The primary driver of satisfaction with services and facilities this year was the maintenance of parks, coastal access and car parks where satisfaction levels improved significantly.

· An organisation-wide business improvement programme has been underway since 2017. The Council has also stepped up its communications, so ratepayers and communities are better informed about Council projects and services. The improving trend in Resident Opinion Survey results in recent years may reflect this investment.

· The timing of the survey and the unique circumstances created by COVID-19 may also have had a bearing on this year’s results. This was the first Resident Opinion Survey conducted under the Council that was elected in 2019. Perceptions of the Council, which includes four new councillors, may have influenced survey responses during what might be considered the “honeymoon period”.

· The survey was also conducted more than a month after fourth quarter rates bills for 2019/20 were posted to ratepayers. The 2018/19 survey was conducted a fortnight after rates bills were posted. There is a noticeable rise in negative sentiment towards the Council when ratepayers receive rates bills, so this may have influenced responses as well.

· Also, the Council wasn’t the subject of a spate of negative, high-profile news stories in the months leading up to this year’s survey as it was last year. This may account for more people having trust and confidence in the Council this year.

· Finally, it is hard to estimate what impact COVID-19 may have had on public attitudes to the Council and government agencies generally. It is possible that the pandemic has made people more appreciative of essential services government agencies provide.

The purpose of the Resident Opinion Survey is to better understand residents’ views of the Council and to use this information to improve services. While the 2019/20 results are better than those in 2018/19, they still highlight low levels of satisfaction with the level and quality of some services.

They also identify areas where there remains room for improvement, notably satisfaction with overall performance and reputation. Management will encourage elected members to consider this feedback as they prepare the Long-Term Plan 2021-31. Management will also address specific operational issues about other services, including water, public toilets and parks and reserves, with contractors.

· The Council aims to be open and transparent about its performance. It has published previous resident opinion survey reports on its website, so these are accessible to the public. Staff propose to post the 2019/20 survey report on a transparency and performance-themed page of the website www.fndc.govt.nz so communities have free access to this.

Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required as a result of this

report.

Attachments

1. Far North DC Residents Survey 2020 - Final Report - A2950589 ⇩

[1] Housing for the Elderly Asset Evaluation and Options – Capital Works Business Case Hoskins Civil Ltd 2020; Potential Options for Far North District Council’s Housing for the Elderly Portfolio Penny Pirrit Consulting 2020

Option	Current and future demand for HFTE met	Provision of quality, sustainable, affordable fit for purpose units	Wrap around services provided	Secure existing tenants’ rights	Retention of existing number of units	Financially viable and sustainable	Reduce risks to Council
Status quo	Service only meets the needs of current tenants as no plans to increase number of units to cater for waiting list or future demand	Budget available to bring units up to Healthy Homes standards. Some budget set aside over next ten years to renew/refurbish units Will not address fact that bedsits no longer considered suitable offering for the elderly	Service is that of a landlord. Skills to provide appropriate wrap around services do not exist within the council	Yes	Yes	No as the asset will continue to deteriorate without significant capital works	No as risk of asset failure leading to accidents and or ill health of tenants
Retain ownership and outsource tenancy management	As above	As above	Tenancy management organisation chosen for its tenancy and wrap around services offer	Yes	Yes	As above	As above though risk lessened as TMO would provide early warning of issues
Retain ownership of land and partner with a registered community housing provider	Would depend on nature of partnership but potential to increase units New tenants could access IRRS – more affordable	Would depend on nature of partnership but potential replace units with more appropriate offering	Yes, if CHP chosen provided wrap around services. Options to work with local hapu or iwi to provide wrap around services	Yes, through inclusion of legal covenant as part of any acquisition agreement Potential to apply IRRS in some cases	Yes, albeit may not be same number in same location. Opportunity to increase number of units	If IRRS not available to existing tenants may need subsidisation for a period CHP would bring ability to apply for capital grants/loans from Crown	Risks would eb shared as per any partnership agreement
Divest land and assets to a registered community housing provider	Yes, CHP have indicated preferred model as allows them to redevelop to provide better outcomes. Opportunity to increase number of units New tenants could access IRRS – more affordable	Yes, if acquisition cost was realistic and enabled CHP to undertake appropriate redevelopment of sites	As above Options for CHP to partner with local hapu or iwi to provide locally tailored wrap around services	As above	As above	If IRRS not available to existing tenants may need subsidisation for a period Sale of land unlikely to be at market value if divesting to a CHP All or part of budget set aside for renewals over next ten years could be repurposed.	Any risks with existing portfolio transferred to CHP but would impact price got for divestment