Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Thursday, 10 December 2020

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 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	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	Finacial Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	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
	Taumarere Counselling Services	Advisory Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	Sport Northland	Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

5 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

5.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A3018698

Author: Casey Gannon, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

Purpose of the Report

The minutes are attached to allow Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of previous meetings.

Recommendation

That Council confirms the minutes of the Council meeting held 29 October 2020 as a true and correct record.

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meetings are attached.

Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meetings.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1. 2020-10-29 Council Unconfirmed Minutes - A2993513 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	There are no implications for Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example, youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	This report is asking for minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 29 October 2020 AT 10.01 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: Emma Davis (Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Deputy Chairperson), Adele Gardner (Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson), Belinda Ward (Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board), Dale Ofsoske – Managing Director Electoral Officer, Election Services

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

His Worship the Mayor commenced the meeting with the Council prayer.

2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apologies from Mike Edmonds were noted. Emma Davis – Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Deputy Chairperson attended in Chairperson Edmonds’ absence.

3 Deputation

- Villa Education Trust - Alwyn Poole, spoke in regards to a Rain Harvesting Project for Russell as a test case.

- Far North Waters Alliance Manager - Guillaume De Rouvroy, introduced himself to the Council.

- Focus Paihia – Grant Harnish, spoke in regards to Focus Paihia and the work they have completed and work that is coming up.

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 Presentation - Villa Education Trust

2 Presentation - Focus Paihia

4 MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

- Te Hiku Ward Tour will include Henderson Bay. Residents will be barricading the road as they do not want the red clay that is currently being used on Parapara Road.

Resolution 2020/69

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That the Council consider the Notice of Motion received from Councillor John Vujcich in regards to Kaikohe Beautification.

Carried

resolution 2020/70

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That the Council, note in correcting a mistake in the annual plan, $54, 000 of unbudgeted funds is allocated, in the 2020/21 financial year, to town beautification in Kaikohe.

Carried

- Cr Clendon spoke in regards to Bledisloe Domain Waitangi Trust Board and the need to strengthen the relationship between Council and Strategic Partners. Cr Tepania informed the Council that the Māori King – Te Arikinui Tūheitia Paki, will be in the district next week as his daughter is being appointed to the Waitangi National Trust.

- His Worship the Mayor recognised Dale Ofsoske for attending the Council meeting to help Members with Item 6.3 Māori Elected Members on Council.

- Cr Radich confirmed the road barricading of Henderson Bay from today due to the use of red clay on Parapara Road.

5 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

5.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2968054, pages 12 - 27 refers.

Resolution 2020/71

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council confirms the minutes of the Council meeting held 24 September 2020 as a true and correct record.

Carried

6 Reports

6.1 Lease 8 Melba Street, Kaitaia to Nga Wawata Bi-Lingual Early Childhood Centre Ltd.

Agenda item 6.1 document number A2972424, pages 28 - 30 refers.

Resolution 2020/72

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council approve a further 2 x 3 year right of renewal of the lease on the premises located at 8 Melba Street in Kaitaia to Nga Wawata Bi-Lingual Early Childhood Education Centre Limited, from 1 July 2021, taking the final expiry date to 30 June 2027.

Carried

6.2 Speed Limit Bylaw - Okaihau-Kaeo-Waimate North Review Area

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2987894, pages 31 - 68 refers.

Resolution 2020/73

Moved: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That Council

a) adopt the amended Speed Limit Bylaw in its capacity as a Road Controlling Authority, pursuant to Section 22AB(1)(d) of the Land Transport Act 1998 with an operative date of 25 January 2021.

b) authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial corrections.

Carried

6.3 Māori Elected Members on Council

Agenda item 6.3 document number A2964943, pages 69 - 78 refers.

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council establish Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 Local Government elections.

In Favour: Crs David Clendon, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania and John Vujcich

Against: Mayor John Carter Crs Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy and Mate Radich

equal

motion

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That Council resolve to hold a poll of electors during the 2022 local body elections

At 12:00 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 12:04 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

Amendment

Moved: Cr David Clendon

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That Council commit significant budget to the communication and information strategy and campaign to ensure the public are well informed before the poll.

lost

Resolution 2020/74

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That Council resolve to hold a poll of electors during the 2022 local body elections.

In Favour: Mayor John Carter, Crs Ann Court, David Clendon, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy and John Vujcich

Against: Crs Mate Radich, Rachel Smith, Kelly Stratford and Moko Tepania

carried

The meeting was adjourned for lunch from 12.23 pm to 1.01 pm.

At 1:03 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 1:06 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

6.4 Economic Development Service Delivery Working Party

Agenda item 6.4 document number A2958303, pages 79 - 104 refers.

Resolution 2020/75

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That Council:

a) subject to non-participation by Whangarei District Council:

i) agrees to continue the process of forming a joint delivery model for regional economic development with Northland Regional Council and Kaipara District Council (to run in accordance with the original decision of Council – 25 June 2020)

ii) agrees, in principle, the new shareholding of 40 shares out of the 120 shares in total.

b) agrees, if Whangarei District Council decides to participate in the joint delivery model, that there will be equal shareholdings between the four councils.

c) agrees Councillor Vujcich and Councillor Clendon to be the Far North District Council representatives on the Regional Economic Development Service Delivery Working Party of Northland Regional Council.

Carried

motion

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council recommend the location of the Northland Inc Board and Regional Development Service Delivery Working Party meetings, be within close proximity to Far North District Council and Kaipara District Council.

LOST

At 1:10 pm, Mayor John Carter left the meeting and Deputy Mayor Court took the Chair. At 1:11 pm, Mayor John Carter returned to the meeting.

6.5 Re-Affirm Approval Of Unbudgeted Funds for Drought Resilience Work in 2020/2021

Agenda item 6.5 document number A2986369, pages 105 - 117 refers.

Resolution 2020/76

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council:

a) revoke Council resolution 2020/50 that was approved at the Council meeting of 25 August 2020;

“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.”

b) approve

i) Unbudgeted capital funding of $1,184,000 for a new water supply bore in a deep aquifer at Monument Hill in Kaikohe; and

ii) Unbudgeted capital funding of $15,000 for pH treatment at the Opononi/Omapere water treatment plant; and

iii) Unbudgeted capital funding of $70,000 for amending the Kawakawa water take consent to remove the residual flow requirements; and

iv) Unbudgeted capital funding of $100,000 for a new self-cleaning screen at the intake for the Paihia water treatment plant; and

v) 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; and

vi) Unbudgeted capital funding of $500,000 for the design, installations, and commission of new clarifiers at the Kerikeri water treatment plant; and

vii) Unbudgeted capital funding of $100,000 for the purchase of leak detection equipment to be used across the district on all water schemes.

carried

Against: Cr Mate Radich

6.6 Setting of 2021 Meeting schedule

Agenda item 6.6 document number A2952548, pages 118 - 124 refers.

Resolution 2020/77

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council adopt the 2021 calendar as tabled at the meeting.

CARRIED

resolution 2020/78

Moved: Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That at least three of the meetings or workshops throughout the 2021 year be held in Kaitaia.

Carried

6.7 Formal Appointments of Councillors

Agenda item 6.7 document number A2977051, pages 125 - 127 refers.

resolution 2020/79

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council appoint:

a) Councillor Smith to the Assurance, Risk and Finance Committee

CARRIED

resolution 2020/80

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

b) Councillor Smith to the Infrastructure Committee

CARRIED

RESOLUTION 2020/81

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

c) Councillor Stratford to the Strategy and Policy Committee

CARRIED

RESOLUTION 2020/82

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

d) that Council leave this motion to lie on the table until confirmation is received from the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board - Councillor Clendon to the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board.

CARRIED

RESOLUTION 2020/83

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

e) Councillors Vujcich and Cr Smith as the sister city representatives.

CARRIED

7 Information Reports

7.1 CEO Report to Council 01 July 2020 - 31 August 2020

Agenda item 7.1 document number A2955403, pages 128 - 191 refers.

Resolution 2020/84

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Council receive the report “CEO Report to Council 01 July 2020 - 31 August 2020“.

Carried

At 2:12 pm, Cr Moko Tepania left the meeting. At 2:14 pm, Cr Moko Tepania returned to the meeting.

At 2:18 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 2:21 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

At 2:22 pm, Deputy Mayor Ann Court left the meeting. At 2:23 pm, Deputy Mayor Ann Court returned to the meeting.

8 Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution 2020/85

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, except for Andy Nock (Far North Holdings Limited) to be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of his knowledge on Item 8.2- Kaitaia Regeneration – Proposed Land Purchase.

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 - Kaitaia Regeneration - Proposed Land Purchase

s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Council to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation where a right of appeal lies to any court or tribunal against the final decision of the Council in these proceedings

s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation

Carried

Confirmation of information and decisions in open meeting

Resolution 2020/86

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

That Council confirms that the information or decisions contained in the part of the meeting held with public excluded is not to be restated in public meeting.

Carried

At 2:58 pm, during the Public Excluded part of the meeting, Cr Mate Radich left the meeting.

9 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Cr Stratford closed the meeting with a karakia.

10 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 3.28 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 10 December 2020.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6 Reports

6.1 Lease of Local Purpose (Education Facilities) Reserves, Rawene to Te Puna o Kupenuku.

File Number: A3026514

Author: Kay Meekings, Property Legalisation Officer

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

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for Far North District Council leasing the Rawene Campus to the community organisation Te Puna o Kupenuku under Section 61 Reserves Act 1977. The campus is sited on the local purpose (community facilities) reserve at 26 Nimmo Street East, Rawene. See Attachment 1.

Executive Summary

· The reserve comprises of sections 154 -156 and 159 – 166 Town of Rawene.

· The reserve is classified for educational purposes by NZ Gazette 1998-page 2905.

· The proposed lease is consistent with the reserve purpose.

· Section 61 provides for an administering body to lease a local purpose reserve to an incorporated society.

· Te Puna o Kupenuku (50021761) is an incorporated society.

· Council delegations require a supporting Council resolution for a lease not included in the LTP.

· The Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board will consider this report at their meeting to be held on 09 December 2020 for consideration. The decision made at this meeting will be feed back to the Council meeting the following day.

Recommendation

That the Far North District Council agree:

Pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 the Far North District Council consents to a new lease over the local purpose (educational facilities) reserve (Sections 154 - 156 and 159 - 166 Town of Rawene Block XIV Mangamuka Survey District) to Te Puna o Kupenuku subject to the following conditions:

i) Rental - $1 plus GST

ii) Term of lease - 3 years

iii) Right of Renewal - 3 years

iv) Rent Review - On renewal

v) Authorise the General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management to negotiate and agree the final terms and conditions of the lease.

1) Background

This local purpose reserve was originally part of the Rawene Domain (recreation reserve). It has undergone changes to its purpose over the years having been classified as a local purpose (site for nursery) reserve in January 1981 and a reclassification in August 1998 to local purpose (educational facilities) reserve.

The reserve is vested in Council and in accordance with Section 61 Reserves Act 1977. Council has the power to lease the reserve for its stated purpose requiring neither public consultation nor the Minister’s consent. The term of the proposed lease is three years with one renewal term of three years i.e. 3 plus 3.

The Rawene Campus site has not been occupied since Northland Polytechnic withdrew from the premises in 2019. Council as the administering body and lessor of the vacated site became the owners of all assets remaining on site.

The Hokianga Community Education Trust along with community groups within the wider Hokianga area have amalgamated to form Te Puna o Kupenuku to represent the education and training needs of the people of the Hokianga. The Council accepted Rawene Community Plan records community education as a key action for three out of the five goals set out in the Community Plan.

Since its inception Te Puna o Kupenuku have been in negotiation with Council to use the Rawene Campus for community education. On 13 November 2020 a Memorandum of Understanding was put in place to formalise the relationship between both parties and outline the intent to work together for the next three years. See Attachment 3.

In the past months Council has engaged professionals to assess the site to progress bringing the facility up to a standard where it can be used by the public in a safe and sound manner. Some parts of the campus will remain substandard until funding becomes available to upgrade them. These parts will not be able to be used by Te Puna o Kupenuku. The Lease document will reflect this situation recording those parts that are out of bounds due to health and safety concerns.

2) Discussion and Options

Rental:

Councils Charges and Fees Policy sets the following costs for providing a new lease to a community group • Rental: $108 annually • Processing Charge: $434.00

It is understood during a meeting between Council representatives and TPoK, held on Friday 13th December 2019, Rawene Service Centre, Mayor Carter verbally confirmed to Ipu Absolum Council would lease the Campus for a $1.00 per annum rental. A written record has not been located.

Notes from a meeting between Council representatives, Haigh Workman and TPoK, held on 31 August 2020 at the Rawene Campus site, records the rental to be set at $1.00 per annum. See Attachment 2.

Lease Document:

Council Delegation: Chief Executive to Senior Leadership Team: Note 1: Deeds are required to be signed by two (2) Councillors, and long-term leases (longer than 1 year) not included in the LTP require a supporting resolution of Council.

While the final lease will be signed by two Councillors the Resolution seeks authorisation for the General Manager Infrastructure and Assets Management to negotiate and agree the final terms and conditions of the lease. The terms and conditions will reflect the remedial work required to be completed and record the areas unsuitable for use due to public safety concerns.

Option 1:

Enter into a lease agreement for land and buildings for a 3-year term with a 3 year right of renewal for $1.00 per annum and no Council administration processing fee being invoiced.

Option 2:

Enter into a lease agreement for land and buildings for a 3-year term with a 3 year right of renewal for $100.00 per annum and a Council administration processing fee of $434 being invoiced.

Option 3:

The lease is not to be progressed.

Reason for the recommendation

Section 61 The Reserves Act 1977 allows Council as the administering body to lease a local purpose reserve to an incorporated society. The proposed lease is consistent with the reserve purpose.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Council as the asset owner will need to put in place and finance a maintenance and renewal programme of works to maintain the land and buildings into the future. Council as the asset owner is responsible for the structural integrity of the buildings and the safety of the building users.

Te Puna o Kupenuku as an incorporated society made up of community representatives will have access to alternative funding streams once a lease is in place. Te Puna o Kupenuku are to be responsible for repairing and maintaining the buildings up to the required standard based on the building condition assessment / structural engineers report/s, maintaining the grounds, paying water rates, power bills, internet bills, security services and any other services provided to the campus. Te Puna o Kupenuku have recently received funding form the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board to enable clean up works on the campus and purchase furnishings for the buildings. They have also gained funding from Foundation North formerly known as ASB Community Trust.

Attachments

1. Lease of LP (Education Facilities) Reserve, Rawene - Map of Lease Area - A3002618 ⇩

2. Rawene Campus Meeting 31 August 2020 Meeting Notes - A3019846 ⇩

3. MoU for Rawene Campus (signed both parties) FNDC and TPoK - A3019989 ⇩

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 is of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Reserves Act 1977 allows for Council to lease a local purpose reserve to an incorporated society. Rawene Community Plan records community education as a key action to achieving the goals of the Plan.
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 lease proposal is relevant to the wider Hokianga community. The Kaikohe - Hokianga Community Board and have been in discussion with Te Puna o Kupenuku for many months. The Community Board have recently provided a community grant to Te Puna o Kupenuku to prepare the site for the proposed lease.
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 Hapu of the Hokianga have representation in Te Puna o Kupenuku. Te Reo, Tikanga and traditional crafts will be an important part of educational programming.
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 communities of the Hokianga will have access to an educational facility.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	A nominal rent for the land of $1.00 per annum is proposed.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Chief Financial Officer reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.2 Road Naming - Peras Road Waima

File Number: A3000736

Author: Selina Topia, Roading Support Officer

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

Purpose of the Report

The Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board recommend to Council that the road known as Peras Road be renamed Pera Road.

Executive Summary

· Council received a Road Naming application to rename a public road addressed at Peras Road Waima on 27 May 2020.

· The original name intended for this road was Pera Road after Mr Aperahama Raniera (Pera), a prominent and respected member of the community. However, a spelling error resulted in the final signage being Peras Road.

· The descendants of Aperahama Raniera would like this error corrected.

· Community Boards have delegated authority to allocate names for new/unnamed local roads, reserves and other community facilities, however those delegations do not extend to roads that are already named.

· The Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board received this report at the meeting held 11 November 2020 and resolved to recommended to Council that Peras Road be renamed to Pera Road.

Recommendation

That Council rename Peras Road in Waima, Pera Road.

1) Background

Mrs Rose Pera advised that this public road was named after her husband’s ancestor, Mr Aperahama Raniera, nicknamed Pera, in recognition of his prominence as a respected community member.

There are no Council records indicating when the original road-naming resolution occurred however the road sign has been incorrect for many years and the applicant would like to see the name corrected.

The background for this name is given also as per the Road Naming application, Attachment 1.

2) Discussion and Options

The options are as follows:

1. that Council resolve to correct the misspelt road name from Peras Road to Pera Road.

2. that the road name remains unchanged.

Staff strongly recommend option 1.

Reason for the recommendation

The road name recommended in this report is not a duplicate of any other road name in the District, therefore meeting the criteria set down in the Council’s Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy and the Australian/New Zealand Addressing Standard - AS/NZS 4819.2011.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The costs for road signage (white on blue background name blade) and installation will be met by council.

Attachments

1. Peras Road Application and Approval - A2926737 ⇩

2. Peras Road Map - A2926738 ⇩

3. Peras Road Schedule - A2926739 ⇩

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 is a rename of a public road and is of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy #2125 and Australia/New Zealand Urban and Rural Addressing Standards 4819.2011.
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.	No district wide relevance. The Community Board have the delegated authority to approve road names, but renaming of roads sits with Council.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	The spelling of the road name is being corrected in respect of Mr Aperahama (Pera) Raniera and descendants.
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.	Property owners of Peras Road have given consent to rename the road Pera Road as per the Road Naming application and approval form attached (A2901289).
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The costs for road signage (white on blue background name blade) and installation will be met by Council.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.3 Joint Local Authority Climate Change Committee - Agreement and Appointment of Members

File Number: A3018905

Author: Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

Authoriser: Darrell Sargent, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

Purpose of the Report

To recommend the Far North District Council agree with the Northland Regional Council, Whangārei District Council and Kaipara District Council to appoint a Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee and appoint members to the Committee.

Executive Summary

· The Climate Change Working Group (comprised of staff from the four Northland region local authorities, Northland Transport Alliance and the Four Waters Advisory Group) has concluded that the success of climate change adaptation initiatives relies heavily on having clear governance and oversight groups in place.

· To provide that governance and oversight the Northland Regional Council has proposed a joint committee be formed of elected members from the four Northland local authorities and iwi and hapū representatives.

· A joint committee of local authorities can be appointed under Clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, if all the local authorities agree to do so.

· The agreement in this instance will be achieved by all the Northland regional local authorities agreeing to the Terms of Reference (Attachment 1) for a Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee.

· The Strategy and Policy Committee, at its meeting on 30 July 2020, agreed to establish the joint committee however, under the Local Government Act 2002, the Committee does not have the power to make those decisions.

· This report describes events that have occurred in relation to the proposed joint committee since July and seeks new, recommendation only, decisions from the Committee.

· The only practicable option for the Far North District Council to agree to appoint the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee is if the Terms of Reference are amended to:

o Provide for equal remuneration of iwi/hapū members (in accordance with the Northland Regional Council Appointed Members’ Allowances Policy, Attachment 2)

o correct wording errors that are inconsistent with the applicable provisions in the Local Government Act 2002.

· If appointment of a joint committee is agreed, the Far North District Council will have two members on the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee: one elected member and one iwi/hapū member.

· The Council will also appoint alternatives for both members to serve on the committee in the event of a member’s absence.

· Councillor Clendon is recommended to be the elected member with Councillor Stratford as the alternative elected member.

· The appointment of the iwi/hapū member (and alternative) is recommended to be based on nominations sought by His Worship the Mayor from Te Kahu o Taonui (a collective of Taitokerau iwi chairs).

· This report was considered at the Strategy and Policy Committee on 01 December 2020 and make the following recommendation to Council.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) agrees, under clause 30A(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, with the Northland Regional Council, Whangārei District Council and Kaipara District Council to appoint a joint committee called the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee as specified in the Terms of Reference (A2994705), subject to the Terms of Reference being amended by:

· replacing, in the Membership section, the words “nominated”, “nomination” and “nominate” with the words “appointed”, “appointment” and “appoint” respectively

· replacing, in the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair section, the words “elected from” with the words “appointed by”

· replacing, in the Remuneration section, the words “non-elected members remuneration policy of that Council” with “the Northland Regional Council Appointed Members’ Allowances Policy”.

b) appoints Councillor Clendon as the Far North District Council elected member on the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee.

c) appoints Councillor Stratford as the Far North District Council alternative elected member on the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee.

d) request His Worship the Mayor and Cr Clendon to invite Te Kahu o Taonui to nominate two people with skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee to be the Far North District Council iwi/hapū member and alternative iwi/hapū member of the Committee.

e) recommend to Council that a policy for the remuneration of non-elected members for committees of Council be developed.

f) request that the policy is not inconsistent with other Northland Councils remuneration policies for Joint Regional committees

1) Background

On 23 July 2018 representatives of the Kaipara District Council, Far North District Council, Whangārei District Council, Northland Regional Council and Northland Transport Alliance met to collaborate on issues and approaches to responding to climate change. At this meeting the attendees agreed that for regional collaboration to be effective, it needed a mandate for a cross-council working group to be established. This mandate was sought from the Northland Chief Executive Officers Forum and Mayoral Forum.

On 20 August 2018 the Chief Executive Officers Forum endorsed Terms of Reference for a Climate Change Working Group (“the Working Group”) and appointed the Chief Executive Officer of Kaipara District Council as the project sponsor of the Working Group. The members of the Working Group are staff from the four Northland region local authorities, Northland Transport Alliance and the Four Waters Advisory Group. The purpose of the Working Group is to develop a regional collaborative approach to climate change adaptation planning for local government in Northland, including a draft climate change strategy for Northland and a work programme that identifies and addresses priority issues at both a regional and district level.

Based on advice and direction provided by the Ministry for the Environment, and case studies from across New Zealand, the Working Group has concluded the success of climate change adaptation initiatives relies heavily on having clear governance and oversight groups in place. To provide governance and oversight, in February 2020, the Northland Regional Council proposed to the Mayoral Forum that a joint committee be formed of elected members from the four Northland local authorities and iwi and hapū representatives. The Northland Regional Council also provided a draft Terms of Reference for the joint committee. The Mayoral Forum’s response was “that while the concept was supported there needed to be more consultation with Māori advisory groups from each council before moving forward”.

The Far North District Council does not have a Māori advisory group, but it is a signatory to the Mayoral Forum/Iwi Chairs Memorandum of Understanding: Whanaungatanga Ki Taurangi. Appointing a representative of the Far North iwi/hapū to a joint committee is consistent with the Council’s commitments in Whanaungatanga ki Taurangi.

The Strategy and Policy Committee, at its meeting on 30 July 2020, considered the proposal to establish the joint committee. The Strategy and Policy Committee made resolutions approving the joint committee and appointing members, including asking Te Kahu o Taonui (a collective of Taitokerau iwi chairs) to nominate an iwi/hapū representative. However, under the Local Government Act 2002, the Strategy and Policy Committee does not have the power to make those decisions. This report therefore seeks recommendations from the Committee (consistent with its previous decisions) to the Far North District Council’s governing body.

2) Discussion and Options

Agreement to appoint a Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee

Clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 gives a local authority the power to appoint a joint committee with any other local authority. This power can only be exercised by the governing body of a local authority, not a committee. Clause 30A(1) requires the appointment of a joint committee to be preceded by an agreement between the local authorities to appoint the committee. The agreement in this instance will be made when each local authority agrees to the Terms of Reference for the joint committee. The Terms of Reference are in Attachment 1 and they comply with the requirements of clause 30A(2) for matters that must be specified in the agreement.

Option One: Agree to appoint the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee as specified in the attached Terms of Reference

This option is not practicable for the Far North District Council for the following reasons:

· The Terms of Reference require each local authority to remunerate and reimburse its tāngata whenua representative “in accordance with [its] non-elected members remuneration policy”. The Far North District Council does not currently have a policy on remuneration of non-elected members, so will need to develop a policy in order to comply with the Terms of Reference. There is not enough time to develop a policy before the first meeting of the joint committee is expected to occur (February 2021), nor is a policy necessary for the local authority to make a decision on remuneration. Further, this provision in the Terms of Reference will result in unequal payment of tāngata whenua representatives – this matter is considered further in option three below.

· Some of the words used in the Terms of Reference are different from the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 and are therefore wrong and, if agreed to, would make any decisions about appointment of members to the joint committee legally incorrect.

Option Two: Do not agree to appoint a Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee

This option is not practicable for the Far North District Council for the following reasons:

· While the Council has currently “paused” work on its Climate Change Roadmap (adopted on 07 May 2020), pending the recruitment of staff to lead the work, this does not mean it needs to disengage from the regional collaboration at a governance level. The Far North District Council does not have the resources (financial or staff) to develop and implement climate change adaptation measures for the Far North District on its own.

· The costs of agreeing to the joint committee are minor in comparison to the costs the Council would incur to develop its own climate change response approaches.

· Ceasing the Council’s involvement in the cross-council collaboration on climate change potentially leads to inconsistent approaches to climate change adaptation activity across the region and reduces the Council’s access to regional skills and data and national funding.

Option Three: Agree to appoint the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee subject to changes being made to the attached Terms of Reference

This option is the only practicable option for the Far North District Council. The advantages of appointing the joint committee are:

· supporting the Climate Change Roadmap for the Far North District

· improving the governance relationships with tāngata whenua

· ensuring a regionally consistent approach to climate change adaptation and allowing for greater synergies with policies and strategies and Resource Management Act 1991 planning

· enabling Northland local authorities to lobby for central government financial contributions for projects through the collaborative nature of the joint committee.

The only disadvantage is the cost of remunerating the members appointed to the joint committee. As noted in option two, this cost is minor when compared to the costs that would be incurred if the Far North District Council worked on its own. The advantages of this option therefore outweigh the disadvantages.

As noted in option one, the Terms of Reference for the joint committee need to be changed to enable the Far North District Council to comply with them and for the appointment of the joint committee to be lawful.

The version of the Terms of Reference considered by the Strategy and Policy Committee (in July 2020) specified the remuneration of the tāngata whenua representatives would be “in accordance with the Northland Regional Council Non-Elected Members Remuneration Policy”. The Northland Regional Council, when it agreed to the appointment of the joint committee, changed that provision in the Terms of Reference to “in accordance with the non-elected members remuneration policy” of each local authority. As noted in option one, this change of wording is not practicable for the Far North District Council and therefore cannot be agreed to. This changed wording has already resulted in decisions by the other Northland local authorities to pay their tāngata whenua representatives different amounts. The Northland Regional Council and the Kaipara District Council are paying $170 per meeting plus mileage. Whangārei District Council is paying $280 per meeting (with no mileage allowance). This inequality in remuneration is unfair and unjustified. The representatives will be doing the same work and therefore should be paid the same amount. This situation would not have occurred if the Terms of Reference had retained the original wording i.e.: referring to using the Northland Regional Council policy to determine the remuneration. A copy of the Northland Regional Council policy is in Attachment 2. Note: The correct name of the policy is “Appointed Members’ Allowances Policy”.

As noted in option one, there are some wording mistakes in the Terms of Reference. Under the Local Government Act 2002, members are “appointed” to committees, whereas the Terms of Reference specify they are “nominated”. Also the Local Government Act 2002 states the chairperson and deputy chairperson of a committee are “appointed” by the members of the committee, whereas the Terms of Reference specify they are “elected”. These mistakes need to be corrected to ensure the appointment of the joint committee, and its chair and deputy, is lawful.

The Far North District Council can only agree to appoint the joint committee if the Terms of Reference are changed by:

· replacing, in the Membership section, the words “nominated”, “nomination” and “nominate” with the words “appointed”, “appointment” and “appoint” respectively

· replacing, in the Committee Chair and deputy Chair section, the words “elected from” with the words “appointed by”

· replacing, in the Remuneration section, the words “non-elected members remuneration policy of that council” with “the Northland Regional Council Appointed Members’ Allowances Policy”.

Appointment of Far North District Council members to the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee

If the Far North District Council agrees to appoint the Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee as described in option three, the Terms of Reference require the Council to:

· Appoint an elected member and an alternative elected member

· Appoint an iwi/hapū member and an alternative iwi/hapū member

Elected member appointment

Councillor Clendon holds the elected member portfolio for Climate Change and therefore would be the appropriate elected member to be appointed to the joint committee. The Strategy and Policy Committee, when it considered the proposed joint committee at its meeting in July 2020, decided Councillor Stratford should be the alternative elected member for Councillor Clendon.

Iwi/hapū member appointment

Under clause 31(3) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, a non-elected member can be appointed to a committee if “in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee”. The Terms of Reference for the joint committee specify the appointment of the iwi/hapū member should, where possible, “follow recommendations from council Māori advisory groups or committees”. Far North District Council has no such advisory groups or committees, but Te Kahu o Taonui is a collective of Taitokerau iwi chairs from Te Aupouri, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kahu, Ngāi Takoto, Ngāpuhi, Kahukuraariki, Whangaroa, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Whātua ki Kaipara and Te Roroa. The Strategy and Policy Committee, when it considered the proposed joint committee at its meeting in July 2020, decided to ask Te Kahu o Taonui to nominate a person to be the Council’s iwi/hapū member on the joint committee.

The communication with Te Kahu o Taonui needs to be at the governance level, therefore His Worship the Mayor should ask for the nomination (Note: two people need to be nominated, one as the iwi/hapū member and one as the alternative iwi/hapū member).

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Proposed remuneration can be meet from existing budgets, so there are no financial implications associated with the recommendations made in this paper. The remuneration amount for the iwi/hapū member on the joint committee is lower than the amount currently paid to the only other non-elected member of a Far North District Council committee (the deputy chair of the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee). It is possible the remuneration amount may be increased if one of the following occurs:

· the Far North District Council iwi/hapū member is appointed co- or deputy chair of the joint committee

· the joint committee recommends back to the local authorities that a higher amount is more reasonable for the work involved.

In that event, a further report will be provided with new advice and recommendations about the remuneration and financial implications.

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	The proposals in this report are low significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Clauses 30, 30A and 31 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002 give local authorities the power to appoint a joint committee with another local authority. The recommendations in this report comply with those provisions.
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.	Appointment of joint committees is not a matter that can be delegated to Community Boards.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Māori will be disproportionally affected by the impacts of climate change. Including Māori representatives on the joint committee will provide Māori with direct input into local authority decisions about climate change adaption.
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.	There are no specific persons that will be affected by or have an interest in the recommendation in this report that require consideration of their views or preferences.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Costs can be met within existing budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.4 Kaka Street Beach Access

File Number: A2983949

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 unplanned expenditure to address access issues to 90-mile beach from Kaka Street, Ahipara.

Executive Summary

· Access to 90-mile beach from Kaka Street has become problematic due to storm events.

· Storm events are becoming more frequent.

· Council is limited to the amount of remedial work it can undertake without obtaining a Resource Consent.

· The community are asking for Council to provide a long-term solution.

· One solution could be an alternative access point to the beach.

Recommendation

That Council approves:

a) the requirement for unplanned operational expenditure of approximately $150k to appoint a consultant to investigate options to resolve the ongoing access to 90-mile beach from Kaka Street, Ahipara, or identify a different location for an alternative access

That Council notes:

b) that this work is unplanned and additional to the work programme identified in the Annual Plan

c) that unbudgeted capital expenditure may be needed in future to address a permanent solution to securing beach access

d) that the option of providing an alternative point of access to 90-mile beach will be considered

e) that a planning assessment will be needed for each option considered to identify the need for a Resource Consent to be issued by Northland Regional Council for any significant work. A Resource Consent, if needed, can take approximately six to nine months to obtain

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

g) the external consultant procured to manage this project will, for urgency, be through a direct appointment.

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

1) Background

Access to 90-mile beach from Kaka Street has been problematic for several years as a result of storm events impacting upon an existing stream and stormwater discharge onto the beach. This has made the access unusable to vehicles on a number of occasions. The frequency of such events appears to be becoming more common and Council has been undertaking minor restoration within the constraints of not triggering the need for a Resource Consent for any work.

The current cost of remedial work to reinstate access is between $5,000 to $10,00 each time this is required.

The community are asking what long-term measures Council are proposing to preserve access on to the beach, including for emergency services.

2) Discussion and Options

The recommendation is focussed on undertaking preliminary work to identify an optimum long-term response to beach access, 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.

There are two strands to the investigation, either of which may be the preferred recommendation in a future report:

1. Possible engineering solutions to secure access to the beach from Kaka Street.

2. Options for an alternative location for a beach access.

Reason for the recommendation

To note the issue of access to 90-mile beach from Kaka Street, and to provide funding to undertake work to identify an optimal response.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The requirement for an options analysis and community consultation to identify an optimal long-term solution is anticipated to require unplanned operational budget of $150k.

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.
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.	This proposal is of interest to the Te Hiku Community Board. The Board is aware of the issue.
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.	Not Applicable.
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.	Not Applicable.
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

10 December 2020

6.5 Roadside Rubbish and Recycling

File Number: A2995081

Author: Simon Millichamp, Solid Waste Engineer

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

Purpose of the Report

To provide an update on solid waste issues in response to queries raised by Councillors at recent Council meetings.

Executive Summary

· Both kerbside collections and roadside litter in general, are not addressed by current contracts.

· Roadside litter results in Council receiving a number of complaints. There is some thought that the proposed container deposit legislation may assist in a reduction of roadside litter.

· There is also some dissatisfaction with the kerbside services provided by private waste companies mostly regarding the mess from bags being deposited at rural collection points outside collection days.

· The Solid Waste Bylaw is due for review which provides an opportunity to impose some further controls on kerbside collections.

· If kerbside services are to be contracted by Council, there is a range of issues to be considered before indicative pricing can be estimated.

· Proposed increases to the waste levy may result in significant additional income to fund new waste minimisation initiatives.

· A full S17A Service Delivery Review is planned in 2021 and this will be followed by a public tender for the solid waste services. The current north and south solid waste contracts expire on 30 September 2022.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) requests further investigation and analysis of future options for litter control, solid waste monitoring, kerbside collections will be considered in the S17A Service Delivery Review.

b) requests a report outlining the findings of the review including future service level enhancements when the review is completed.

1) Background

At the 13 August Council meeting a two-year extension to the solid waste contracts was approved. Several elected members expressed their frustration that these contracts did not address both kerbside collections and roadside litter in general.

Current Situation

Roadside Litter

Council currently undertakes litter control through the Community Services and Maintenance Contract held by Recreational Services Limited (RSL) in selected parks and on the main streets of most small towns.

Council road maintenance contracts do not include any litter control provisions, unlike the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) contracts for state highways.

FNDC does pick up illegal dumping, however, which is classified as larger amounts of rubbish that is more likely to have had someone stop and unload from their car. Litter is regarded as something that was likely thrown out a car window.

The pick-up of illegal dumping isn’t included in a specific contract but is mostly actioned by RSL as day works under the Community Services and Maintenance Contract.

Until recently, some litter control on Council controlled roads was carried out by community volunteers but this has reduced significantly due to traffic management and health and safety concerns. Organisers are now required to have a traffic management plan approved by FNDC’s CAR Specialist before a clean-up event is held.

Kerbside services

Northland Waste Ltd and Waste Management Ltd provide user pay kerbside services in areas that are cost-effective for those respective companies.

Kerbside services are not under contract to Council with no provision for them in the current solid waste contracts. They are “user pays” services.

The waste companies can select which areas they will or will not service and generally only service roads/areas that are economically viable.

Issues arise when unofficial collection points developed at the end of some roads which were not serviced as residents dropped their bags on the nearest road that does receive a kerbside service.

Council has some control over limited aspects of the services through the review of the Solid Waste Bylaw and the licensing of waste collectors. Public consultation was undertaken and as a result waste companies:

· must clear their collection points within four days of rubbish being reported.

· are required to erect signage to clearly inform the public of when to place waste for collection. This was in response to bags being left at all times/days at the end of roads with no collection service.

When waste companies are instructed to do ‘extra pick ups’ as a result of waste being dumped at the wrong time (illegal dumping), they look for evidence and pass it on to the Council’s Monitoring Team who can issue infringement notices to offenders.

Waste Minimisation

Council awarded CBEC Ecosolutions (CBEC) a further two-year extension for the Waste Minimization Education Contract to September 2022. CBEC delivers lessons on the effect of litter on the environment to the majority of the schools in the district under Council’s Waste Minimisation Education Contract.

2) Discussion and Options

Roadside litter

Monitoring and enforcement of the Litter Act 1979 is difficult as litter does not contain evidence that can identify the culprit. The extensive network of roads under Council control makes monitoring impractical.

The most practical opportunity to reduce roadside litter is to engage contractors to pick it up. Consideration needs to be given to including roadside litter control in Council’s Road Maintenance contracts as it is in NZTA Roading Maintenance contracts.

Long term, we may see some reduction in roadside litter through the container deposit legislation that Central Government is investigating. The proposed legislation would involve:

consumers paying a deposit on a beverage container which is included in the price of purchase consumers can get that deposit refunded if they return the empty container to a designated drop-off point. the purpose of the refund is to increase recycling rates by giving consumers an incentive to return and recycle beverage containers. If the decision is made to implement a container return scheme in New Zealand, it is estimated it would take until close to 2023 have a scheme up and operational.

Kerbside Services

There are two fundamental problems with the existing kerbside services:

1. Not all properties are serviced. This results in bags being left at collection points rather than just outside the residents’ own properties.

2. Little monitoring or enforcement of the Solid Waste Bylaw.

Currently we rely on the waste companies to provide evidence. Over the last year the waste companies have provided 110 pieces of evidence and Council’s Monitoring Team has issued 70 fines. Of these 70 fines, 34 have been waivered. The waste companies report that they are finding less evidence that supports the issuing of fines.

Options

Employ a Monitoring Officer – Solid Waste

This role could include actively monitor collection points, look for evidence in illegal dumping and issue fines. We have some “trial cameras” which can be set up in certain situations, however we need to ensure there is adequate data storage capabilities to ensure longer surveillance times. Cameras are prone to theft and vandalism. Currently Solid Waste staff do not have the resources, either technical or availability to set up more technical surveillance. The engagement of a warranted a Monitoring Officer- Solid Waste, would allow direct monitoring of problem collection points and the issuing of infringement notices if verbal warnings were ignored.

Review the Solid Waste Bylaw

The Solid Waste Bylaw is due for revision by May 2021. Council could increase the requirements of licenced waste collectors under the bylaw to include improvements to the kerbside services such as:

· requirement to service all properties in a certain district.

· cages at collection points.

· more frequent collections.

· introduce penalties/fines under the Solid Waste Bylaw for waste companies leaving sites untidy.

· increase the fees for the Solid Waste Collectors Licence to contribute towards employing a solid waste monitoring officer.

Note that all the above come with associated costs and risks.

The most significant risk being waste companies stop providing kerbside collections of recycling and/or rubbish. Public consultation and the community views would need to be considered.

Contract out Kerbside Services

This would enable Council to specify what services are required. This option would provide the opportunity to consider several items including:

· areas to be serviced (district wide services may not be practical due to health and safety, financial, affordability and economic considerations).

· type of materials collected (rubbish, recycling, green waste, food scraps).

· type of receptacles (wheelie bins, crates, bags).

· frequency of collection (weekly, fortnightly, monthly).

· responsibility for recycling collected.

However, the impacts of the proposed container deposit legislation would need to be considered before tendering out a kerbside service, as there is likely to be a significant reduction in the volume of bottles collected on the kerbside if the legislation is passed.

The financial cost of Council providing kerbside services would be significant, so community consultation is likely to be required.

Staff recommend that options for kerbside services be considered as part of the S17A Service Delivery Review of FNDC’s Solid Waste due 2021. The outcomes of this review will inform the new Solid Waste Contract(s) and Waste Minimisation Contract which will be tendered in 2022.

Reason for the recommendation.

To provide information relating to roadside rubbish and recycling.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Neither the provision of kerbside services, roadside litter control nor the employment of a Monitoring Officer - Solid Waste is provided for under existing budgets and the draft 2021 – 2031 plan and would be an increase in levels of service provided to the community.

Additional central government funding for kerbside services and resources to undertake solid waste monitoring may become available through increases to the waste levy, however, it is not yet clear if this funding could be used for litter control.

Waste Levy Current situation.

The Waste Levy is a targeted tax paid by landfill operators determined by the tonnages of waste they receive. The Waste Minimisation Act currently specifies a $10 per ton waste levy on landfill’s that accept household waste. Landfills include this levy in their overall disposal fees.

FNDC pays this waste levy indirectly through the refuse transport and disposal rates in our two main waste contracts. FNDC also pays the waste levy directly to Ministry for the Environment (MFE) for rubbish received at the Russell Landfill, Council’s only remaining landfill. Overall, between the indirect and direct payments above, FNDC pays about $55,000 per annum

All New Zealand’s landfill levy goes into a common pool and the MFE allocates the total landfill levy pool as follows:

· 50 per cent given to territorial authorities for waste minimisation activities specified in their waste management and minimisation plans. Allocations are determined by population numbers rather than amount of levy paid.

· The balance of the landfill levy revenue is allocated to projects that “promote or achieve waste minimisation”, through the contestable Waste Minimisation Fund.

Financial implications of the current Waste Levy.

The district does well from this levy because we produce relatively low tonnages of rubbish per person and therefore pay relatively low levies per person. The district produces 340 kg of solid waste per person compared to Auckland that produces 1000kg of solid waste per person.

FNDC does very well from this levy because despite controlling and paying levy on only one third of the district’s rubbish, we receive all the district’s territorial authority share.

FNDC pays about $55,000 per annum waste levy for rubbish received through the districts refuse transfer stations (including Russell) as the liability for the 5,500 tons of solid waste accepted.

Far North businesses and households indirectly pay an additional $170,000 per annum in waste levies for rubbish that doesn’t go through the district’s refuse transfer stations i.e. kerbside and commercial waste which equates to 17,000 tons of solid waste. The levy cost is included in the fees charged by the waste companies to these households and businesses. The levy for this waste is then paid directly to the MFE by commercial operators rather than by Council.

FNDC currently receives approximately $240,000 per annum back from Ministry for the Environment from waste levies.

The net financial effect is $185,000 surplus in the Waste Levy, ($240,000 minus $55,000) which goes towards funding waste minimisation activities identified in FNDC’s Solid Waste Plan.

The Far North also benefits from projects in our district funded through the Waste Minimisation Fund that are delivered by CBEC and other providers.

Waste Levy increase.

The Ministry for the Environment has announced they will:

• expand the waste levy to cover additional landfill types, including construction and demolition fills, progressively from 1 July 2022.

• progressively increase over four years the levy rate for landfills that take household waste from the current $10 per tonne to $60 per tonne.

Projected Waste Levy revenue collected by central government.

The MFE still needs to provide clarity regarding its investment plan to allocate waste levy funds. Changes in allocation must be done through an amendment of the Waste Minimisation Act.

Broad timeframes:

· by end 2020 – Cabinet confirms timing for levy increase.

· July 2021 – levy increases to $20/t (if approved by Cabinet).

· 2021 – initial policy development and consultation on new waste legislation.

· 2022 – Parliamentary process for new legislation (select committee etc).

· end 2022/start 2023 – new waste legislation in place.

Estimated financial implications of proposed increases.

Future levy revenues are projected based on modelling but there are uncertainties about how waste disposers will react to an increase in disposal cost.

Year	Waste levy fund	FNDC contribution to fund (5,500 tons)	FNDC receives from fund	FNDC net income from fund
20/21	$35M	$55,000	$242,965	$187,965
21/22	$65M	$110,000	$451,220.	$341,220
22/23	$151M	$165,000	$1,048,220	$883,220

FNDC’s income share from the levy after 22/23 will be determined by amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act. For clarity Landfill operators include waste levy costs in their overall disposal fees. Commercial and kerbside service providers include waste levy costs in their overall costs to their customers.

Estimated Cost of Options.

1. Employment of a Monitoring Officer – Solid Waste for the purpose of reducing littering and illegal dumping through the enforcement of the Solid Waste Bylaw and the Litter Act 1979.

The key functions of the role would be:

· surveillance of illegal dumping problem areas.

· obtaining evidence of the people responsible for illegal dumping.

· issuing of infringement notices to offenders.

The estimated annual cost is estimated at $82,400 per annum based on:

Salary (including Kiwisaver, ACC etc)	$66,000
Vehicle	$6,000.
Training	$1,500.
Overheads (phone, computer etc)	$1,400
Uniform/boots/Stationery	$1,500
Court action etc- collection of fines	$6,000
Total	$82,400

2. Inclusion of Kerbside Collection in the Solid Waste Contracts.

A key benefit would be that Council has responsibility and accountability for the service and will have contract terms in place regarding levels of service, performance expectations, have greater ability to work with the contractor and community.

The costs depend on the range of services provided and the areas serviced. The costs could be recovered by:

· rates funding for all properties.

· a target rate for properties serviced.

· a voluntary “opt in or out” Council user pays service.

· a mixture of the above e.g. a targeted rate for recycling plus user pays bag collection.

High level review of three Councils’ services and costs:

· Tauranga City Council; $230 per household including rubbish and recycling empty costs.

System: wheelie bin for rubbish, wheelie bin for recycling, crate for glass, bin for food scraps.

· Whangarei District Council - $90 per household per year including recycling costs but not rubbish costs.

System: twin crates, one for glass, one for other recycling, user pays Council bag for rubbish.

The Far North District has lower population densities than either of the above so the cost per household is likely to be greater if the service is delivered to all households. A rural example is:

· Matamata Piako District Council - $295 per household includes recycling costs but not rubbish costs.

System: wheelie bin for mixed recycling, crate for glass, user pays Council bag for rubbish.

3. Litter Control.

Litter collection on rural roads/paths is a qualifying activity and, as such, is theoretically eligible for NZTA subsidies. However, the reality is that when Council seeks increases in maintenance and operation funding for core works relating to sealed and unsealed road pavements and drainage etc, it is routinely declined. Essentially, litter collection would need to be fully funded by Council or done by reducing other essential road maintenance work.

The Northland Transportation Alliance has recently carried out roadside litter collection campaign funded through MBIE as part of the COVID-19 recovery package. The roadside litter campaign costs $2,500 per day which covers a vehicle and driver for bag collection and pilot duty, plus four litter collectors. Taking into account disposal fees and the additional traffic management required on some busier roads, it is estimated that funding a crew two days per week would cost approximately $260,000 per annum.

All increases in levels of service and will need to be prioritised with other service provision in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

These options outlined in this report will be further investigated as part of the S17A review.

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	High.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. Solid Waste Bylaw.
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.	Not applicable.
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.	None in particular.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or budgetary provisions from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.6 Integrated Transport Strategy

File Number: A3005155

Author: Keith Kent, Transport Planner

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

Purpose of the Report

To obtain endorsement of the Integrated Transport Strategy and Programme Business Case.

Executive Summary

· Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency are prepared to approve the Integrated Transport Strategy and Programme Business Case. However, they require a documented record of Council endorsement of these prior to granting approval.

· The Integrated Transport Strategy and Programme Business Case have already been presented to Council in Long Term Plan workshops.

· Council have already endorsed submission of the Recommended Programme into the 2021 Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP).

· Approval of these documents by Waka Kotahi will significantly increase the status of FNDC’s submission in the RLTP process.

Recommendation

That Council endorse the Integrated Transport Strategy and Programme Business Case.

1) Background

The Integrated Transport Strategy and Integrated Transport Plan were presented to Council in the morning session of a Long-Term Plan (LTP) Capital Works workshop on 4 August 2020. That workshops afternoon session was then taken up with presentation and discussion on the potential optimisation of the recommended programme. The presented programme was shared with Elected Members for written comment through the newly set up electronic Members Lounge. The full Programme Business Case had previously been shared with all elected members and community board members by email on 15 July 2020.

At a subsequent LTP workshop on 10 September 2020, Council confirmed agreement with a staff recommendation to submit the full recommended programme into the RLTP process on the understanding that Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency would be moderating and likely reducing the programme to reflect regional priorities prior to formal submission of the RLTP for National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) subsidy. The RLTP / NLTF timeline is attached for reference.

Following the LTP workshops, the recommended programme was submitted into Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency’s financial system and the Programme Business Case underwent an independent peer review. That review found the Programme Business Case to be fit-for-purpose and recommended that Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency approve it.

2) Discussion and Options

Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency were aware of the plan to formally adopt the Integrated Transport Strategy and Integrated Transport Plan as part of the Infrastructure Strategy included in the LTP. They have now suggested that, due to funding pressures, it would assist their approval process for the Programme Business Case if they had a Council minuted record of endorsement of the Integrated Transport Strategy and associated Programme Business Case.

There are clear benefits in obtaining early approval from Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency of the Programme Business Case. The primary benefit being that the transport programme that has been submitted into the RLTP process will achieve increased status and priority amongst other regional council entries by appearing in the ‘Approved’ tables.

There are two risks that require consideration

1. Early endorsement of the Programme Business Case carries with it risk that the public may consider subsequent engagement on the transport strategy and programme a waste of time with a decision already having been made. This risk is considered minor and can be mitigated with clear communications to assure the public that endorsement does not preclude future changes prior to formal adoption.

2. Failure to endorse the Programme Business Case in a timely manner will delay approval from Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency and will result in the transport programme being de-prioritised in the RLTP process in favour of approved programmes from neighbouring districts. This risk is considered major and the only available mitigation is avoidance

Reason for the recommendation

Council have effectively already endorsed the Integrated Transport Strategy and Programme Business Case through approval of the recommended programme in the LTP workshops. It is appropriate to provide Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency with a reassurance that Council are committed to the principles set out in the documents. The benefits of doing so are invaluable in terms of improving the chances of obtaining financial subsidy.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The amount of funding subsidy obtained through the RLTP for NLTF may be significantly affected by the decision made following consideration of this report. That significance cannot be quantified with certainty at this stage as regional prioritisation of transport programmes has not yet taken place but given that Council is bidding for approximately $35m per year in subsidy through Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency, it could be in the order of several million dollars.

Attachments

1. 2021-24 NLTF High Level Timeline - A3016230 ⇩

2. Integrated Transport Strategy Executive Summary and Programme - A3010879 ⇩

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.	Long Term Plan public consultation process.
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.	Yes. The scope of the ITS reaches district wide. Development of the ITS has been undertaken with significant stakeholder engagement including chairs of the Community Boards. Their views are incorporated in the resulting programme of Projects and Activities.
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.	Again, the scope of the ITS reaches district wide and affects all people of the Far North. Maori have been actively engaged throughout the development of the ITS. Their views are incorporated in the resulting programme of Projects and Activities.
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.	Development of the ITS has been undertaken with a significant number of key stakeholders including business and community group representatives engaged in workshops, feedback communications and via online surveys. Their views are incorporated in the resulting programme of Projects and Activities.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As detailed in section 3 of the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.7 Adoption of the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020

File Number: A3015908

Author: Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

To adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020.

Executive Summary

· The Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 has been prepared and has been audited by Audit New Zealand.

· The onsite audit was completed by the 18 September 2020, but work continued offsite and verbal clearance was pending as at the time of this agenda going to print.

Recommendation

That Council:

a) adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020;

b) approve that the General Manager - Corporate Services, is authorised to make any grammatical changes that may be required.

1) Background

The Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to prepare an Annual Report within 4 months of the financial year end. Central Government approved an extension to that deadline to 31 December 2020 as a result of COVID-19.

The Annual Report is subject to audit by the Auditor appointed by the Office of the Auditor General. In the case of Far North District Council this is Audit New Zealand.

2) Discussion and Options

The Annual Report has been audited but Audit New Zealand are yet to issue the audit opinion. For this reason, the final report will be issued under separate cover.

Reason for the recommendation

Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt the Annual Report before 31 December.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Attachments

1. Annual Plan for Year Ended 30 June 2020 - (under separate cover)

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government Act 2002 part 6, sub part 2 s98 and Schedule 10.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Not applicable.
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.	Not applicable.
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).	Not applicable.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Not applicable.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer prepared this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.8 Far North Holdings Ltd Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020

File Number: A3015934

Author: Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of the report is to present Far North Holdings Limited’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020.

Executive Summary

· Far North Holdings Limited is a Council Controlled Organisation. Each year it is legislatively required that the entity produce an Annual Report. The Annual Report provided, covers the period from the 1^st July 2019 – 30^th June 2020.

Recommendation

That Council accept the Annual Report for Far North Holdings Ltd for the year ended 30 June 2020.

1) Background

S.67 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that a Council Controlled Organisation must deliver to its shareholders an audited Annual Report within 3 months of the end of the financial year. Central Government have extended this deadline to 31 December 2020 as a result of COVID-19.

2) Discussion and Options

The Annual Report for Far North Holdings Ltd has been audited but an audit opinion is yet to be issued by Audit New Zealand. For this reason, the final report will be issued under separate cover.

Reason for the recommendation

Compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 requirements for Council Controlled Organisations

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

None

Attachments

1. Far North Holdings Limited Annual Report for Year Ended 30 June 2020 - (under separate cover)

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

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.	S.67 of the Local Government Act 2002.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Not applicable.
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.	Not applicable.
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).	Not applicable.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	None.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has prepared this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.9 Adoption of Community Board Working Party Terms of Reference

File Number: A3013463

Author: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

This report seeks for formalise a Community Board Working Party by adopting a Terms of Reference.

Executive Summary

· A Community Board Working Party has been suggested to help bridge the gap between Community Boards and Council to manage expectations between the parties and better enable Community Boards in the Far North.

Recommendation

That the Council formally establish the Community Board Working Party as set out by the attached Terms of Reference.

1) Background

Following a Combined Community Board Workshop held 22 October 2020, the Mayor suggested establishing a Community Board Working Party. An initial meeting was held with Community Board members to further explore this suggestion including the objectives it would look to achieve.

2) Discussion and Options

While the Working Party is suggested to be short lived, the proposed objectives are as follow:

1. progress Community Board issues,

2. undertake assessments of process failures and successes to identify improvement opportunities,

3. identify barriers to Community Board enablement, and

4. provide recommendations to staff to improve future Community Board induction process.

At the initial meeting a discussion was had regarding the membership where there was a preference that the membership remain small, and feed back to other Community Board members at the Combined Community Board Workshop.

For this reason, the recommended membership is the three Community Board Chairpersons and 3 Councillors appointed to Community Boards.

Reason for the recommendation

To formally establish the working party to enable the discussions to formally continue.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provisions.

Attachments

1. Community Board Working Party Terms of Reference - A3013476 ⇩

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 is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Formalising the work of the Community Board Working Party will help to build efficiencies in Council’s elected representation.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The Community Board Chairperson’s have been included in discussions to date as spokespersons for their respective Boards.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	The issue affects all residents of the Far North.
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).	There are no ‘affected’ persons.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provision.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

6.10 Sustainable Procurement Policy

File Number: A2970913

Author: Caroline Wilson, Manager - District Administration

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval of a new Sustainable Procurement Policy, replacing the previously adopted Procurement Policy. The new policy incorporates sustainable procurement outcomes, whilst retaining previous procurement principles (in accordance with best practice).

Executive Summary

· Council is seeking to incorporate social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes in its procurement activities.

· Staff, with elected members, have been working to deliver a sustainable outcomes framework since earlier this year.

· The procurement policy needs to be amended to accurately reflect the revised approach to procurement.

Recommendation

That Council

a) rescind the resolution made at the Council meeting, 25 October 2018

Resolution 2018/1

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Ann Court

That Council adopts the revised FNDC Procurement Policy – Procuring Goods and Services.

Carried

b) adopt the Sustainable Procurement Policy.

1) Background

Council signalled a strong desire to achieve broader social and economic outcomes as a result of Council’s significant spend within the district. The work has been undertaken in consultation with Height Consulting during the past six months, culminating in the Sustainable Outcomes Framework.

This framework aligns to Council’s identified Community Outcomes and the four well-beings of the Local Government Act (cultural, social, economic and environmental).

The current Procurement Policy reflects the Local Economic Attribute and is therefore no longer reflective of the direction this Council is taking.

A new policy has been created to reflect the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-beings that Council seeks to achieve for its spend.

2) Discussion and Options

Councils own procurement has been reflective of Central Governments approach in recognition of committing to best practice and being forward-thinking. The Government Procurement Rules were revised on 1 October 2019 to encompass sustainable and inclusive procurement.

Whilst the rules are not currently mandatory for Local Government, it is emerging through the post-COVID-19 recovery funding that there is an expectation that Local Government will achieve broader outcomes as a result of receiving funding (social, cultural, economic and environmental well-beings). Council, who was already in the process of defining a sustainable approach to its procurement, continues to be in alignment with Central Government thinking and ahead of many of its’ counterparts.

The Sustainable Procurement Policy continues to reflect existing procurement principles whilst incorporating the four well-beings and Councils expectations to achieve sustainable outcomes on the goods and services it procures. As expected at an overarching policy level, it is not specifically detailed but contains an indication of our approach to procurement.

Every procurement will be different (to a certain degree), and each will have nuanced outcomes associated with it. The specific expectations will be clear through the questions in tender documentation, the evaluation process and contract management (KPIs and reporting). This is clearly articulated for staff undertaking procurement in the Toolkit and Procurement Manual. Our suppliers will be provided with a Sustainable Outcomes Framework Suppliers Guide, which gives them an understanding of our expectations. For many suppliers, this will be about being more explicit about current practices (i.e. they are already doing this) and for others, it is recognised staff may need to guide them in this space until they fully understand our new expectations.

As Council matures in this space with our supplier market, there will be a need to refresh and ensure our framework and suppliers guide remains relevant and forward-thinking. It relies on strengthening our relationship with our supplier market, which is already underway with Central Government funded projects as a result of Covid-19.

Option 1 – Adopt the Sustainable Procurement Policy (preferred option)

Adopting this new policy will send a clear message to our public that we have given careful consideration to achieving positive sustainable outcomes through our spend. It ensures Council is transparent about its expectations and where we will be initially focussing our effort with the four well-beings. Our suppliers will be clear about how they can contribute to the district’s well-being. The intention is that delivering positive outcomes fosters a stronger supply/buy relationship over time, where we come together to innovate and lift our communities – and in turn lift our economy. In adopting this new policy, we must rescind the current Procurement Policy to avoid any confusion.

Option 2 – Retain the Procurement Policy

The current procurement policy is out of step with the approach Council has signalled it wants to take and is no longer fit for purpose. Retaining this policy will not advance the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-beings of our district. The Local Impact Attribute, whilst fit for the time in which the policy was developed and adopted, is now too broad to be effective and measurable.

Reason for the recommendation

Adoption of the new Sustainable Procurement Policy enables achievement of social, economic, cultural and environmental well-beings of the District through Councils spend.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Whilst there are no financial implications as a result of adopting the policy, it should be noted that tenders submitted under the new policy may reflect an increase in pricing in order to “comply” with sustainable outcomes.

Attachments

1. Draft Sustainable Procurement Policy 2020 - A2970575 ⇩

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.	Sustainable procurement outcomes align with Councils identified Community Outcomes and the current Procurement Policy and Manual. More broadly, this fits within the local government legislative context (LGA, LGOIMA) and public sector legislation (Government Procurement Rules).
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.	Procurement is a district wide activity.
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 policy and framework aims to promote mana whenua engagement.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	The policy and framework aims to promote diversity and inclusiveness and Council will look favourably at suppliers who grow the diversity of their workforce through Council contracts.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no known financial implications as a result of this report. It is yet to be seen if tenderers will “premium load” contract pricing as a result of the new policy.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

Background

As a spender of public money, the Far North District Council recognises its responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability in its spending. In addition to this, Council recognises that the expenditure of public money has a significant impact on the local and domestic economy and can generate additional social, cultural and environmental benefits.

Procurement plays a vital role in the delivery of Council outcomes and covers all the business processes associated with purchasing the goods, services and works that we use to run our business and deliver our public service objectives.

This Policy provides procurement guidance to suppliers and Council staff to deliver the outcomes of its Long Term Plan (LTP).

Purpose and Scope

This policy and Council’s Procurement Manual outline the approach that the Council will take to planning, sourcing and managing its procurement. The purpose of this policy is to achieve Council’s Procurement Objectives in a fair, transparent and accountable manner.

This policy applies to procurement activities undertaken by all temporary and permanent employees, consultants and contractors.

This policy is the responsibility of the General Manger – Corporate Services.

Our Procurement Objectives

Our procurement objectives are to:

· Address the social, economic, cultural and environmental challenges in our region by leveraging our spending power on contracted services to specify sustainable outcomes that need to be achieved

· Get the best results from our spending, including sustainable value-for-money over the lifetime of the goods, services and works that we buy

· Raise performance standards through fair and effective management of our suppliers and service providers to get the best public services for the Far North District

· Help Far North District businesses to grow capability and increase competitiveness by working with them to identify opportunities for innovation and continuous improvement in planning, decision making and ongoing contract management.

Exemptions

1. Any procurement project partially or fully funded by NZTA is subject to the requirements of the NZTA Procurement Manual and any subsequent Amendments. The current NZTA Procurement Manual Amendment takes precedence over the Far North District Council Procurement Policy for NZTA funded procurements.

2. Central government funded (or partially funded) procurement projects may have certain broader outcomes which are different to those of the Far North District Council. In those instances, Council will follow the requirements of the funding agency whilst seeking to achieve their own sustainable outcomes where at all possible.

3. Unsolicited proposals (proposals not initiated by Council through normal procurement processes) are not normally subject to the Procurement Policy and are to be initially assessed by the Tenders Panel. Further guidance on this is contained in the Procurement Manual.

4. On occasion, an exemption to this policy may be required to comply with regulatory obligations.

5. The following are not considered procurement activities and are not subject to this Procurement Policy:

· Employing staff (excluding the engagement of contractors and consultants)

· Investments, loans and guarantees

· Gifts, donations and projects initiated by established grant funds

· Statutory appointments

· Ministerial appointments

· Payment of approved professional fees.

Policies

Roles and Responsibilities

1. All staff are responsible for applying the Procurement Policy and procedures. Failure to comply with policy and procedures may be considered misconduct under Council’s Code of Conduct and could result in disciplinary action.

2. Council’s managers are responsible for:

· managing their business unit’s purchasing requirements up to their respective Delegated Financial Authority limits

· ensuring their staff apply Council’s Procurement Policy and procedures.

3. The Project Management Office will assist with higher value, higher risk procurements on an as required basis.

4. The roles and responsibilities of the Tenders Panel are outlined in the Procurement Manual.

Principles of Procurement

5. We will generally apply the Government Procurement Rules when planning, sourcing and managing our procurement, as these set the standard for good practice.

6. The approach to procuring goods, services and works may vary depending on the value, complexity and risk involved. We will generally apply the approach best-suited to the individual purchase within the framework of the Rules, encouraging competitive tendering whenever possible.

7. Council’s default procurement approach will be open and competitive. Should an open competitive market not exist, there is guidance around alternative procurement approaches contained in the Procurement Manual.

8. Council will purchase from competitive suppliers who contribute to the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being of the District whilst also demonstrating best public value.

9. Council will seek to promote the Far North economy through providing full and fair opportunity to compete for Council business.

10. Council will buy from the best source available, based on its own analysis of all costs, benefits, and overall value for money.

Sustainable Outcomes

The Council will be a fair but demanding buyer who will purchase from competitive suppliers who contribute to the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of the District. Council understands that many of our suppliers are already investing in sustainable outcomes, and we want to ensure they are recognised. We also understand that this is a new area for some suppliers, and we endorse our suppliers’ efforts wherever they are in the journey.

Council will be asking questions about how each supplier currently contributes to, or plans to contribute to, the following well-beings:

Thresholds

11. Council’s standard procurement processes are based on financial thresholds, detailed in Council’s Procurement Manual.

Relevant Legislation, Policies and Procedures

Council Policies and Procedures

• Procurement Manual

• Sustainable Procurement Framework

• Sustainable Procurement Suppliers Guide

• Code of Conduct – Elected Members

• Code of Conduct – Employees

• Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment Policy 2119

• Gifts or Rewards Policy

• Delegations Manual

• Government Procurement Rules, 4th Edition (1 October 2019)

Legislation

Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

Public Records Act 2005

Land Transport Management Act 2003

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Construction Contracts Act 2002

Health & Safety at Work Act 2015

Public Audit Act 2001

Commerce Act 1986

Fair Trading Act 1986

Contractual Remedies Act 1979

Official Information Act 1982

Further Information

For more information on Council’s procurement, please contact the Project Management Office at mailto:projectoffice@fndc.govt.nz

WARNING: Printed versions may not be the latest version of this policy. Please refer to the electronic copy of the Procurement Policy for the latest version.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

7 Information Reports

7.1 Electrocoagulation Wastewater Treatment Update

File Number: A2973392

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

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

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of the report is to present the Electrocoagulation (EC) Wastewater Treatment report prepared for Council by BECA.

Executive Summary

· Elected Members have asked for information about the EC process for wastewater treatment.

· This report introduces a report prepared by BECA evaluating the process, with particular reference to the Taipa Wastewater Treatment plant (TWWTP).

Recommendation

That Council notes the report Electrocoagulation Wastewater Treatment.

1) Background

The treatment of wastewater through the process of EC has been promoted over the past few years, in particular by Mr Kurmann in relation to the Resource Consent renewal for the TWWTP.

Council have commissioned BECA to undertake a review of the EC process. A copy of the full report is included as attachment 1.

2) Discussion and Options

The report prepared detailing the current assessment of EC technology and the applicability of an EC treatment plant for the Taipa East Coast Wastewater Scheme has been based on historic information held by Council, Mr Kurmann and a report on EC by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). Additional information was drawn from the Resource Consent hearing evidence for Taipa Wastewater treatment resource consent renewal and publicly available resources on the internet.

The key observations from the report are:

1. The EC process is a mature treatment technology based on the electrolytic liberation of soluble metal ions from metallic plates to provide coagulation of the wastewater stream. In addition to the liberation of metal ions there are a number of electrooxidation reactions that produce oxidants (hydroxide radicals, hypochlorite) that enhance the reduction of contaminants. Several commercial suppliers of EC equipment are available, including completely containerised units. All are located internationally outside of New Zealand.

2. EC has been successfully applied to a variety of commercial full-scale industrial applications. It is less frequently applied to municipal wastewater treatment, particularly at larger scale where it is less economic than conventional treatment processes. We are not aware of any EC treatment plants in New Zealand treating municipal wastewater.

3. The specific application of EC to the TWWTP Scheme has been considered as a concept proposal based on treatment of the wastewater from different locations within the existing pond system. The preferred treatment location would be the effluent discharge from the final maturation pond. This location is considered to apply the lowest organic load to the EC process, consisting primarily of algae solids, and to make most use of the maturation pond volume for peak flow buffering.

4. Testing of EC treatment of algal pond effluent reported by NIWA and similar tests by Mr Kurmann has shown that a good-settling sludge can be obtained that would favour a simple clarifier for post treatment. Thickening of the sludge by centrifugation for disposal is considered by Mr Kurmann, although little detail of the equipment is available. The quantity of sludge produced has not been identified. The potential of sludge disposal to the existing settlement pond is an option to reduce dewatering costs.

5. The effluent quality from the EC process is required to meet the discharge criteria set out in the Resource Consent conditions. The performance of the EC process in terms of effluent suspended solids, BOD/COD, phosphorus, heavy metals and microbiology is considered likely to be adequate to meet the consent conditions. The ability of EC to meet the ammonia limit of <10mgN/L is less certain as removal rates of 50% - 80% may not be sufficient, given the relatively high inlet ammonia concentrations reported.

6. Capital and operating costs are difficult to determine from the available information specific to the TWWTP proposal as no actual equipment specification has been provided. Mr Kurmann has given a budget cost of the EC unit as $950,000 and a cost of $200,000 for the sludge dewatering centrifuge. Costs for the balance of plant, e.g. pumping, power supply, civil works, buildings etc. are not provided and would have to be estimated.

7. Power consumption has been estimated in the report based on NIWA test results and typical literature values for EC operation. A typical reported value is of the order of 1kWh/m3 treated. For the TWWTP consented design average flow of 790m3 /d a power demand of approximately 790kWh/d could be typical. At design flow this is an annual cost of some $83,000. Power costs would vary depending on the installation location where there may be lower flows.

8. While solar power could be an option to offset the daily power demand it is unlikely that the cost of a battery system to cover night-time and cloudy periods would be viable. Further financial analysis would be required to define CAPEX and operating return.

9. Other operating expenses relate to the periodic replacement of the electrodes (6 – 8 weeks) with an estimated cost of $14,900 pa and an operator expense of $8,500 pa (data from Mr Kurmann).

10. The current information provided on the detail of the proposed EC treatment process for the TWWTP is insufficient to assess whether the process will be economically viable for the improvement of the effluent for discharge to the stream or for irrigation.

Reason for the recommendation

To provide information relating to the electrocoagulation treatment process.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications.

Attachments

1. NZ1-16515038 - Electrocoagulation Wastewater Treatment - A2973395 ⇩

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.	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.	Potentially 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.	Not applicable.
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.	Not applicable.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	None.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

7.3 Representation Review Costs

File Number: A3010764

Author: Caroline Wilson, Manager - District Administration

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

To provide information on the anticipated costs associated with undertaking a Representation Review, as required under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Executive Summary

· Councils are required to undertake a review of arrangements at least every 6 years.

· There are costs associated with undertaking such a review (contractual, staff, advertising with the potential for a poll).

· This report provides information about the anticipated costs associated with the 2021-22 representation review (which commenced in 2020).

Recommendation

That the Council receive the report Representation Review Costs.

Background

Councils are required, at least every six years, to undertake a full review of their representation arrangements, which includes voting systems, whether or not to adopt Māori wards, and an overall review of representation arrangements for elections of territorial authorities, and a review of Community Boards.

Council last undertook a review in 2014/15 with minor boundary adjustments only. Council initiated a poll on Māori wards and retained First Past the Post voting system.

Many Councils, the Far North District Council included, engage the professional services of Independent Election Services Limited (IESL) to ensure the reviews are undertaken according to the legislation and in a way that satisfies the Local Government Commission. Council engaged the services of IESL for the 2014/15 representation review and have again engaged them for the 2021/22 review.

Discussion and Next Steps

The costs associated with undertaking a representation review are a combination of the following:

1. Contracted services with IESL

2. Staff time

3. Advertising costs

4. Costs of a Poll (if resolved by Council or demanded by the public)

Contract Services with IESL

The estimated cost for the three reviews is between $34,500 + GST and $38,200 + GST based on:

· Preliminary processes: $3,830 + GST (rounded to $3,800 + GST)

· Electoral system: $2,680 + GST (rounded to 2,700 + GST)

· Māori wards: $3,680 + GST, (rounded to $3,700 + GST)

· Representation arrangements review: $28,000 + GST

If Māori wards were not considered/introduced, then the estimated cost of $3,700 + GST would be reduced but not eliminated.

Using the cost estimate of $36,350 + GST, it can be split between:

· Costs (time, travel): $18,300 + GST

· Māori Wards (reduced cost) $1,850 + GST

· Third party costs of $16,200 + GST:

o Public notices: $4,200 + GST

o Population certificates: $1,000 + GST

o Mapping: $6,000 + GST (internal or external)

o Public consultation: $5,000 + GST (internal or external)

The above indicative costs are estimates only and can go up or down based on actual number of hours spent (and number of options/scenarios etc developed) and actual costs (e.g. the cost of public notices).

Many of the third party costs listed above have been / will be undertaken by internal staff (informal consultation, iwi engagement and mapping) thereby further reducing the above estimated costs, but these “savings” may end up being offset by hours spent on options and actual costs.

Council has been invoiced to date (for work undertaken February – August 2020) for $5,594.45 + GST plus travel, totalling $6,293.65 + GST. Under the proposal, for the preliminary work and the electoral system work, the estimated cost (with the public notice) was $7,700 + GST, so we are below the estimated cost for these two processes (by about $1,400 + GST).

Staff Time

Staff time involved in a representation varies, depending on how Council determines its initial proposal (number of options considered in order to determine the one proposal Council will consult on) and the extent to which it wishes to engage with the public. It is hard to quantify this time, since we are only at the start of the process. Staff roles most involved with the review are as follows:

· Manager – District Admin - project lead on the representation review – co-ordinates internal and external effort to effect the review

· Senior Engagement Lead – responsible for the engagement strategy for the representation review, in line with other consultation activities

· GIS Specialist – mapping options leading into the initial and final proposals for consultation and provision of new boundary maps (if any) to relevant agencies

· Manager, Te Hono – engagement with iwi and elected members on Māori wards and options for representation or participation for Council to consider

· Graphic Designer – pulls together the branding and collateral for each engagement piece, in consultation with the Senior Engagement Lead

· Senior Communication Advisor – assists project manager, graphic designer and engagement lead with key communication messages.

There is no specific budget or time put aside for these activities. The above roles absorb this work into their BAU by planning well in advance.

Advertising Costs

In order to engage as widely as possible, staff undertook newspaper, online and rates insert advertising for the voting systems education piece (along with an online and paper survey). The cost of the newspaper advertising work was $3,400 and we anticipate a further $5,000 for the representation review, depending on how much education is required (i.e. if Councils initial proposal is status quo with only Russell-Opua and Okaihau changing, then the education piece may be minimal, resulting in less cost).

Polls

If a valid demand for a poll is received in early 2021, either in relation to voting systems or Māori wards, Council will be legally required to hold a poll, costed at somewhere between $80,000 and $90,000.

If there was a combined NRC/FNDC poll, then the cost to conduct it with FNDC electors would remain much the same ($85-$90K) but then halved between NRC and FNDC i.e. say $45-$50k each organisation.

Councils own resolution to hold a poll with the 2022 elections will cost approximately $8,000 to $9,000 to conduct.

Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

It is anticipated that the total cost for the representation review will be around $50,000 depending on the extent of options, and the associated education activities required and includes work already undertaken for voting systems and Māori wards.

This does not include staff time, which is already factored in through salaries, nor does it include the cost of one or more polls (which is currently budgeted for).

Financial costs are split across 2 financial years, as the entire process takes approximately 18 months to two years to complete.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

10 December 2020

8 Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Recommendation

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

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 - Renewal of Revolving Cash Facility	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	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 - Kaikohe Library and Civic Hub	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)(f)(i) - free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority 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 - Southern Animal Shelter - Asset Disposal	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 - Potential Rating Sale	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
8.6 - Alternative Wastewater Treatment Technologies Review - Moxiepel	s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the Council to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation where a right of appeal lies to any court or tribunal against the final decision of the Council in these proceedings	s48(2)(a)(i) - the exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation

	Authorising Body	Council
	Status	Working Party
WORKING PARTY	Title	Community Board Working Party
	Approval Date	10 December 2020
	Responsible Officer	GM Corporate Services
	Working Party reports to	Combined Community Board

Objectives	1. Progress Community Board issues. 2. Undertake assessments of process failures and successes to identify improvement opportunities. 3. Identify barriers to Community Board enablement. 4. Provide recommendations to staff to improve future community board induction process.
Purpose	To bridge the gap between Community Boards and Council in managing expectations and aspirations to help increase community board efficiency and communications.
Membership	The membership of the working party is: 1. Councillor John Vujcich (Chair) 2. Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson 3. Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Chairperson 4. Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson 5. Councillor Rachel Smith 6. Councillor Felicity Foy Staff will support the working party as appropriate.
Frequency of Meetings	Meetings will be held at least monthly. The frequency of meetings may vary depending on the outputs of the Working Party.
Quorum	Quorum will be no less than 2 Community Board Chairpersons and 1 Councillor.
Management Support	Council management will provide the following support: · Access to appropriate technical expertise · Regular meetings
Media & Publicity	Discussions by this working party are internal and not expected to be discussed with the public.
General Manager supporting the working party	General Manager Corporate Services
Minutes	Notes of all meetings held will be taken and circulated to Working party members and support staff in attendance.
Expected term of the Working Party	March 2021