Agenda of Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Strategy and Policy Committee Terms of Reference
	Approval Date	19 December 2019
	Responsible Officer	Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of the Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) is to set direction for the district, determine specific outcomes that need to be met to deliver on that vision, and set in place the strategies, policies and work programmes to achieve those goals.

In determining and shaping the strategies, policies and work programme of the Council, the Committee takes a holistic approach to ensure there is strong alignment between the objectives and work programmes of the strategic outcomes of Council, being:

· Better data and information

· Affordable core infrastructure

· Improved Council capabilities and performance

· Address affordability

· Civic leadership and advocacy

· Empowering communities

The Committee will review the effectiveness of the following aspects:

· Trust and confidence in decision-making by keeping our communities informed and involved in decision-making;

· Operational performance including strategy and policy development, monitoring and reporting on significant projects, including, but not limited to:

o FN2100

o District wide strategies (Infrastructure/ Reserves/Climate Change/Transport)

o District Plan

o Significant projects (not infrastructure)

o Financial Strategy

o Data Governance

o Affordability

· Consultation and engagement including submissions to external bodies / organisations

To perform his or her role effectively, each Committee member must develop and maintain

his or her skills and knowledge, including an understanding of the Committee’s responsibilities, and of the Council’s business, operations and risks.

Power to Delegate

The Strategy and Policy Committee may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers.

Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Strategy and Policy Committee.

The Strategy and Policy Committee will comprise of at least seven elected members (one of which

will be the chairperson).

Mayor Carter

Rachel Smith – Chairperson

David Clendon – Deputy Chairperson

Moko Tepania

Ann Court

Felicity Foy

Dave Collard

John Vujcich

Belinda Ward – Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

Non-appointed councillors may attend meetings with speaking rights, but not voting rights.

Quorum

The quorum at a meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee is 5 members.

Frequency of Meetings

The Strategy and Policy Committee shall meet every 6 weeks, but may be cancelled if there is no business.

Committees Responsibilities

The Committees responsibilities are described below:

Strategy and Policy Development

· Oversee the Strategic Planning and Policy work programme

· Develop and agree strategy and policy for consultation / engagement;

· Recommend to Council strategy and policy for adoption;

· Monitor and review strategy and policy.

Service levels (non regulatory)

· Recommend service level changes and new initiatives to the Long Term and Annual Plan processes.

Policies and Bylaws

· Leading the development and review of Council's policies and district bylaws when and as directed by Council

· Recommend to Council new or amended bylaws for adoption

Consultation and Engagement

· Conduct any consultation processes required on issues before the Committee;

· Act as a community interface (with, as required, the relevant Community Board(s)) for consultation on policies and as a forum for engaging effectively;

· Receive reports from Council’s Portfolio and Working Parties and monitor engagement;

· Review as necessary and agree the model for Portfolios and Working Parties.

Strategic Relationships

· Oversee Council’s strategic relationships, including with Māori, the Crown and foreign investors, particularly China

· Oversee, develop and approve engagement opportunities triggered by the provisions of Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe under the Resource Management Act 1991

· Recommend to Council the adoption of new Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)

· Meet annually with local MOU partners

· Quarterly reviewing operation of all Memoranda of Understanding

· Quarterly reviewing Council’s relationships with iwi, hapū, and post-settlement governance entities in the Far North District

· Monitor Sister City relationships

· Special projects (such as Te Pū o Te Wheke or water storage projects)

Submissions and Remits

· Approve submissions to, and endorse remits for, external bodies / organisations and on legislation and regulatory proposals, provided that:

o If there is insufficient time for the matter to be determined by the Committee before the submission “close date” the submission can be agreed by the relevant Portfolio Leaders, Chair of the Strategy and Policy Committee, Mayor and Chief Executive (all Councillors must be advised of the submission and provided copies if requested).

o If the submission is of a technical and operational nature, the submission can be approved by the Chief Executive (in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Leader prior to lodging the submission).

· Oversee, develop and approve any relevant remits triggered by governance or management commencing in January of each calendar year.

· Recommend to Council those remits that meet Council’s legislative, strategic and operational objectives to enable voting at the LGNZ AGM. All endorsements will take into account the views of our communities (where possible) and consider the unique attributes of the district.

Fees

· Set fees in accordance with legislative requirements unless the fees are set under a bylaw (in which case the decision is retained by Council and the committee has the power of recommendation) or set as part of the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan (in which case the decision will be considered by the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan and approved by Council).

District Plan

· Review and approve for notification a proposed District Plan, a proposed change to the District Plan, or a variation to a proposed plan or proposed plan change (excluding any plan change notified under clause 25(2)(a), First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991);

· Withdraw a proposed plan or plan change under clause 8D, First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991;

· Make the following decisions to facilitate the administration of proposed plan, plan changes, variations, designation and heritage order processes:

§ To authorise the resolution of appeals on a proposed plan, plan change or variation unless the issue is minor and approved by the Portfolio Leader District Plan and the Chair of the Regulatory committee.

§ To decide whether a decision of a Requiring Authority or Heritage Protection Authority will be appealed to the Environment Court by council and authorise the resolution of any such appeal.

§ To consider and approve council submissions on a proposed plan, plan changes, and variations.

§ To manage the private plan change process.

§ To accept, adopt or reject private plan change applications under clause 25 First Schedule Resource Management Act (RMA).

Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct apply to all the committee’s meetings.

Annual reporting

The Chair of the Committee will submit a written report to the Chief Executive on an annual basis. The review will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. The Chief Executive will place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

STRATEGY AND POLICY COMMITTEE - MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Rachel Smith (Chair)	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
David Clendon (Deputy Chair)	Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Member of Vision Kerikeri	None		Declare if any issue arises
	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
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.
Felicity Foy	Director - Northland Planning & Development	I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees. Property owner of Commerce Street, Kaitaia		I will abstain from any debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District Plan.
				I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team.
				I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner.
	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	Elbury Holdings Limited	This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.	This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight and Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms Partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
	Shareholder of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
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
	Member	Kaikohe Business Association	Possible funding provider	Declare a Conflict of Interest
Belinda Ward	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Residence in Watea
Belinda Ward (Partner)	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Residence in Watea	Trustee

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

23 March 2021

5 Reports

5.1 Solid Waste Bylaw Review

File Number: A3111502

Author: Briar Macken, Planner

Authoriser: Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer

Te Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To agree that the Solid Waste Bylaw should continue without amendment.

Te WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Solid Waste Bylaw (the Bylaw) is due for review by 05 May 2021.

· The Bylaw has been mostly effective in regulating people’s behaviour to address identified problems relating to solid waste.

· The current Bylaw has not been effective in regulating minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream. The components of the Bylaw that refer to waste separation are not monitored or enforced due to a lack of available staff.

· There are several Central Government policies due to be finalised in 2021 which may require amendments to the Bylaw.

· The Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing solid waste problem in the Far North District.

· The Bylaw should continue without amendment.

ngĀ tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommends that the Council:

a) agree, under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 is the most appropriate way of addressing solid waste problems in the Far North District

b) agree, under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Solid Waste bylaw 2016:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii) does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

c) Agree the provisions of the Solid Waste Bylaw be reassessed in conjunction with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review, which is due by 2023, or after central government legislation comes into effect.

1) te TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 was made on 05 May 2016 utilising the Council’s discretionary functions under the following Acts:

· Local Government Act 2002

o section 146 specifically allows for a bylaw regulating solid waste

· Waste Minimisation Act 2008

o section 56 allows for a bylaw to regulate the collection, transportation and disposal of waste

· Health Act 1956

o section 64 allows for a bylaw to regulate solid waste to protect public health and prevent nuisance

· Litter Act 1979

o section 12 allows for a bylaw to give effect to the provisions of the Litter Act which regulates the control of litter.

Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council’s Solid Waste Bylaw (the Bylaw) is due for review by 05 May 2021. Under section 160(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a review requires the Council to make the determinations required by section 155 of the Act, namely:

(a) is the Bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to solid waste; and, if it is:

(b) the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

As per section 56 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, any bylaw must not be inconsistent with the Council’s waste management and minimisation plan. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is due for review by 2023.

To inform solid waste related decisions, the Council will be undertaking a review under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 for solid waste services.

2) Te matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Problem to be addressed

The Determination Report (June 2015) for the Bylaw identified a number of problems relating to solid waste in the Far North District. Following a consultation process, a bylaw was determined to be the most appropriate way to address the following problems:

· To meet the Council’s legal requirements under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, specifically

o minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream

o gathering accurate data for waste planning

· Protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances including

o control of hazardous wastes

· Control of litter including

o control of waste generated by events

o control of waste receptacles in a public place

· Control of waste generated by multi-unit developments.

Disposal of domestic type waste in a public place (illegal dumping) is a significant problem for the Far North District. Illegal dumping includes general household rubbish, large appliances, and furniture. Illegal dumping is regulated under the Litter Act 1979 and cannot be further regulated by a bylaw.

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council staff has not identified any additional problems relating to solid waste that need to be addressed.

However, Central Government is in the process of consulting on and implementing several waste-related proposals that may need to be addressed in a bylaw, as outlined below:

Government proposal	Overview	Report due	Impact on the Council
Improve data collection	- Create a centralised database	March 2021	- May require Bylaw amendment
	- National consistency of data

Increase Waste Disposal Levy	- Include additional landfill types	Consultation in 2021	- Increase revenue for the Council
Increase Waste Disposal Levy	- Increase levy to $60 per tonne by 2024	Consultation in 2021	- Amendments to Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Standardisation of kerbside rubbish collections	- National consistency in kerbside rubbish collections	Mid-2021	- May require changes to kerbside rubbish collections including provisions for food scraps
Standardisation of kerbside rubbish collections	- National consistency in kerbside rubbish collections	Mid-2021	- May require Bylaw amendment

Container return scheme	- Consumers receive financial incentive for returning containers	Early 2021	- May require changes to kerbside rubbish collections
Container return scheme		Early 2021	- May have regulatory impact

Review findings

The Bylaw has been effective in regulating people’s behaviour to address the following problems:

· gathering accurate data for waste planning

· protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances

· control of hazardous wastes

· control of waste generated by events

· control of waste receptacles in a public place

· control of waste generated by multi-unit developments.

Therefore, the Bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing those problems with respect to solid waste.

The Bylaw has not been effective in regulating minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream. The components of the Bylaw that refer to waste separation are not monitored or enforced due to a lack of available staff. Budgetary constraints mean that it is not possible to employ staff to enforce this component of the Bylaw.

Therefore, the form of the bylaw may no longer be the most appropriate. This report considers what other options for the form of the bylaw may be more appropriate to deal with that problem.

Option One: Status quo: The Bylaw stays in force with no changes (recommended option)

It is highly likely that once the Central Government proposals are finalised (later in 2021), the Bylaw will need to be amended to accommodate legislative changes to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Both Whangarei District Council and Kaipara District Councils will be reviewing their solid waste related bylaws after the release of the finalised Central Government proposals. Therefore, there is a future opportunity to have regional consistent solid waste bylaws.

Advantages and disadvantages of the status quo

Advantages

- Waiting to amend the bylaw will allow for the bylaw to:

- meet any new legislative requirements

- be informed by the section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 review

- align better with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

- be more cost effective in that there will be less consultation costs than if the Bylaw was amended now

Disadvantages

- Bylaw continues to have provisions that are unnecessary because the Council

does not enforce them

Option Two: Amend the Bylaw

The provisions of the Bylaw referring to waste separation are revoked because they are unnecessary if the Council cannot assign resources to enforce them.

However, it is possible that future Central Government policy will require the Council to regulate waste separation.

Amending the Bylaw now to revoke the provisions about waste separation will have little effect on the public (as it is not enforced). However, if the Council needs to reinstate the provisions following legislative changes, it may lead to reputational risk as it may appear the Council is not knowledgeable of Central Government proposals.

Advantages and disadvantages of amending the Bylaw

Advantages	- Removing provisions that are unnecessary because the Council does not enforce them

Disadvantages	- Extra consultation and resource costs in amending bylaw now and again in after Central Government policy changes
	- Risk of consultation fatigue
	- Reputational risk

Option Three: Do nothing: Revoke the Bylaw

If the Bylaw is not reviewed by May 2021, the Bylaw will automatically revoke in May 2023.

The problems that the Bylaw is addressing are not controlled by other bylaws, policies or legislation.

The Council does not contract services for the collection and transportation of waste and so has no other means to address issues relating to solid waste collection.

Advantages and disadvantages of revoking the Bylaw

Advantages	- None

Disadvantages	- Extra consultation and resource costs in making a new bylaw if required by upcoming Central Government policy changes
	- Less authority to manage commercial waste collection services
	- Risk of increased health and safety, and nuisances’ issues related to solid waste
	- Risk of not meeting current and upcoming legislative changes under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008
	- Reputational risk

Te Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing the problems with solid waste and is in the most appropriate form for now. A new form of bylaw may be needed when Central Government proposals are finalised.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Assessment

The Bylaw may potentially have implications on the rights to freedom of movement and freedom of expression. For example, the bylaw limits the times and specific locations in which approved containers can be placed for collection.

The Bylaw limits these rights only to the extent they create:

· a danger to health and safety

· a nuisance to others or the public generally

In addition, while the Bylaw will require waste collectors and operators to be licensed and comply with minimum standards, it does not limit public access to these services. The Bylaw only controls the methods used to carry out these services in order to meet waste management goals.

Therefore, any limitations of the rights in question are justified in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Next steps

If the Council agrees with the recommendation, a Proposal will be presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee outlining the low significance public consultation process as per section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The proposal is planned for the 20 July 2021 committee meeting.

Following consultation, presentation of final documents is planned for the 16 December 2021 Council meeting.

Proposed timeframes and governance touchpoints are subject to organisation wide priorities.

3) NgĀ PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The cost of consulting on retaining the status quo will be met from existing operation budgets.

ngĀ Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Review Report - Solid Waste - A3071885 ⇩

2. Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 - A2674692 ⇩

3. Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 Control 1 Containers - A2674694 ⇩

4. Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 Control 2 Waste Separation - A2674695 ⇩

Te Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / 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.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance requirement	Te Aromatawai Kaimahi / 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	As retaining the status quo will have little effect on ratepayers or level of service, the level of significance as determined by the Significance and Engagement Policy is low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The following legislation applies to the decision recommended in this report: · Local Government Act 2002, section 146, 155 and 160 · Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 56 · Health Act 1956, section 64 · Litter Act 1979, section 12.
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.	As the recommendation is to maintain status quo, the Community Boards views have not been sought.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Seeking the views and input of iwi in the development of bylaws is integral. Māori will be provided an opportunity to contribute during the consultation stage of the bylaw development process.
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).	Affected and interested parties will be given an opportunity to share their views and preferences during the consultation phase including: · Waste collection service providers · Community groups concerned about solid waste in their community · Ngā Tai Ora – Public Health Northland · Ministry for the Environment · Northland Regional Council
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The cost of consulting on retaining the current bylaw will be met from existing operation budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

23 March 2021

1 Purpose

To describe and discuss the review of the Solid Waste Bylaw (2016).

2 Context and Situation

Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council’s Solid Waste Bylaw (the Bylaw) is due for review by 05 May 2021. The Council is required to consider whether the Bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to solid waste.

2.1 Council’s role relating to solid waste

Under section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002, the purpose of local government is to “… promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future”. Accumulation of solid waste can have a negative effect on a community’s wellbeing through direct impacts, such as affecting the physical health of people and causing environmental harm. However, accumulation of solid waste can also lead to loss of amenity and poor mental health, affecting the social and economic wellbeing of communities.

Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Council is required to “encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm; and to provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits”. Council must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district by adopting a waste management and minimisation plan (section 43). As per section 56 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, a bylaw must not be inconsistent with the Council’s waste management and minimisation plan.

To support the purpose of local government and the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Council has discretionary functions to regulate solid waste under the following Acts:

· Local Government Act 2002, section 146

· Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 56

· Health Act 1956, section 64

· Litter Act 1979, section 12.

2.1.1 Local Government Act 2002

Council can specifically make a bylaw regulating solid waste under section 146a of the Act.

2.1.2 Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Under section 56, the Council can make a bylaw for the following purposes:

a) prohibiting or regulating the deposit of waste:

b) regulating the collection and transportation of waste:

c) regulating the manner of disposal of dead animals, including their short-term storage pending disposal:

d) prescribing charges to be paid for use of waste management and minimisation facilities provided, owned, or operated by the territorial authority:

e) prohibiting, restricting, or controlling access to waste management and minimisation facilities provided, owned, or operated by the territorial authority:

f) prohibiting the removal of waste intended for recycling from receptacles provided by the territorial authority by anyone other than—

i. the occupier of the property from which the waste in the receptacle has come; or

ii. a person authorised by the territorial authority to remove the waste.

2.1.3 Health Act 1956

Relating to solid waste, the Council can make a bylaw under section 64 for the following reasons:

a) improving, promoting, or protecting public health, and preventing or abating nuisances

b) regulating the handling and storage of noxious substances, or of goods which are or are likely to become offensive

c) for preventing the outbreak or spread of disease by the agency of flies, mosquitoes, or other insects, or of rats, mice, or other vermin.

2.1.4 Litter Act 1979

The Litter Act 1979 regulates the abatement and control of litter. The Council can make a bylaw under section 12 of the Act to give effect to the provisions of the Act.

3 Objectives

3.1 Purpose of review

To determine whether a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address problems regarding solid waste in the Far North District as per section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.2 Review objectives

· To define solid waste related problems in the Far North District that are within Council’s function to control.

· To identify if a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of solid waste in the Far North District.

· To identify if the Bylaw meets current legislative requirements.

4 Problem definition

4.1 Scope

In scope

Problems relating to solid waste in the Far North District which are a function of Council to control or address.

Waste as defined in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008:

· anything disposed of or discarded; and

· includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (for example, organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste); and

· to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded.

Out of scope

· Waste in liquid form such as:

o Trade Waste as any liquid, with or without matter in suspension or solution, that is or may be discharged from a Trade Premises to the COUNCIL’s Sewerage System. Trade waste will not be considered as it is already regulated by the Trade Waste Bylaw and Resource Management Act.

o Wastewater, on-site wastewater system or anything to do with wastewater infrastructure. Control of wastewater is regulated other bylaws (e.g. On-site Wastewater Bylaw) and other legislation.

· Diverted material, as defined in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, “anything that is no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded”.

· Problems which are not a function of the Council to control or address including:

o burning rubbish and smoke nuisance as it is a function of the Northland Regional Council and Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

o litter disposed of on privately owned land including Department of Conservation owned land and roadsides managed by Waka Kotahi

o accumulation of litter at events held on privately owned land.

· Waste discarded by roaming dogs. Dogs are regulated by the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2018.

4.2 Purpose of current bylaw

The Determination Report (June 2015)^{^[1]} for the current Bylaw identified a number of problems relating to solid waste in the Far North District. The purpose of the current Bylaw is to contribute to:

· the regulation of the collection, transportation and disposal of waste;

· the protection of the health and safety of waste collectors, waste operators and the public;

· the management of litter and nuisance.

Following a consultation process, the current Bylaw was deemed to be the most appropriate way to address the following problems:

· To meet the Council’s legal requirements under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, specifically

o minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream

o gathering accurate data for waste planning

· Protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances including

o control of hazardous wastes

· Control of litter including

o control of waste generated by events

o control of waste receptacles in a public place

· Control of waste generated by multi-unit developments.

4.3 Other problems relating to solid waste not currently controlled or addressed by the Bylaw

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council staff has not identified any additional problems relating to solid waste.

5 Review of Bylaw

5.1 Council responsibilities to minimise waste as per the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

An audit conducted in 2011 identified that 80-90% of kerbside waste, and 30-40% of all waste delivered to landfill could potentially have been diverted¹. The current FNDC Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023 was adopted by the Council in May 2017. The Council has an ambitious goal, in the plan, of reducing waste sent to landfill from 320kg per person in 2015 to 200kg per person by 2023.

The Council has an obligation to encourage waste minimisation however, waste sent to landfill is impacted by external factors such as:

· Gross Domestic Product (GDP)- research shows that there is a direct correlation between GDP and volume of waste.

· Recycling facilities – What can be recycled is dependent on whether there is global availability of facilities to process the products.

Measuring the amount of waste sent to landfill may not be an accurate measure of effective waste minimisation.

5.1.1 Gathering accurate data for waste planning

To identify and monitor waste minimisation, the Council must have an accurate record of waste data. Kerbside waste collection is undertaken by private companies and kerbside collection waste data was unknown. The Council does not contract waste collection services and is therefore unable to include data collection as a component of a contract. To access accurate data regarding kerbside waste collections, the current Bylaw regulates private waste collection services to provide the Council specific data.

This section of the Bylaw has been effective in that the waste collection services are providing the Council with regular data. However, the Bylaw requires the provision of more data than what the Council currently requests. For example, the Bylaw stipulates that the waste collection services provide waste logbooks and receipts, which is not data that the Council currently requires.

5.1.2 Central Government proposal to improve data collection

As part of developing a more effective waste levy, central government is consulting on improving data collection at landfills, cleanfills and transfer stations. There is currently no centralised database of landfills, and data held by individual councils is of variable quality.

A report on the reporting requirements consultation is due to Cabinet in March 2021. The outcomes of the proposal may impact on the data required from waste collection services and may require an amendment to the Bylaw.

5.1.3 Minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream

To address the problem of too many recyclables being sent to landfill, the Council encourages waste minimisation through education and regulation.

There are a number of barriers to recycling including lack of consistent kerbside recycling services, lack of transport access to recycling stations, and lack of incentives for the public to recycle i.e. kerbside recycling whilst cheaper still costs the user. Confusion as to what can and cannot be recycled is the main motivational barrier to recycling.

Funding for waste minimisation education activities is supported by the Waste Disposal Levy. Education includes activities such as providing information via the Council’s website, information leaflets, at community events, and presentations to organisations. Council staff provide advice to schools, businesses and community groups on recycling systems and event waste minimisation. Despite community education activities, RFS records identify that there is some confusion as to what can and cannot be recycled.

Community education is an effective tool to support behaviour change, however it does not provide a satisfactory solution for a small percentage of the population who knowingly breach waste collection rules. Furthermore, education and advice alone, will not be sufficient in managing private waste collection services who are largely driven by cost considerations.

Therefore, the current Bylaw regulates the separation of waste from recyclable materials. However, this section of the Bylaw is not effective in that it is not monitored or enforced due to the lack of an implementation plan and allocated resources.

5.1.4 Government proposal to increase Waste Disposal Levy

The Waste Disposal Levy (Levy) is a key incentive for diverting waste away from landfill to recycling and composting. The levy provides additional revenue for local authorities to implement their WMMPs. Central government is implementing annual incremental increases of the municipal landfill levy from the current $10 per tonne to $60 per tonne by 2024. The levy is to be expanded to include additional landfill types such as construction and demolition fills. Council staff estimate that when fully implemented, the new levy could increase the cost of the weekly kerbside rubbish bag by about $1.30.

Table 1: Planned changes to national waste disposal levy^{^[2]}

LANDFILL CLASS	1 JULY 2021	1 JULY 2022	1 JULY 2023	1 JULY 2024
Municipal landfill (class 1)	$20	$30	$50	$60
Construction and demolition fill (class 2)		$20	$20	$30
Managed fill (class 3)			$10	$10
Controlled fill (class 4)			$10	$10

The revenue received from the Levy must be allocated to waste minimisation initiatives such as upgrading or improving recycling systems and education programmes. The government still needs to confirm the investment plan to allocate waste levy funds. Changes in allocation require an amendment of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Consultation on the amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 is expected to begin in 2021. However, additional revenue from the Levy increase, may become available to territorial authorities as early as 2022.

5.1.5 Standardisation of kerbside rubbish collections

A WasteMINZ (May 2020)^{^[3]} report reviewed kerbside rubbish collections around New Zealand. Central Government is currently developing a strategic direction for kerbside collections based on the four key recommendations of the report, which are:

1. Standardise materials to be collected in domestic kerbside recycling collections across the country, and how they should be presented, to increase consistency, reduce confusion for householders and reduce contamination

2. Incentivise local authorities to collect food waste for composting to reduce kerbside residual rubbish to landfill

3. Incentivise local authorities to collect glass separately to other recyclable materials to improve the quality of all materials accepted in kerbside recycling

4. Provide best practice recommendations for food waste, recycling, and residual rubbish collections to increase consistency across the country.

Currently there is wide variance between districts as to what is collected by kerbside waste collections. For example, most kerbside recycling collections allow the collection of plastics 1 and 2 although some also collect 3, 4, 6 and 7 plastics. Although it is becoming increasingly difficult to find facilities who can recycle plastics 3-7, therefore most councils are stopping the collection of plastics 3-7. Some districts require recycling to be separated at kerbside i.e. separate wheelie bins / crates for glass, plastics, and cardboard / paper, and some districts allow co-mingling of recycling at kerbside i.e. all recycling in one container, which is later sorted at a facility.

Separation at kerbside encourages less contamination of recycling. Further to this, districts which collect fewer recycling materials have increased contamination as consumers are more likely to ‘wishcycle’ (placing items in recycling in the hope that they can be recycled). A recent national survey identified that the main motivational barrier to recycling was confusion as to what can and cannot be recycled (51% of respondents).

Some districts separate the collection of organic waste (food scraps and green waste). It is estimated that, in New Zealand, 50% of household waste is organic waste. Organic waste is responsible for a significant proportion of methane emissions from landfills. The separate collection of food scraps increases householder awareness of food waste, helping to reduce the amount of edible food wasted. Reducing food waste supports household economies and reduces climate emissions.

The aim of the strategic direction is to provide a strong signal to territorial authorities to move towards improved kerbside collections. A ten-year road map for improving kerbside collections is due mid-2021. Standardising kerbside collections may require an amendment to the Bylaw in that the Bylaw currently only specifies the separation of refuse and recyclables (in general).

5.1.6 Further upcoming government proposals regarding waste minimisation

Rethinking plastics
Central Government is currently consulting on two initiatives to remove hard to recycle plastics from our environment. The first initiative is to phase out unrecyclable plastic such as PVC and polystyrene food and beverage packaging by 2025. The second initiative is to continue the process of phasing out single use plastics. For example, single use plastics bags were prohibited from 2019. Other single use plastics which will potentially be phased out include plastic straws, single use plastic cups and lids, plastic cotton buds, plastic cutlery, and plastic drink stirrers.

Container return scheme (CRS)
An estimated 2.3 billion glass, plastic, aluminium, paperboard and other single use drink containers are consumed each year in New Zealand. CRS can encourage recycling and help to reduce litter in the environment. A CRS requires the consumer to pay a deposit on a beverage container at purchase. The deposit is refunded when the empty container is returned to a designated drop-off point.

Central government is investigating the feasibility of implementing a CRS for beverage containers. The investigation is considering the potential management systems, operating costs, and types of containers to be included i.e. plastic, glass, aluminium. The investigation report is due to cabinet at the end of 2020.

If implemented, a CRS is expected to impact the amount and composition of beverage containers collected at kerbside. Any changes to kerbside collection systems need to consider some flexibility to incorporate changes in quantities of beverage containers set out at kerbside that could result from the implementation of a CRS.

Proposed National Environmental Standard for the Outdoor Storage of Tyres^{^[4]}
Outdoor tyre storage can pose risks to the environment, and human health, particularly when stored in large volumes and/or located within or near sensitive receiving environments. The main risks associated with outdoor tyre storage relate to fire, discharge of contaminants, pests, financial liability and visual amenity impacts. The storage of tyres can currently be controlled through the Resource Management Act and bylaws made under the Local Government Act.

Cabinet is to decide on the draft National Environmental Standard for the Outdoor Storage of Tyres. If approved the new regulations will come into force in 2021 and the storage of tyres will be controlled by Northland Regional Council.

5.2 Protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances

5.2.1 Health nuisance

Section 29 of the Health Act 1956 specifies a range of behaviours and conditions that are nuisances, in particular the following clauses are applicable to potential solid waste issues:

b) where any accumulation or deposit is in such a state or is so situated as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health

c) where any premises, including any accumulation or deposit thereon, are in such a state as to harbour or to be likely to harbour rats or other vermin

q) where there exists on any land or premises any condition giving rise or capable of giving rise to the breeding of flies or mosquitoes or suitable for the breeding of other insects, or of mites or ticks, which are capable of causing or transmitting disease

RFS records show that there are incidents where people are concerned about rubbish accumulating on neighbouring properties leading to a health nuisance by attracting pests, and an odour nuisance.

A bylaw remains the most appropriate regulatory tool for controlling the accumulation of waste that may lead to a health nuisance.

5.2.2 Health and safety of kerbside collections

The collection and transportation of waste can lead to potential health and safety, and nuisance issues. The Bylaw regulates certain components of the collection and transportation of waste to minimise the risk. For example:

· Placement of containers / bags ensures

o pedestrian safety

o more efficient waste management service – reducing traffic obstruction

o reduced nuisance caused by placement i.e. not blocking driveways etc

· Approved containers / bags

o ensure containers are not too big or too heavy for waste collector staff

· Controlling collection times ensures

o traffic is not blocked during rush hour,

o noise from collections is not at inappropriate times

· Controlling types of rubbish collected ensures waste collectors, the public and the environment, are not exposed to hazardous and/or infectious waste.

Kerbside collections are managed by private waste collection services. This report has not investigated the health and safety records of the private waste collection services. RFS records show only one reported health and safety issue regarding kerbside collections in which rubbish from a destroyed rubbish bag was strewn across the footpath and was a potential tripping hazard for a blind resident.

RFS records show there are incidents in which rubbish bags are deposited on the kerbside or at approved collection points at inappropriate times (too early, too late etc) and are destroyed by rats, birds, or roaming dogs. RFS records show that some people in the community are concerned the approved collection points attract rats to the area.

The current Bylaw Control 1 – Containers regulates the times in which approved containers can be placed on the kerbside for collection. However, due to lack of Council resources, this is not actively monitored and responds reactively to complaints. Waste collection services are responsible for clearing all pre-paid kerbside collection bags. Bags that are placed at incorrect times are searched for potential evidence by the waste collection service in order to issue an infringement by Council staff.

In line with the Local Government Act 2002 section 145(b), and the Health Act 1956 sections 23(e) and s64(1)(a), a bylaw remains the most appropriate regulatory tool for controlling the deposition of dangerous, hazardous and infectious substances within the waste stream. However, community education advocating best practice waste management behaviour is required in order for the bylaw to be effective.

5.3 Control of litter

Litter and littering in general are regulated by the Litter Act 1979. However, the current Bylaw specifically regulates litter with regards to controlling kerbside rubbish collections.

The causes of illegal dumping are complex. Barriers to disposing of rubbish either via kerbside collections or at a transfer station include but are not limited to:

· Financial constraints

· Transport access to transfer stations when kerbside collections are unavailable

· Lack of understanding to the damage caused by illegal dumping.

Further regulation of illegal dumping will not address the problem.

In the past, litter along the side of Council-controlled roads has been managed by community volunteers. However, community volunteers are now required to implement a traffic management plan to address health and safety concerns. These plans are considered a barrier for community groups and the number of litter control events has significantly reduced. The Council has not allocated resources for roadside litter control.

5.3.1 Control of waste generated by events

Community events such as sports events, markets, festivals etc can overwhelm existing public rubbish bins and significantly increase litter, creating a public nuisance. The current Bylaw requires all event holders to have an approved waste management and minimisation plan to address waste minimisation and prevent the accumulation of litter in a public place. The Bylaw is only applicable to events held on council-controlled land.

The Bylaw has been effective in increasing the amount of material diverted from landfill and reducing the amount of litter during and post-events.

A bylaw remains the most appropriate regulatory tool for controlling waste management and minimisation at events. However, community education advocating best practice waste management behaviour is required in order for the bylaw to be effective.

5.3.2 Control of waste receptacles in a public place

The current Bylaw controls the use of non-licensed or non-approved waste receptacles in a public place i.e., non-prepaid black bags placed out for kerbside collection, which amounts to littering or illegal dumping.

Non-licensed or non-approved waste receptacles in a public place are searched for potential evidence by Council staff in order to issue an infringement.

A bylaw remains the most appropriate regulatory tool for controlling the use of non-licensed or non-approved waste receptacles in a public place. However, community education advocating best practice waste management behaviour is required in order for the bylaw to be effective.

5.4 Control of waste generated by multi-unit developments

At present, there is not many multi-unit residential properties in the Far North, although it is

expected that over time more units will be built, particularly in coastal holiday areas. There is a need to

ensure that adequate provisions are made for waste services at these premises, both at design stage and operationally once the units are occupied.

Broadly, a multi-unit development refers to a property comprising two or more separately occupied household/residential units, whether in the same building or in separate buildings, and held

either in common ownership or in separate ownership located on the one site.

Whilst the Building Code (Clause G15 Solid Waste) stipulates that such “buildings shall be provided with space and facilities for the collection, and safe hygienic holding prior to disposal, of solid waste arising from the intended use of the buildings”, this clause does not apply to multi-unit dwellings if there is an independent access, or if there is a private open space at the ground level.

Building Code provisions are therefore considered inadequate for amenity protection, and for accommodating the waste management needs of residents, for the following reasons:

· Where a development is exempt from Clause G15:

o The provision of an independent site access does not guarantee that multi-unit developments are designed with sufficient on-site waste and recycling storage areas. Furthermore, existing bylaw provisions prohibit the storage of waste and recycling material within a public place.

o The provision of a private open space at the ground level does not guarantee that this open space is available or accessible for waste storage or servicing needs.

· Where Clause G15 is deemed applicable to a development:

o It does not specify a minimum site size for on-site waste and recycling storage. It is, however, noted that Building Code provision G15/AS1 provides detail of a possible ‘acceptable solution’ for waste storage, which when complied with, will be deemed acceptable in terms of Building Code compliance.

6 Potential impacts on Bylaw development

6.1 S17a review

The previous Roadside Rubbish and Recycling report presented to Council in December 2020 indicated a full S17A Service Delivery Review is planned in 2021, followed by a public tender for the solid waste services. The current north and south solid waste contracts expire on 30 September 2022.

Changes in the service delivery of solid waste, i.e., moving to a rates funded system may require an amendment to the Bylaw.

6.2 Potential to have regional consistency

To reduce confusion amongst communities, 19 territorial authorities across the Waikato / Bay of Plenty regions have successfully subscribed to a consistent solid waste bylaw and waste management and minimisation plan.

The Whangarei District Council (WDC) Solid Waste Management Bylaw 2013 is due for review in 2023. However, WDC will most likely review their bylaw ahead of schedule in response to the forthcoming central government recommendations. Kaipara District Council is looking to separate out certain components of their consolidated bylaw and is planning to make a new solid waste bylaw in the next couple of years.

Therefore, there is potential to create a regionally consistent solid waste bylaw for the Northland Region. Initial discussions have indicated that a regionally consistent bylaw could align with either the Waikato / Bay of Plenty bylaw or the newly made Wellington City Solid Waste Bylaw. The current Bylaw is already consistent with the Waikato / Bay of Plenty bylaw. There are some consistencies between the current bylaw and the Wellington City bylaw, although the Wellington City bylaw contains components that are not justified for FNDC’s more rural setting.

6.3 Waste management and minimisation plan

Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the waste management and minimisation plan must be reviewed every six years. Therefore, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 – 2023^{^[5]} is due for review by 2023.

As per section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, a waste management and minimisation plan must provide for the following:^{^[6]}

a) objectives and policies for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district:

b) methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district, including—

i. collection, recovery, recycling, treatment, and disposal services for the district to meet its current and future waste management and minimisation needs (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise); and

ii. any waste management and minimisation facilities provided, or to be provided, by the territorial authority; and

iii. any waste management and minimisation activities, including any educational or public awareness activities, provided, or to be provided, by the territorial authority:

As per section 56 of the Waste Management Act 2008, a bylaw must be consistent with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Therefore, amendments to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan may require amendments to the Bylaw.

7 Discussion

7.1 Is a bylaw still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of solid waste in the Far North District?

The review has identified that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the following solid waste problems:

· To meet the Council’s legal requirements under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, specifically

o minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream

o gathering accurate data for waste planning

· Protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances including

o control of hazardous wastes

· Control of litter including

o control of waste generated by events

o control of waste receptacles in a public place

· Control of waste generated by multi-unit developments

7.2 Is the current bylaw effective?

The current Bylaw has been effective in regulating the following:

· gathering accurate data for waste planning

· protecting public health and safety, and avoiding nuisances

· control of hazardous wastes

· control of waste generated by events

· control of waste receptacles in a public place

· control of waste generated by multi-unit developments

Therefore, the Bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing those problems with respect to solid waste.

However, community education advocating best practice waste management behaviour is required in order for the bylaw to be effective.

Although, the Bylaw has been in place for five years without any apparent problems, the components of the Bylaw referring to minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream are not effective.

Due to not allocating sufficient resources the components of the Bylaw that refer to waste separation are not enforced and therefore the Bylaw is not effective in minimising recyclables in the landfill waste stream. Either the Bylaw needs to be amended and the components referring to waste separation removed or this section of the Bylaw needs to be actively monitored and enforced.

However, given that central government is considering standardising kerbside collections, including organic collections, the Bylaw may need to be amended once the Government proposals are finalised to allow for a range of waste types collected at kerbside. Therefore, it may be imprudent to amend the Bylaw as there is a risk that Central Government will require changes to kerbside collections and the Bylaw will need to be amended again.

Both Whangarei District Council and Kaipara District Councils will be reviewing their solid waste related bylaws after the release of the finalised central government proposals. Therefore, there is an opportunity to have regional consistent solid waste bylaws. Further to this the Council is undertaking a S17a review for solid waste services, and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is due for review by 2023.

An increase in resources to actively monitor and enforce solid waste regulation in the Far North District may help to not only encourage adherence to the current Bylaw but also reduce the problem with illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is a complex problem and further investigation as to potential council interventions is required.

Community education advocating best practice waste management behaviour remains to be required in order for the bylaw to be effective. The upcoming increases to the Waste Levy may provide extra resources for more effective education.

8 Conclusion

Bylaw controls, in conjunction with effective education, remain a necessary regulatory mechanism for efficient and effective waste minimisation operations across the Far North District. However, the problem of ineffective regulation regarding the separation of waste from recyclables caused by non-existent monitoring and enforcement will need to be addressed.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

23 March 2021

The purpose of this policy is to set out, in accordance with section 57 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), an objective and transparent process for the:

a) identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge and experience required of directors of a council organisation.

b) appointment of directors to a council organisation; and

c) remuneration of directors of a council organisation.

Policy Objectives

The objectives of this policy are to ensure:

· that the process of appointing board members is undertaken in an objective and transparent manner, while protecting individual privacy.

· that board appointments:

· are made on the basis of an assessment of skills, knowledge and experience, having regard to the nature of scope of the organisation’s objectives and activities.

· consider the contribution that directors can make to the board as a whole and to the achievement of the organisation’s objectives and activities.

· take into account the context in which council, as a publicly accountable body operates.

· continuity through smooth succession of board members and board chairs.

Background

“Candidate” is a person who has been nominated, submitted a written application or identified through search activities.

“Council Organisation” is defined in section 6 of the LGA as an organisation in which the council has a voting interest or the right to appoint a director, trustee or manager (however described).

“Council Controlled Organisation” is defined in section 6 of the LGA in which the council controls, directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the votes or has the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors.

Board Diversity and Inclusion

Far North District Council (FNDC) values and supports the benefits that diversity of thought, experience and skills bring to our CCO boards as well as the council as a whole; that a culture of inclusion and diversity is cultivated through clear tone from the top, with the Council and elected members, SLT and boards championing diversity and inclusion in support of FNDC’s values.

FNDC recognises that increasing diversity and fostering inclusive board culture is an essential element in supporting high performing boards, driving long-term success, making improved decisions and delivering better outcomes for the communities of the Far North District.

A diverse board will include, but is not limited to skills, experience, perspectives, gender, race, age, ethnicity and other qualities of directors. The board will make good use of these differences and distinctions among individuals in determining the optimum composition of the board.

All board appointments must collectively reflect the diverse nature of the business environment in which FNDC and its CCOs operates and be made on merit in the context of the skills, experience and knowledge which the board requires to be effective.

FNDC is committed to supporting and/or providing initiatives:

· that lead to an inclusive recruitment and selection process of board appointments;

· support a diverse range of aspiring directors to develop skills, knowledge, board room experience and to establish relationships and networks; and

· build a diverse pool of experienced directors for Far North District organisations and companies.

Policies

1. Skills

The council considers that any person that it appoints to be a director of a CO should, as a minimum, have the following skills:

• Intellectual ability

• An understanding of governance issues

• Business experience/experience relevant to the organisation

• Sound judgment

• A high standard of personal integrity

• The ability to work as a member of a team.

• Commitment to the principles of good corporate citizenship

• Understanding of the wider interests of the publicly accountable shareholder.

• A demonstrable commitment to the Far North District.

2. Appointment Process

When vacancies arise in any council organisation (CO) the council will follow the following process for appointing directors. A report will be prepared that will, in most cases, include information relating to current Directors therefore it will be submitted to the Publicly Excluded agenda of Council to seek a decision on whether to advertise a particular vacancy or make an appointment without advertisement. When making this decision the council will consider:

• The costs of any advertisement and process

• The availability of qualified candidates

• The urgency of the appointment (e.g. a CO that is without a quorum cannot hold board meetings).

Once the decision has been made on the appointment process, it must be notified in the public portion of the meeting

· Advertisement of Appointed Director’s Position

Where the council decides to advertise a vacancy, it will establish an Appointment Panel, approved by the Chief Executive, subject to consulting with the Mayor.

An advertisement seeking expressions of interest will be placed in the appropriate media sites and be open for a minimum of 3 weeks.

Where the council decides not to advertise a particular vacancy it will refer the matter to council or the relevant committee that is responsible for monitoring the CO. The council committee will consider the appointment at its next scheduled meeting and make a recommendation to Council in relation to the appointment.

· Appointment Panel Composition

The Appointment Panel will be made up of:

· two elected members; and

· the existing Chair of the CCO or their nominee; and

· one independent person who brings particular knowledge of skills that can add value to the process.

· Appointment Panel Responsibilities

The appointment panel will be responsible for:

· approving the criteria against which applications will be assessed;

· approving an independent recruitment consultant to assist with the selection process, if it decides it is warranted;

· preparing a shortlist of candidates to interview;

· interviewing the shortlisted candidates and evaluating them against the approved criteria; and

· reporting on its assessment of each candidate against its criteria and recommending appointments of directors to council.

3. Final Appointment

The council will make a decision in committee (thus protecting the privacy of natural persons). Public announcement of the appointment will be made as soon as practicable after the council has made its decision.

4. Reappointment

Where a director’s term of appointment has expired and he or she is offering him or herself for reappointment, the Council will consult with the Chairperson of the CO with regard to:

• Whether the skills of the incumbent add value to the work of the organisation

• Whether there are other skills the organisation needs

• Succession issues

Council will then consider the information obtained and, taking into account the director’s length of tenure, form a view on the appropriateness of reappointment or making a replacement appointment.

Council may reappoint an existing director for a further term without activating the formal appointment process. Where it is not intended to reappoint the incumbent, the appointment process outlined above will apply.

5. Rotation of Directors and Length of Tenure

The Directorship shall be reviewed by the board of the relevant organisation each year at the time of the Annual Report of the Company.

Directors will normally be appointed for periods of three years. Subject to a review of the director’s performance after the first three-year period, the normal tenure for a director will be six years.

Following six years of services, a director may be appointed for a further three years if the benefit of such an extension is considered to outweigh the potential advantages of seeking and appointing a new candidate.

It is desirable that a director not be reappointed to the same organisation after nine years of service.

6. Appointment of a Chairperson

Council will appoint the Chair and deputy Chair of each CCO board, taking into account the experience and skills of the existing board. Council will seek input from the current board members, as appropriate.

If a suitable Chair cannot be appointed from the current board for any reason, or if there is more than one suitable candidate on the current board, an appointment process and panel will be established as per the Appointment Process in section 2.

· Specific skills and attributes sought

In general terms, the skills and attributes sought for CCO Chairs are the same as those sought for CCO Directors (see section 1), but in addition would include the following:

· strong leadership skills, with the ability to work collaboratively with the board and General Manager to create a sustainable enterprise;

· ability to think in a visionary and strategic manner;

· have a strong understanding of, and experience in, governance; and

· ability to ensure that the organisation is accountable and delivers high quality products, facilities and services.

7 . Conflicts of Interest

Far North District Council expects that directors of Council-controlled organisations will avoid situations where their actions could give rise to a conflict of interest. To minimise these situations, the council requires directors to follow the provisions of the New Zealand Institute of Directors’ Code of Ethics. All directors are appointed ‘at the pleasure of the council’ and may be dismissed for breaches of this code.

8 . Remuneration

Far North District Council will decide whether directors on CCO boards are to be remunerated. The level of remuneration of directors will be set by council in accordance with the factors below.

To ensure transparency, fees will be set by the council for the board members and Chairs, rather than allocating a pool to be distributed by the board. Fees are to be met from the council organisation’s own resources.

In exceptional circumstances, where elected members and council employees may have been appointed as directors of a CCO, they will not be remunerated for hat role unless provided for by specific council resolution.

The council supports the payments by CCOs of directors’ liability insurance and the indemnification of directors.

Travel costs for meetings are generally not reimbursed, other than in exceptional circumstances approved by the Chair.

· Level of remuneration

Where CCO directors are remunerated, the level of remuneration will be set taking into account the following factors:

· the need to attract and retain appropriately qualified directors

· the levels of remuneration paid by comparable organisations in New Zealand

· any changes in the nature of the CCO’s business

· any other relevant factors.

Remuneration of directors of all CCOs will be reviewed at least once per triennium, or whenever the performance of the CCO or the role of the CCO and its board changes significantly.