Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Thursday, 12 August 2021

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

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
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	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.
	112 Commerce Street Holdings Ltd	Owner of commercial property in Commerce Street Kaitaia.
	Foy Property Management Ltd	Owner of company that manages properties owned by Foy Farms Rentals and Flick Family Trust.
	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 Coastal Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Mate Radich	No form received
Rachel Smith	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
	Town and General Groundcare Limited	Director, Shareholder
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
	He Puna Aroha Putea Whakapapa	Trustee	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Kawakawa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Whangaroa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	National Emergency Management Advisor Committee	Member		Case by case basis
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi	Tribal affiliate member	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 should there appear to be one
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāti Hine	Tribal affiliate member	Could have a perceived conflict of interest	Declare a perceived conflict should I determine there is a conflict
	Kawakawa Business and Community Association	Member		Will declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one
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

12 August 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 24 June 2021 AT 10.00 am

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

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

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

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

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

2 Ngā Whakapāha Me Ngā Pangā Mema / Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2021/41

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That the apology received from Councillor Mate Radich be accepted and leave of absence granted.

Carried

3 Ngā Tono Kōrero / Deputation

Nil

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3052372, pages 12 - 33 refers.

Resolution 2021/42

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held 13 May 2021 as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Reports

5.1 Petition from Margo Taituha and Geoff Reid - Stop the Seawalls and Dredging

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3212375, pages 34 - 155 refers.

Resolution 2021/43

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

That Council receive the petitions from Margo Taituha and Geoff Reid – ‘Stop the Seawalls and Dredging’.

Carried

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 Tabled Document - Action Stations Seawall Petition extract from web

5.2 Adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

Agenda item 6.2 document number A3223043, pages 156 - 161 refers.

Resolution 2021/44

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Ann Court

That Council:

a) adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy contained in the final 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

b) adopts the Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy contained in the final 2021–2031 Long Term Plan.

c) adopts the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan as amended in accordance with the decisions made at the Deliberations meeting held on 13 May 2021 and the final changes notified by Audit New Zealand.

d) adopts the ML21/2 policy (Māori Freehold Land used for the purposes of Papakāinga or other housing purposes subject to occupation licenses or other informal arrangements) as amended.

e) authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor accuracy, grammatical or formatting amendments prior to the Long-Term Plan 2021– 2031 and associated documents being published or uploaded onto the Far North District Council website.

Carried

Note: The Mayor acknowledged and thanked Elected Members and staff for the hours and amount of work that has gone into completing the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

5.3 Setting of Rates, due dates and penalties for 2021-2022

Agenda item 6.3 document number A3217445, pages 162 - 171 refers.

Resolution 2021/45

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Ann Court

That, pursuant to Section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (the Act), Council sets the rates as described below for the year commencing 1st July 2021 and concluding 30th June 2022;

All rates are shown inclusive of GST

GENERAL RATE

General Rate

Differentiated on the basis of land use set on all rateable land

Differential	Basis	Rate
General Differential	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0046648
Commercial Differential	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0128282

Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC):

A UAGC of $450.00 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) on every rateable Rating Unit

TARGETED RATES

ROADING RATES

Uniform Roading Rate

A Uniform Targeted Rate of $100 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) on every rateable Rating Unit

Differential Roading Rate

Differentiated on the basis of land use set on all rateable land

Differential	Basis	Rate
Residential	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0001041
Lifestyle	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0001130
Farming General	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0001243
Horticulture	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0000776
Dairy	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0001803
Forestry	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0019579
Commercial	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0002810
Industrial	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0003402
Mining/Quarry	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0087814
Other	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0001935

Ward Services Rate

Differentiated on the basis of location set on all rateable land in the identified wards

Differential	Basis	Rate
BOI - Whangaroa Ward	Per SUIP	$327.60
Te Hiku Ward	Per SUIP	$288.40
Kaikohe - Hokianga Ward	Per SUIP	$373.90

Stormwater Rate

10% of the required funding for stormwater is from general rates and the remaining

90% is set on the basis of capital value on all rateable property identified in the rating area maps for the listed urban communities;

Ahipara	Haruru Falls	Kaikohe	Kawakawa
Awanui	Hihi	Kaimaumau	Karikari
East Coast	Houhora/Pukenui	Kaitāia	Kerikeri/Waipapa
Kohukohu	Ōkaihau	Paihia/Te Haumi	Taupō Bay
Moerewa	Ōpononi/Ōmāpere	Rāwene	Tauranga Bay
Ngāwhā	Ōpua/Ōkiato	Russell	Whangaroa/Kāeo

Basis	Rate
Per $ of Capital Value	$0.0002787

DEVELOPMENT RATES

Paihia CBD Development Rate

Differentiated on the basis of land use set on all rateable land identified in the rating area maps

Differential	Basis	Rate
General Differential	Per SUIP	$18.00
Commercial Differential	Per SUIP	$56.00

Kaitāia BID Rate

Commercial rating units defined in the rating area map	Basis	Rate
Commercial rating units defined in the rating area map	Per $ of Land Value	$0.0013551

BOI Recreation Centre Rate

Rating Units defined in the rating area map	Basis	Rate
Rating Units defined in the rating area map	Per SUIP	$5.00

PRIVATE ROADING RATES

Hupara Road Sealing Rates

Rating Units defined in the rating area map	Basis	Rate
Rating Units defined in the rating area map	Per SUIP	$661.73

SEWERAGE RATES

Separate sewerage rates are set for each sewerage scheme on every rating unit that is connected to each scheme or to which the scheme is “available”.

The additional pan rate is set on the basis of the third and subsequent water closet or urinal within the rating unit. A rating unit used primarily as a residence for a single household will be treated as having a single pan.

Ahipara Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$269.73
Available	Per Rating Unit	$269.73
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$161.84

East Coast Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$244.41
Available	Per Rating Unit	$244.41
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$146.65

Hihi Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$467.74
Available	Per Rating Unit	$467.74
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$280.64

Kāeo Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$587.14
Available	Per Rating Unit	$587.14
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$352.28

Kaikohe Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$183.02
Available	Per Rating Unit	$183.02
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$109.81

Kaitāia and Awanui Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$189.62
Available	Per Rating Unit	$189.62
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$113.77

Kawakawa Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$392.13
Available	Per Rating Unit	$392.13
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$235.28

Kerikeri Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$698.57
Available	Per Rating Unit	$698.57
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$419.14

Kohukohu Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$570.13
Available	Per Rating Unit	$570.13
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$342.08

Ōpononi Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$251.54
Available	Per Rating Unit	$251.54
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$150.92

Paihia Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$391.95
Available	Per Rating Unit	$391.95
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$235.17

Rangiputa Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$210.23
Available	Per Rating Unit	$210.23
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$126.14

Rāwene Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$455.90
Available	Per Rating Unit	$455.90
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$273.54

Russell Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$392.48
Available	Per Rating Unit	$392.48
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$235.49

Whangaroa Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$477.95
Available	Per Rating Unit	$477.95
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$286.77

Whatuwhiwhi Sewerage Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$258.42
Available	Per Rating Unit	$258.42
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$155.05

Sewerage Public Good Rate is set on every rating unit in the district

Per Rating Unit

$15.00

District Wide Sewerage Operating Rate is set on every rating unit connected to a sewerage scheme

Operating Rate	Basis	Rate
Connected (All schemes)	Per SUIP	$617.07
Additional Pan Rate	Per additional pan	$370.24

WATER RATES

Separate water rates are set for each water supply scheme differentiated on the basis the supply or availability of supply to each scheme.

Kaikohe Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$225.62
Available	Per Rating Unit	$225.62

Kaitāia Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$260.86
Available	Per Rating Unit	$260.86

Kawakawa Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$334.37
Available	Per Rating Unit	$334.37

Kerikeri Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$135.59
Available	Per Rating Unit	$135.59

Ōkaihau Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$272.47
Available	Per Rating Unit	$272.47

Omāpere/Ōpononi Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$528.98
Available	Per Rating Unit	$528.98

Paihia Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$178.63
Available	Per Rating Unit	$178.63

Rāwene Water Capital Rate

Differential	Basis	Rate
Connected	Per SUIP	$318.96
Available	Per Rating Unit	$318.96

Water Public Good Rate is set on every rating unit in the district

Per Rating Unit

$15.00

District Wide Water Operating Rates

The District wide operating rates are assessed on the basis of the quantity of water supplied as recorded by meter.

Metered Supply rate (all schemes)

Operating Rate	Basis	Rate
Potable Water	Per m³ Supplied	$3.43
Non-potable Water	Per m³ Supplied	$2.23

Non Metered Water Supply Rate (Includes 250 M³Supply)

Operating Rate	Basis	Rate
Potable Water	Per SUIP	$1,084.14
Non-potable Water	Per SUIP	$784.45

DRAINAGE RATES are set on all rateable land in the relevant drainage area

Kaitāia Drainage Area

Basis

Rate

Area of land within the defined rating area

Per hectare

$9.60

Kaikino Drainage Area (as defined in the FIS)
Differential	Basis	Rate
Differential A	Per hectare	$19.22
Differential B	Per hectare	$9.61
Differential C	Per hectare	$3.21

Motutangi Drainage Area (as defined in the FIS)
Differential	Basis	Rate
Differential A	Per hectare	$90.07
Differential B	Per hectare	$45.04
Differential C	Per hectare	$15.04

Waiharara Drainage Area (as defined in the FIS)
Differential	Basis	Rate
Differential A	Per hectare	$21.66
Differential B	Per hectare	$10.83
Differential C	Per hectare	$3.62

And that, pursuant to Section 24 of the Act and with the exception of the targeted rates set for the supply of water pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, Council charges the rates for the 2021-2022 rating year by way of four equal instalments. Each instalment to be paid on or before the due dates set out below;

*Rate Instalment*	*Due Date*	*Penalty Date*
First Instalment	20 August 2021	27 August 2021
Second Instalment	22 November 2021	29 November 2021
Third Instalment	21 February 2022	28 February 2022
Fourth Instalment	20 May 2022	27 May 2022

And that, pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Act and with the exception of the targeted rates set for the supply of water pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, Council imposes the following penalties:

A ten percent (10%) penalty on any portion of any instalment of rates assessed in the 2021-2022 financial year that is not paid on or by the due date for payment as detailed above. This penalty will be added on the penalty dates detailed above;

And that the water meters be read and invoiced on a six-month cycle, or more often if required, and the subsequent invoices become due for payment set out overleaf.

And that, pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Act, Council imposes the following penalties in respect of targeted rates set for the supply of water pursuant to Section 19 of the Act:

A ten percent (10%) penalty on any portion of the rate for the supply of water charged pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, as separately invoiced, that is not paid on or by the due date for payment as set out below;

Scheme	1^st Invoice	Due Date	Penalty Date	2^nd Invoice	Due Date	Penalty Date
Kaikohe	Nov-21	20/12/2021	27/12/2021	May-22	20/06/2022	27/06/2022
Kaitāia	Aug-21	20/09/2021	27/09/2021	Feb-22	21/03/2022	28/03/2022
Kawakawa	Jul-21	20/08/2021	27/08/2021	Jan-22	21/02/2022	28/02/2022
Kerikeri	Sep-21	20/10/2021	27/10/2021	Mar-22	20/04/2022	27/04/2022
Ōkaihau	Jul-21	20/08/2021	27/08/2021	Jan-22	21/02/2022	28/02/2022
Ōmāpere/ Ōpononi	Jul-21	20/08/2021	27/08/2021	Jan-22	21/02/2022	28/02/2022
Paihia	Oct-21	22/11/2021	29/11/2021	Apr-22	20/05/2022	27/05/2022
Rāwene	Jul-21	20/08/2021	27/08/2021	Jan-22	21/02/2022	28/02/2022

And that, pursuant to Section 88 of the Act, Council set Postponement Fees as provided for in the relevant Rates Postponement Policies;

FEES IN RESPECT OF POSTPONED RATES

Pursuant to Section 88 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Council will charge a postponement fee on all rates that are postponed under any of its postponement policies.

The Postponement fees are as follows:

· Application Fee: $300

· Administration Fee: $50 per year

· Financing Fee on all Postponements: Currently set at 3.00% pa but may vary to match Council’s average cost of funds. At Council’s discretion all these fees may be added to the total postponement balance.

Carried

5.4 Northland Inc Shareholding

Agenda item 6.4 document number A3225999, pages 172 - 219 refers.

Resolution 2021/46

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council:

a) agrees to purchase 40 shares in Northland Inc Limited from Northland Regional Council at a value of $2 per share and authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement (Attachment One) and Share Transfer Form (Attachment Two) to execute the purchase on 1 July 2021.

b) authorises His Worship the Mayor to sign the Northland Inc Limited Shareholder Agreement (Attachment Three) which includes the Constitution of Northland Inc Limited.

c) authorises the establishment of a Joint Regional Economic Development Committee with Northland Regional Council and Kaipara District Council, pursuant to clause 30(1)(b) and 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) adopts the Terms of Reference for the Joint Regional Economic Development Committee (Attachment Four), delegates those responsibilities and duties to the Joint Regional Economic Development Committee and acknowledges that this fulfils the requirements of 30A(1).

e) appoints Councillor Vujcich and Councillor Clendon as Council’s representatives on the Joint Regional Economic Development Committee and appoints Councillor Collard as the alternative elected member.

f) appoints Deputy Mayor Court as the shareholder representative for Northland Inc Limited delegating all necessary authority to represent the Council’s interest including but not limited to exercising the Council’s vote as a shareholder of Northland Inc Limited at all shareholder meetings and in regard to any shareholder resolutions.

Carried

6 Ngā Kōrero A Te Koromatua / Mayoral Announcements

- Jeffrey Devine, Roading Manager - Northland Transport Alliance, provided an update on the Northland Transport Alliance.

At 11:07 am, Mayor John Carter left the meeting and Deputy Mayor Ann Court took the Chair. At 11:08 am, Mayor John Carter returned to the meeting and resumed as the Chair.

At 11:25 am, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 11:27 am, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

- Councillor Tepania and Councillor Smith provided an update on Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs Network and Young Elected Members Committee.

- Mayor Carter provided an updated on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board who are going through consultation the speed restrictions on 90 Mile Beach.

- A report on the remits will be presented at next week’s Council meeting.

- Councillor Collard provided an update on his Civil Defence portfolio and thanked Councillor Stratford for the Tsunami Warning system.

- Councillor Stratford provided an update on National Emergency Management Agency and the conference that she attended.

- Mayor Carter acknowledged that each Elected Member spent up to 1500 hours on the Long Term Plan.

- Mayor Carter is working with Dover Samuels and Minister Willie Jackson on Significant Natural Areas.

7 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Councillor Stratford closed the meeting with a karakia.

8 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 11.45 am.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 12 August 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Thursday, 1 July 2021 AT 1.01 pm

PRESENT: Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Cr 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: Mike Edmonds (Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson via Microsoft TEAM’s), Adele Gardner (Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson), Frank Owen (Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Deputy Chairperson), Andy Nock (Chief Executive Officer – Far North Holdings Limited), Chris Galbraith (General Manager - Far North Holdings Limited), Irwin Wilson (Business Development Manager - Far North Holdings Limited)

STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke (Chief Executive Officer), Janice Smith (General Manager Corporate Services - Acting), Dean Myburgh (General Manager District Services), Andy Finch (General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management), Roger Ackers (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy - Acting)

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

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

2 Deputation

- Danny Simms representing Doubtless Bay Promotions Inc., presented on the proposed expansion of the Mangonui Heritage Precinct.

- The Mayor acknowledged representatives Andy Nock, Chris Galbraith and Irwin Wilson from Far North Holdings Limited for the work undertaken to date on the Ngawha Innovation and Enterprise Park.

- Andy Nock (Chief Executive Officer - Far North Holdings) provided an update presentation on the Paihia Waterfront Redevelopment.

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 Deputation Notes - Danny Simms - Mangonui Heritage Precinct

2 Deputation - Danny Simms - Map of Mangonui Heritage Precinct

3 Presentation - Danny Simms - Mangonui Heritage Precinct

4 Presentation - Far North Holdings Limited - Paihia Waterfront Development

3 REPORT

3.1 Far North Holdings - Paihia Waterfront Development

Agenda item 6.5 document number A3244613, supplementary agenda pages 4 - 16 refers.

Resolution 2021/47

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

That Council:

a) notes the routine review of the Far North Holdings Limited Statement of Intent which was considered at the 16 June 2021 Assurance Risk and Finance Committee.

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

Against: Cr Kelly Stratford

carried

b) notes the critical infrastructure at risk on Paihia Waterfront and the value of the Provincial Growth Funding ($8m) to support a solution.

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

carried

c) notes the inclusion of Council budget ($5,845,158) in the Long Term Plan to support this development and that this is a pre-condition of MBIE funding.

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

carried

d) confirms that it does not intend to intervene in FNHL’s delivery of the Paihia Waterfront joint PGF/Council funded project as planned.

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

Abstained: Cr Moko Tepania

carried

4 NGā WHAKAPāHA ME NGā PāNGA MEMA / Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Nil

5 NGĀ KŌRERO A TE KOROMATUA / MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

- Acknowledged Frank Owen, Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Deputy Chair for his attendance and acknowledged that today is his birthday today.

- Notified the Councillors of Cr Tepania’s resignation from the Northland Adventure Experience Board and that Councillor Clendon would be appointed at the meeting on 12 August 2021 when a report will be presented at the Council meeting.

- The Mayor and Cr Radich provided an update on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Beach Board and the speed review.

- Cr Radich provided an update on the ownership of Kaimaumau Road. Two surveyors have looked into this issue separately and both agree that the road is not a private road.

- The Mayor is continuing to work with Central Government Ministers on Significant Natural Areas.

- The Mayor explained that there is a lot of action around the central government reforms with building, resource management and climate change and that he will do his best to provide updates.

- The Mayor noted his disappointed in the Department of Internal Affairs and their advertising/education of the Three Waters Reform.

- The Mayor noted that a paper that has been circulated to the Councillors on the Future of Local Government.

6 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

6.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3246610, pages 12 - 22 refers.

Resolution 2021/48

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held on 20 May 2021 as a true and correct record.

Carried

7 Reports CONTINUED

7.1 Kōkiri Ai te Waka Hourua Strategy (Sport Northland)

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3259832, pages 23 - 65 refers.

Resolution 2021/49

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That Council supports in principle the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua Regional Sports, Active Recreation and Play Strategy to allow time to plan how this strategy will be resourced and implemented.

Carried

7.2 Subsoil Lease to FNHL - The Strand, Russell

Agenda item 6.2 document number A3243165, pages 66 - 78 refers.

Resolution 2021/50

Moved: Cr Mate Radich

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That the Far North District Council:

a) grants consent, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1974, to Far North Holdings Limited, for a new lease of the subsoil beneath The Strand, Russell; and that,

i) Term: 14 years

ii) Annual Rental: $1.00 plus GST (if any)

iii) Expiry Date: 30 June 2035

iv) Renewal: Nil

Carried

Note: request a report be provided to the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board with practical solutions to address any health and safety issues and to prevent parking at the fill point locations.

7.3 Proposal to Construct an Erosion Protection Structure on Council Owned Reserve, Omapere

Agenda item 6.3 document number A3243104, pages 79 - 218 refers.

RESOLUTION 2021/51

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That Council:

a) approves the construction of, and associated occupation with, an erosion protection structure on Far North District Council owned local purpose reserved legally described as Lot 5 DP196729; and

b) approval is provided subject to a memorandum of encumbrance being recorded on the titles of Lot 1 DP196729 and Lot 1 DP310507 and that the encumbrance records the agreement that the owners of those properties:

i) bear full responsibility for the maintenance, repair, removal of the seawall (if required) during its lifetime, and end of its lifetime.

ii) incur cost of the agreement construction and registration against title.

iii) notify FNDC of any variation or modification of the erosion protection structure

To avoid doubt, approval is given both within Council’s capacity as the administering body of the reserve and an affected person within the meaning of Section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

carried

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

Abstained: Cr Kelly Stratford

Note: need to include climate change and erosion as part of the Reserves and Parks Policy review.

At 2:30 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 2:32 pm, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

7.4 Elected Member Conference Attendance Report - 2021 Community Boards Conference

Agenda item 6.4 document number A3196920, pages 219 - 230 refers.

Resolution 2021/52

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council note the report entitled ‘Elected Member Conference Attendance Report – 2021 Community Boards Conference’.

Carried

Note: Mike Edmonds (Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Chairperson) attendance costs to the Elected Member Conference was covered by Community Boards Executive Committee (CBEC).

At 2:36 pm, Cr Dave Collard left the meeting. At 2:38 pm, Cr Dave Collard returned to the meeting.

7.5 Remits for Consideration at 2021 LGNZ AGM

Agenda item 6.6 document number A3259790, Supplementary Agenda pages 17 - 99 refers.

Resolution 2021/53

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Far North District Council:

a) supports the following 2021 Local Government New Zealand Remits:

i) Rating Value of Forestry Land

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

Against: Crs Kelly Stratford and John Vujcich

carried

ii) Funding of Civics Education

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

carried

iii) Election Participation

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

carried

iv) Carbon Emission Inventory Standards and Reduction Targets

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

carried

v) Liability - Buildings Consent Functions

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

carried

i) Tree Protection

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

carried

At 2:40 pm, Mayor John Carter left the meeting and Deputy Mayor Ann Court took the Chair. At 2:42 pm, Mayor John Carter returned to the meeting.

8 Information Reports

8.1 Council Action Sheet Update July 2021

Agenda item 7.1 document number A3246243, pages 231 - 241 refers.

Resolution 2021/54

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That Council receive the report Action Sheet Update July 2021.

Carried

8.2 Road Controlling Authorities Forum - Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Agenda item 7.2 document number A3250439, pages 242 - 245 refers.

Resolution 2021/55

Moved: Cr Ann Court

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That Council receive the report Road Controlling Authorities Forum - Deputy Mayor Ann Court.

Carried

Note: The Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Mayor to continue investigating the possibility of creating a video/film on roading issues in the Far North District.

8.3 CEO Report to Council 01 March 2021 - 30 April 2021

Agenda item 7.3 document number A3207496, pages 246 - 287 refers.

Resolution 2021/56

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Ann Court

That Council receive the report CEO Report to Council 01 March 2021 - 30 April 2021.

Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 3.26 pm to 3.33 pm.

At 3:29 pm, Cr Mate Radich left the meeting.

9 Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution 2021/57

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

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

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
9.1 - 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)(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
9.2 - Award of the Russell Landfill Operations, Waste and Recycling Contract	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)(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
9.3 - Audit New Zealand Fraud Questionnaire for Governance - May 2021	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)(e) - the withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public 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)(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

Carried

At the conclusion of the public excluded session the meeting confirmed that decisions and information discussed with the public excluded would remain in public exclusion.

10 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Cr Rachel Smith closed the meeting with a karakia/prayer.

11 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 4.18 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 12 August 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

7.3 2021 Representation Arrangements Review

File Number: A3240077

Author: Caroline Wilson, Manager - District Administration

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

This report recommends that Council adopts an initial proposal as outlined in the recommendation, with a formal consultation process to occur from 20 August to 1 October 2021.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Councils are required to undertake a representation arrangements review at least once every 6 years, or if Māori wards/constituencies are introduced;

· The last review was undertaken in 2015 with minimal changes made from the previous 2009 review;

· Informal feedback has indicated some communities of interest required reviewing along with the number of councillors.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Far North District Council, in accordance with sections 19H and 19J and clauses 1 and 2 of Schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001, adopts the following as its initial proposal for the review of representation arrangements for at least the 2022 triennial local elections:

a) The Far North District Council to comprise the Mayor elected at large and 10 councillors elected under the ward system, specifically 6 general ward councillors and 4 Māori ward councillors.

b) The Far North District Council be divided into 4 wards, these being:

i) Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward (represented by 1 general ward councillor), comprising the area in the proposed Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward map as shown on Attachment 1.

ii) Te Hiku General Ward (represented by 2 general ward councillors), comprising the area in the proposed Te Hiku General Ward map as shown on Attachment 2.

iii) Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward (represented by 3 general ward councillors), comprising the area in the proposed Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward map as shown on Attachment 3.

iv) Ngā Tai o Tokerau Māori Ward (represented by 4 Māori ward councillors), comprising the whole of the district in the proposed Māori Ward map as shown on Attachment 4.

c) The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa name be changed to Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa being the Māori name for Bay of Islands–Whangaroa.

d) The Māori ward be named Ngā Tai o Tokerau.

e) The above general wards are the current ward areas with the exception of the Kaikohe-Hokianga and the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa ward boundaries to be altered as follows:

· Meshblock 0037202 be added to the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward from the Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward.

· Meshblock 0036401 be added to the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward from the Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward.

· Meshblocks 0034600, 0034800 be added to the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward from the Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward.

f) The number of Māori ward councillors complies with Schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001,

g) The Far North District Council be divided into 3 subdivided communities, these being:

(i) Kaikohe-Hokianga Community subdivided into:

1) Kaikohe Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Kaikohe Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 5.

2) North Hokianga Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed North Hokianga Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 6.

3) South Hokianga Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed South Hokianga Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 7,

being the existing community board and subdivision areas with the exception of the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board subdivision boundaries to be altered as follows:

a. Meshblocks 0032600, 0033200, 0033100, 0032700, 0033000 be added to the Kaikohe Subdivision from the South Hokianga Subdivision

b. Meshblocks 0039200, 0039500, 0040501, 0040502, 0040601 and 0040602 to be added to the South Hokianga from the Kaikohe Subdivision

(ii) Te Hiku Community subdivided into:

1) Doubtless Bay Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Doubtless Bay Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 8.

2) Kaitāia Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Kaitāia Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 9.

3) North Cape Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed North Cape Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 10.

4) Whatuwhiwhi Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Whatuwhiwhi Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 11.

being the current community board and subdivision areas with the exception of the Te Hiku Community Board subdivision boundaries to be altered as follows:

a. Meshblock 0012701 be added to the Whatuwhiwhi Subdivision from the North Cape Subdivision

(iii) Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community subdivided into:

1) Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 1.

2) Kerikeri Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Kerikeri Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 13.

3) Paihia Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Paihia Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 14.

4) Russell-Ōpua Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Russell-Ōpua Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 15.

5) Waipapa Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Waipapa Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 16.

6) Whangaroa Subdivision comprising the area in the proposed Whangaroa Subdivision map as shown on Attachment 17.

being the existing community board and subdivision areas with the exception of the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community Board subdivision boundaries to be altered as follows:

a. Meshblock 0047701 be added to the Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision from the Russell-Ōpua Subdivision

b. Meshblocks 0046100, 0046400, 0046700, 0046801, 0047801 be added to the Russell-Ōpua Subdivision from the Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision

c. Meshblocks 4009371, 4009372, 0043905, 0044701 be added to the Kerikeri Subdivision from the Whangaroa Subdivision

d. Meshblocks 0033600, 0033800, 0043902, 0043904, 0043905, 0043907, 0044003, 0044004, 0044005, 0044008, 0044503, 0044504, 0044505, 0044506, 0044507, 0044508, 0044603, 0044604, 0044605, 0044606, 0044607, 0044608, 0044609, 0044701, 0044703, 0044801, 4007581, 4007583, 4008359, 4008360, 4008361, 4009371, 4009372, 4010073, 4011285, 4011286, 4011319 be added to the Waipapa Subdivision from the Kerikeri Subdivision

h) There be 19 community board members, being:

(i) 7 members elected from the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community Board comprising:

1) Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision – 1 member

2) Kerikeri Subdivision – 2 members

3) Paihia Subdivision – 1 member

4) Russell-Ōpua Subdivision – 1 member

5) Waipapa Subdivision – 1 member

6) Whangaroa Subdivision – 1 member

and 1 member of the Council representing the Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Ward appointed to the community board by Council

(ii) 6 members elected from the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board comprising:

1) Kaikohe Subdivision – 3 members

2) North Hokianga Subdivision – 1 member

3) South Hokianga Subdivision – 2 members

and 1 member of the Council representing the Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward appointed to the community board by Council

(iii) 6 members elected from the Te Hiku Community Board comprising:

1) Doubtless Bay Subdivision – 1 member

2) Kaitāia Subdivision – 3 members

3) North Cape Subdivision – 1 member

4) Whatuwhiwhi Subdivision – 1 member

and 1 member of the Council representing the Te Hiku Ward appointed to the community board by Council

i) The reasons for the boundary alterations to the wards and community board subdivisions are:

(i) the adjustments ensure that communities of interest that were split are now rectified

(ii) in rectifying the communities of interest, the adjustments largely comply with section 19V Local Electoral Act 2001 (the fair representation criteria) with the exceptions of:

· Te Hiku General Ward

· North Cape Subdivision of the Te Hiku Community Board

· Whangaroa Subdivision of Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community Board

· Russell-Ōpua Subdivision of Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community Board

· South Hokianga Subdivision of Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board

· Kaikohe Subdivision of Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board

(iii) the affected meshblocks are contiguous, have no physical divisions and are similar to the surrounding land.

AND THAT the formal, legislative consultative process and the following timetable be adopted.

Council Resolution (Initial)	12 August 2021 (last legal date 31 August 2021) (section 19H, LEA)
Public Notice	20 August 2021 (within 14 days of resolution) (section 19M, LEA)
Public Submission Period	20 August to 1 October 2021 (six weeks) (section 19M, LEA)
Submissions Heard	14-15 October 2021 (section 19M, LEA)
Council Resolution (Final)	4 November 2021 (section 19N, LEA)
Public Notice	12 November 2021 (within 6 weeks of close of submissions) (section 19N, LEA)
Public Objection Period	12 November to 13 December 2021 (one month) (section 19N, LEA)
Forward Material to LGC	By 24 December 2021 (if required) (section 19Q, LEA)

Note that if section 19V Local Electoral Act 2001 has not been complied (+/- 10% rule), the matter is treated as an objection and automatically referred to the Local Government Commission for determination, such determination to be made by 10 April 2022.

AND THAT the hearing of any representation arrangements review submissions received be heard by Council on 14-15 October 2021.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Local Electoral Act (LEA) requires every local authority to undertake a representation arrangements review at least once every six years, or if Māori wards/constituencies are introduced. Council undertook its last representation arrangements review in 2015 and is therefore required to undertake its next review in 2021.

For the 2015 review, following the receipt of 8 submissions, the initial proposal became the final proposal and as no appeals were received, became the basis of election for the 2016 and 2019 triennial elections.

The current representation arrangements are:

· Mayor elected at large;

· 9 councillors elected from 3 wards (4 from the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Ward, 2 from the Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward and 3 from the Te Hiku Ward);

· 19 community board members elected from 3 subdivided community boards (7 from the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board, 6 from the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board and 6 from the Te Hiku Community Board).

Council has previously considered two other representation issues, the choice of electoral system and Māori representation. Council resolved on 13 August 2020 to change to the single transferable voting electoral system. It further resolved on 4 May 2021 to establish one or more Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 triennial elections.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

DISCUSSION

Legislative Requirements

Part 1A of the LEA sets out the requirements for a representation arrangements review. Issues that a local authority are required to consider include:

· whether councillors (other than the Mayor) are to be elected by electors of the district as a whole (at large), by electors of two or more wards, or in some cases by a mix of electors of the district (at large) and by electors of wards;

· the proposed number of councillors to be elected in each category (at large/ward/mixture - if applicable);

· the proposed name and boundaries for each ward;

· whether there should be communities and community boards, and if so, the nature of a community and structure of a community board;

· whether one or more communities should be constituted;

· whether any community board should be abolished or united with another community;

· whether the boundaries of a community should be altered;

· whether a community should be subdivided for electoral purposes;

· the number of members of a community board (including the number elected and appointed);

· whether members of a community board to be elected by electors of a community as a whole, or by electors of two or more subdivisions, or by electors of each ward (if community comprises two or more wards);

· the name, boundaries and number of members of each subdivision of a community (if adopted).

Key Principles

In undertaking a representation arrangements review, the following key principles are required to be considered:

· communities of interest

· effective representation

· fair representation

The Local Government Commission Guidelines on undertaking a representation arrangements review contains the following information:

Communities of Interest

· not defined in legislation

· essential part of review process

· can mean different things to different people

· is an area where one feels a sense of belonging

· is an area where one looks for social, service and economic support

· sense of belonging can be influenced by geographic features such as a roading network

· community of interest can be identified by access to goods and services needed every day

· rohe, takiwā area of tangata whenua may also be factors

Defining characteristics may include:

· sense of community and belonging

· similarities in demographic, socio-economic and/or ethnic characteristics

· similarities in economic activities

· dependence on shared facilities (schools, recreational, retail, cultural)

· physical and topographical features

· history of area

· transport and communication links communities of interest may change over time

· must be able to be defined as a single geographical area ie a physical boundary must be able to be defined

Effective Representation

· once communities of interest have been defined by geographical boundaries, need to consider how these communities will be most effectively represented

· does each community of interest require separate representation?

· can communities of interest be grouped together to achieve effective representation?

· is effective representation best achieved by an at large system, a ward system or a mixed system?

· if at large - how many members would provide effective representation for the district as a whole?

· if wards - how many members for each ward would provide effective representation?

· should there be communities and community boards?

· ward boundaries to coincide with mesh block boundaries

Fair representation

· population equity (plus/minus 10% of average representation) – applies to wards and subdivisions of community boards.

Process

The process to follow when undertaking a representation arrangements review is:

1. identify the district’s communities of interest;

2. determine the effectiveness of members by looking at the overall number of members, the number of members elected from general and Māori wards and whether they represent the district as a whole or from wards or by a mixture, in order that members are effective (are able to listen to and represent constituents effectively);

3. investigate whether there should be community boards, and if so, the number, boundaries, number of members, whether they be subdivided etc;

4. determine that members fairly represent their constituents by ensuring the average population ratio is no more than a +/- 10% variance.

Communities of Interest

The district’s land use is predominantly rural with supporting service towns. The largest residential concentrations are Kaitāia, Kaikohe and Kerikeri.

The decision to implement Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 elections requires the establishment of one or more Māori wards in addition to general wards. Council recommended adopting one district-wide Māori ward for the 2022 elections, with a possible review of arrangements ahead of the 2025 elections.

The proposed name for the Māori ward is Ngā Tai o Tokerau and like the Māori ward arrangement, there is a possibility of a review of this ahead of the 2025 elections.

The currently named Bay of Islands-Whangaroa community board expressed a strong desire to change their name to one more reflective of its Māori origins. Council recommended adopting Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa as a direct translation. In all other respects (except for those already mentioned in the report) there are no other changes – this is simply a name change.

The district is currently divided into three wards and Council considers that the current ward boundaries still largely reflect the district’s communities of interest (Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa, Kaikohe-Hokianga and Te Hiku). It is recommended that the three current wards become three general wards, with some minor boundary alterations as follows:

Current Ward	New Ward	Reason for change	Affected Meshblocks
Kaikohe-Hokianga	Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa	Moved Ngapipito into Kawakawa-Moerewa subdivision as a community of interest and to balance numbers	0037202
Kaikohe-Hokianga	Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa	Group Waimate North as a community of interest and moved into Paihia subdivision	0034600, 0034800
Kaikohe-Hokianga	Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa	Group Pakaraka as a community of interest and moved into Paihia subdivision	0036401
Entire Far North District	Ngā Tai o Tokerau	One new Māori ward covering the entire far north district.	All meshblocks within the Far North district

The district is also currently divided into three subdivided community boards (Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa, Kaikohe-Hokianga and Te Hiku), which Council still considers appropriate. However, the subdivision boundaries within each of the community boards are recommended to be slightly modified, as follows:

Current Subdivision	New Subdivision	Reason for change	Affected Meshblocks
Kawakawa-Moerewa	Russell-Ōpua	Moved Maromaku and Waiomio as communities of interest and to balance numbers from the Taumārere move	0046100, 0046400, 0046700, 0046801, 0047801
Kaikohe	South Hokianga	Balance numbers taken for Ōkaihau	0039200, 0039500, 0040501, 0040601, 0040502, 0040602
Kerikeri	Waipapa	Created a new subdivision for Waipapa as its own community of interest	0033600, 0033800, 0043902, 0043904, 0043905, 0043907, 0044003, 0044004, 0044005, 0044008, 0044503, 0044504, 0044505, 0044506, 0044507, 0044508, 0044603, 0044604, 0044605, 0044606, 0044607, 0044608, 0044609, 0044701, 0044703, 0044801, 4007581, 4007583, 4008359, 4008360, 4008361, 4009371, 4009372, 4010073, 4011285, 4011286, 4011319
North Cape	Whatuwhiwhi	Group Awanui as a community of interest	0012701
Russell-Ōpua	Kawakawa-Moerewa	Moved Taumārere as a community of interest	0047701
South Hokianga	Kaikohe	Group Ōkaihau as a community of interest	0032600, 0033200, 0033100, 0032700, 0033000
Whangaroa	Kerikeri	Sandys Road, Pungaere Road added to Kerikeri as a community of interest	4009371, 4009372, 0043905, 0044701 (these may remain in the Kerikeri Subdivision should the new Waipapa Subdivision not proceed)

Community board subdivision boundaries are able to be altered in a representation review under section 19J(2)(c) LEA.

Effective Representation

· The Far North’s estimated resident population at 30 June 2020 was 71,050, 25,000 of this being the Māori electoral population (MEP) and 46,050 being the general electoral population (GEP).

· The estimated resident population has increased by approximately 10,000 since the last review in 2015. It is considered that an additional councillor (10 councillors up from 9, plus the Mayor) would better provide effective representation to constituents (access and availability, councillor workload etc).

The number of Māori and general councillors is determined by a formula set in legislation that depends on the total number of councillors, the MEP and the GEP of the district. The recommended addition of one councillor would result in 6 general ward councillors and 4 Māori ward councillors.

· When applying the fair representation criteria (‘plus or minus 10% rule’) to the proposed three general wards, each general councillor must represent between 6,907 and 8,442 population. As it is proposed there be one district-wide Māori ward, the fair representation criteria would not apply to the Māori ward.

· Council also considers that 19 community board members also provides effective representation (access and availability) to local communities.

Fair Representation

The requirement that the average number of resident population to councillors (for wards) and for community board members (for subdivisions) cannot exceed +/- 10% must be taken into account when undertaking a representation arrangements review.

The latest population estimates (as at 30 June 2020) confirm that two of the three general wards comply with the fair representation criteria as follows:

General and Māori Wards
Ward	General Electoral Population	Number of Councillors	Average	Māori Electoral Population	% Variation
Te Hiku General	13,260	2	6,630		-13.61%*
Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General	25,160	3	8,387		+9.27%
Kaikohe-Hokianga General	7,630	1	7,630		-0.58%
Ngā Tai o Tokerau Māori Ward		4		25,000	N/A
Total	46,050	10		25,000

GEP: 46,050 / 6 councillors = 7,675 (+/- 10% = 6,907-8,442)

Māori councillors (4) elected from one district-wide ward.

*To comply with the fair representation criteria, this would have resulted in splitting communities of interest. Council believes this is not a desirable outcome and is supported by section 19V(3)((ii) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Community Boards
Community Board	Subdivision	General Electoral Population	Number of Members	% Variation
Te Hiku	North Cape	3,250	1	-12%
	Whatuwhiwhi	3,620	1	-1.97%
	Doubtless Bay	4,010	1	+8.58%
	Kaitāia	11,280	3	+1.81%
Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa	Whangaroa	4,160	1	-11.6%
	Kerikeri	10,180	2	+8.16%
	Waipapa	4,800	1	+2%
	Paihia	5,030	1	+6.88%
	Russell-Ōpua	4,210	1	-10.53%
	Kawakawa-Moerewa	4,560	1	+3.1%
Kaikohe-Hokianga	North Hokianga	2,490	1	+6.3%
	South Hokianga	4,660	2	-12.35%
	Kaikohe	8,800	3	+10.34%

Te Hiku Community: 22,160 / 6 members = 3,693 (+/- 10% = 3,323-4,062)

Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa Community: 32,940 / 7 members = 4,705 (+/- 10% = 4,234-5,175)

Kaikohe-Hokianga Community: 15,950 / 6 members = 2,658 (+/- 10% = 2,392-2,923)

In most cases the need to address known issues (or feedback from our communities, community boards and council on communities of interest) has required balancing the numbers resulting in some minor non-compliance with the +/- 10% rule. Council believes they can justify being marginally outside of the +/- rule in these cases so as not to split communities of interest (section 19V(3)((ii) of the Local Electoral Act 2001).

Māori Wards – Additional Context

The decision to adopt one or more Māori wards for the 2022 and 2025 elections was made on 4 May 2021.

Creating the most meaningful model for Māori representation at the Council table requires a high degree of engagement and consultation with our MOU partners, iwi leaders and wider Māori community. Within the timeframes under the legislation, this engagement has largely not been able to be undertaken.

We have, however, been able to have a discussion with some of our iwi chairs and MOU partners in lieu of other engagement opportunities. The general view of those we were able to talk to is that one district-wide Māori ward for the 2022 elections is a useful starting point. One Māori ward would comprise the entire Far North district and all 4 Māori councillors would be elected by those on the Māori electoral roll within the district.

The benefit of one district-wide ward is that it is simple to understand for voters, and, recognising that many Māori identify with more than one iwi, it does not split communities of interest / tribal affiliations.

A possible concern with one district-wide ward is that balanced geographical distribution of Māori councillors might not be achieved, potentially resulting in a cluster of Māori councillors from one part of the district. This may, or may not, be an issue and only time will tell (post elections).

Our regional counterparts (Northland Regional, Whangarei District and Kaipara District Councils) are also adopting one Māori ward/constituency for their own representation arrangements consultation.

It should be noted that whilst it is proposed to adopt one Māori ward for 2022 elections there will be an opportunity post-election to discuss the most effective representation model for Māori ahead of the 2025 election, should it be seen as required and subject to any major shift in electoral roll changes that could occur following the Māori option in 2024.

An alternative exploration undertaken by officers was to attempt to divide the Far North district into two wards, following (where possible) iwi and hapū boundaries - thus creating a north Māori ward and a south Māori ward structure. The available resources to Council to draw such boundaries are the Te Puni Kōkiri iwi maps, which Council recognises is not necessarily seen as an authoritative source by iwi themselves. This is a large and complex discussion that Council has not been able to be undertaken within the timeframes and there are concerns that this model is unlikely to be acceptable to the wider Māori population.

Finally, the purpose of the representation review is to establish the representation arrangements for the next election. For clarity, any changes to ward boundaries from a rating perspective will take effect from 1 July 2023 in accordance with the section 43 of the Local Government Rating Act.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Taking into account feedback from our communities, community boards, and Council, it is recommended to progress to formal consultation with this initial proposal. The initial proposal addresses the matter of communities of interest and effective representation whilst having a justified rationale for slight deviations from the +/- 10% rule.

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

There are no budgetary considerations as a result of this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Proposed Kaikohe-Hokianga General Ward Map - A3279760 ⇩

2. Proposed Te Hiku General Ward Map - A3279772 ⇩

3. Proposed Te Pēwhairangi ki Whangaroa General Ward Map - A3279773 ⇩

4. Proposed Ngā Tai o Tokerau Māori Ward - A3280826 ⇩

5. Proposed Kaikohe Subdivision Map - A3279761 ⇩

6. Proposed North Hokianga Subdivision Map - A3279762 ⇩

7. Proposed South Hokianga Subdivision Map - A3279768 ⇩

8. Proposed Doubtless Bay Subdivision Map - A3279765 ⇩

9. Proposed Kaitāia Subdivision Map - A3279758 ⇩

10. Proposed North Cape Subdivision Map - A3279764 ⇩

11. Proposed Whatuwhiwhi Subdivision Map - A3279770 ⇩

12. Proposed Kawakawa-Moerewa Subdivision Map - A3279772 ⇩

13. Proposed Kerikeri Subdivision Map - A3279766 ⇩

14. Proposed Paihia Subdivision Map - A3279769 ⇩

15. Proposed Russell-Ōpua Subdivision Map - A3279759 ⇩

16. Proposed Waipapa Subdivision Map - A3279771 ⇩

17. Proposed Whangaroa Subdivision Map - A3279763 ⇩

18. Proposed General Wards Map - A3289192 ⇩

19. Proposed Subdivisions Map - A3289229 ⇩

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	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	This report has a low degree of significance. Whilst consultation is legislatively required, it does not meet any of the additional thresholds that would make it significant. [It should be noted that the level of community interest is not yet understood – the informal engagement on representation arrangements led to 171 responses].
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Electoral Act, Local Government Act.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	It has district wide relevance. Community boards have been consulted twice in developing the initial proposal with Council, and community board chairs have been invited to every workshop with Council since 24 June 2020 (along with deputy chairs leading into the last two rounds of workshops in 2021).
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. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The establishment of Māori wards has a significant impact on Māori and is in line with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - Protection, Partnership and Participation. Engagement with iwi leaders and MOU partners took place over many weeks once Council made its decision on 4 May 2021 through email and planned workshops. Due to the time constraints (Council having made its decision very late within the legislative timeframes) it was not possible to undertake the full engagement on the matter of establishing one or more Māori wards. It is therefore recommended in the initial proposal to adopt one district-wide Māori ward for the 2022 elections, with stakeholder engagement occurring in 2023 to determine whether more than one Māori ward will be the best solution for 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 persons (other than those identified already) who are likely to be particularly affected by the representation review.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The remuneration for elected members is set by the Remuneration Authority so there are no new budgetary implications as a result of the representation review. Budget has been set side in this financial year to run communications and engagement initiatives to ensure that our communities are informed of the changes – being the representation review, the electoral system and the establishment of Māori wards.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

7.4 Koutu Mangeroa Picnic Area Encroachment

File Number: A3264735

Author: Louise Wilson, Team Leader - Monitoring

Authoriser: Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval of the recommendation that the Koutū Mangeroa Picnic Area be managed by Kaitiaki Agreement

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

In April 2021 Council Monitoring Officers responded to a complaint that an area of unformed road known as Koutū Picnic Area was being used illegally as a campground. A site visit was carried out which confirmed the presence of illegal structures and signage relating to a campground. The kaitiaki occupiers have been mowing and maintaining the picnic area.

The Monitoring Team and the Northern Transport Alliance (NTA) seek direction from Council about the future use of the picnic area. Staff recommend that Council support Option 1 and engage with kaitiaki occupier to formalize a Kaitiaki Agreement. Further, that Council assist kaitiaki to obtain the necessary consents to legalise the use of the Koutū Picnic Area as a campground.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

a) That Council engage with the kaitiaki of the Koutū Mangeroa Picnic Area to formalise a Kaitiaki Agreement for the lawful use of the area as a campground.

b) That Council engage with the kaitiaki to obtain the necessary consents under the Resource Management Act, Local Government Act and Health Act to facilitate the lawful use of the area as a campground.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

In April 2021 Council Monitoring Officers responded to a complaint that an area of unformed road known as Koutū Picnic Area was being used illegally as a campground (see fig.1 below). A site visit was carried out which confirmed the presence of illegal structures and signage relating to a campground. The kaitiaki occupiers have been mowing and maintaining the area (fig.4).

Fig.1 Location of area of unformed road known as Koutū Picnic Area

Fig.2 Signage relating to illegal campground

Fig.3 Illegal Structures

Fig.4 The site has been mowed and maintained by kaitiaki occupiers

Timeline of Events Relating to Koutū Mangeroa Picnic Area

11 Dec 2014

Council resolved

“THAT the person responsible for the structures on Koutū Point unformed legal road be given 21 days to have them removed;

AND THAT failure to do so will result in Council issuing a Trespass Notice to this person and having the structures removed at the occupier’s expense (as per Policy #5108 - 2014 - Encroachments on Council Administered Land).”

A trespass notice was duly served on the occupier and he was given 21 days to remove all structures from the Reserve.

Reports from community members and the NZ Police indicated that a land occupation was to be undertaken by the occupier and supporters, and matters could become unpleasant.

10 June 2015

Then Chief Executive Officer (Acting) Colin Dale met with the occupier and their legal representatives to endeavour to achieve an amicable outcome. The outcome of this meeting was that the family and hapū, with Council’s assistance, convene a public meeting in Opononi to get the views of the wider community.

23 October 2015.

Approximately fifty people attended the public meeting chaired by Mark Ambler (elected from the floor). FNDC representatives, Chief Executive Officer (Acting), Colin Dale, George Swanepoel (Legal Counsel), Phill Grimshaw (Manager Strategic Iwi Relationships), and Mike Colebrook (Manager Facilities Operations) briefed the meeting on the history of the encroachment and Council’s obligations under Local Government legislation, to address the public complaints that had been received.

Members of Ngāti Korokoro outlined their claim under the Treaty of Waitangi, and advised that by June 2016, they would have proof showing hapū ownership.

Colin Dale confirmed that Council was happy for the Treaty claim to progress as it was the correct and lawful process, but on receipt of the complaints regarding illegal structures, illegal camping, and other health and safety concerns, it had to act to protect the wider community.

The meeting then agreed that the whānau and Council had heard the arguments raised by the hapū and wider community, and that the parties concerned should continue to sit around the table, talk and resolve their concerns (Council Report A1647876)

May 2016

Phil Grimshaw and George Swanepoel met with occupier Syd Mathews and it was agreed:

1. That although council was happy for Mr Mathews to be the caretaker of the block it has to be open to all the public and that accosting and abuse of members of the public was not acceptable.

2. That Mr Mathews would remove the signs and that Council would assist with the removal of the container and the porta cottage.

3. Council would explore the installation of toilets as the place is popular with freedom campers.

4. Council would look at some type of secure post box where campers could leave a koha which would help Syd pay for the maintenance of the area.

May 2016 – Present

The conditions of the informal Agreement were not progressed, and no formal Kaitiaki Agreement was finalised. The occupation of the area diminished without further action from FNDC. Due to staff changes and an absence of complaints, enforcement of the removal of the encroachment did not occur.

Treaty Claim

Independent historical research commissioned by FNDC and conducted by Schwarz Consultancy Ltd concluded the Koutū block was a private transaction between Māori and European settlers and did not find anything untoward that would suggest a Treaty claim was appropriate. In addition, land vested in Council is not Crown land for the purposes of Treaty settlements.

Public Use and Legislation

The site is currently advertised on the internet and social media as a campground. Figure 5 is a screen snip from https://nzcamping.com/camp-directory/camp-listing/north-island/far-north/Koutū-mongero/.

Figure.5 The picnic area is advertised as a campground on the internet

The site is public land, so it is desirable to maintain public access and enjoyment of the picnic area. However, Section 357 of the Local Government Act (LGA) provides that it is an offence to encroach on a road for example by erecting buildings or fences. Council has received multiple complaints since 2016 regarding the encroachment preventing access to the picnic area.

Council’s Monitoring and Compliance Team and the Northern Transport Alliance (NTA) seek Council’s direction on options to resolve the encroachment and address complainants’ concerns.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Council Monitoring Staff have met with Northern Transport Alliance (NTA), Te Hono and Legal staff to identify options for the future use of the Koutū picnic area. It is noted that the unformed road is not required for roading purposes. However, any alternative use of public land requires elected member direction. The options are as follows.

Option 1 Engage with kaitiaki occupier to formalize a Kaitiaki Agreement and seek necessary consents to legalise campground; or

Option 2 Take enforcement action to remove illegal structures and prevent campground use; or

Option 3 Investigate changing status of area from road to reserve

Option 2 is not recommended because:

· Enforcement action is unlikely to resolve the demand for campervan parking at the picnic area. Even if encroachments are removed it is likely that campervans would still use the area. Complaints from Koutū Point residents about camping at the site would not necessarily be resolved.

· Enforcement action may alienate the kaitiaki who have been maintaining the area. This is not consistent with Treaty of Waitangi principles of Tino Rangatiratanga and Partnership.

· Enforcement Action would not provide for the ongoing maintenance of the area. NTA have no interest in or budget for maintaining the picnic area.

Option 3 is not recommended because:

· Changing the status of the land would require a formal legal process of road stopping.

· Reserve status would not resolve the demand for campervan parking in the area.

· Changing status of the land to Reserve would not provide for the ongoing maintenance of the area. There is no budget in the LTP for additional reserve maintenance.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Option 1 is the preferred option because:

· The Kaitiaki Agreement can document Council’s expectations relating to public access and maintenance of the area.

· Council can work with kaitiaki to assess compliance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), s.120B of the Health Act 1956 (Campground Regulations) and s.357 LGA. It is likely that resource consent and health licensing would be required.

· If compliance is achieved, the Kaitiaki Agreement can provide for both campervan parking and public access to the coast. Resource consent and health licensing conditions would also apply.

· An agreement would recognise the role of local kaitiaki and be the focus for constructive dialogue between Council and the kaitiaki occupier. This aligns with the Treaty of Waitangi principles of Tino Rangatiratanga and Partnership.

· Other government agencies, for example the Department of Conservation (DOC) have kaitiaki Agreements delegating functions to community groups. For example, the management of the Urupukapuka Island campground by hapū from the Bay of Islands/Rāwhiti area.

· Enforcement action to remove structures and exclude kaitiaki is likely to result in ongoing conflict and occupations. If the kaitiaki were not permitted to occupy and maintain the area it is unlikely to be maintained by NTA and public amenity would be reduced.

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

Council will need to fund technical and legal support to assess whether the proposed campground can achieve compliance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), 120B of the Health Act 1956 and LGA. This process would have similar budget and staff capacity implications as an enforcement proceeding.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	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	Medium – The occupation of the Koutū picnic area previously received media attention and was the subject of a public meeting. The future management of public land may be of interest to the community.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	There is no budget for the management of this area of unformed road. It is likely that resource consent under the RMA and a license under the Health Act will be required before the area can lawfully be used as a campground.
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 Relevance This report will be of interest to the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board.
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. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	This report has considered how kaitiaki Māori can be included in decision making about the future use of the Koutū Picnic Area. This aligns with the principles of Tino Rangatiratanga and Partnership.
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).	Potentially affected parties include residents of Koutū Point, hapū, kaitiaki, and members of the public wanting access the picnic area and coastline. NTA does not consider themselves affected as they have no plans for the unformed road.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As covered in report. Financial implications of Option 1 are similar to Options 2 and 3.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

7.6 Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw Review

File Number: A3307827

Author: Briar Macken, Planner

Authoriser: Darren Edwards, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to agree the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw should continue with amendment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) is due for review by 08 September 2021.

· The Bylaw aims to protect public health and safety, minimise nuisance, and minimise damage to the Cycle Trail.

· A bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of the Cycle Trail.

· The Bylaw is no longer an appropriate form because it is not certain (clear), and it is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation.

· The Bylaw should continue with amendment.

· This report was presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 20 July 2021. The Strategy and Policy Committee makes the following recommendation to Council.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) agree, under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing problems related to the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail.

b) agree, under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the current Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw is not the most appropriate form because:

i) it is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation

ii) it is not certain.

c) agree, the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw be continued with amendment to:

i) ensure consistency with relevant laws and legislation

ii) improve certainty

d) note, that under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, a full analysis of any implications regarding the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 cannot be completed until the amendments to the bylaw have been written.

e) agree that a draft policy for the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Cost Cycle Trail Bylaw be presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee in the first quarter of 2022 prior to consultation.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) was made on 08 September 2016. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Bylaw is due for review by 08 September 2021. The Council is required under section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 to consider whether the Bylaw:

· is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems with respect to the cycle Trail

· is still the most appropriate form of bylaw

· gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Problems to be addressed

The Determination Report (15 June 2016)^{^[1]} stated that “A bylaw is the most appropriate way of managing the Trail because there is no single regulatory instrument for the management of the use of the Trail which is on private land, Crown land, road reserve, and land vested under the control of the Council”.

The following problems were identified:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o prohibiting motorised vehicles

o control of dogs

o control of horses.

· Protecting the public and adjoining landowners from nuisance

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting horses.

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council and Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust staff has not identified any additional problems relating to the Cycle Trail.

Review findings

The review identified that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the following problems relating to the Cycle Trail:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o control of dogs.

· Protecting from nuisance including:

o control of stock

o control of camping.

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting construction or earthworks.

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

However, the review identified that the form of the Bylaw is no longer appropriate.

A bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address problems relating to:

· the control of litter

· protecting the environment on or near the Cycle Trail.

Some provisions in the Bylaw are not certain. Therefore, amendments are required to improve clarity particularly regarding:

· the definition of the Cycle Trail

· the areas of the Cycle Trail which are already covered by existing legislation.

The Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation including but not limited to:

· Dog Management Bylaw

· Solid Waste Bylaw

· Land Transport Rules

· Freedom Camping Act 2011

· Local Government Act 2002

· removing reference to revoked bylaws.

This report considers what other options for the form of the bylaw may be more appropriate.

Option One: The Bylaw continues with amendment (recommended option).

The Bylaw stays in force and amendments are made to ensure the Bylaw:

· is consistent with relevant laws and legislation

· has improved clarity and certainty.

Consultation is required on the proposed amendments.

Advantages and disadvantages of amending the Bylaw

Advantages

- Bylaw will align with relevant laws and legislation

- Bylaw will allow for easier enforcement of provisions

- Bylaw will have improved clarity and certainty

Disadvantages

- Implementation costs (likely to be minor)

Option Two: Status Quo: The Bylaw continues without amendment

The Bylaw stays in force with no changes.

Consultation is required on continuing the bylaw without amendment.

Advantages and disadvantages of the status quo

Advantages

- No change management process required

- No implementation costs required

Disadvantages

- Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation

- Bylaw does not easily enable Council staff to enforce certain provisions

- Potential for reputation risk as Bylaw is not effective nor certain.

Option Three: Do nothing: Allow the Bylaw to auto revoke

Allowing the Bylaw to auto-revoke and not implementing another viable option to protect public health and safety along the Cycle Trail is not a reasonably practicable option.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

A bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing the problems with the Cycle Trail.

A new form of bylaw is needed to ensure the Bylaw:

· is consistent with relevant laws and legislation

· is certain (clear).

Next Steps

If Council agrees with the recommendation, a new form of bylaw will be drafted and is planned to be presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee early 2022.

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

The cost of consulting on continuing the Bylaw with amendment will be met from existing operation budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Review Research Report - Pou Herenga Tai - Cycle Trail - A3221774 ⇩

2. Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw 2016 - A2674350 ⇩

3. Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw 2016 - Schedule 1 - A1777664 ⇩

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	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	In line with the Significance and Engagement Policy the recommendation to continue the bylaw with amendment will have little effect on financial thresholds, ratepayers, specific demographics or levels of service. The recommendation is consistent with existing plans and policies and we already consulted on the original bylaw. Therefore, the level of significance 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 Local Government Act 2002, sections 145, 146, 155 and 160 applies to the decision recommended in this report.
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 continue a bylaw, 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. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	Seeking the views and input of iwi in the development of bylaws is integral. Māori will be given an opportunity to contribute during the early engagement and 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: · Community groups concerned about the Cycle Trail in their community · Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust · Northern Transport Alliance · Neighbouring property owners
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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

1 Purpose

To describe and discuss the review of the Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (2016).

2 Context

The New Zealand Cycle Trail project (Nga Haerenga) is a New Zealand Government initiative, co-funded with local councils to build and operate a network of cycle trails or ‘Great Rides’ throughout the country. Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail (Cycle Trail) is an 87 km cycle trail starting at Opua on the east coast and traversing across to the Hokianga Harbour on the west coast.

The Council’s Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) was made on 08 September 2016. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Bylaw is due for review by 08 September 2021. The Council is required under section 160 of the Local Government Act 20020 to consider whether the Bylaw:

· is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to the cycle Trail

· is still the most appropriate form of bylaw

· gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3 Problem definition

3.1 Original problem statement

The original determination report to Council (15 June 2016)^{^[2]} stated that “A bylaw is the most appropriate way of managing the Trail because there is no single regulatory instrument for the management of the use of the Trail which is on private land, Crown land, road reserve, and land vested under the control of the Council”.

However, in the same determination report the following problems were also mentioned:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o prohibiting motorised vehicles

o control of dogs

o control of horses

· Protecting the public and adjoining landowners from nuisance

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting horses.

These problems are reflected in the Bylaw clause 4 which states the purpose of the Bylaw is to:

· protect, promote and maintain the safety of people using the Trail or working and living in proximity to the Trail

· protect from nuisance those using the Trail or working and living in proximity to the Trail

· minimise damage to the Trail

· protect and maintain the natural and wildlife values and habitats in the vicinity of the Trail.

3.2 Other problems relating to the Cycle Trail not currently controlled or addressed by the Bylaw

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council and Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust staff has not identified any additional problems relating to the Cycle Trail.

3.3 Scope

In scope

Problems relating to the Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail which are a function of Council to control or address.

Out of scope

· All other recreation grounds, reserves, shared paths or roads in the Far North District as these are (or are planned to be) regulated by other policy instruments.

· Parts of the Cycle Trail which cross a road, as roads are regulated by the Land Transport Act 1998.

4 Council’s role relating to the Cycle Trail

Nga Hereanga was initially a central government initiative to create one consistent and continuous cycle path the length of New Zealand. However, central government consultation identified that utilising, upgrading and extending existing paths was more financially viable. Therefore, central government provided funding to local authorities to develop suitable cycle trails in their districts.

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”. The use of the Cycle Trail can have a positive effect on a community’s wellbeing through direct impacts, such as affecting the physical health of people by encouraging active movement and affecting economic wellbeing by encouraging tourism.

The Council is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the Cycle Trail as an asset. The Council has a service level agreement with the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust who undertake operational management of the Cycle Trail.

4.1 Local Government Act 2002

Council can make a bylaw under section 145 of the Act for the following purposes:

· protecting the public from nuisance

· protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

Under section 146 (b) (vi) Council can also make a bylaw for the purpose of:

“managing, regulating against, or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures, or infrastructure associated with reserves, recreation grounds, or other land under the control of the territorial authority”.

Whilst the Cycle Trail crosses land that is not owned by Council, easement agreements have been put in place which state that property owners need to adhere to any policy instrument relating to the Cycle Trail. It is therefore reasonable to categorise the Cycle Trail as infrastructure associated with land under the control of Council.

4.2 Land Transport Act 1998

The Cycle Trail crosses and utilises land that is road and therefore Council can make a bylaw under section 22AB for multiple reasons including but not limited to:

· restricting the use of motor vehicles on unformed legal roads for the purposes of protecting the environment, the road and adjoining land, and the safety of road users

· prescribing the use of roads and cycle tracks, and the construction of anything on, over, or under a road or cycle track

· prohibiting or restricting parking on specified roads or parts of a road.

5 Review of Bylaw

5.1 Protecting public health and safety

Restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

The aim of the Cycle Trail is to provide a safe space for cyclists and pedestrians. Due to the Cycle Trail being quite narrow in places and made from loose material, motorised vehicles were perceived to be a risk to the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the Bylaw prohibits motorised vehicles from entering the Cycle Trail.

RFS data shows that there have been a few incidences where people in motorised vehicles have been using the Cycle Trail, resulting in a ‘near miss’ with a cyclist. The RFS data supports the perceived problem that motor vehicles on the Cycle Trail may be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, more research is required to identify why vehicles have been using the Cycle Trail. For example, does signage need to be improved or are people wilfully ignoring the Bylaw and why?

Given that the Cycle Trail crosses different types of land ownership, and that motorised vehicles may cause harm to cyclists and pedestrians, a bylaw remains an appropriate regulatory tool for restricting access to motorised vehicles on the trail.

Control of dogs

To protect the safety of both cyclists and dogs, the Bylaw stipulates that dogs are allowed on the Cycle Trail only when on a leash. RFS data and internal consultation identified incidences of dogs attacking users of the Cycle Trail. All dog attacks were from dogs not on a leash. The data supports the perceived problem that uncontrolled dogs can cause harm to the public.

Since implementing the Bylaw, the Council made the Dog Management Bylaw and Dog Management Policy in 2018. The Cycle Trail Bylaw is not consistent with the dog management policy instruments which do not allow dogs on the trail where the Cycle Trail passes through private land.

Duplicating regulation across multiple policy instruments does not follow best practice guidelines. Therefore, the clauses in the Bylaw relating to dogs should be revoked, and dog regulation should remain in the Dog Management Bylaw.

Control of horses

Cyclists may scare horses, especially where the Cycle Trail is quite narrow, leading to potential harm to all users of the Cycle Trail. Horse hooves may cause damage to the Cycle Trail as the surface of the Cycle Trail is not suitable for horse use. Therefore, the Bylaw restricts access to the Cycle Trail for horses. As an outcome of consultation, the Bylaw allows horse trekking events to be held four times per year with the consent of Council.

There is still hesitancy to give consent for horse events due to managing the health and safety of other users of the Cycle Trail, managing potential nuisance such as ensuring the opening and closing of gates, managing horse excrement on the Cycle Trail, and managing any potential damage to the Cycle Trail caused by horse hooves.

Further research is required to ensure that the Bylaw is in the appropriate form to manage the potential impact of horses to the Cycle Trail and its users.

5.2 Protecting from nuisances

Control of stock

Stock wandering on the path can be a safety issue for cyclists but also a nuisance for users of the path and neighbouring landowners. Controlling stock is a responsibility of landowners to maintain their property and fences, but also for users of the Cycle Trail to keep gates closed. The Bylaw includes multiple provisions to prevent wandering stock.

RFS data and internal consultation supports the perceived problem of wandering stock. However, more research is required to identify the causes of wandering stock for example, are communication tools regarding the closing of gates sufficient to enable public compliance.

The issue of wandering stock can be enforced under the Impounding Act 1955. However, Council does not have the resources (e.g., cattle truck, sufficient access to the Cycle Trail) to be able to enforce under the Impounding Act 1955.

The Bylaw regulates the use of the Cycle Trail and requires property owners to gain consent from Council, before using the Cycle Trail as a stock race. There have been incidences of neighbouring property owners using the Cycle Trail as a path for moving stock, leading to damaged plants etc. More research is required to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are put in place to enable ongoing communication with property owners regarding the provisions in the Bylaw.

More research is required to identify the most appropriate way to manage and regulate the issue of stock of the Cycle Trail.

Control of Camping

To prevent nuisance to both users of the Cycle Trail and neighbouring residents, camping is prohibited along the Cycle Trail.

The Reserves Act 1977 prohibits camping in any reserve, therefore any components of the Cycle Trail which are on land designated as reserve can be regulated by the Reserves Act 1977.

The Freedom Camping Act 2011 defines freedom camping as camping within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area, or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200m of a formed road. Much of the Cycle Trail is on or within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area or a formed road. Council can restrict or prohibit freedom camping on council-controlled land under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

Therefore, a bylaw (made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011) is an appropriate regulatory tool to prohibit camping along the Cycle Trail.

5.3 Minimising damage to the Trail

The Bylaw prohibits damage to the Trail. The Bylaw minimises unintentional damage from neighbouring property owners by requiring consent for activities such as establishing a new driveway or path that crosses the Cycle Trail.

The Cycle Trail is considered infrastructure associated with land under the control of Council. Council has the power to recover for damage by wilful or negligent behaviour under section 175 of the Local Government Act 2002. However, bylaws can act as a deterrent and therefore just having a bylaw in place can prevent damage and be used as another tool to protect Council’s asset.

Therefore, a bylaw remains an appropriate regulatory tool for preventing and enforcing incidences of damage.

5.4 Protecting the environment

Council does not have the power to make a bylaw protecting the environment under the Local Government Act 2002. Therefore, a bylaw is not the most appropriate regulatory tool for protecting the environment.

The Bylaw should be amended to remove the purpose of the Bylaw (4.1 (d)) which states “Protect and maintain the natural and wildlife values and habitats in the vicinity of the Trail”.

5.5 Is the bylaw certain?

In determining if a bylaw is the appropriate form of bylaw, the bylaw needs to be certain e.g., it uses clear wording so people will understand what they are required to do.

Some of the language used in the bylaw is outdated and inconsistent with modern legislative drafting styles.

There are several provisions in the bylaw that are unclear, for example, the meaning of the Cycle Trail as outlined in the Bylaw. The Bylaw refers to the map provided in Schedule 1 which does not give any definitive land markings. The maps should be updated to provide a clearer definition as to the area in which the Bylaw applies.

The Bylaw states that the Cycle Trail is subject to existing laws where the path is within a Roadway. This component of the Bylaw is unclear. Roadway is not a definition commonly used in other legislation, although is defined in the Land Transport Rules. The Cycle Trail crosses land that is defined as road and therefore subject to regulation under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and the Land Transport Act 1998. It could therefore be that these are the existing laws the Bylaw was referring to.

So that the public can easily interpret the Bylaw, the Bylaw needs to be amended to ensure ease of understanding and clarity, particularly where the Bylaw risks contradicting existing legislation.

5.6 Alignment with other relevant laws and legislation

The Bylaw refers to Council’s Control of the Use of Public Places Bylaw which has been revoked. The Bylaw will need to be amended to ensure that the Bylaw aligns with Council’s current policy instruments.

The Bylaw allows for the use of wheeled recreation devices and mobility devices on the Cycle Trail. Definitions for these devices and motorised vehicles are copies from Land Transport Rules that are in the process of being amended. To ensure consistency across policy instruments and to avoid any confusion, the Bylaw definitions should align with Land Transport Rule definitions by cross-referring to them, not copying them. This will ensure that when the Rules are amended the content of the bylaw will continue to be correct. (To illustrate, Waka Kotahi are currently consulting on new definitions for some types of vehicles (e.g., e-skateboards, powered unicycles, hoverboards and a range of mobility devices– see the Accessible Streets rules package^{^[3]}.)

To protect public health and safety and to minimise nuisance, consent from Council is required for any event held on the Cycle Trail. The components regarding events need to align with Council’s other Bylaws. For example, the Solid Waste Bylaw requires events to have a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

The Bylaw prohibits littering on the Cycle Trail. Litter and littering in general are regulated by the Litter Act 1979. Litter Control Officers have the power to issue an infringement notice under the Litter Act 1979, whereas a bylaw made under the Local Government Act 2002 requires prosecution to enforce. Therefore, Council staff enforce littering under the Litter Act 1979. Duplicating regulation across multiple policy instruments does not follow best practice guidelines. Therefore, a bylaw is not the most appropriate regulatory tool for preventing and enforcing incidences of littering and clauses referring to littering should be revoked.

The Land Transport Act 1998 gives Council the power to make a bylaw for several reasons which may apply to the Cycle Trail. The Land Transport Act 1998 includes powers to issue infringement notices for certain offences which may allow for easier enforcement of the Bylaw. More research is required to identify if the Bylaw should also be made under the Land Transport Act 1998.

6 Discussion

6.1 Is a bylaw still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of the Cycle Trail in the Far North District?

The review has identified that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the following problems relating to the Cycle Trail:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o control of dogs

· Protecting from nuisance including:

o control of stock

o control of camping.

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting construction or earthworks.

A bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address problems relating to

· the control of litter

· protecting the environment on or near the Cycle Trail.

6.2 Is the bylaw the most appropriate form of bylaw?

The form of a bylaw is about its content and how it is drafted. A bylaw will be appropriate if it:

· deals with the identified problems

· meets the objectives it is intended to achieve

· is certain, e.g. it uses clear wording so people will understand what they are required to do

· is enforceable and able to be implemented and administered effectively and efficiently

· considers the relationship of Māori to land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga

· complies with all relevant laws and legislation.

The costs and benefits of a bylaw also need to be considered and the form of a bylaw will be appropriate if the benefits outweigh the costs.

The Bylaw has provisions which deal with the identified problems. However more research is required to identify:

· why motorised vehicles are accessing the Cycle Trail

· whether the Bylaw appropriately manages the potential impact of horses to the trail and its users

· the causes of wandering stock

Some provisions in the Bylaw are not certain. Therefore, amendments are required to improve clarity particularly regarding

· the definition of the Cycle Trail

· the areas of the Cycle Trail which are already covered by existing legislation or bylaws.

The Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation including but not limited to:

· Dog Management Bylaw

· Solid Waste Bylaw

· Land Transport Rules

· Freedom Camping Act 2011

· Local Government Act 2002

· removing reference to revoked bylaws.

Therefore, the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw and should be amended.

6.3 Does the Bylaw give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

As the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw a full assessment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is not currently possible.

However, the only rights or freedoms under the Bill of Rights Act potentially engaged by the Bylaw are likely to be the rights to freedom of movement in relation to the restriction of access to the Cycle Trail for motorised vehicles and dogs. Limitations on these rights must be no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the Bylaw. The Bylaw limits these rights only to the extent that they create a danger to health and safety or a nuisance to others or the public generally.

Therefore, the Bylaw does not raise any implications under and is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights because any limitations of rights are justified.

7 Conclusion

A bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate the use of the Cycle Trail to protect public health and safety, and minimise nuisance and damage. The Bylaw needs to be amended to ensure that the Bylaw is easily understood and aligns with relevant laws and legislation.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

8 Information Reports

8.1 Three Waters Reform

File Number: A3301784

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

Authoriser: Shaun Clarke, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the Government’s 3 Waters Reform proposal.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Three Waters reforms have been emerging since 2017.

· Government have released a number of documents outlining the case of change and the potential benefits to the national and local economy .

· These financial benefits are directionally accurate for the Far North.

· Other factors will need also need to be considered, particularly around local voice, governance and consultation.

· A final opt in/opt out decision paper will be brought to Council later this year.

· This report has been written based on information released by Government to the end of July 2021.

· All information released by Government is publicly available on Department for Internal Affairs web site.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) notes that participation in the Government’s Three Waters Reform is currently voluntary with the ability for Councils to “opt out” of the reform process.

b) notes that the Memorandum of Understanding with Government which provides for FNDC to be part of the Three Waters reform process expired on 30 June 2021.

c) notes the Three Waters report.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Three Waters Review was established in mid-2017 by Government as a cross-agency initiative led by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to identify the challenges facing NZ’s Three Waters systems and to develop recommendations for system-wide performance improvements.

In September 2019, Government agreed to create a new water services regulator to administer and enforce the new drinking water regulatory system, while contributing to improved environmental outcomes from wastewater and stormwater networks. Taumata Arowai became a new Crown entity in March 2021. Taumata Arowai is set to become the dedicated water services regulator for New Zealand when the Water Services Bill passes, expected to be in the second half of 2021.

In July 2020, Government initiated the Three Waters Reform Programme. This is a three-year programme to reform Local Government Three Waters service delivery arrangements. Currently 67 different Councils own and operate the majority of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services across New Zealand. Local Government is facing urgent challenges in the provision of these services including funding infrastructure deficits, complying with safety standards and environmental expectations, building resilience to natural hazards and climate change, and supporting growth.

The stated objectives of the reforms are:

· significantly improving the safety and quality of drinking water services, and the environmental performance of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems.

· ensuring robust safeguards against privatisation.

· ensuring all New Zealanders have equitable access to affordable Three Waters services and that the water services entities will listen, and take account of, local community and consumer voices.

· improving the coordination of resources, planning, and unlocking strategic opportunities.

· ensuring the overall integration and coherence of the wider regulatory and institutional settings.

· increasing the resilience of Three Waters service provision to climate change and natural hazards.

· moving Three Waters service delivery to a more financially sustainable footing and addressing the affordability and capability challenges faced by small suppliers and local authorities.

· improving transparency about, and accountability for, the planning, delivery and costs of Three Waters services.

· undertaking the reform in a matter that enables local government to continue delivering on its placemaking role and broader “wellbeing mandates”.

In August 2020, Far North District Council (FNDC) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to voluntarily participate in good faith in the first phase of the government’s Three Waters reforms (Attachment 1). In exchange, FNDC was provided with $11.796M in stimulus funding and required to provide information to the government to assist it to compile an evidence base around the reforms. FNDC has met the requirements of the MoU which expires on 30 June 2021.

Government has collected extremely detailed information from local government on the state of Three Waters assets and compiled a number of Cabinet papers and technical reports to make the case for amalgamation of councils’ Three Waters functions into a small number (3 to 5) of large water entities. This information was supplied via a pre-formatted template completed by each Local Authority late December 2020 and early January 2021. It is expected that Government will require this template to be refreshed annually.

On 2 June 2021 Government released seven reports from the Water Industry Commission of Scotland (WICS 4 reports), Farrierswier (1 Report), and Deloittes (2 reports) which government consider make a compelling case for change. A summary of these reports has been provided by Government (Attachment 2).

The key findings were:

· An investment requirement for New Zealand’s Three Waters services over the next 30+ years of between $120bn -$185bn without reform.

· Efficiencies in the range of 45% over the 30-year period could be achieved through the reform process.

· The Reforms could result in an additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and increase in GDP of between $14b to $23b in NPV terms over 30 years.

· Evidence and modelling suggest between one and four entities would provide the most efficiencies.

On 30 June 2021 Government released a further tranche of information, providing additional information on the proposed reform programme along with details of the potential impacts of the reforms on individual Local Authorities (Attachments 3 and 4).

In summary:

· the establishment of four, publicly-owned water services entities to provide safe, reliable and efficient Three Waters services –with protections against future privatisation.

· the entities come into effect on 1 July 2024.

· the entities will own and operate Three Waters infrastructure on behalf of territorial authorities, including transferring ownership of Three Waters assets.

· independent, competency-based boards to govern each entity.

· a suite of mechanisms to protect and promote iwi/Māori rights and interests.

· an economic regulatory regime to protect consumer interests and provide strong incentives for performance.

· stewardship arrangements for the new system to ensure it adapts to shifts in national objectives and priorities and remains fit for purpose.

For FNDC, Government have produced a summary financial dashboard of the potential benefits of reform (Attachment 5):

· Council is graded as “exceeding expectations” in terms of Operating Performance

· The average cost of 3 water services to households would decrease from the current figure of $1,120 annually to $800 in FY2051 under reform proposals and increase to $8,690 if Council opted out of the reforms.

· Current Council debt is $48m; this potentially would be transferred to the entity along with $15m of revenue.

· GDP and employment would grow under reform.

· Modelling suggests that there is a very low probability that Far North residents would not be better off under a successful implementation of the proposed reforms to the Three Waters in New Zealand. They will likely be considerably better off financially.

· Residents in Far North District would therefore be more able to afford initiatives to respond to climate change, enhancing seismic resilience and Iwi and Māori aspirations –these potential benefits have not been incorporated into the modelling.

· Amalgamation offers other benefits to residents of Far North District. These include an improved:

o environment,

o level of water quality,

o level of resiliency, and

o ability to respond to growth.

On 15 July 2021, Government announced details of a package of $2.5 billion to support the sector through the transition to the new water services delivery system (Attachment 6).

1. Support for local government to invest in communities’ wellbeing.

· This part of the investment totals $2 billion, with $500 million being available from 1 July 2022

o Funding will be available to:

§ support communities to transition to a sustainable, low-emissions economy, including by building resilience to climate change and other hazards

§ support the delivery of infrastructure and services that enable housing development and growth and/or support local placemaking and improvements in local wellbeing.

· FNDC’s allocation of this fund has been announced at $35,175,304. This would not be available to FNDC if Council opted to withdraw from the reform process

· Councils will need to engage with iwi/Māori in determining how to use their funding allocation.

2. The second financial component is targeted support to ensure no councils are financially worse off as a result of transferring their Three Waters assets. This is designed to protect councils from any material negative financial consequences of the asset transfer.

· As well as dealing with stranded overheads, this will preserve councils’ future borrowing capacity where this is negatively affected by the loss of water services.

· This will be funded by the new water service entities and be available once the entities have been stood up in July 2024.

· DIA will carry out a process with each council to sort this out over the next 18 months.

3. The third financial component is cover of reasonable transition costs. This is intended to make sure council service delivery (including of water services) during transition isn’t compromised by the work needed to make the transition happen.

· This will cover extra costs incurred by councils around the transition to the new entities. These costs will be paid for by the Crown, through a combination of in-kind and cash components. LGNZ will work through the proposed approach with DIA.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

This report has been written based on information released by Government on the Three Waters reforms to the end of July 2021. There are still significant unknowns and detail to be worked through by Government. It is anticipated that further information will be released incrementally through to the end of September 2021.

The proposals form part of a package of service reforms being either implemented or proposed by Government. LGNZ have prepared a graphic that demonstrates the extent of the reforms and the potential impact upon Local Authorities and communities (Attachment 7). The analysis of this wider reform programme is beyond the scope of this paper.

The Three Waters portfolio for the Far North comprises:

1. Water Supply

· eight potable water schemes.

· 346 km of water mains.

· 10,189 connected properties (100% Metered).

· asset value $74.576m (June 2020).

2. Wastewater

· fifteen wastewater treatment plants.

· 432 km of sewer pipe.

· 11,620 connected properties.

· asset value $142.716m (June 2020).

3. Stormwater

· 132 km of pipes.

· 2,983 manholes.

· 40km of lined and unlined channels.

· asset value $89.222m (June 2020).

Total asset value potentially to be transferred to the new entity $306.514m (June 2020)

Council have commissioned a review of Government’s summary financial dashboard of the potential benefits of reform to FNDC as detailed in Attachment 5. This has been undertaken by Morrison Low through the auspices of LGNZ (Attachment 8). The report reviews the underlying analysis and assumptions made by Government detailed in their summary financial dashboard.

The financial and affordability assessments provided by Government outlining the case for change for Three Waters has a number of assumptions which are open to challenge, particularly around specific metrics. However, these metrics are directionally accurate in terms of the potential financial and affordability benefits to the Far North.

In broad terms the Government have considered two scenarios in their modelling:

· aggregation of Three Waters services into four water services entities and the associated reforms to the regulatory, governance, management, resourcing, and policy direction that support improvements (‘the whole reform package’).

· no aggregation of Three Waters services and although in this scenario some reform takes place, for example, decisions already made to introduce a drinking water regulatory system and environmental standards, the wider reforms are not as extensive as in the former scenario.

The key assumptions that drive potential household costs are:

• investment – this is the single biggest driver of household cost in the Government model. Due to the ways its calculated at a national level and allocated at entity level and council level it is difficult to understand the impacts it makes on the difference on the household charges under the two scenarios. Any change at the national investment figure will have a material impact on household charges in both scenarios.

• debt/revenue – the difference between the treatment of debt in the councils and the entities means that it is likely to overstate the size of the difference in charges between council and the water service entity.

The impact of these are so significant that all other assumptions have minimal impact on household costs.

In summary:

· the Government analysis may overstate investment needs for Far North, particularly for the ten-year period to 2031.

· notwithstanding the above, the analysis is directionally consistent with trends that have been observed in our detailed Three Waters work elsewhere in the country.

· based on the Government modelling, there are likely to be financial benefits for ratepayers in the Far North District if water reform proceeds and Far North District council joins the reforms.

However, in addition to affordability there are other implications that will need to be considered by Council:

· ensuring all communities have both a voice in the system and influence over local decisions.

· ensuring effective representation on the new water service entities’ oversight boards so that there is strong strategic guidance from, and accountability to, the communities they serve, including iwi/mana whenua participation.

· ensuring effective assurance that entities, which will remain in public ownership, cannot be privatised in future.

· ensuring Councils’ plans for economic development and growth, as reflected in spatial plans, district plans or LTPs, are appropriately integrated with water services planning.

· ensuring appropriate consultation with Iwi and local communities,

· ensuring Council retains expert in-house resource to actively influence the outcomes to be achieved by the new entity.

There will be a number of risks that would fall to Council should it elect not to opt into the reforms. Not least the new water regulator, Taumata Arowai, will have significant powers to enforce not only current water and wastewater standards, but also enhanced standards being proposed, including the Water Services Bill 2020 and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. These enhanced standards will have significant affordability issues for the Far North.

The Three Waters reform process has been gathering pace as the year progresses and this acceleration will continue. Later this year a paper will be brought to Council requesting a final opt in/opt out decision. This future paper will lean heavily on the information provided in this report but will be supplemented by further information as it is released by Government. This information is publicly available on the Department of Internal Affairs website.

Significant staff resources will be required to manage the reform process going forward, particularly if a future decision is made to opt into the reform process. This will impact upon the ability to deliver business as usual across the whole of Council.

Whilst the general principles and structure of the reform will be available at the time the decision needs to be made, most of the practical detail around the new water entities may not be available.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

To provide current information regarding the proposed Three Waters reforms, noting that a final opt in/opt out decision will be required later in the year.

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

There are no financial implications directly flowing from this information report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Far North DC - MoU - DIA CE signed, 27 Aug - A3302096 ⇩

2. Advancing the evidence base background and faqs - A3302095 ⇩

3. Three Waters Reform Programme Overview - A3 - 30 June 2021 - A3302576 ⇩

4. Transforming the system for delivering three waters services - the case for change and summary of proposals - 30 June 2021 - A3302577 ⇩

5. FNDC Dashboard - A3302578 ⇩

6. Three Waters Reform Programme Support Package Information and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - A3302579 ⇩

7. Reform A3 - A3302580 ⇩

8. Three Water Review of WICS LGNZ Far North - A3318691 ⇩

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	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	This report has high significance having implications for the entire Far North.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	N/A
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The issue has District wide significance. The issue falls outside of Community Board delegations.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The DIA have undertaken to ensure that engagement with Maori is undertaken and appropriate.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	All residents.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As detailed in the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

MINUTES OF
Te Hiku Community Board Meeting
HELD AT THE Conference Room, Te Ahu, Cnr Matthews Ave and South Road, Kaitaia
ON Tuesday, 6 July 2021 AT 10:00 am

PRESENT: Chairperson Adele Gardner, Member Jaqi Brown, Member Darren Axe, Member Sheryl Bainbridge (via Microsoft TEAMs), Member John Stewart, Member William (Bill) Subritzky, Member Felicity Foy

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr Mate Radich, Mike Masters – Kaitaia Drainage Area Member, Joe Milch - Waihara and Kaikino Drainage Area Member, Dean Radojkovich - Waihara and Kaikino Drainage Area Member, Aaron Bainbridge - Waihara and Kaikino Drainage Area Member, Paul Harvey – Motutangi Drainage Area Member, Jeremy White - Motutangi Drainage Area Member

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

Member Brown opened the meeting with a karakia/prayer.

2 NGā WHAKAPāHA ME NGā PāNGA MEMA / Apologies and conflicts of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2021/32

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Darren Axe

That the apology received from Member Sheryl Bainbridge for lateness be accepted.

Carried

3 Public Forum

Nil

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3254218, pages 12 - 22 refers.

Resolution 2021/33

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Darren Axe

That Te Hiku Community Board agrees that the minutes of the meeting held 1 June 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Reports

5.1 Road Naming - 3608a Far North Road, Houhora

Agenda item 7.1 document number A3136385, pages 23 - 30 refers.

Resolution 2021/34

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Darren Axe

That Te Hiku Community Board, pursuant to Council’s Road Naming and Property Addressing Policy #2125, name a private road, Mataroa Way that is currently addressed at 3608a Far North Road, Houhora as per map (A3134544).

Carried

5.2 Chairperson and Members Reports

Agenda item 7.2 document number A3244424, pages 31 - 42 refers.

motion

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Jaqi Brown

That Te Hiku Community Board:

a) note the reports from Chairperson Gardner and Members Axe, Bainbridge and Subritzky.

Motion

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member William (Bill) Subritzky

b) requests a copy of the heritage report that forms the basis of the Council decision to propose a blanket heritage precinct on an area of Mangonui that is not confined simply to properties of historic value.

CARRIED

The amendment became the substantive motion.

Resolution 2021/35

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Jaqi Brown

That Te Hiku Community Board:

a) note the reports from Chairperson Gardner and Members Axe, Bainbridge and Subritzky.

Carried

6 Speakers

Andrea Panther and Tia Hohaia representing Kaitaia Business Association will speak to item 10.1 – Funding Application.

Attachments tabled at meeting

1 Tabled Documents - Kaitaia Business Association

7 Ngā Tono KŌrero / Deputations

Dean Radojkovch, Chair of the Waiharara and Kaikino Drainage Area Committee and Mike Masters member of the Kaitaia Drainage Area Committee spoke to the Community Board in regards to the Drainage Committees and the work completed to date and upcoming work.

At 11:08 am, Member Sheryl Bainbridge left the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.08 am to 11.22 am.

At 11:23 am, Member Felicity Foy left the meeting. At 11:27 am, Member Felicity Foy returned to the meeting.

8 reports continued

8.1 Te Hiku Statement of Community Board Fund Account as at 31 May 2021

Agenda item 7.3 document number A3249049, pages 43 - 47 refers.

Resolution 2021/36

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Darren Axe

That Te Hiku Community Board receive the report Te Hiku Statement of Community Board Fund Account as at 31 May 2021.

Carried

9 Information Reports

9.1 Lake Ohia Community Hall - six monthly update

Agenda item 8.1 document number A3250496, pages 77 - 79 refers.

Resolution 2021/37

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member William (Bill) Subritzky

That the Te Hiku Community Board receive the report Lake Ohia Community Hall - six monthly update.

Carried

At 11:39 am, Member Sheryl Bainbridge returned to the meeting.

10 reports continued

10.1 Funding Applications

Agenda item 7.4 document number A3254706, pages 48 - 57 refers.

Resolution 2021/38

Moved: Chairperson Adele Gardner

Seconded: Member Jaqi Brown

That Te Hiku Community Board:

a) approves the sum of $6,000 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Kaitaia Business Association for each of the financial years of 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 for costs towards CCTV monitoring to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities.

Carried

10.2 Project Funding Reports

Agenda item 7.5 document number A3254887, pages 58 - 76 refers.

Resolution 2021/39

Moved: Member John Stewart

Seconded: Member William (Bill) Subritzky

That Te Hiku Community Board note the project reports received from:

a) Far North JoyFest Group

b) Houhora Bowls & Sports Club Inc

c) Kaitaia Sports & Leisure Trust

d) Te Pokapu Tiaki Taiao O Te Tai Tokerau Trust

e) Volunteering Northland

Carried

11 tE kAPINGA hUI / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 12.04 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Te Hiku Community Board meeting held on 24 August 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

MINUTES OF
Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Wednesday, 7 July 2021 AT 10.30 am

PRESENT: Chairperson Mike Edmonds, Member Emma Davis, Member Louis Toorenburg, Member Kelly van Gaalen, Member Alan Hessell, Member Laurie Byers, Member John Vujcich, Member Moko Tepania

STAFF PRESENT: Kathryn Trewin (Funding Advisor), Marlema Baker (Meeting Administrator)

1 NGā WHAKAPāHA ME NGā PāNGA MEMA / Apologies and conflicts of Interest

Apologies received from Member Tepania for early departure.

2 Public Forum

Shaun Reilly

· Roadside mowing at the end of station road needs to be done properly.

· Ohaeawai/Taiamai thank the Community Board for their support but the Te Mania Drive signage is still not up and the community would like that expedited.

3 Speakers

Funding Applications:

· Bo-Deane Stephens representing Hush Dance Studio – item 6.2a refers

Member Moko Tepania left the meeting at 10:54 am.

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3052585, pages 12 - 18 refers

Resolution 2021/51

Moved: Chairperson Mike Edmonds

Seconded: Member Emma Davis

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board confirms the minutes of their meeting held 2 June 2021 as a true and correct record.

Carried

4.2 UPLIFTING Item of Business Left to Lie – Kaikohe-Hokianga Footpath Programme

Resolution 2021/52

Moved: Member John Vujcich

Seconded: Member Alan Hessell

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board resolve to discuss Kaikohe-Hokianga Footpath Programme that was left to lie at the June 2, 2021 meeting.

Carried

4.3 Kaikohe-Hokianga Footpath Programme

Agenda item 7.2 document number A3201345, pages 154-158 of meeting held 2 June 2021 refers

\Resolution 2021/53

Moved: Member Louis Toorenburg

Seconded: Member Alan Hessell

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board :

a) expresses bitter dissappointment at the Northland Transport Alliance’s failure to hold a workshop with the Community Board, failure to follow delegation and to communicate fully why the workshop wasn’t held.

b) requests the Chief Executive urgently arrange a workshop with Northland Transport Alliance and the Community Board to deal with the time-sensitive Kaikohe-Hokianga Footpath Program for Kaikohe.

Carried

4.4 Item of Business not on the agenda which cannot be delayed – Pohutukawa Trees along the Opononi Esplanade

Resolution 2021/54

Moved: Member Alan Hessell

Seconded: Chairperson Mike Edmonds

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board:

a) resolves to consider the item not on the agenda Opononi Pohutukawa Trees.

b) note the item was not on the agenda because the Community Board where unaware that the task had not been completed by Council; and

c) notes the report cannot be delayed because the trees are notable and their health is at risk.

Carried

4.5 Opononi Esplanade Pohutukawa Trees

Resolution 2021/55

Moved: Member Alan Hessell

Seconded: Member John Vujcich

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board:

a) reminds the CEO of our motion dated 7/04/2021 regarding the Pohutukawa trees.

b) requests information on the progress and urgent action to protect the trees.

c) Delegate authority to member Hessell to request an onsite meeting through the Chief Executive Officer.

Carried

5 Reports

5.1 Kaikohe-Hokianga Statement of Community Board Fund Account as at 31 May 2021

Agenda item 7.1 document number A3254049, pages 19 - 22 refers

Resolution 2021/56

Moved: Member Louis Toorenburg

Seconded: Member Alan Hessell

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board receives the report Kaikohe-Hokianga Statement of Community Board Fund Account as at 31 May 2021.

Carried

5.2 Funding Applications

Agenda item 7.2 document number A3247177, pages 23 - 40 refers

Resolution 2021/57

Moved: Member Kelly van Gaalen

Seconded: Member John Vujcich

5.2a) That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board approves the sum of $xxx (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Hush Dance Studio for costs towards Dance Showcase and Dinner to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

Carried

Resolution 2021/58

Moved: Member Kelly van Gaalen

Seconded: Member John Vujcich

5.2b) That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board approves the sum of $425 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Okaihau Community Association for costs towards town signage repair to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

Carried

6 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution 2021/59

Moved: Member Kelly van Gaalen

Seconded: Member Alan Hessell

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

5.2a – Funding Applications

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)(f)(i) - free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority.

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.

Carried

Resolution to Readmit the Public

Resolution 2021/60

Moved: Chairperson Mike Edmonds

Seconded: Member John Vujcich

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board moves out of Public Excluded and into Ordinary meeting.

Carried

5.2 Funding Applications Continued

Resolution 2021/61

Moved: Member Kelly van Gaalen

Seconded: Member John Vujcich

5.2a) That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board approves the sum of $1550 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Hush Dance Studio for costs towards the Dance Showcase and Dinner to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

Carried

6.3 Project Funding Reports

Agenda item 7.3 document number A3256004, pages 41 - 53 refers

Resolution 2021/62

Moved: Member Louis Toorenburg

Seconded: Member Laurie Byers

That the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board note the project reports received from:

a) Life Education Trust

b) Niniwa Collective

c) Volunteering Northland

Carried

7 tE kAPINGA hUI / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 11:51 am

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Meeting held on 4 August 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 August 2021

MINUTES OF
Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Meeting
HELD AT THE Baysport Complex, Harmony Lane, Waipapa
ON Thursday, 8 July 2021 AT 10.00 am

PRESENT: Chairperson Belinda Ward, Member Lane Ayr, Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell, Member Bruce Mills, Member Frank Owen, Member Manuwai Wells, Member Rachel Smith

1 Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

Manuwai Wells opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 NGā WHAKAPāHA ME NGā PāNGA MEMA / Apologies and conflicts of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2021/50

Moved: Chairperson Belinda Ward

Seconded: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornelll

That the apology received from Dave Hookway-Kopa be accepted and leave of absence granted, and apology for lateness from Rachel Smith be accepted.

Carried

3 Public Forum

- Jon Phelong, Waka Kotahi spoke in regard to Northland Speed Reviews and Safety Updates on Roundabouts

- Steve Castle spoke in regard to Whangaroa Village – Whangaroa Footpath

- William Fuller spoke in regard to Shared pathway Russell to Okiato

Member Rachel Smith arrived at 11:07 am.

- Yvonne Sharp and Wade Rowsell spoke in regard to Opito Bay playground

- Paul Condron and Jackie Edwards-Bruce spoke on behalf of Healthy Families Far North in regard to a community garden in Kaeo behind the library.

4 Ngā Tono KŌrero / Deputations

Nil

5 Speakers

- Jo David from Northern Community Family Service spoke in regard to Item 7.4 Funding Applications.

- Kerry Gelmi from Towai Market spoke in regard to Item 7.4 Funding Applications.

6 reports

6.1 Funding Applications

MOTION

Moved: Member Manuwai Wells

Seconded: Member Lane Ayr

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board approves the sum of $875 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Towai Community Market for costs towards gazebo for shelter and community use to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

Amendment

Moved: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

Seconded: Member Manuwai Wells

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board approves the sum of $2,750 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Towai Community Market for costs towards gazebo for shelter and community use to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

CARRIED

The amendment became the substantive motion.

RESOLUTION 2021/51

Moved: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

Seconded: Member Manuwai Wells

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board approves the sum of $2,750 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Towai Community Market for costs towards gazebo for shelter and community use to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

CARRIED

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

The meeting adjourned from 11:57 am to 12:29 pm.

7 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

7.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3264764, pages 10 - 22 refers.

Resolution 2021/52

Moved: Chairperson Belinda Ward

Seconded: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board confirm the minutes of the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board meeting held 3 June 2021 are a true and correct record.

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8 Reports continued

8.1 Chairperson and Members Report

Agenda item 7.1 document number A3253284, pages 23 - 34 refers.

ReSOLUTION 2021/53

Moved: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

Seconded: Member Bruce Mills

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board note the reports from Chairperson Belinda Ward, Deputy Chairperson Frank Owen, Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell, and Member Bruce Mills.

carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8.2 Rubbish Collection Point at the Corner Paihia and Waikare Roads

Agenda item 7.2 document number A3248626, pages 35 - 70 refers.

Resolution 2021/54

Moved: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

Seconded: Member Lane Ayr

That the Bay of Islands - Whangaroa Community Board makes a recommendation to the Infrastructure Committee that:

(a) The approved collection point at the intersection of Waikare Road and State Highway 11, Kawakawa is closed.

(b) That future decisions concerning collection points are delegated to operational staff in consultation with the appropriate community board.

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8.3 Statement of Community Board Fund Account as at 31 May 2021

Agenda item 7.3 document number A3255167, pages 71 - 75 refers.

Resolution 2021/55 ]

Moved: Member Manuwai Wells

Seconded: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board receives the report entitled “Statement of the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Community Fund account as at 31 May 2021”.

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8.4 Funding Applications

Agenda item 7.4 document number A3247098, pages 76 - 93 refers.

Resolution 2021/56

Moved: Member Manuwai Wells

Seconded: Member Lane Ayr

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board approves the sum of $5,325 (plus GST if applicable) be paid from the Board’s Community Fund account to Northern Community Family Services for costs towards budget advice and advocacy services to support the following Community Outcomes:

i) Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable

ii) Proud, vibrant communities

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8.5 Project Funding Reports

Agenda item 7.5 document number A3256262, pages 94 - 96 refers.

Resolution 2021/57

Moved: Chairperson Belinda Ward

Seconded: Member Bruce Mills

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board note the project reports received from:

a) Baysport

b) Business Paihia Inc

c) Guardians of the Bay Inc

d) Kerikeri Sports Complex

e) Life Education Trust

f) Volunteering Northland

g) Waka Atea

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

8.6 MaiNtenance and Capital Works and Input where the Renewals Budget is spent

Resolution 2021/58

Moved: Member Manuela Gmuer-Hornell

Seconded: Chairperson Belinda Ward

That the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board request quarterly updates on upcoming programme of works and renewals for footpaths.

Carried

Abstained: Member Rachel Smith

9 KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA – CLOSING PRAYER

Member Manuwai Wells closed the meeting with a karakia.

10 tE kAPINGA hUI / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 2:30 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board meeting held on 5 August 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

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.

Strategy and Policy Committee	Tuesday Week 1 (of two week cycle)
Infrastructure Committee	Wednesday Week 1 (of two week cycle)
Regulatory and Compliance Committee	Tuesday Week 2 (of two-week cycle)
Assurance, Risk and Finance Committee	Wednesday Week 2 (of two-week cycle)

Strategy and Policy Committee	Tuesday morning
Regulatory and Compliance Committee	Tuesday afternoon
Infrastructure Committee	Wednesday morning
Assurance, Risk and Finance Committee	Wednesday afternoon