NOTICE OF MEETING
Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the Invercargill City Council to be held in the Council Chamber,
101 Esk Street, Invercargill on Tuesday 13 March 2012 at 4.00 pm
His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt JP Cr J Kruger (Deputy Mayor) CrR LAbbott Cr N D Boniface CrTJ Buck Cr CG Dean CrA G Dennis Cr N J Elder Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr C J Sycamore
EIRWEN TULETT MANAGER, SECRETARIAL SERVICES
Civic Administration Building 101 Esk Street Private Bag 90104 Invercargill 9840 New Zealand DX No. YA90023 TEL 03 2111777
AGENDA
Page
1. APOLOGIES
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. REPORT OF THE INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL
3.1 INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL 2012
4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 3 31 JANUARY 2012
5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY 11 BOARD HELD ON 20 FEBRUARY 2012
6. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY 17 FINANCE AND POLICY COMMITTEE HELD ON 21 FEBRUARY 2012
7. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
7.1 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE 27 FEBRUARY 2012 21
7.2 REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2012 25
7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE 5 MARCH 2012 33
7.4 FINANCE AND POLICY COMMITTEE 6 MARCH 2012 41
8. REPORT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
8.1 SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP − KUMAGAYA 51 Appendix 1 53
8.2 AUDI AND RISK CHARTER
To be circulated separately.
9. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES
9.1 URUPA BYLAW 73 Appendix I 75
10. ACTION SHEET 103
11. MAYOR'S REPORT 105
Appendix I 109 Appendix 2 111 Appendix 3 121 Appendix 4 122 Appendix 5 124
12. URGENT BUSINESS
13. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting; namely
(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Council 31 January 2012 (b) Receiving of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Bluff Community Board 20 February 2012 (C) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Extraordinary Finance and Policy 21 February (d) Confirming of Minutes of Public Excluded Session of Regulatory Services 28 February 2012 (e) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Infrastructure and Services 5 March 2012 (17 Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Finance and Policy Services 6 March 2012
The general subject 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(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: General subject of each Reason for passing this Ground(s) under matter to be considered resolution in relation to Section 48(1) for the each matter passing of this resolution
(a) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes − Council holding the information to 31 January 2012 carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
(b) Receiving of Minutes Protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) − Bluff Community natural person and that of Board 20 February deceased natural persons 2012
(c) Confirming of Protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Minutes − natural person Extraordinary Finance and Policy 21 February 2012
(d) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes − holding the information to Regulatory Services carry out, without 28 February 2012 prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
(e) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes − holding the information to Infrastructure and carry out, without Services 5 March prejudice or 2012 disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
(f) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(1) Minutes − Finance holding the information to and Policy 6 March carry out, without 2012 prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
TO: COUNCIL
FROM: INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 13 MARCH 2012
INVERCARGILL YOUTH COUNCIL
Report Prepared by: Mary Napper − Community Development Manager
SUMMARY
The Youth Council has held its first meeting for the year. There will be no members attending the Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that this report be received.
IMPLICATIONS
1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? N/A 2. Is a budget amendment required? N/A 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? N/A 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
001 YOUTH COUNCIL 2012
The 2012 Invercargill Youth Council has held its first meeting and a team building session. We have members representing Southland Girls' High School, Southland Boys' High School, James Hargest College and the Southern Institute of Technology attending meetings. It is hoped that Verdon College, Aurora College and Te Wharekura 0 Arowhenua will also nominate representatives.
002 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL, ON TUESDAY 31 JANUARY 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt Cr J Kruger − Deputy Mayor CrR LAbbott Cr N D Boniface CrTJ Buck Cr C G Dean Cr A G Dennis Cr N J Elder Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr G J Sycamore
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R W King − Chief Executive Officer Mr C A McIntosh − Director of Works and Services Mrs P M Gare − Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr D J Johnston − Director of Finance and Corporate Services Ms M Napper − Community Development Manager Mrs E Tulett − Manager Communications and Secretarial Services Mr M Manson − Manager Financial Services Mr R Pearson − Manager − Engineering Services Group Mrs M Short − Corporate Planner Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGIES
Nil.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
2.1 Concerns about Rates Increases
Alison Taylor was in attendance to speak to this Item.
Mrs Taylor tabled a copy of her submission and the petition in relation to her concerns about rates increases in Invercargill.
In response to questions from Councillors, Mrs Taylor gave the following answers:
1. I think Council is spending money on things that it should not be spending money on. There are things that could be cut out. Some of Council's departments are kept to a budget and are told they can't have something that the ratepayers want, because it's too expensive, and then Council turns around and gives funding to different events, which does not go down very well.
003 2. I have seen the DVD on Council's Big Picture. I don't often put my money where my mouth is, but my mother taught me that if you look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. That's the way I've lived and it works. I just feel that Council needs to be a bit more careful.
3. I covered the grand ideas when I said it's time to consolidate and look after what we have. It's not a time to go into new things and new buildings, Council needs to look after what it has, because that's what the people want. We're not Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch. We are Invercargill and we are happy with our city. We are not trying to keep up with the Joneses up north. People's rates have gone up all over Invercargill and not just in one area.
4. People are aware that they can get the rebate from their rates. I get the rebate. It is a help, but not everybody can get that. Where do people who rent stand?
5. As I recall it, the Stadium was not meant to be a burden on the ratepayers and it was all meant to be paid for and now ratepayers are picking up the tab for it. We were told that the insurance would cover everything.
2.2 Queens Drive Upgrade Stage 3
Brian Kenning was in attendance to speak to this Item.
Mr Kenning tabled a copy of his submission and took the meeting through a PowerPoint Presentation, copies of which are available from Secretarial Services.
In response to questions from Councillors, Mr Kenning gave the following answers:
1. My understanding is that legally Council is not obliged to compensate us in relation to shifting the fences and the rebuilding of the fences. The Engineers have advised us that if the work is to proceed as it is, Council would favourably consider replacing like with like. In other words, a fence of similar value or construction.
2. If Council is willing to compensate the 30 plus property owners, all that compensation can be avoided by going to the west.
3. I have lived in my property for 27 years and I'm in a section where they are all in line with my front fence. There are newer properties set back and clearly what's happened is that the newer properties that have gone for consent have found out where the legal boundary is. Whereas people like myself have lived in ignorance of that fact.
In response to questions from Councillors, Mr McIntosh and Mr Pearson gave the following answers:
1. My understanding is that the legal road would have to be used first before the application (under the Public Works Act) was made for the reserve.
2. Subject to where the final design showed the road going, that would dictate whether the pipe itself went through the reserve or the road was also in the reserve.
004 I We had a meeting with Mr Kenning and following the meeting further discussions with the Parks Manager Mr Pagan said that to put a road onto the reserve Council we would need to do so using Public Works Act to take Town Belt Reserve. To do that the test would be that Council would need to ensure that all of the available road reserve was used first before moving onto the reserve, otherwise objectors would have a case. All the legal road should be used first.
4. The process is that discussions are being held with the property owners. The design process is being developed as the consultation are undertaken and in line with normal practice.
His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Kenning for his submission and assured him that Mr McIntosh would look into the matter further.
3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 13 DECEMBER 2011
Moved Cr Boniface, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.
4. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES
The report had been circulated.
4.1 Urupa Bylaw
Mrs Short took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that it be determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the operation of the Urupa prior to the land being transferred to lwi,
AND THAT
That a bylaw be developed addressing the operation of an Urupa at 118 Mason Road.
5. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES
The report had been circulated.
5.1 Crown Levy Request from Ministry of Transport
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that the report be received.
6. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES
The report had been circulated.
005 6.1 Draft Activity Plans
Mrs Short took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Boniface that the Activity Plans be adopted.
Mrs Short confirmed that the Long Term Plan, the Budgets and the Draft Activity Plan would all line up as one. The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
6.2 Draft Budgets
Cr Kruger took the meeting through the report.
6.2.1 Regulatory Services
Mrs Gare took the meeting through Regulatory Services Committee costs as set out in the report.
Cr Ludlow was concerned that there was a level of exposure with the Regulatory Services budget, in particular to the changes in the Building Regulations and including the challenges to Resource Management decisions, but he was happy with the budget overall.
There were extensive discussions in relation to the Councillors' concerns with changes in the Building Regulations because of the Christchurch earthquake.
Mr King said that if there was to be a change, there would be a dramatic change to the Building Act itself. At the moment there was no legal correlation between Council's Policy on Earthquake buildings and the Building Act. All local authorities had followed the advice and guidance of the Department of Building and Housing so the Policy Council had, had no direct bearing to what the Building Act itself says. On the issue of Engineers' Reports, you could not enforce an Engineer's Report. You may say they were liable, but how would you recover that cost. If a building was earthquake prone, you could step into the property and carry out the work and that became the charge on the land. As a result of the Christchurch earthquake there could be huge amendments to the Building Act, but he did not know what they would be.
6.2.2 Infrastructure and Services
Mr McIntosh took the meeting through Infrastructure and Services Committee costs as set out in the report.
Councillors had concerns with Parks and Reserves costs compared to last year and it was agreed that Mr King would take note of all concerns and get the Directors to follow them up and provide written explanation before 21 February.
6.2.3 Community Services
Mr McIntosh took the meeting through Community Services Committee costs as set out in the report.
6.2.4 Community Development
Mr King took the meeting through the Community Development costs as set out in the report.
006 6.2.5 Finance and Policy Committee
Mr Johnston took the meeting though the Finance and Policy Committee costs as set out in the report.
6.2.6 Special Projects
Mr Johnston took the meeting though the Special Project costs as set out in the report.
Cr Elder commented that in relation to the CBD Redevelopment, he was not sure whether it was a good idea to do it in stages or all at once, but funding it through loans, subject to a certain period of time. It would impact less on the rates increase if it was done through loans, provided it was repaid when rejuvenation was required again.
Mr Johnston informed Council that there was a plan for the next five year to spend about $1.4 million per year through loans fund and capital works. There would also be operational money for consultants required through loans fund and capital works over five years, so that each year as work came on the loan increased and after four years it started decreasing again.
Cr Kruger informed Council that Mr Johnston would include on the Agenda for 21 February meeting, a comprehensive set of details on Council's Reserve Funding, with a view to checking that Council has optimised its opportunity to use Reserve Funds now to off−set some of its costs.
Cr Elder wanted to see more explanations around the $1 million in relation to Parks and Reserves, including questions and concerns of Council to go back to Mr King and the Directors, with a view to decreasing the rates at around 5%.
Mr King informed the Council that he and the Directors would itemise cuts in the priority they believed it should be at and a report would come back to Council showing what the rate increase was.
There were extensive discussions in relation to Events Funding with regard to people coming to Council at the Annual Plan Submissions Process asking for money. It was agreed that this matter be put on the Action Sheet.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the report be received,
AND THAT
Mr King brings a report back to Council on 21 February in an attempt to achieving a 5% rates increase, or less.
6.3 Spatial Plan − The Big Picture Mrs Short took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the Spatial Plan be adopted subject to amendments resulting from comments be received,
AND THAT
The Spatial Plan be reviewed at least triennially.
00? Cr Kruger thanked Mrs Short for the enormous amount of work that she had carried out on the Spatial Plan consultation process. It had been a long process and she wanted to acknowledge Mrs Short for her hard work.
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
The report had been circulated and His Worship the Mayor took the meeting through the report.
Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8. ACTION SHEET
Mr King informed Council that this report was taken out of Public Excluded Session and copies had been given to the media and public for their information.
Mr King took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the report be received.
9. URGENT BUSINESS
9.1 Queens Drive − Herbert Street to Tay Street
Cr Elder reminded Council about the report that Mr McIntosh had tabled on the Queens Drive, Herbert Street to Tay Street, which related to Mr Kenning's submission under Public Forum. He said it would be more logical to put in a Queens Park Reserve so that there was no footpath to walk on and put the roading into where the footpath was currently.
Mr King said that Council needed to look at an engineering solution from where the work started beyond Herbert Street right down to Tay Street. The problem came up from time to time, but Council would try to reinstate to the best of its ability.
Cr Kruger informed Council that this matter had been brought to the Infrastructure and Services Committee previously so this was not the first time it had been raised. Council was looking at a safe and efficient outcome for this matter going forward, but as a Council it would not hide behind the Public Works Act because there had been occasions where Ministers had allowed acts to be waivered for certain logical reasons. If that needed to happen then she did not want Council to create angst if it did not have to, but if the angst was the only way to achieve an efficient outcome then Council may have to live with it. Council needed to take professional advice to come to a positive outcome for this matter.
His Worship the Mayor said that Mr McIntosh wanted to make it clear that this was not a report, it was for Council's information to show that Council was still working through this issue to come to a positive outcome for all concerned.
Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the paper be received for Council information only. 008 10. COUNCIL IN PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Council 13 December 2011 (b) Report of the Invercargill City Holdings Limited Chairman (c) Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services
The general subject 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(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in Section 48(1) for the considered relation to each matter passing of this resolution
(a) Confirming of Enable any local Section 7(2)(1) Minutes − authority holding the Council information to carry out, 13 December without prejudice or 2011 disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
(b) Director Protect the Privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Retirement natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons
(c) Investment Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Property authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
009 CIA MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD IN THE BLUFF MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, GORE STREET, BLUFF ON MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 7.00 PM
PRESENT: Mrs J M Mitchell (Chair) Mr S Allan Ms P Coote Mr B Procter (from 7.04 pm) Mr C Te Au CrG D Lewis
IN ATTENDANCE: Cr N D Boniface Mrs H Williams − Service Centre Manager Mr L Beer − Bluff Publicity/Promotions Officer Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
1. APOLOGY
Nil.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
Nil.
3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 31 OCTOBER 2011
Moved C Te Au, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.
4. MATTERS ARISING
4.1 Emergency Management
The Chairperson said with regard to Item 5.1, Emergency Management Southland would be meeting with those who indicated their desire to assist in this matter. The meeting would be held at the Bluff Municipal Chambers tomorrow night.
4.2 Information Kiosk −Area Upgrade
The Chairperson said with regard to Item 5.8, she had not yet received an update on this matter.
Note: Mr Procter joined the meeting at 7.04 pm.
4.3 Computer Clubhouse
The Chairperson asked Ms Coote for an update.
011 Mrs Coote informed the Board that due to everyone having a busy schedule, she, Mr Te Au and Gail Thompson were trying to sort out a meeting date that they were all available.
4.4 Argyle Beach
The Chairperson said with regard to Item 14.7, the quote came through for the work to be carried out in the area at a cost of $1780 plus GST. The resident who offered to pay for the work depending on the cost had declined to proceed with work, which was unfortunate, but it was good that someone was inclined to ask the Board to look into this matter.
4.5 Bluff Promotions
Cr Lewis said with regard to Item 14.2, he had moved for the Board to decline to pay the invoice of $50.00 from Bluff Promotions. For clarification, the reason he moved that resolution was that the Bluff Community Board did not pay bills that did not have to be paid by the Board. If a Board member or anybody else in Bluff wished to pay a subscription to Bluff Promotions they could do so privately.
The Chairperson said the Board already paid a grant to Bluff Promotions each year, which was another valid reason.
5. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 21 NOVEMBER 2011
Moved C Te Au, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.
6. MATTERS ARISING
Nil.
7. REPORT OF THE BLUFF PUBLICITY/PROMOTIONS OFFICER
The report had been circulated.
Moved J Mitchell, seconded P Coote that the report be received.
7.1 Bluff Promotions Up and Over Bluff Hill Grunt
7.2 Bluff Oyster and Food Festival
7.3 Brochure/Tear off Map
7.4 Southern Scenic Route
7.5 Family History
7.6 Book Sale
7.7 Fundraising Events
012 In response to questions from Board members, Mr Beer gave the following answers:
There was a small loss involved for the Up and Over Bluff Hill Grunt, but we will get a top up from the Community Trust of Southland. It was disappointing because there were a lot of enquiries before the event, but participant numbers on the day dropped due to the weather. Bluff Promotions is of the mind that we can't keep running it if there is a loss, so commercial funding or sponsorship would be needed for the event going forward.
2. The brochure will be a combination of information with the map. Many promotional groups are heading that way as it is a more economical to produce a tear−off map.
3. We do hope to include paid advertising in the brochure.
The motion, now being put was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
8. BLUFF URBAN RENEWAL
Cr ND Boniface was in attendance to speak to this Item.
Cr Boniface took the meeting through a verbal report on Bluff Urban Renewal, which was one of his portfolio responsibilities along with Revitalisation. Urban Renewal looked at five particular shopping areas including Waikiwi, Glengarry, South City, Windsor and Bluff. He had wanted ideas from the Board as to what it wanted for Bluff and he was aware that the Board had concerns about the main road, which could be dealt with through the District Plan. He was concerned about the main shopping area in Bluff and the urban renewal. Part of urban renewal was looking at an extension of Southland Warm Homes Trust, of which he was the Chairman and also carrying out some pilot programmes with some sections in Bluff. He had met with funders, the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Community Trust of Southland and they were keen to carry out some community projects. He wanted to assist in facilitating something for Bluff and needed the Board's support in doing so.
Comments included:
1. Bluff is in the same situation that Riverton was in ten years ago. Riverton re−branded itself and that is what Bluff needs to start doing now. Tourists come to Bluff heading onto Stewart Island, but they are not staying in Bluff.
2. If homestays or potential homestays were highlighted, people would stay in Bluff.
3. The Glengarry community put their initiative together with Council funding. We need to investigate the costs involved in this and see if there are any motivated people in Bluff to get together and develop some ideas for Bluff, going forward.
Cr Boniface said Bluff had a lot of attractions for tourists to come and see, but the tourists were coming to Bluff and onto to the Point then turning around and leaving again. Why were they doing that? There were so many things to see and do in Bluff. 013 The Chairperson suggested that the Board consider a public meeting to form a Community Development Committee. She said it should not be run by the Board nor should a Board member be a member of the Community Development Committee. The Board could call the meeting to explain what it was about, collate the ideas and the Community Development Committee could drive what the public wanted for Bluff.
The Board agreed with the Chairperson's suggestion and Cr Boniface suggested that Janette Malcolm could facilitate the public meeting. He said the Council wanted a partnership in this project and how it could assist in providing some funding for it.
Moved B Procter, seconded Cr Lewis to pursue a public meeting, using Janette Malcolm to facilitate an ideas forum and form a Community Development Committee.
Cr Boniface reminded the Board about the housing situation as it needed to be looked at. He gave the Board an update on the Museum upgrade as it was also one of his portfolio responsibilities.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Moved J Mitchell seconded P Coote and RESOLVED that the Board thanks Cr Boniface for his presentation.
9. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES
9.1 Bluff Water Supply Upgrade
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded P Coote and RESOLVED that the report be received.
9.2 Bluff 2011 Tour of Inspection Items
The Chairperson took the meeting through the report.
Moved J Mitchell, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the report be received.
9.3 Bluff Derelict Properties
The report and an email from Mr Tonkin were tabled and the Chairperson took the meeting through them.
B Procter asked that contact be made with Ravensdown with regard to its building, as the matter had been going on for long enough.
There were extensive discussions on this matter.
Moved B Procter, seconded C Te Au and RESOLVED that the Board requests that contact be made with Ravensdown representatives inviting them to attend the next Bluff Community Board meeting, along with the Building Inspector to appraise the Board on the matter.
Moved J Mitchell, seconded P Coote and RESOLVED that the reports be received. 014 10. POLICE REPORTS − OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER 2011 AND JANUARY 2012
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded P Coote and RESOLVED that the reports be received. 11. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT
The report was tabled and the Chairperson took the meeting through it.
11.1 Environment Southland
11.2 HMS Neptune Commemoration
11.3 Invercargill City Council Environmental Reserves Management Plan
11.4 2012 Bluff Community Board Bursary
11.5 Ravensdown Fertiliser
11.6 Waitangi Day
11.7 Proposed Invercargill to Bluff Walk and Cycle Trail
11.8 Flat Hill Windfarm
11.9 2012 Bluff Tour of Inspection
C Te Au said with regard to the 2012 Bluff Community Board Bursary, he wanted to acknowledge all the students who put in an application. It was a very hard job for the Committee to decide on recipients to award the bursaries to.
The Chairperson informed the Board that the bursary recipients would be acknowledged publicly in the Invercargill City Council Noticeboard this week.
The Board agreed that 2012 Bluff Tour of Inspection date be decided after the Community Development public meeting as there could be some issues arising from that meeting to add to the Tour of Inspection list.
Moved P Coote, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the Tour of Inspection be deferred until later on in the year after the Community Development public meeting.
Moved J Mitchell, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the report be received.
12. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the report be received.
13. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
015 14. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded B Procter and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Confirmation of the minutes of the Public Excluded Session Bluff Community Board meeting of 31 October 2011 (b) Confirmation of the minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Extraordinary Bluff Community Board meeting of 21 November 2011
The general subject 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(1 )(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in Section 48(1) for the considered relation to each matter passing of this resolution
(a) Confirmation of To protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Minutes 31 natural persons October 2011 including that of deceased natural persons
(b) Confirmation of To protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Extraordinary natural persons minutes of including that of 21 November deceased natural 2011 persons
016 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY FINANCE AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL, ON TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt (from 4.53 pm) Cr J Kruger − Deputy Mayor CrR LAbbott Cr N D Boniface CrTJ Buck CrCG Dean CrA G Dennis Cr N J Elder Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr D J Ludlow Cr I R Pottinger Cr G J Sycamore
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R W King − Chief Executive Officer Mr D J Johnston − Director of Finance and Corporate Services Mr C A McIntosh − Director of Works and Services Mrs P M Gare − Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr M Manson − Manager Financial Services Mrs M Short − Corporate Planner Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGY
His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt for lateness.
Cr Elder put in an apology that he would need to leave the meeting at 6.15 pm.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.
2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES
The report had been circulated.
2.1 Long Term Plan − Working Draft
Cr Kruger informed the meeting that the Long Term Plan − Working Draft needed to be taken under Public Excluded Session. The document was a working draft that still needed a lot of information changed. It would be discussed under Public Excluded Session under Section 7(2)(i): "Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)" The draft document would be tabled at the Council meeting held on 20 March for adoption.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Elder that the Long Term Plan − Working Draft document be taken under Public Excluded Session. 017 Comments included:
I understand that changes need to be made to the Working Draft, but I am not happy that it has to be taken under Public Excluded Session. If discussed in the public part of the meeting, it shows the public that Council is prepared to change and compromise.
2. I support the motion from the point of view that Council tries to table a draft document at the next Finance and Policy meeting prior to the Council meeting on 20 March.
3. It's not a question of discussing the document in secrecy. It's a case of people having misinformation and taking it as being correct. The draft document will be discussed in open meeting, adopted by Council and then it will go out for submissions, which shows that Council is open−minded and prepared to change things. At this stage it's still a working document.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
Note: Cr Abbott and Cr Lewis voted against the motion.
2.2 Solid Waste Loans
Mr Johnston took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that $775452 is used from the Industrial Reclamation reserve to repay the loans for the transfer station.
2.3 Reserves Repayment of Loans
Mr Johnston took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that the reserves as listed be used to repay loans.
2.4 Budget Amendments
The Committee went through each report and discussed possible changes to be made to the recommendations. Cr Kruger informed the meeting that if the Committee accepted each of the recommendations as set out in the reports, it would be a saving of just over $1 million.
Noted: His Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 4.53 pm.
Mr Johnston informed the meeting that with further amendments to the Budget, the rates increase was now 4.71%.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the budget amendment as agreed be incorporated into the Long Term Plan for consultation, with an amendment to remove the Queens Park toilets.
2.5 Revenue and Financing Policy
Mr Johnston took the meeting through the report.
018 After extensive discussions, Cr Kruger said that the Appendix I was Council's current Policy. If the Committee adopted the report, the Policy would be amended and a revised new Policy would go out for consultation in the Draft Long Term Plan.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the recommendations as listed be adopted, with an amendment to keep Animal Control at 15% to 25%.
2.6 Special Funds and Reserves
Mr Johnston took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Dennis and RESOLVED that the report be received.
3. URGENT BUSINESS
3.1 Water Tower − Public Access
The report was tabled and Mr McIntosh took the meeting through it.
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that Council approve the continuance of the Water Tower closure to the general public until receipt of an engineering report quantifying the risk whereupon the decision be revisited.
4. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Long Term Plan − Working Draft The general subject 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(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in Section 48(1) for the considered relation to each matter passing of this resolution
(a) Long Term Plan Enable any local Section 7(2)(1) − Working Draft authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
019 020 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt Cr R L Abbott (Chair) Cr N J Elder (Deputy Chair) Cr N D Boniface CrTJ Buck Cr I L Esler CrG DLewis CrDJ Ludlow Cr G J Sycamore
IN ATTENDANCE: Cr J Kruger (from 4.05 pm) CrCG Dean Mr C A McIntosh − Director of Works and Services Mr P Thompson − Manager Aquatic Services Mr S Ridden − Manager Corporate Services Ms M Napper − Community Development Manager Ms M Foster − Manager Libraries and Archives Mrs M Short − Corporate Planner Mr P Homer − Asset Manager Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGIES
Cr R Currie.
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Buck and RESOLVED that the apology be accepted.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
2.1 Citizen's Advice Bureau
Valerie Fordyce, Shana Connor and Noeline Collie from Citizen's Advice Bureau were in attendance to speak to this item.
Shana Connor took the meeting through a PowerPoint Presentation, copies of which are available from Secretarial Services.
Note: Cr Kruger joined the meeting at 4.05 pm.
In response to questions from the Committee, the submitters gave the following answers:
Gore has its own Citizens Advice Bureau, which the Gore District Council provides funding for.
2. We have a 0800 line, so we do keep a record of what area people are calling from for statistical purposes. it's only if someone is calling from a mobile phone, then the area they are calling from cannot be recorded.
021. 3. There are always more than two people working at a time, and we do have a buzzer that staff can ring in relation to the safety issues.
Cr Boniface informed the meeting that they had been looking at alternative buildings to rent. They needed a location that was reasonably prominent and had free parking available for the volunteer staff.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the matter be included in the Long Term Plan for public consultation.
3. MONITORING OF SERVICE PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
3.1 Levels of Service
3.1 .1 Community Development
3.1.2 Passenger Transport
3.1.3 Pools
3.1.4 Libraries and Archives
3.1.5 Housing Care Service
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Buck that the report be received.
The Committee noted an increase in passenger transport numbers and also across all Council services.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
4. MONITORING OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
4.1 Community Development
4.2 Housing Care
4.3 Library and Archives
4.4 Passenger Transport
4.5 Pools
4.6 Financial Summary
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Ridden gave the following answers:
1. I don't believe Council provides Social Housing for people. Our Policy is to provide housing for the elderly and albeit that it's not purely 100% that way, but Council is not in a position to be looking at social housing. 022 2. In relation to the question about funding, one of those funds was closed off shortly after the November meeting and the others have since closed off at the end of January.
Cr Kruger took the meeting through a verbal report on the Southland Regional Housing Forum she attended.
Cr Dean acknowledged the changes that Mr Thompson had implemented to Splash Palace. It was making a great impact economically and the public had commented on how they were very impressed with the improvements.
There were discussions on the introduction of free internet and WI−Fl at the Library, as to whether it should still be free or a charge being put on the service for everybody using it. The Committee agreed that it would remain a free service to everybody.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded His Worship the Mayor and RESOLVED that the report be received.
5. ACTION SHEET
Nil.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6.1 Report of the Safer Invercargill Sub−Committee
Moved Cr Esler, seconded Cr Elder that the report be received.
Ms Napper took the meeting through the aspects of the Injury Prevention Programme.
The report, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
6.2 Report of the Chief Executive Officer
6.2.1 Southland Conference of the Arts 2012
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Invercargill City Council Community Development Service apply to the ILT Foundation for a grant to support the attendance of Invercargill residents at the Southland Conference of the Arts 2012.
6.2.2 Youth in Local Government Leadership Conference
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Elder that the report be received.
Ms Napper took the meeting through the cost to attend the Conference in terms of the Invercargill City Council Youth Council and funding available for them to attend the Conference.
The report, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
023 6.3 Report of the Director of Works and Services
6.3.1 Libraries and Archives
Ms Foster took the meeting through the report.
In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Foster gave the following answers:
1. There will be staff savings, but it will also give us the chance for some of those savings over and above that to be reallocated into other areas.
2. We are saving more, but half of that will be used in a different way.
3. The savings are outlined in the initial Budget Report.
After further discussions, it was agreed that the report be received for information purposes only as it was included in the Long Term Plan.
The Committee agreed that the Cost Benefit Analysis template that Mr Homer used in his reports should be used where possible, as it was easier to understand.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the report be received.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 4.50 pm.
024 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET INVERCARGILL ON TUESDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: Cr D J Ludlow − Chairperson Cr G J Sycamore − Deputy Chairperson Cr C G Dean (from 4.45 pm) Cr A G Dennis Cr I L Esler Cr J Kruger Cr G D Lewis Cr I R Pottinger (from 4.05 pm)
IN ATTENDANCE: Cr R L Abbott (from 4.17 pm) Cr N D Boniface (from 4.30 pm) Mrs P M Gare − Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr T D Boylan − Resource Management Manager Ms J Christie − Resource Management Officer Mr S Tonkin − Building Regulation Services Manager Mrs D McCallum − Manager Compliance Mr P Homer − Asset Manager Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGIES
His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt, Cr Pottinger and Cr Dean for lateness.
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
2.1 Objection to Additional Charges —60 Otatara Road
Rex Chapman from Cruickshank Pryde Solicitors was in attendance to speak to this Item.
Note: Cr Pottinger joined the meeting at 4.05 pm.
Mr Chapman informed the Committee that the Shermaris had applied for a Resource Consent for quite a large subdivision development in Otatara. The consent was heard by a Commissioner with the Panel also including two Councillors. The objection related to the charges that Council was seeking to recover for the Hearing. The Shermans anticipated that they would receive a bill from the Council for the Hearing and they were not opposed to it, but more the fact that they were to pay an unreasonable charge. Their objection was specifically around the charge for the Commissioner, which in this case was $1998.527 which was $20000 out of the $29660.57 for the Hearing. The legal basis for the objection was on Section 36. Mr Chapman took the meeting through Section 36 and said that Council received the invoices from the Commissioner and decided on the 100% cost recovery policy for the applicant to pay. In doing so, Council had missed a very important step.
025 The section made it clear that in recovering this additional charge, Council must have regard to the criteria under Section 36. The reason why it was relevant in this case was that Council had two options in deciding on how to hear the application. The normal Hearing panel of the Council could have heard the application or alternatively appoint a Commissioner to hear the application, which it did. Why the Council decided on a Commissioner to hear the application was unknown, but the reason was not communicated to the applicant. He suspected that it was because of one or two reasons. The first was that at the pre−hearing meeting, a number of the submitters said that they did not want Council to hear it and alternatively the Council may have considered that the Invercargill Airport could submit on the application, which would be a conflict of interest for the Council to hear the application so an independent Commissioner would be needed. If that was the case, the Shermans were saying that it was not their fault that Council decided to appoint a Commissioner at a cost of $1998527. If the application had been heard by the Council, the cost of the Hearing Panel would have been less than what it was. The Shermans were not objecting to a reasonable cost for the process in hearing their application, they were saying that the significant additional costs of the Commissioner were not occasioned by them, but either by the Council's own conflict or by the request of the submitters. The Shermans should only be required to pay what it would cost for their application to be heard by the panel.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Chapman gave the following answers:
When the applicant lodged the application, the Airport didn't have to lodge a submission, they could have been happy with the proposal. I don't think you can necessarily say that when the applicant lodged the application, they knew that the Airport would be a submitter, the Council is a shareholder and a Commissioner would have to be appointed.
2. The applicant is not opposed to paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of the application and they are not criticising the Council for appointing a Commissioner. They are simply saying that they didn't make the decision to appoint a Commissioner and they didn't ask for it. The steps in Section 36 require the Council, if they are going to resolve to recover additional charges, to make a fair assessment under that section as to who should pay for that additional cost. Is it the applicant, the community or the local authority?
Note: Cr Abbott joined the meeting at 4.17 pm.
3. The applicant wouldn't be concerned about the outcome if the application was heard by Councillors. In that case Council would apply a schedule of charges which are fixed under Section 36. The applicant knows what they are and they would pay for them. That is the proper process. The fixed charges that apply for the Hearing Panel can be recovered from an applicant as of right, because they have gone through this process under Section 36.
4 If Council appointed a Commissioner because of a conflict of interest then it should be the Commissioner alone with no Council involvement in the process. I don't know the reasons for the appointment of the Commissioner. It hasn't been disclosed to me on behalf of the applicant and I'm not sure if the applicant was told either.
026 5. I haven't seen a breakdown of the $20000 fee. The Hearing took close to two days with a bit of reading involved and the preparation of the decision, but I'm not going to criticise that quantum.
6. The Shermans have lodged an appeal to the Environment Court. The clients have been advised of the process involved in the appeal.
7. The Act allows for the Council to delegate its Hearing function to the Panel, comprising a mix of Councillors and an independent party. I have to say that the practice in the Queenstown Lakes District Council office is they have a panel with a blend of past Councillors, but the Southland District Council's practice is to appoint individual Commissioners alone without Council involvement.
8. The Shermans are looking for a percentage discount. They are simply asking Council to apply the criteria of Section 36, which will mean that the only amount they would be required to pay is what they would have paid for the normal Hearing Committee's Hearings fee, so you substitute that for the $1998527.
9. If the decision to appoint the Commissioner and Councillors was because of a conflict of the Airport, then the applicant shouldn't bear that cost. That's the Council's problem not the applicant's and Council is getting the benefit of appointing a Commissioner, so Council should pay.
Note: Cr Boniface joined the meeting at 4.30 pm.
Cr Ludlow thanked Mr Chapman for his submission on this Item and informed him that the matter would be discussed later on in the meeting.
Mr Chapman informed the Committee that there was a right of appeal in the Environment Court on this matter.
After further discussions, the Committee agreed that the request needed to be discussed in Public Excluded Session, to protect the privacy of natural persons.
Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Cr Dennis that Item 6 be discussed under Public Excluded Session.
The Committee agreed that the matter would be brought back to the next Council meeting and that any philosophical decision that came out of the discussion in Public Excluded Session, could be communicated via a Council media release.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
3. MONITORING OF SERVICES PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
3.1 Levels of Service
3.1.1 Animal Control
3.1.2 Building Consents 3.1.3 Compliance
3.1.4 Environmental Health
3.1.5 Resource Management
3.1.6 Valuation
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Pottinger that the report be received.
Mrs Gare informed the meeting that Invercargill City Council staff and Southland District Council staff met at the new dog pound earlier in the day to view the building. The City Solicitor had been asked to assist with a Memorandum of Understanding for the ownership and operation of the new dog pound. The contractors were looking at completing the development of the dog pound at the end of June, but there had been some delays due to the Christchurch earthquake.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
4. MONITORING OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
4.1 Directorate Overview
4.2 Administration
4.3 Environmental Health
4.4 Liquor Licensing
4.5 Animal Control
4.6 Building
4.7 Compliance
4.8 Resource Management
4.9 Valuation
4.10 Financial Summary
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that the report be received.
5. DELEGATIONS FOR THE HEARING OF PLAN CHANGES AND THE DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW
Cr Ludlow took the meeting through the report.
028 Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Lewis that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that:
1. The Regulatory Services Committee is delegated the power to hear, consider and make decisions on Plan Changes and the District Plan Review. 2. The Regulatory Services Committee has the ability to co−opt professional assistance if required for the hearing of Plan Changes and the District Plan Review. 3. The Invercargill City Council Governance Statement is amended to incorporate recommendations 1 and 2. 4. The Making Good Decisions Course is available to any Councillor wanting to undertake this training.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mrs Gare gave the following answers:
1. Council can delegate these decisions to a Committee, but it cannot be delegated to a Community Board, it has to be a Committee of Council.
2. There is a variation throughout the country in relation to this matter. I have asked Mr Boylan to talk about his research on the process that other local authorities carry out.
Mr Boylan gave an insight on what other councils did in relation to this matter.
Note: Cr Dean joined the meeting at 4.45 pm.
After further discussions, the Committee agreed that there was no need to add to the resolution, that other Councillors could be co−opted to a Standing Committee. The current Governance Statement already stated that any Councillor could participate in a Standing Committee with voting rights on that Standing Committee.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative
6. CITY CENTRE REPAINTING INITIATIVE
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the repainting initiative at 11 The Crescent be granted.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
The reports had been circulated.
7.1 Report of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services
7.1 .1 Building Consent Application Form
Mr Tonkin took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Dennis, seconded Cr Dean and RESOLVED that the report be received.
029 7.1.2 Restructure of Building Consent Fees Schedule
Mr Tonkin took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Dennis and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Committee endorse the proposed fee structure which has been incorporated into the Draft Long Term Plan for consultation.
7.1.3 Audit of the 2011 Property Revaluation
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that the report be received.
7.1.4 Delegation to Request Further Information Under Section 92 Resource Management Act 1991
Mr Boylan took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that Resource Management Staff are given delegation to request further information under Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of resource consent applications.
7.1.5 Emergency Management Southland
Mr Cruickshank was in attendance to speak to this Item and took the meeting through the report.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Cruickshank gave the following answers:
1. Fire is part of the Emergency Management. A risk assessment was carried out for the whole of Southland, and rural fires are relatively low risk.
2. Cr Abbott is the alternate for the Mayor.
Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Esler and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
9. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Report of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services
The general subject 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 (1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: 030 General subject Reason for passing Ground(s) under matter of each this resolution in Section 48(1) for the matter to be relation to each matter passing of this considered resolution
(a) Civil Defence To enable any local Section 7(2)(1) Emergency authority holding the Management information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
(b) Objection to To protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Additional natural persons, Charges − 60 including that of Otatara Road deceased natural persons
031 032 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON MONDAY 5 MARCH 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: Cr C G Dean − Chairperson Cr IR Pottinger − Deputy Chairperson CrR LAbbott Cr ND Boniface CrTJ Buck Cr NJ Elder Cr J Kruger (from 4.37 pm)
IN ATTENDANCE: Cr I L Esier Mr C A McIntosh − Director of Works and Services Mr R Pagan − Parks Manager Mr P Homer − Building Assets Manager Mr M Loan − Drainage Manager Mr A Murray − Water Manager Mr R Pearson − Manager Engineering Services Group Mrs M Short − Corporate Planner Mr E Cook − Senior Traffic Management Officer Miss D Peterson − Senior Waste Officer Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGIES
His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt, Cr A G Dennis and Cr J Kruger for lateness.
Moved Cr Boniface, seconded Cr Pottinger and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
2.1 Indoor Stadium Trust
Acton Smith and John McCulloch from the Indoor Stadium Trust were in attendance to speak to this Item.
Mr McCulloch tabled a copy of their presentation and took the meeting through it, copies of which are available from Secretarial Services.
Cr Dean asked Mr Pagan if he had any key points he wanted to highlight to the Committee in relation to this Item before Councillors asked questions.
Mr Pagan took the meeting through a couple of issues that needed to be considered. One was looking at the "Futuristic Ten to Fifteen Years Out", which was the first he had seen of today. There was some thought to be had on that matter, because if it was floated right now, Soccer would disappear, which they would be very unhappy about. It needed to be clear that it was an aspect that Mr McCulloch had brought up for the future and there had not yet been an opportunity to consider the implications.
O3 In relation to carparking, it was a matter of ensuring that there were not too many major events being held at the same time. This was something that they had tried to work through with Management of the Stadium with some success of having programmes of upcoming events in the future. He hoped that they would work a lot more closely in the future to make better use of the carparks, as opposed to having individual carparks for each individual club. The relocation of the building did pose a problem in that, if the access road went around the building, it would isolate the Athletics for the running track area. They had considered a grandstand and they had recently come back with the option of maybe a relocation until the bigger picture came along. Work was in progress on the matter, but there was still some agreement to be had on what the best option is for everyone concerned.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr McCulloch gave the following answers:
1. We got an estimate of around $600000 but no funding was set aside for the possible relocation of the Athletics building.
2. There is an option for the Athletics building to be relocated at the south side of the building, but it narrows down the forecourt in front of the Stadium.
3. I understand that Mr Pagan is liaising with the other parties in relation to the consultation process.
Mr Pagan informed the meeting that he met that he with representatives from Athletics to discuss their preferred options. The Athletics preferred option was a brand new building at another location. They would consider the grandstand relocateable building was somewhere that it could be shifted off−site or amalgamated into a new facility in the future or potentially keep their current facility. They saw a need to have a building similar to what they had now to cater for their activities and for the number of younger participants in the sport. He had another meeting with the Athletics Club this week to find out if there was any progress in the matter.
Cr Dean thanked Mr Smith and Mr McCulloch for their update.
3. MONITORING OF SERVICES PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
3.1 Levels of Service
3.1.1 Parks and Reserves
3.1.2 Public Toilets
3.1.3 Roading
3.1.4 Sewerage
3.1.5 Solid Waste Management
3.1.6 Stormwater
3.1.7 Water Supply Activity 034 Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Buck that the report be received.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Pearson gave the following answers:
1. Omaui Road has maintenance gravel put on it, which happens periodically. The material has a lot of high clay contents so it looks muddy, but when it compacts down it comes out a lot harder. Unfortunately the contractor got caught out with putting the material down, it rained and it has caused it to be a little bit softer. It is drying and they will have to continue to compact the surface a little bit more.
2. The tonnages in relation to Solid Waste Management have increased in comparison to December 2011. Looking at it from the last six months there seems to be a steady increase of around 28%. That's probably due to the new collection service with everybody finding it easier to use the wheelie bins compared to the crates and the fact that a wider range of items can be recycled.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
4. MONITORING OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
4.1 Drainage
4.2 Parks
4.3 Roading
4.4 Solid Waste
4.5 Water
4.6 Financial Summary
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the report be received.
5. ACTIVITY PLAN REVIEW
The report had been circulated.
5.1 Solid Waste Activity Plan
Moved Cr Boniface, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Activity Plan be adopted.
Note: Cr Kruger joined the meeting at 4.37 pm.
035 6. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES/LAWS
The report had been circulated.
6.1 Report of the Director of Works and Services
6.1.1 Draft Southland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
In response to questions from the Committee, staff gave the following answers:
The Waste Advisory Group consists of two Councillors from the three councils involved. From Invercargill City Council there is Cr Boniface and Cr Pottinger. Cr Copland and Cr Dobson are from the Southland District Council and Cr Bolger and Cr Davis are from the Gore District Council. They all form the panel who would be hearing the submissions.
2. There's no qualifications needed to be on the panel to hear the submissions.
3. With the retirement of Mr Greenwood, Mr Loan was asked to take up the responsibility to work with Miss Peterson on Solid Waste.
4. With respect to the ETS it's difficult to forecast, because you have to predict almost 18 to 24 months ahead on what you will be paying. On Page 71 of the report it mentions that there are limited incentives to reduce waste and it talks about the ETS in there as well. We have identified it as a risk and at the next Waste Advisory Group meeting in July we have asked the Ministry for the Environment to attend and speak to us about the ETS and provide a direction from them about how its going to impact us and how we can work to limit our risk.
5. The reason that the Solid Waste Activity Plan has been adopted now is because we had to write the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan first. It's a cascading planning model and there is a preferred order to how we do them.
6. One of the good things about this being a joint plan is that the majority of the funding is coming from WasteNet for regional projects, so that funding is already included in the information.
7. Discarded Materials is worked out by adding together "diverted material" and "waste to landfill". This gives us an overarching figure for Southland, as the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 has a very broad definition of Waste that includes divert material and waste to landfill. When its talking about diverted materials, its talking about the tonnages of kerbside recycling, greenwaste, cleanfill and scrap metal materials. We want to see the diverted tonnage (which is currently sitting at a 20% increase to 35%, while maintaining the 650 kilograms per person of discarded materials.
8. The proposed Action Plan investigating organic waste takes the recommendations from the "Waste to Energy Issues and Options Paper" and looks at it as a bigger picture of regional, as well as looking at the local aspects. For example should Invercargill have a one−off satellite facility that has methane generation, composting or worm farm versus having one regional facility. It's looking at comparing all options in the one report.
036 9. About 5 percent of the waste goes to landfill from that collected in the recycling bins. That figure is incredibly good as most material recovery facilities run at about 10% to 15% waste to landfill. Its a great outcome for Southland thanks to Southland DisAbility Enterprises.
10. In relation to point 1.2 of the proposed Action Plan, it is understood that Southland District Council already have a policy in place. Invercargill City Council has a policy in place as well, but it is not yet being implemented. It was important to put it in the Plan to increase the focus in this area.
Cr Kruger congratulated staff and representatives on the work carried out. It was a good looking Waste Plan.
Miss Peterson took the meeting through the supplementary report that was tabled to support this Item.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Pottinger and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Draft Southland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012−2018 be adopted for public consultation using the special consultative procedure (including the tabled amendments) as per the Local Government Act 2002,
AND THAT
Public submissions open on Thursday 5 April 2012 and close at 5.00 pm Monday 7 May 2012.
AND THAT
The Waste Advisory Group members form the joint Hearings Committee to hear submissions,
AND THAT
An alternate Council representative attend the Hearing of the submissions, if one of the existing representatives cannot be at the Hearing.
7. ACTION SHEET
An amended timeframe was agreed to for the two Items on the Action Sheet, as both being completed by the end of 2012.
Moved Cr Buck, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the report be received with the amendments of completion dates for both Items.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Report of the Director of Works and Services
8.1.1 Queens Park − Proposed New Substation
Note: Cr Boniface declared a conflict of interest and refrained from voting. Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that Council advertises its intention to amend the 03? Queens Park Management Plan to accommodate the proposal and call for submissions on the proposal.
8.1.2 Amendment to Surrey Park Management Plan
Cr Elder suggested that the Committee should acknowledge the update from McCulloch Architects.
Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Dean that the report be received,
AND THAT
The Committee acknowledges the update from McCulloch Architects.
The Committee discussed the options in the report and agreed that the matter was included in the Long Term Plan.
After further discussions, Mr McIntosh said that when this matter came to the Committee last year, the Committee gave a strong steer that compromising the access to the Stadium was undesirable at this early stage of the design. Due to the fact that the information had just been tabled today, he did not think that the Committee should seek professional opinion until the rest of the staff had seen it.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
8.1.3 Cycle and Walk Track − Sandy Point Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8.1.4 Environmental Reserves Walking Tracks − Dog Control Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Elder and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8.1.5 Sandy Point Forestry— Quarterly Report
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8.1.6 Traffic Control Devices Trials Myross Bush School and Dunns Road
Mr Cook took the meeting through the report.
Cr Abbott informed the meeting that one of the advocates of Myross Bush School in relation to this matter was in the audience and she had a concern about the Council replacing the flashing lights with a 40 km/h signage around the school zone. He asked if Tania Horton could ask a question in relation to this report.
Tania Horton asked for clarification on whether the Council was still considering the possibility of lowering the speed limit past schools. She was concerned with the wording in the report in relation to replacing or not replacing the school zone signs to 40 km/h, only in Myross Bush and not Invercargill as a whole. She was advocating for the replacement of the zone signs to 40 km/h for all schools in Invercargill and not just Myross Bush.
038 Cr Dean said that this report was only in relation to the two areas mentioned in the report.
Cr Abbott thanked the Chairperson for accommodating Ms Horton in this matter.
There were further discussions in relation to the speed limits on Dunns Road, Otatara, when Mr McIntosh informed the Committee that the purpose of this report was to update the Committee on the fact that a request had been received by Council on lowering speeds around schools. A different application was received from Dunns Road which was why it was included in the trial. The Item was about acknowledging that within the normal process in relation to setting speed limits, schools in themselves had not been a major determinant, hence the reason why Council was not able to deal with Myross Bush in another way. Mr Cook had identified that there was a trial being carried out in New Zealand for variable speed limiting devices and he was saying that he was applying to put the sites into the trial to look at a way to achieve a speed reduction around schools.
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Buck and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8.1.7 Give Way Rule Changes
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Kruger that the report be received.
Cr Boniface suggested that staff should carry out some monitoring in relation to the new rules. He thinks the new rule could cause some issues around intersections in Invercargill at peak hour traffic times.
Mr Pearson reassured the Committee that intersections would be monitored around Invercargill in relation to this matter.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
8.1.8 Waste Advisory Group Meeting Minutes
Note: Cr Kruger declared a conflict of interest and refrained from voting.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Pottinger and RESOLVED that the report be received,
AND THAT
The recommendations herein be adopted.
8.1.9 Insurance of Drainage Connections
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Dean and RESOLVED that the report be received.
8.1 .10 Myers Reserve and Elizabeth Park − Draft Management Plans Moved Cr Boniface, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Draft Management Plan for both Myers Reserve and Elizabeth Park be adopted as the Management Plans for these areas commencing 30 March 2012. 9 URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
10. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Kruger and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Report of the Director of Works and Services
General subject of Reason for passing this Ground(s) under each matter to be resolution in relation to Section 48(1) for the considered each matter passing of this resolution
Waste Advisory Group Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(h) − In Committee holding the information to Minutes carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage commercial activities.
Contract 630 − Piped Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Utility Network holding the information to Maintenance carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
Request for Trade Protect the information Section 7(2)(ii) Waste Consent where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonable to prejudice the commercial positions of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
040 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FINANCE AND POLICY COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL, ON TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2012 AT 4.00 PM
PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt Cr J Kruger − Deputy Mayor Cr N D Boniface CrTJ Buck CrC G Dean CrA G Dennis (up to 5.54 pm) Cr N J Elder Cr I L Esler Cr G D Lewis Cr DJ Ludlow (up to 7.15 pm) Cr I R Pottinger Cr G J Sycamore
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R W King − Chief Executive Officer Mr C A McIntosh − Director of Works and Services Mrs P M Gare − Director of Environmental and Planning Services Ms M Napper − Community Development Manager Mrs M Short − Corporate Planner Mr S Kumar − Senior Environmental Health Officer Mr M Manson − Financial Services Manager Ms L Kuresa − Committee Secretary
APOLOGY
Cr R L Abbott.
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Dean and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
2.1 Glengarry Redevelopment Group
Representatives from the Glengarry Redevelopment Group were in attendance to speak to this Item.
Representatives tabled a copy of their presentation and took the meeting through a PowerPoint Presentation, copies of which are available from Secretarial Services.
In response to questions from the Committee, the submitters gave the following answers:
Copies of the plans were available at the markets that have been happening once a month since October 2011. In relation to the plans for the centre island that was in the original plan, people had raised concerns or issues around that so we have removed that aspect of it. We gave out 1,500 flyers to the Glengarry Community last month to let them know that the market was happening and inviting them to come along and look at the plans.
041 2. In terms of costings, we have met with Mr McIntosh and we are in the process of working that out.
Cr Ludlow said it was a very eco−friendly proposal and it was phenomenally commendable. It was great to see the community going out and consulting on the redevelopment of Glengarry itself, with some assistance from the Council. This was one of the most forward thinking initiatives that had come from any part of our community. It would be interesting to see how it progressed through the Long Term Plan process.
Cr Kruger thanked the representatives for their presentation.
3. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
The report had been circulated.
3.1 Community Council Consultation Programme
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Buck and RESOLVED that the report be received.
4. MONITORING OF PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
4.1 Levels of Service 1 July 2011 to 31 January 2012
4.1.1 Democratic Process
4.1.2 Destinational Marketing
4.1.3 Enterprise
4.1.4 Investment Property
Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Lewis and RESOLVED that the report be received.
5. MONITORING OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES
The report had been circulated.
5.1 Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services
5.1.1 Financial Results to 31 December 2011
5.1.2 Financial Statements
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the report be received.
6. ACTION SHEET
Nil. 042 7 OTHER BUSINESS
7.1 Report of the Chief Executive Officer
7.1.1 Green Paper for Vulnerable Children
Cr Ludlow took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Esler and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Finance and Policy Committee endorse the submission prepared on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children.
8 EVENTS POSITION PAPER
Rex Capil from Venture Southland was in attendance to speak to this Item.
Cr Dean and Mr Capil took the meeting through the report.
In response to questions from the Committee, Cr Dean gave the following answers:
The funding will stay with the Invercargill City Council and be administered by Invercargill City Council.
2. The scope that I was looking at is just the $100000 funds and not the Iconic Events Fund, but now that it has been raised, if there is a group of people that know a lot about events, then they may as well use it for that role.
3. The approach is to start with what we can control and then develop on from there, but this is only our starting point.
4. One of the roles of the Advisory Group, if it's formed, is to liaise with the other funders and try to encourage them to make it mandatory that when funds are given out for an event, that as part of its funding it must include how it will contribute to key strategic issues.
5. Yes, I agree that the resolution be amended to say that "Council endorses the setting up of a group to determine the Terms of Reference for an Advisory Group."
Cr Kruger asked if there were any Councillors who wanted to express an interest in being involved with the initial group to set up the Terms of Reference. Cr Ludlow, Cr Dean and His Worship the Mayor acknowledged their interest to be part of the Group.
His Worship wanted to see more money being invested in the community. They had a meeting yesterday to look at what events Council had and it did not include the educational forum that was being marketed in Queenstown.
Cr Kruger agreed with His Worship and advised members of the Group to also consider how many elected members should be on the Advisory Group and whether the group would want to make recommendations back to Council and wait for a decision or whether the Committee would want delegated authority.
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the report be received, 043 AND THAT
Council confirms the Position Paper objective and approach,
AND THAT
Council endorses setting up a group to determine the Terms of Reference for the establishment of the Venture Southland/Invercargill City Council Events Advisory Group accordingly.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
9.1.1 Southland Warm Homes Project
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Buck and RESOLVED that the report be received.
9.1.2 Appointment— Risk Officer
Mr King took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Dean that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the position of Risk Officer be filled as soon as practicable.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr King gave the following answers:
Funding for the appointment of a Risk Officer can be pulled out of existing budgets. Looking at the global picture, most of Council's budgets are running behind, but what's also happened is that Council has positions across the Council that have not been filled.
2. We had a part−time position about four to five years ago and we have an active Health and Safety Committee, but when you look at the reports from Price Waterhouse, Assessing Global Risk in our various areas, Health and Safety is number one. Whilst we could wait, I don't think it's desirable.
3. The obligations on Council under the Health and Safety and Employment Act is huge. Tiwai has a Zero Accident Policy, which they have spent thousands of dollars on, this position is ongoing. You need to have an active plan, it has to be updated, you're continually looking and identifying risks and you're ensuring that staff using equipment are following procedures. That is our obligation.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
9.2 Report of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services
9.2.1 Delegation for the Hearing and Plan Changes and the District Plan Review
Cr Ludlow informed the meeting that this Item was to be withdrawn and clarification on where the District Plan delegations sat would be brought back to a future Council meeting.
044 Cr Kruger asked the Committee for comments in relation to where District Plan matters should sit, to give the framework for developing another report back to Council. Comments included:
I think the Regulatory Committee and the Hearings Panel are not always the same. They tend to have the qualification and the experience to listen to the Hearing, but probably the District Plan is an issue for the whole of Council to consider. I know that other councils set up delegated authority to a Hearings Panel for the District Plan, because it can go on for weeks and unfortunately if you don't sit through the process then you can't decide. I think that if you're going to open it up, you would need to ensure that you have a Committee of people who have the experience, can commit to the District Plan and don't have a conflict of interest. For those who are not on the Hearings Panel who want to want to sit on it, they can easily come up to speed on the process of the Hearing.
2. I agree that these things can be time consuming and some people may not have the time or the interest and experience of sitting on the Hearings Panel, If we are going to have a delegated authority there would need to be a limit on numbers, because if a person is going for a Plan Change, the last thing they want is to sit for a week on a panel of 13 Councillors. There will also be a cost issue involved so we should have a maximum of seven which is the majority of Councillors. There should probably be a minimum as well.
3. The important principle we need to think about is that, this is a Policy of Council so like the Liquor Policy we need to have Council input. If you delegate the three people or six people then unfortunately, only those six people can make a decision. It can become too tight. The principle is that every Councillor should have the right to participate in the Hearing. As long as they are there for the whole Hearing then they can make that decision.
4. My only request is that we don't come back with one option, but two or three options for Council to discuss, because there are lots of ways that councils across New Zealand delegate a Hearings panel.
Mrs Gare informed the Committee that a person not being able to sit in on a Hearing was not recognised as good practice under Resource Management.
Mr King said there was a legal precedent where it had been challenged before, where Cr Ludlow was away during a Hearing and the legal advice Council got back is that the final decision could be challenged if he was part of the decision making process.
Cr Kruger informed the meeting that the Hearing was not remunerated currently if it was a Council initiated District Plan Change. She was of the understanding that there were certain suggestions to Wellington that it was a time consuming process and it should be part of our response to the Remuneration Authority. She thanked the Committee for their input into the matter.
9.2.2 Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services
Mr Kumar took the meeting through the report.
045 Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Elder that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services be adopted for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure and that the consultation period run alongside the Long Term Plan consultation.
Cr Kruger asked if the Committee would consider an amendment to the resolution, that "the Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services be adopted for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure as part of the Long Term Plan."
Mr King commented that the intent would run parallel if it was referred to in the Long Term Plan. The Plan says that this document was in more detail, and people would have the opportunity to comment on the Long Term Plan plus this document. He read out Section 125 of the Local Government Act in relation to this document.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mrs Gare gave the following answers:
1. By putting the Summary in the Long Term Plan means that you don't have to put the full document in the Plan, but the document does go out for consultation.
2. Alternatively, you will need to put full assessment into the Long Term Plan. It still needs to be consulted on with a formal Council resolution and be available for comment.
3. The document will be advertised with a small distribution.
After discussions, it was agreed that the original recommendation still stood.
Cr Boniface informed the Committee of some changes that needed to be made to the document before it could be distributed.
The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.
9.3 Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services
9.3.1 Invercargill City Charitable Trust
Mr King took the meeting through the report.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the Invercargill City Charitable Trust be exempted from being a Council Controlled Organisation pursuant to Sections 7(3), and 7(5) of the Local Government Act 2002.
9.3.2 Development Contribution Policy
Mrs Short took the meeting through it.
Comments included:
The incentive isn't there so it should be no charge if you're going to re−build south of Tay Street.
046 2. One of the concerns of Council is having fully serviced sections not utilised, and growth happening in the other areas. I would support anything that can be done to encourage someone to build on a fully serviced, unoccupied section in Invercargill.
3. My concern is that there are a number of small sections that may need to be amalgamated into one.
4. My understanding is that the average section in north Invercargill is between $90000 and $190000 whereas in south Invercargill, its $35000 to $55000 so $5000 is not going to make a difference in relation to the remission.
5. The remissions issue raises a whole lot of problems. Everybody who is subdividing will argue that they are creating a benefit, therefore everybody will qualify for a remission. I don't think you should draw a line and say anything south of Tay Street, because that will ignore what was in Jill Corson's report about other parts of Invercargill. We can't say that south Invercargill is a problem area, because it's not and $5000 is not a lot.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mrs Short gave the following answers:
What we have written into the clause as it stands at this time is that it allows Council to consider remissions, where it's satisfied that the remission promotes the four well−beings. It includes an exceptional circumstances reason which Council will probably need to get some parameters around what Council constitutes as an exceptional circumstance. What the bulk of the remission clause is, that the development contribution is going to have to be over $30000 on any given lot, which would be a large industrial area or commercial type building or any adjacent lots to quality for a remission.
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Esler that a vacant lot should not be given a credit.
The motion, now being put was LOST.
Moved Cr Dean, seconded Cr Ludlow that a half dwelling equivalent credit will be applied to all activities for any existing residential vacant lots that were issued with a section 224(c) certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 before 1 July 2012.
The motion, now being put was LOST.
Note: Cr Dennis left the meeting at 5.54 pm.
Note: The Meeting adjourned at 5.55 pm and commenced at 6.30 pm.
Mr King said after listening to the discussions earlier, if you looked at Option 2, take out the word "half' and add the word "full". The second part is issue in relation to the Central Business District on revitalisation being the key element for Council. That area had already been defined by Cr Elder's Committee and could be included as a full exemption.
Mrs Short took the meeting through the remissions part of the recommendation.
04? After discussions on Council's preferred option to put out for consultation, Cr Kruger informed the meeting that Mr King had suggested Option 2, and changing "half" to "full" and take out the word "residential vacant lots' and just have "lots". The defined Central Business District golden triangle, which would be defined around property boundaries, as being an area that would clearly be stated to attract remission. It had been suggested that, because Council wanted to ensure that the major developers on Greenfields Developments is paid in full, that maybe Council should not encourage a $30000 cap at all. It should be left out for now.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Sycamore and RESOLVED that a full dwelling equivalent credit will be applied to all activities for any existing lots that were issued with a section 224(c) certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 before 1 July 2012,
AND THAT
Any development within the defined City Centre area will be considered for a remission, with no $30000 cap.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Lewis that Council will consider a remission on development contributions when a development provides exceptional circumstances that contribute to achieving Council's strategic goals.
The motion, now being put, was LOST.
Note: His Worship the Mayor abstained from voting.
9.3.3 Long Term Plan − Working Draft
The Long Term Plan − Working Draft had been circulated.
Cr Kruger stressed the fact that this was not the Draft Long Term Plan, it was a Working Draft. She was advised that the financials in the Plan, that while they were based on accurate Asset Management figures, the starting point of development had been brought forward, were originally determined from the Annual Plan. They needed to be tweaked so that they were determined from the end of year Annual Report. There were some tweaks to be made to the document, but it had no effects on the rates bottom line.
The Committee went through the document and made suggestions for staff to take on board and amend for the Draft Long Term Plan document.
Cr Lewis raised a concern with regard to the Rugby Park Stadium that it had not come to a Council meeting and Cr Kruger agreed and said that it was put in the Working Draft in anticipation of having a discussion on it tonight. It needed to be discussed, because of audit pressures. It did not commit Council to anything and the suggestion was to put out for public consultation with no commitment going forward.
Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the Council preferred option is Option 3, "That Council does not provide or take over ownership of Rugby Park".
Note: Cr Ludlow left the meeting at 7.15 pm.
048 Moved Cr Elder, seconded His Worship the Mayor and RESOLVED that the Long Term Plan − Working Draft be received.
9.3.4 Long Term Plan − Summary
The first page of the Summary version was tabled and Cr Kruger took the meeting through it. The Committee went through the summary version together.
Moved Cr Elder, seconded Cr Buck that the Long Term Plan Summary version be received with suggested amendments as discussed.
Cr Kruger reassured the Committee that staff would tidy up the Summary Version, as it needed to be sent to the Auditor General by this Friday.
10 URGENT BUSINES
Nil.
11 COUNCIL IN PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION
Moved Cr Kruger, seconded Cr Elder that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
(a) Report by Cr Graham Lewis
The general subject 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(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in Section 48(1) for the considered relation to each matter passing of this resolution
(a) Charter for To protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) Invercargill City natural persons. Council Audit and Risk Committee
040 015,10 TO: COUNCIL MEETING
FROM: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2012
SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP − KUMAGAYA
Report Prepared by: Richard King, Chief Executive Officer
SUMMARY
The formal Sister City relationship with Kumagaya will be 20 years old next year and those members of the Invercargill community with direct links are supportive of its continuance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Council maintain its Sister City ties with Kumagaya and renew its Sister City Agreement in 2013.
IMPLICATIONS
1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Yes, the views of interested persons have been obtained.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The cost of maintaining the Sister City relationship is included in the Long Term Plan.
SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP − KUMAGAYA The Sister City relationship between Invercargill and Kumagaya had its beginnings in the early 1990's when a small group of businessmen who wished to trade in Japan approached the Council with a formal proposal.
051 At that stage it was considered essential that a Sister City relationship be formed with Kumagaya as a prerequisite for trading relationships to be established. Following inter−city visits from the Mayors and Councillors, a Sister City Agreement was signed in 1993 and re−signed 10 years later in 2003. The agreement records as follows:
"The cities of Invercargill, New Zealand and Kumagaya, Japan, having developed bonds of friendship over a number of years, hereby proclaim the linking of the two cities as Sister Cities. This agreement epitomises the mutual desire to promote and foster friendship and goodwill between the citizens of both cities. Through the sister relationship both cities shall be involved in educational, cultural, sporting, commercial and other exchanges and strive to deepen the mutual understanding and trust of each other so that hosting friendly relations will evolve in the years ahead."
Renewal
The Sister City relationship is due for renewal in February 2013 and Mayor Tomioka and approximately eight Kumagaya City Councillors intend to be in the city during the period 14−17 February.
Annual Costs
The current budget to cover the cost of the Sister City Agreement is $40000 per annum, of which $5000 is provided to the Kumagaya Friendship Association in Invercargill. This is included in the Long Term Plan. Each city has a similar organisation to assist in inter−city visits and exchanges.
Comments from Interested Parties
Attached as Appendix I is a report prepared for and printed in the Southland Times in June 2003 which was a summary of the relationship to that date.
I sent a copy of that document to interested parties requesting an update from their point of view, and have received the attached replies:
Penny Simmonds − Southern Institute of Technology Yvonne Browning − Southland Girls' High School Richard Hay − Southland Chamber of Commerce Ian Baldwin − Southland Boys' High School Southland Export Forum Andrew Wood − James Hargest College Joe Bagrie − Quality Foods Geoff Lange − Al Auto Services Tom Sawyer − Kumagaya Friendship Association
All are supportive of continuing the relationship with Kumagaya, with the exception of the Southland Export Forum who believe China may offer greater trade opportunities than Japan.
052 EBSCOhost Appendix 1
Record: I Title: Healthy sister−city relations Section: Source: Southland limes, The, 27/06/2003, p7 Document Type: Article Abstract: INVERCARGILL ratepayers have spent $160000 on funding a sister city relationship with the Japanese city of Kumagaya since 1993. Invercargill City Council media and research officer EIRWEN TULETT talks to the supporters. Accession Number: SLT030627−7−2034370V1 Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre Edition: 1, Section: FEATURES−−GENERAL, pg. 7 Healthy sister−city relations
INVERCARG1LL ratepayershave spent $160000 on funding a sister city relationship with the Japanese city of Kumagaya since 1993. Invercargill City Council media and research officer EIRWEN TULETT talks to the supporters.
OPINION is divided between those who fervently believe the average of $16000 a year, used to host Japanese delegations in Invercargill and fund council exchanges to Kumagaya, is money well spent, and those who think it is a waste of ratepayers' money.
Leading the supporters is Invercargill businessman Joe Bagrie, one of the founders of the sister−city agreement with Kumagaya, who believes the financial returns to Invercargill prove the sister−city relationship is a good investment of ratepayers' money.
"The trade between our two cities is a small but growing one. Currently about $380000 of Southland products are sold to Kumagaya each year, which includes honey, bakery products and carrots," he said.
The trade is not all one way.
Invercargill−based Al Auto Services Ltd imports more than twice that value in car parts from Japan each year.
Managing director Geoff Lange, who had been importing car parts from Japan before Invercargill signed the agreement with Kumagaya, credits the sister−city relationship with turning his business around.
Mr Lange, who now travels to Japan on business every six weeks, said he had tried unsuccessfully during three or four visits many years ago to access suppliers from around Japan. It was only when he was taken under the wing of the international secretariat of the Kumagaya City Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the Kumagaya International Friendship Association that doors were opened for him.
However, the exchange of people (mostly students) between Kumagaya and Invercargill is where there are even more economic benefits.
Joe Bagrie estimates that groups of visitors from Kumagaya to Invercargill during the past 10 years have brought more than $2 million into the Invercargill economy. It is a reflection of the high discretionary
http://web.ebsoohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=33ae49b6−be9f−4fdc−b207−95ed73e8f3b9%4osessionmgr... 10/Nov/1l
0ty EBSCOhost Page 2 of 4
spending of Japanese compared with New Zealanders.
Mr Lange said the $2 million estimate was too conservative and believed the figure to be much higher.
"We had an exchange student for a year and he would have put $25000 to $30000 into the Invercargill economy.
He was 25 years old, an adult student.
He bought a car, did a course at SIT, wont to Hargest and did a lot of socialising in town," he said,
James Hargest High School acting deputy principal and director of the international student programme Jenny Elder agrees the city reaps the economic benefits of the Japanese spending. During the past six years that Hargest has hosted visitors from Kumagaya, the Japanese students and teachers have left Invercargill with their bags full of things they have bought in the city, she said.
Mrs Elder is adamant that other benefits of the sister−city exchanges should be measured −− including the educational benefits it offers Invercargill students.
Southland Boys' High School and Southland Girls' High School also have brother and sister schools in Kumagaya with whom they participate in exchanges. Mt Anglem College is planning its first visit to Kumagaya in 2004.
To critics who argue that youngsters don't need a sister−city relationship to travel overseas, Mrs Elder lets the students themselves reply.
Rebecca Sandri, a Year 13 student at James Hargest High School, said her parents appreciated everything that the council did for her while she was in Japan.
"It is so much safer than when you are going by yourself, rather than going to a random city. You felt like you were wanted there. It made it a lot safer going into a city where you did not speak the language, especially when you were travelling around," she said.
Mrs Elder agrees. With responsibility for 20 children in a foreign country, it was good to know help was at hand from the Kumagaya City Council In the unlikely event that something did go wrong.
The direct council−to−council contact was also crucial for the doors it opened for Invercargill schools ri Kumagaya, she said. Hargest has now formed a sister−school relationship with Kumagaya Nish! High School.
"It wouldn't have happened without the formal backing of the Kumagaya and Invercargill city councils," she said.
Both Jenny Elder and Rebecca Sandri are adamant about the benefits of the sister−city exchange.
Rebecca said the exchange improved her ability to speak Japanese by giving her the opportunity to hear colloquial Japanese, which is very different to what is taught in the classroom. The exchange has also given her the confidence to plan a working holiday in Japan before she begins university.
Mr Bagrie insists there is also long−term financial value in Invercargill students visiting Kumagaya.
http://web.ebscohost.comlehostldelivery?sid=33ae49b6−be9f−4fdc−b207−95ed73e8f3b9%4osessionmgr,,. I 0/Nov/1 I 054 LB SCOhost Page 3 of 4
The children of today are the traders of tomorrow and the relationships they forge in Japan today will benefit Invercargill in the future," he said.
Mr Bagrie is scathing of critics who portray the sister−city exchange as a free−holiday scheme dreamed up by councillors.
"In fact, it was Invercargill businessmen, not local body politicians, who in 1988 approached Kumagaya to try and establish trading links with the city. We targeted a Japanese city because Japan was New Zealand's second largest market and offered a market of 125 million people," he said.
Kumagaya was chosen because even though it was only 65km from Tokyo, in Japanese terms it was similar to Invercargill −− an agricultural town, with flat open spaces, mountains in the background and friendly, conservative, rugby−mad people.
"We businessmen quickly found that to be accepted by the city of Kumagaya we needed to demonstrate that we had the approval of the Invercargill City Council. At our request Eve Poole visited Kumagaya in 1991 to show lnvercargill's commitment and in 1993 she signed the official sister−city agreement," he said.
In the past 10 years Invercargill has sent either the mayor or deputy mayor and three councillors to Kumagaya every second year, while Kumagaya has sent a sizeable delegation to Invercargill almost every year.
Cr Thelma Buck, well known for her cautious approach to spending ratepayers' money, believes there are benefits in councillors visiting Kumagaya −− although she thinks not so many councillors should visit each Me.
Cr Buck visited Kumagaya for five days in 2000 and said "it was an awakening for me." "I just felt that we see their students around town. We have no idea what sort of lives they live and the only way we can find out is to look for ourselves," she said.
Cr Buck has maintained a 10−year friendship with Chuuji Ozawa, who came to Invercargill for the inaugural sister−city signing In 1993. Mr Ozawa and his wife Ekuyo made a special effort to host Cr Buck on her visit to Kumagaya.
Mr Bagrie said the endorsement of the sister−city relationship by councillors like Cr Buck and the personal relationships they formed was vital.
"People who say this is unnecessary don't have an appreciation of conducting business internationally," he said.
The relationship between Invercargill and Kumagaya won an award from the Japanese Government in 2001, when it was judged to be the best sister−city relationship of 686 sister cities in Japan.
"If it is such a bad idea why do at least another 30 towns and cities in New Zealand have active sister city programmes?" Mr Bagrie said.
CAPTION:
10/Nov/Il 055 EBSCOhost Page 4 of 4
Kumagaya's town hail with the iconic image in the foreground.
This years delegation from Kumagaya joins its Invercargill counterparts in front of the signpost at Bluff.
Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt and Japanese sister city Mayor of Kumagaya Kiyoshi Tomioka admire the scupture called Pacific Rim which was unveiled on Saturday to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the sister−city relationship.
Picture: PETER MEECHAM
Copyright of Southland Times, The is the property of Southland Times, The. The copyright in an individual article may be maintained by the author in certain cases. Content may not be copied or emalied to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Southland Times, The, Jun 27, 2003, p7 Item: SLT030627−7−2034370V1
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=33ae49b6−be9f−4fdc−b207−95ed73 e8f3b9%4osessionmgr... 10/Nov/I1 058 Page 1 of 1
CoI Boyd
From: Michele Broad [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 28 February 2012 12:20 To: Carol Boyd Cc: Penny Simmonds; Sam Mackay Subject: SIT / Rissho relationship Attachments: SIT and Rissho relationship Feb 2012.docx Good afternoon Carol,
Please see attached document from Penny regarding SIT's relationship with Rissho. Let me know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment.
Kind regards
Michele Broad PA to the CEO & the HR Manager
Southern Institute of Technology Private Bag 90114 Irivercargill 9840
Phone 64 (0) 3 211 2699 / Direct Line: +64(0) 3 211 2606 www.sit.ac.nz
Enrol now for 2012−Study at our Campuses in Invercargill, Queenstown, Christchurch, Gore, or from home via STT2LRN Study Anywhere' Zero Fee Scheme Continues 2012, 2013, 2014....and is applicable to all NZ Citizens(residing within or out ofNZ) and Australian Citizens/Permanent Residents (must be residing within NZ) Visit hnn://wwwsitac.nz for more details.
Attention: This e−mail is privileged and confidential. If you are notthe intended recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. This e−mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal
28/02/2012 057 Southern Institute of Technology / Rissho University relationship which has developed from the Invercargill f Kumaguya Sister City relationship.
Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) has had a group of up to 30 Rissho University students from Kumaguya visit SIT for approximately 3 weeks every year for the past 18 years with only 1 interruption in 2009 when the trip was cancelled because of the bird flu epidemic.
Each group from Rissho University has a mix of social welfare, legal and environmental students who attend English Language classes, visit discipline specific organisations and get to experience some of New Zealand and Southland culture e.g. a visit to a Marae and a farm.
The activities at SIT and visiting organisations as well as weekend activities are fully charged to the University. Accommodation is provided by homestays who are paid a market rate. The annual tour generates a financial surplus for SIT as well as a positive financial impact on the homestay families and businesses the students interact with.
In recent years SIT has provided partial scholarships for 2−3 SIT students each year to spend 3 weeks at Rissho University in Kumaguya.
Frequently from the exchanges we have students who return with their families as tourists and occasionally a student has come to SIT to study full time.
Rissho University send staff with the group and also staff visit at other times during the year.
While the 3 week visit by the students is centralised on Invercargill, day trips are organised to Riverton, Catlins and Bluff as well as weekend trips to Te Anau and Queenstown.
We have not quantified the amount of the financial contribution to local businesses, however we do know that they spend extensively on gifts, particularly on chocolate to take home and each trip we have excess baggage allowance problems when they leave.
The Rissho relationship has assisted SIT develop further International relationships because we are able to use the long standing Rissho relationship as a reference for other institutions considering us as a potential partner.
The exposure of many SIT staff and students as well as homestay families to the Japanese culture assists us with the globalisation of SIT, i.e. our aim to ensure our graduates are familiar with and can cope with a global employment market.
SIT is fully committed to continuing a relationship with Rissho University and we are appreciative of the support we receive from Invercargill City Council to achieve this, i.e. the Mayor meeting each group of our students that come to SIT.
Having the backing of the Council endorsed sister−city relationship is critical to the credibility of the SIT! Rissho relationship.
058 Phone 03 211 6030 Fax 03 216 9010 Email [email protected] Address 328 Tweed Street, Invercargill, New Zealand
3 March 2012
Richard King Invercargill City Council Private Bag 90104 Invercargill 9840
Dear Richard
Re: Sister City Relationship − Kumagaya
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Kumagaya sister City Relationship review.
The commentary below reflects the comments of teachers who have been part of Kumagaya exchanges as well as the view of the school in general.
The Kumagaya exchanges reflect the values, directions and ethos that underpin the 21 StCentury New Zealand Curriculum. The New Zealand Curriculum document is the blueprint for which all schools base their teaching and learning. One of the key values is that of Diversity. Diversity is expected to be encouraged, modelled and explored in the classrooms of New Zealand. The following quote is from Ainslee Wilson, our Head of Languages, and sums it up nicely: "In the South/and Community, where compared to the rest of New Zealand, there is relatively little cultural diversity, having a sister school exchange enables our students to interact with others from a different culture when they may otherwise not have been able to do so. Having delegations from Kumagaya visit us in Invercargill enables our whole school community to learn about and appreciate another culture. Students are given opportunities to interact with their Kumagaya 'sister's' through hosting in their homes, or through teaching the Japanese student such things as New Zealand dance, how to make poi, cooking together, joining them at sports practices, and engaging together in forums on issues such as the environment. These sorts of activities give the students the opportunity to engage in small groups together and experience situations such as finding ways to communicate if there are language barriers".
Ultimately, our school and students are the richer for the experience. The personal growth of our girls involved In such exchanges can be seen in their growing independence (developing coping strategies), their tolerance (of differences in others) and willingness to extend their thinking beyond everyday occurrences.
For the school, the Kumagaya exchanges truly reflect our desire to expose our students to the Global Communities of the world, to increase the desire of our girls to interact and become more involved in Global Communities. Basically, we are hoping to extend their horizons. This is in keeping with our school motto, 'Not for school but for life we are learning'.
As a school, we have been very much reliant on the Invercargill City Council for support. A few years ago, our first sister school in Kumagaya was closed down. In order to form a new sister school relationship, we had to go through the correct channels Le. through our city councils. Over time, and as a result of city council visits by delegations both to Invercargill and Kumagaya, a new sister school was offered to us. If
059 Invercargill's official sister city relationship were to end, it would make such situations as these difficult to initiate.
Finally I would like to commend the Council for its support of the Educational Institutions in Invercargill. They as always, have been willing to host Mayoral receptions for our Kumagaya visitors and that along with the support of the Kumagaya Friendship Group, have made the visit (by Kumagaya) more memorable.
From our point of view, not all initiatives can be measured in money terms. The role modelling by the council in promoting Global Citizenship amongst the students of Invercargill is something that may be seen in tangible ways. However, quality experiences in life add very much to the development of quality citizens. Invercargill would be a poorer place without our link to Kumagaya.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Yvonne Browning Principal
060 Incorpoi'aling: Invercargill Southland Export forum Eastern Southland Southland Manufactures Assn Central Southland Southland Young Enterprise Fiordland Biz Directory Southland 8us11)e55 Vitality Southland Export Trust Southland Mann lactures Trust B2hSouthland Magazine 20 February 2012
Mr R King C.E.O Invercargill City Council Private Bag 90104
Dear Richard
Sister City relationship − Kumagaya
The Chamber of Commerce Southland forwards this submission with relevance to the renewal or otherwise to the Invercargill − Kumagaya agreement duo to expire in 2013.
The Chamber of Commerce holds foundation roots in this relationship. Some of our export members, who were trading in Kumagaya, had built up firm relationships between the respective Chambers. This set the grounds for meaningful talks, which led to the wider and closer connections between the two cities and bought the respective councils together for a sister city agreement.
Mr Tom Sawyer, the Chamber Chairman at the time, was actively involved in the formation of the sister city relationship and at his helm the Chamber assisted in making the agreement a reality. The Chamber continues to be actively involved with links to the Kumagaya Chamber and as a committee member in the Invercargill − Kumagaya Friendship Association. Since the signing of the agreement in 1993, Chamber exporters continued to trade with Kumagaya and introduced other potential exporters to its city.
In 1999 Chamber Southland hosted a 9−day trade and fact−finding mission to Kumagaya. This included the Chamber President, Mr Steve Brass, and the Executive Officer Richard Hay along with four Chamber businesses, This mission represented a number of potential business taking samples of product and displays of produce and wares. Through this approach, many pre organised 'one on one' meetings were held, as well as a trade showcase event, which was attended by some 60 Kumagaya Chamber member business.
On return and reporting on the mission, it was concluded that there was very limited potential for further trade between the two cities, other than what was already in place with existing Invercargill exporters. The very nature of Kumagaya's appetite for Invercargill products and service and Invercargill's appetite for Kumagaya products and services was, by its nature, very restrictive in their and our product buying needs.
As at today, the one−way trade that was enjoyed by Invercargill has since ceased. To our knowledge there is no direct trade either way between the two cities.
We submit: It is our belief that in the foreseeable future, any export or import trade between Kumagaya and Invercargill is extremely unlikely. An Invercargill − Kumagaya sister city relationship agreement should not be extended if the foundation or expectation on this included direct trade.
We submit: That if Council's intention is to see a working sister city agreement that has meaningful trade outcomes, then Council should look towards cities outside of Japan.
'Jc1 The Invercargill − Kumagaya Sister City relationship, although originally formed from the activities and connections of the Invercargill exporters, has since flourished into a valuable relationship for the Invercargill community in the areas of education, cultural, and sporting activities. This is demonstrated well in the numerous school exchanges of students and teachers that take place each year, supported by, when affordable to them, sporting and cultural groups. We recognise that these exchanges have significant value to those who take part and to the community as a whole.
We further recognise that the personal relationships forged through such exchanges and visits by our younger citizens lead, if fostered, to building the right connections and links for future trade opportunities as both communities and citizens grow and mature in the relationship.
On an economic front, and given that we believe trade between the two cities is currently restrictive, we also recognise the 'spend', although unquantifiable, within Invercargill city by the numerous yearly visitations, cannot be underestimated.
We submit: That although we believe that the expenditure by the Invercargill City Council on 'official visits' to Kumagaya is less than that of the reciprocal Kumagaya Council and much less that any monies spent by Kumagaya visitors in Invercargill, the Invercargill City Council never−the−less needs to review the cost and methodology of its official visits. This can be subject to a further submission and discussion at the appropriate time.
It is important to recognise that the community's official representatives, through an on−going and strong relationship at a City Council level, hold the glue that is fundamental to the success of any Sister City relationship. Without this, neither community would gain sufficient support and confidence to maintain a framework that would grow or sustain links and opportunities for any sector within either community.
We submit: With consideration to our comments made, our support for the renewal of the Invercargill − Kumagaya Sister City agreement.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hay, J.P C.E.O Chamber of Commerce Southland
P0 Box 856, 2 Esk St, Invercargill, New Zealand Ph 64−3−218−7188 Fax 64−03−218−7927 E−mail: [email protected] South land IsMar Web address: Chamber Southland www.mffierce.cQI Southland Business Directory
O(2 (\ Southland Boys' High School Phone. (03) Ofl 3003 Fr (03) 2 7414 trna rnbhnch no bs3e SbAN N ED tS &K as eco( Qv\ CI"
LSee4
Not for school but for We we are learning
0C3 I
How do you measure the success of The Sister City relationship?
Certainly, our students and school community has been blessed by sneak view of Japanese culture, lifelong friendship and experience. Educationally, The Sister City relationship has provided our students at SBHS the opportunity to increase international understanding and foster world peace by furthering international communication and exchange at the person−to−person level.
Through Sister City relationship, Our Brother School relationship has been developed to a positive association between SBHS and Kumagaya Boys 'High School and our school communities since 1995. Our fIrst school trip was 1 XI rugby team trip in 1992. The opportunity to participate in a Brother School relationship is open to our school with a desire to learn more about the language and culture of countries other than our own. Also, these are other benefits:
• Greater awareness, understanding, appreciation and respect of other cultures
• Better understanding our own community by sharing our way of life to other people in Japan
• Providing our students with a real opportunity to communicate in Japanese language
Encouraged students to learn Japanese language
Created and fostered our students involvement in international relation ship
• Enhanced our students self development, organisational and leadership skills
Promoted and fostered international friendships on a direct, personal basis
Provided Travel opportunities in a safe environment
1995 to 2010 Kumagaya Boys' visit annually. Over 200 Kumagaya Boy's students visit SBHS. We have agreed to change annual visits to biannual due to economic difficulty and over committed to sustain this relationship. Kumagaya Boy's is coming to school for 2 weeks in July this year.
SBFIS visit Kurnagaya Boys' every 2 years, however we had to postpone our trip in 2011 to 2013 due to 2011 Tohoku Great Earth quake in Japan.
O€4 P0 Box 856 Invercargill Southland Export Forum b Ph 64+3+2187188 Fax 64+3+2187927 South g Email [email protected] O1t'S V,1fly Port NZ Website www.coinmercesouth.com
Submission on Proposed Renewal of Kumagaya Sister−City Relationship Submitted by Southland Export Forum to Invercargill City Council
Introduction
The Southland Export Forum (SEF) was established in 2000 as a result of key regional exporters working with the Southland Chamber of Commerce to establish an entity which would: • represent exporters' views on policy issues • promote networking, educational and social events • recognise significant business/individual contributions to the export sector • assist start−up export orientated businesses
The current SEF Committee consists of Mark O'Connor (Chair), Calvin Claridge, Andee Gainsford, Graham Dick and Richard Hay.
Renewal of Kumaqaya Sister−City Relationship
SEF has become aware that ICC is currently evaluating the renewal of the existing Kumagaya Sister−City relationship and would like to lodge a submission reflecting the views of regional exporter businesses.
SEF believes that establishing a Sister−City relationship with an alternative global trading region would deliver greater value to Invercargill and Southland. The following comments are provided in support of this view:
• At the time that the original Sister−City agreement was entered into, Japan was a more significant trading partner for New Zealand than it currently is (refer data below) • SEF is not aware of any current material trading relationships that exist between Southland businesses and Kumagaya entities (excludes education/tourism elements). • Other parts of Asia, and in particular regions of China, are likely to offer far greater potential trade opportunities in comparison to Kumagaya • ICC should take into consideration the investment pay−back from renewing a relationship with Kumagaya relative to other trading regions outside of Japan.
New Zealand Economy GOP (as of statistical year ended December 2010): US $139 billion (NZ $182 billion). Real annual GDP growth rate: (as of the statistical year ending December 2010): 0.73%. Per capita income (December 2010): US $27500. Exchange rate (average for January to December 2010): US $1 = NZ $1.38 (US $0.72 NZ $1). Natural resources: Timber, natural gas, iron sand, coal. Agriculture (4.9% of GDP): Products−dairy products, meat, forestry products. Industry (goods−producing industries 20.5% of GDP, service industries 68,8% of GDP): Types−finance, insurance, and business services; manufacturing; personal and community services; transport and communication; wholesale trade; construction; government administration and defense; fishing, forestry, and mining; electricity, gas, and water. Trade (year−end December 2010): Exports to US−U.s $2.86 billion: meat, dairy, wine, wood and medical devices. Imports from US−US $3.34 billion: consisting primarily of machinery (including information and communication technologies equipment), aircraft, medical and veterinary instruments, motor vehicles (trucks), arid plastic resins. Major trading partners (rank ordered as of June 2011) − Australia, People's Republic of China, United States, Japan, Korea, and the UK.
In WE Of SouthLandF−− JAMES HARGEST COLLEGE KEEP FAITH Principal: Chief Executive Officer Mr A. P. Wood M.Ed.Adrnin, B.A., Dip Tvhg Invercargill City council Private Bag 90104 INVERCARGILL
Attention: Richard King
Dear Richard
Thank you for the opportunity to give some background from our point of view, concerning the Sister City relationship with Kumagaya (9 February 2012).
James Hargest College has been involved in this relationship since its very earliest beginnings, with a Japanese teacher named Hazel Seeto (now retired).
To this day, the relationship continues strongly and is highly valued by our school as one of a suite of International Programmes, trips and exchanges designed to build international understanding, tolerance and a positive, mature outlook in our students regarding New Zealand's place in the world.
We believe our connections with Kumagaya, along with those in Tacoma (Washington), France, Bangkok and Changmai (Thailand), are integral to our purpose as educators. In fact, (together with other schools) we are currently courting a developing relationship between the Changmai Council and the Southland District Council
The principles of the Internationally acclaimed "New Zealand Curriculum" include, for example, items regarding cultural diversity, inclusion, a future focus and the development of 'connected' international citizens (page 8, 9, NZC Document).
At Hargest we take this seriously, and value our involvement accordingly.
For your information, I have attached a summary page of the background to our involvement, and a list of benefits we perceive.
We strongly support the on−going civic relationship between Invercargill City and Kumagaya City. By investing in such relationships through our schools, we are indeed investing in a healthier society. Successful commercial partnerships, which are inevitably built on personal relationships, are but one tangible benefit among others for our community.
The Sister City relationship is an excellent example of the local body, education and commercial sectors working together. We sincerely hope that the Invercargill City Council sees fit to continue with it,
0 o in sin rely
Andrew Wood Principal JUNIOR CAMPUS SENIOR CAMPUS 6 Layard Street 288 Layard Street Invercargill, New Zealand Invercargill, New Zealand Telephone 03 217 9250 Telephone 03 217 6129 Fcsimiie (Y 217 1 S? Pmj1 ff kt na iqtnt−−,4hnrvr on1 nz Pcimilt 019. 01.151 Kumagaya and Sister City Benefits
BACKGROUND:
1. Hargest's first recent trips to Kumagaya were initiated in 2000 and have occurred every second year since then until 2008 Latest trips postponed due to Swine Flue, Tsunami, etc (There had also been trips with Hazel Seoto, a previous Japanese teacher, in the past) Established Sister School Relationship with Kurnagaya Nish[ High School in 19 November 2005. This took quite a bit of negotiation, support and time from the Kumagaya end (le 5 years before they would commit to an arrangement with JHC).
2. When James Hargest College travels to Kumagaya we are homestayed by Kumagaya Nishi High School The Kumagaya Friendship Association/City Hall have been very generous in sponsoring buses, functions etc The school is particularly generous in supporting James Hargest College financially and in their personal kindness, generosity and time A lot of personal sacrifices are made The cost of us visiting could be prohibitive for some students should this not be the case
3 Kumagaya Nishi visits James Hargest College every second year —they pay for homestay and special trips to Queenstown etc. James Hargest College desn'tcharge schooling and tuition fees.
4. Kumagaya City Hall usually visit Invercargill every year (except in 2011 due to earthquakes). Originally this was hosted by Rosedale, Tweedsmuir and James Hargest High School. For approximately the last 13 years James Hargest College has organised and hosted it. This is a fee paying arrangement where the students pay, for: • Homestay • ESOL • Special Activities and lrip.s NB Students come from a range of schools, but the trip Is organised largely by Kumagayn City Hall Previously JTB (Japan Travel Bureau) have had a large input at enormous cost It has taken years to convince those at Kumagaya City Hall that this is not necessary and are now they are only used to a limited extent. There is a small profit element built Into this trip.
5 Tomoko Tsunoda (ex Kumagaya City Hall) now works at a school in Tokyo She has initiated the idea of sending students to Hargest. She has lived in lnvercarglll and visited with school groups so is able to promote our city.
Overall Benefits: • Learn a lot from other cultures— tolerance, patience, generosity, humility, hospitality. • Almost a generation of connections between students, families. Many private friendships have formed and visits are continuing. Many have letter, email and skype contact with previous hosts/friends. • Development of the Japanese language in schools − huge — incentive of trip is a real motivator and the follow through into University and Exchanges to Japan. • Huge hospitality from Kumagaya — difficult to reciprocate • Our expenditure (input) probably less than theirs. • Very accepting of Kiwis, • Cultural benefits (changes attitudes of Kiwis and Japanese). • Intangible benefits —not so much monetary. • Huge privilege to be hosted (homestayed) In a Japanese family — one of your top 10 experiences.
R\3.n\f.h.\Mmh.\k..,.j.y. md 4Cty M.etU.d,c Message Page 1 of 1
Carol Boyd
From: joebagrie [joejltrading.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 24 February 2012 09:53 To: Richard King Subject: Sister City Hi Richard,
Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on the Sister City relationship with Kumagaya. While I am not living in Invercargill now I am still a member of the Kumagaya Friendship Association and have a reasonable knowledge of what is going on from a business point of view s well as the cultural and many exchanges that happen between the two cities.
I guess you will always get the 'detractors" in having such a relationship when those people will always struggle to appreciate the deeper values and benefits such a relationship offers. They will just see it from the point of view of 'cost'!
I would ask those same people how do they feel about the hundreds of thousand spent each year on ay Splash Palace, the Library, the Aviary, and even Parks and Reserves when not all ratepayers use the facilities. The average $16000 spent per year is in my view a drop in the ocean when you consider the benefits gained from the cultural and student exchanges and business opportunities for those who wish to spend time and their own money to pursue (we still do good business in the Kumagaya and Saitama prefecture (same as Southland is to lnvercargill) and if it were not for the Sister City relationship, I may not have even started exporting to that area). The introduction by Yagahashi san to the President of a confectionery company started what is a market of considerable size today.
Sure the main beneficiaries of the relationship between the two cities is children and I understand the bond today is as close as ever and this in itself is a great thing as we allow students to expand their horizons and appreciate different cultures and values, I believe it is imperative for the city to lead the way in maintaining and fostering the sister city relationship even if only looking at this part of it.
lnvercargill has certainly benefited as a city from the visits of the students, cultural groups and citizens over the years and to consider dropping all of this in my view is a backward step when one considers the overall benefits both personally and economically to the city for such a small investment compared with other spending Council is required to undertake.
Some five years ago I spoke of the $2 million plus the relationship had bought into the Invercargill economy so one would suggest that figure has probably risen to $3 million plus since then. Geoff Lange who still has an active import business from that part of the world suggested 5 years ago that the figure quoted was way too light and he will probably know so you see while those "detractors" only see an amount on the budget of Council, they are wrapped up their little cocoons without any understanding of affairs outside of lnvercargill and how the money spent on the relationship benefits Invercargill.
Some people may say why not look to China. Well let me assure you that the difference in the culture and ethics and how a sister city relationship would work there, is totally different and more difficult to what we presently have. I would be extremely disappointed to think the Council would let the relationship fold as it could be a backward step for all of those present and future children's opportunity to expand their international knowledge with a city wanting to and being willing to share with us here.
Hope all is going okay Richard and while I still get the Times up here and follow affairs with interest, you certainly don't have the problems of Christchurch and the devastation, Dunedin and the finances (or lack of), governance at Environment (although maybe you are all one in the future???'?) or the politics of Queenstown...... although with Vanessa that seems to be better these days.
Having said that and the review no doubt that will go on regarding all of the older buildings in Invercargill, I heard from a very well respected geologist that the safest city in NZ was Invercargill because of the large rock formation that goes from Bluff Hill, under Invercargill to somewhere out in the province and Invercargill would never suffer the devastation Christchurch has because of the solidarity this rock structure offers. Maybe Tim should get on to him so he can promote the fact of it being a safe place to be????
Plenty of rain eh? I think we have had about 60mm and out February average is about 55. A big difference to the past few months when the rainfall has been about 30 below average.
Cheers Joe
24/02/2012 068 Kumagaya Sister City Relationship
I was involved on the discussions for our Sister City Relationship and the beginnings of the formal set−up with Kumagaya 20 years ago. I believe my company is still the only one actually retaining working relationships with the city.
Without the Invercargill City Council and Chamber of Commerce helping me in providing credibility to my introductions in Kumagaya, it would have been significantly more difficult to trade with the area. The relationship between the two councils is critical for the relationship to proceed. It is involved at all levels−business, cultural and educational exchanges.
The people of Kumagaya welcome those from lnvercargill with real openness and friendship and are so proud and generous when showing off their city. They value this relationship hugely and have a very active and prestigious Friendship Association themselves.
The educational exchanges are very valuable as the children from both counties learn about another culture, and have the opportunity to develop empathy for others differences. This can then be applied back in their own countries as well.
The value this community achieves from the Sister City Relationship far outweighs any cost at Council level, in my view. It would be very inward thinking to retract the relationship, and our citizens will always be richer forthe relationship.
Geoff Lange 52 Mersey Street Invercargill 23Id February 2012
069 Mr Richard King,
Chief Executive Officer
Invercargill City Council
Private Bag
lnvercargili
17/2/12
Dear Richard
Kumagaya Sister City Relationship
Thank you for your letter of 9th February. On behalf of the KFA we appreciatethe chance to have input into our ongoing relationship with Kurnagava.
I have been involved with Kumagaya since the very beginning 19 years ago when as then Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce! was part of the team that helped to found the relationship. It was, I recall, initiated by Chamber members as having potential for increased business with Japan The soFe downside to the relationship to date is thatthis increase In businesshas not happened to the degree expected However, both here and In Kumagaya the respective associations are aware that should business opportunities present themselves, the degree1of friendship and trust built up over the years (essential to doing business in Japan) between our two cities wilt make the progressing of these opportunities so much easier. The new president of the KIFA confirmed his commitment to this attitude when I met him in Kumagaya last October.
The relationship has over the years taken off in an unexpected, scholastic and cultural direction.
With the support and encouragement of the icc, the scholastic and cultural interchanges between our two cities have grown rapidly Business and cultural proceedings in Japan are quite formalised Sister school contacts between the two cities have to go through the correct channels in Japan, and this means a major involvement of the Kumagaya City Council. The KC hs a lot of Input Into the programme of Invercargill school visits to Kurnagaya. ICC/KCC involvement and the sister city relationship were crucial to the setting up of the various school exchanges and are equally crucial to validate them in the future. Basically there is no way that these school relationships would have started without the sister city involvement, and were this sister city relationship to cease I fear there may be very negative ramifications to the schools.
07g We are now in the situation where, barring earthquakes, SARS and bird flu, up to 150 young people annually will exchange between the two cities. Three Invercargill secondary schools and the SIT show their support for the relationship by having:regular two way exchanges. The comments from Mrs Elder in Eirweri'sarticle need no elaborating and are as true and as positive today as they were in 2003
On a larger note, there are around 45 sister city relationships between Japan and New Zealand. This is more than NZ has with any other country. This fact alone tends to prove the worth of sister city ties with Japan,
It a measure of the success of our relationship that several years ago Kumagaya won an award for having the best city sister relationship throughout all Japan and including all countries.
In as far as the KFA is concerned we organise events to enhance the cultural exchange, giving teachers, councillors and the public the chance to mix and learn about our respective life styles. We are currently trying to locate Japanese Nationals living in Invercargill to widen our relationship with Japan.
When I was in Kumagàya last October, one of the main items that cropped up in conversation was the forthcoming 20 year anniversary of the relationship in 2013 The KCC have already decided which councillors will visit Invercargill as part of the celebrations Let us hope we can instill some of that positive spirit ininvercargilll
Kind Regar
Tom Sawyer
Chairman, KFA on behalf of the committee.
071 072 TO: COUNCIL
FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 13 MARCH 2012
URUPA BYLAW
Report Prepared by: Robin Pagan − Parks Manager Melissa Short − Corporate Planner
SUMMARY
At Council's meeting on 31 January 2012 it was determined that staff should present to Council a draft Urupa Bylaw for consideration. A Statement of Proposal incorporating the proposed Urupa Bylaw has been developed for Council's consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Statement of Proposal relating to the Draft Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga be adopted for consultation, with the submission period being 17 March to 20 April 2012.
IMPLICATIONS
1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? A new bylaw would be created. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Yes. Consultation has been undertaken as a part of the Resource Consent process and the adoption of the draft Bylaw for public consultation initiates the process under the Local Government Act 2002.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No financial implications result from this report.
0?3 INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 201211 − URUPA (MAORI BURIAL SITE) TE HAU MUTUNGA
At Council's meeting on 31 January 2012 it was determined that staff should present to Council a draft Urupa Bylaw for consideration. The draft Urupa Bylaw will address the problems raised by the lengthy timeframe surrounding Minister of Health approval in respect of disposal of Lot 1 DP 7967 to local Iwi, which land is held in trust for cemetery purposes and regulation of operating an Urupa on a short term basis until final transfer of land to Iwi.
A Statement of Proposal incorporating a proposed Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga Bylaw has been developed for Council's consideration (Appendix 1). A local authority must use the special consultative procedure in making a bylaw. This means that Council will need to resolve to adopt the proposed Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga for consultative purposes. The suggested consultation timetable is as follows:
17 March 2012 Statement of Proposal advertised for submissions. 17 March 2012 − 20 April 2012 Submission period. 28 May 2012 Infrastructure and Services Committee considers submissions and recommends amendments. 5 June 2012 Council adopts amended Bylaw. 1 July 2012 Bylaw comes into force.
CONCLUSION
The (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga Bylaw will enable Council to regulate the operation of an Urupa until transfer of the land to local Iwi pending consent of the Minister of Health. To continue the Draft Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga Bylaw process Council must use the special consultative procedure giving the community the opportunity to submit on the proposal.
074 APPENDIX I
Burial Site) Te Hau
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL − SUMMARY
The Invercargill City Council has developed a proposed Bylaw to enable it to address issues associated with regulating the operation of an Urupa (Maori Burial Site) at 118 Mason Road. The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 (Section 16) expressly provides for a local authority to make Bylaws to control cemeteries.
Pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 a full Statement of Proposal has been prepared. It is available for inspection at the Helpdesk of the Invercargill City Council, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill, at the Bluff Service Centre, and at the Invercargill Public Library. Copies are available on loan from the Library.
The Statement of Proposal may also be found on the Invercargill City Council website www. icc. govt. nz.
Submissions are invited on this Proposal. Submissions must:
1. Be in letter form, clearly showing the submitter's name, address and contact phone number. 2. Be addressed to the undersigned and clearly labelled SUBMISSION − Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga. 3. Indicate whether the submitter wishes to be heard by the Council in support of his/her submission. (Note − the substance of the submission should be in writing. Verbal presentations should be restricted to around five minutes.) 4. Be received by 5.00 pm on Friday, 20 April 2012.
C A MCINTOSH DIRECTOR WORKS AND SERVICES INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL 101 ESK STREET PRIVATE BAG 90104 INVERCARGILL
17 March 2012 STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL
Introduction
This is Council's Statement of Proposal as provided for by Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.
2. Proposed Invercargill City Council Bylaw 201211 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga (attached)
The primary purpose of the Bylaw is to enable Council to manage, regulate, protect, maintain and preserve the Urupa Te Hau Mutunga Cemetery at 118 Mason Road, Invercargill.
What is the Perceived Problem to be Addressed?
A decision was made in September 2005, after many years of discussion between Council and local Iwi regarding the need for an urupa in the Invercargill district. Council resolved that Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision of Lot I DP 7967 be sold to Iwi for $.100 subject to Iwi obtaining all necessary consents. Waihopai Runaka Holdings Limited applied for resource consent to develop and carry out all associated activities within the operation of an urupa on 18 April 2008. The application was heard by an independent commissioner and consent was granted, subject to conditions, in August 2008. An agreement was negotiated by Council with the then grazing lessee to relinquish part of his lease (being 118 Mason Road) so that the area would be available for cemetery purposes.
The land to be sold to Iwi is held in trust for Cemetery purposes. As such section 21(5) of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 requires that Council obtain the approval of the Minister of Health prior to the land being disposed of. As the timeframe surrounding the ministerial approval process is uncertain, Council has had to investigate other means of controlling the operation of an urupa in the immediate future on a short term basis. Regulation of the operation of the Urupa until the transfer of land to local Iwi can be completed needs to be addressed.
Is a Bylaw the Most Appropriate Method of Addressing the Perceived Problem?
The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 anticipates Councils adopting Bylaws to control activities within cemeteries. The direction provided in the Act indicates that a Bylaw is the most appropriate form of regulation open to territorial authorities for the control of cemeteries.
A bylaw will promote the social and cultural well being of the community by providing for the operation of the Urupa prior to the land transfer being
C completed. For many years local Maori deceased have been buried at Eastern Cemetery. Provision of the Urupa will provide certainty to local Maori, enabling cultural practices to be carried out where they have not always been compatible with the conventional management norms applied to municipally managed cemeteries.
What are the Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
Council is satisfied that the proposed Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw will not be inconsistent with this Act, that is, it imposes reasonable limits that can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Case law suggests that permanent prohibition of certain activities that the community may wish to undertake may impose unreasonable limits, for example not being able to erect headstones. Being able to regulate allows Council to make provision for whanau to erect headstones and memorials within specified limits. People also have an expectation that local authorities will control cemeteries within the district so that long term maintenance is minimised.
3. Place for Inspection and Obtaining Copies
The Statement of Proposal may be inspected at the Helpdesk of the Invercargill City Council, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill, at the Bluff Service Centre, and at the Invercargill Public Library.
The Statement of Proposal may also be found on the Invercargill City Council website www.icc.Qovt.nz.
4. Submission Period
Submissions are invited on the Statement of Proposal. Submissions must be received by Council no later than 5.00 pm on Friday, 20 April 2012.
Submissions should clearly show the submitter's name, address and contact phone number. (Submission forms may be obtained from all Council offices and libraries and on the Council's website www.icc.govt.nz.)
Submissions can be:
Posted to: Invercargill City Council Submission − Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga Private Bag 90104 Invercargill 9840
Delivered to: Helpdesk, Invercargill City Council, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill
Faxed to: 032111 433
E−mailed to: seMceicc. govt. nz
07 078 Invercargill City Council
Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga
11 It ( U [THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
080 CONTENTS SECTION Page
1. Short Title 3 2. Commencement 3 3. Scope of This Bylaw 3 4. Interpretation 3 5. Burials and Sale of Plots 4 6. Plan of Urupa and Register of Sales 4 7. Provisions for All Interments 4 8. Warranty to be Authority to Cemetery Attendant 4 9. Hours for Funerals 5 10. Cemetery Attendant or Assistant Only to Dig Grave 5 11. Burial of Ashes 5 12. Fees 5 13. Purchase of the Exclusive Right of Burial 5 14. Purchaser or Owner of Private Ground May Transfer 5 15. Keeping in Order 6 16. Shrubs and Trees 6 17. What Fees Cover 6 18. Deposit of Materials 6 19. Vehicles 7 20. Removal of Fences, Headstones, Plants etc 7 21. Misconduct 7 22. Soliciting of Orders 8 8 23. Interment Charges − Poor Persons 24. Disinterment 8 25. Memorial Park (Berm or Garden) 8 26 Offences and Penalties 10
Schedules
First Schedule Application for Warrant of Interment 11 Second Schedule Sexton's Warrant 13 Third Schedule Certificate of Purchase 15 Fourth Schedule Agreement for Pre−Purchase 17 Fifth Schedule Pauper's Cremation 19 Sixth Schedule Application Form for Monumental Work 21
081
Page lof2l 1 (THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
082
Page 2 of 21 1. Short Title
The Short Title of this Bylaw shall be the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2012/1 − Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga.
2. Commencement
This Bylaw shall come into force on 1 July 2012.
3. Scope of This Bylaw
This Bylaw regulates the Urupa Te Hau Mutunga Cemetery at 118 Mason Road, Invercargill. For the regulation of other cemeteries and the crematorium in the Invercargill District, please refer to the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2008/3 − Cemeteries and Crematorium.
This Bylaw does not prevent or restrict the Local Authority from exercising any further powers, functions or duties in relation to the Urupa in accordance with the law.
This Bylaw is made under Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 to manage, regulate, protect, maintain and preserve the Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga at Mason Road, Invercargill.
4. Interpretation
(a) In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:
(i) "Act" means the Local Government Act 2002.
(ii) "Authorised Officer" means any person appointed or authorised by the Local Authority to carry out or exercise the duties of an Authorised Officer under this Bylaw.
(iii) "Cemetery Attendant" means any person appointed by the Local Authority to control or manage or assist in the control and management of the Invercargill Urupa and to carry out burials as provided in this Bylaw.
(iv) "Local Authority" means the Invercargill City Council or a Committee of the Invercargill City Council or Officer authonsed to exercise the authority of the Invercargill City Council.
(v) "Vehicle" has the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Land Transport Act 1998.
(vi) "Urupa" means that portion of cemetery land identified from time to time by resolution of the Local Authority as the Invercargill Urupa, which shall also be known as a Maori Burial Site.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this Bylaw only applies to those parts of land set aside for the purposes of an Urupa (Maori Burial Site) situated at 118 Mason Road, Invercargill. 083 Page 3of2l 3 5. Burials and Sale of Plots
(a) Burials may be made in the Urupa subject to the conditions prescribed in this part of this Bylaw.
(b) Burial plots shall be sold upon such terms and conditions as may be decided by the Local Authority, including the setting of fees and charges.
6. Plan of Urupa and Register of Sales
(a) The Local Authority shall keep a plan of the Urupa and a register to record the burials and the number of each plot in which the exclusive right of burial has been purchased.
(b) The register will contain the name of the purchaser of an exclusive right of burial and the date of purchase. The plan and register for the Urupa shall be available for public inspection at the Eastern Cemetery office during office hours.
7. Provisions for All Interments
(a) No burial whatsoever shall be made in the Urupa without a burial warrant for that purpose obtained from an Authorised Officer.
(b) In all cases of intended burials, the funeral director or person having the management or control of the same shall make application in the form of the First Schedule heretoto an Authorised Officer for a warrant of such burial, and shall produce to an Authorised Officer such evidence of death as may be required; an Authorised Officer, for or on behalf of the Local Authority, is hereby authorised to grant such warrant in the form of the Second Schedule hereto.
(c) No such warrant shall be issued until there shall have been paid the fee for interment specified in the Invercargill City Council's Annual Plan. Provided, however, that in the case of an interment under the management or control of a funeral director, the Authorised Officer of the Local Authority may, at his discretion, waive the foregoing requirement as to prior payment and charge the cost of the same against the funeral director concerned on the basis of a monthly account, or such period as the Authorised Officer of the Local Authority decides.
(d) Notification of the intended burial shall be given to the Cemetery Attendant at least eight working hours prior to the time fixed for the funeral, and no such burial shall take place until the delivery to the Cemetery Attendant of the said warrant has been made.
8. Warrant to be Authority to Cemetery Attendant
The burial warrant when received by the Cemetery Attendant or assistant or any other person for the time being duly authorised by the Local Authority, shall be sufficient authority to the Cemetery Attendant or assistant for such burial, and after such burial the Cemetery Attendant or assistant shall sign the certificate at the foot of Page such warrant. 084
4of2l 4 9 Hours for Funerals
No funeral shall be held on any day except between the hours of 8.00 am and 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday, and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday, or such other hours as the Local Authority by direction may determine.
10 Cemetery Attendant or Assistant Only to Dig Grave
No person other than the Cemetery Attendant or assistant or any other person for the time being duly authorised by the Local Authority, shall dig any grave in, or open the ground for burial in, any part of the Urupa. The minimum depth of cover for any coffin shall be not less than 1 m.
11 Burial of Ashes
(a) Upon application being made in that behalf and the prescribed fees paid to the Local Authority the urn containing the ashes of any deceased person may be buried in the special portion of the Urupa set aside for that purpose or in any plot subject to an exclusive right of burial.
(b) No person other than the Cemetery Attendant or assistant or any other person for the time being duly authorised by the Local Authority, shall bury, or scatter or otherwise dispose of any ashes in any part of the Urupa grounds.
12. Fees
All fees under this Bylaw are specified in the Invercargill City Council's Annual Plan.
13. Purchase of the Exclusive Right of Burial
(a) That pre−purchase of right of burial be permitted with the plot allocated for the burial being made at the time of death − eg being the next available plot in the current burial area. The fees for the pre−purchase be kept in a special interest−bearing account to be withdrawn upon the burial of the client. The numbers of plots to be sold at any one time shall be left at the discretion of the Local Authority.
(b) An agreement in the form set out in the Fourth Schedule hereto shall be entered into between the Local Authority and the purchaser, and the purchaser shall pay to the Authorised Officer the purchase money for such right of burial.
(C) No burial shall take place in any plot in respect of which the right of burial shall be held by any person unless such person shall have consented to such burial in the form set out in the First Schedule hereto or the funeral director has satisfied himself that such burial is authorised.
14. Purchaser or Owner of Private Ground May Transfer
(a) Any purchaser or owner of the right of burial in any plot in which no burial shall have taken place may, with the consent of the Local Authority, transfer his or Page 5of2l 5 085 her interest in such ground to any other person upon payment to an Authorised Officer of such fee as the Local Authority by resolution decides.
(b) Where such exclusive right of interment has been purchased the Local Authority may, in lieu of consenting to any such transfer, require the holder of such right to surrender the same to the Local Authority upon payment to such holder of the price paid by him for such right, or a sum bearing the same proportion to such price, as the area proposed to be transferred bears to the original area over which such right was purchased, and any such holder shall comply with any such requirements.
15. Keeping in Order
All tombstones, headstones and other monuments shall be kept in proper order or repair by the purchasers of lots or their representatives or assigns.
16. Shrubs and Trees
(a) Shrubs planted in any portion of the Urupa may at any time be trimmed, removed, or cut down by the Local Authority.
(b) No tree, shrub or other plant shall be planted in the Urupa by any person without the consent of the Local Authority being first obtained.
17. What Fees Cover
Invercargill City Council's fees do not include payment for any work required to be done beyond the actual digging of an ordinary grave and, after burial, filling in the same.
18. Deposit of Materials
(a) No monumental mason or other person erecting or repairing any headstone, monument, or other work in, on, or around any grave in the Urupa shall make use of any footpath or other part of such cemetery for placing or depositing thereon any tools, planks, casks, or material in connection with the work of such erection, construction, or repair for a longer time than is reasonably necessary for the purpose of completing such work; any such mason or other person who, after service upon him of a notice in writing signed by an Authorised Officer, requesting the removal thereof within a time specified in such notice, shall neglect or refuse to remove any such tools, planks, casks, or material from such cemetery, shall be liable to prosecution for any offence against this part of this Bylaw.
(b) No person shall make use of any footpath or roadway in the Urupa for the purpose of mixing cement or mortar otherwise than upon a proper mixing board or in other approved manner.
O8(
Page 6of2l 6 19. Vehicles
(a) No person shall take any vehicle of any kind into the Urupa except between the hours of sunrise and sunset, or at such time as the Local Authority in any particular case by resolution decides.
(b) No person shall permit any vehicle of any kind under his control to remain in the Urupa after sunset on any day without the permission of the Local Authority.
(c) No person in control of any vehicle unless authorised by the Local Authority shall drive or conduct the same or permit the same to be on any part of the Urupa except the roads open for vehicular traffic.
(d) No person shall drive or conduct any vehicle of any kind in the Urupa at a greater speed than 15 kph, or than indicated on any road within the Urupa.
(e) All vehicles (other than hearses) shall yield unconditional right of way to any funeral procession.
(f) Every person driving or conducting any vehicle in the Urupa shall stop or move such vehicle as directed by the Cemetery Attendant or assistant.
(g) No person shall drive or conduct any vehicle in the Urupa except in the direction indicated by traffic notices.
20. Removal of Fences, Headstones, Plants etc
(a) No monumental mason or other person shall, without permission of the Local Authority, remove from the Urupa or from any grave, any kerb, headstone, monument, or tablet.
(b) No person shall, without authority, remove or take from the Urupa, or from any grave in the Urupa, any vase, wreath, plant, flower, or any other thing, except that the Local Authority may cause to be removed any neglected or broken material of this nature.
21. Misconduct
(a) Cemeteries are areas set aside for respectful contemplation. Visitors to the Urupa shall behave in a way that is respectful of other visitors' needs and cultural practices.
(b) No person shall, in any part of the Urupa, by any violent or improper behaviour, prevent, interrupt, or delay a funeral service.
(c) No person shall, in any part of the Urupa, behave in a manner which may adversely impact on other visitors' respectful contemplation. Such behaviour may include but is not limited to consumption of alcohol and/or food; littering; violent, aggressive, disrespectful or offensive behaviour; verbal abuse and/or excessive noise (human or mechanical).
087
Page 7of2l 7 22. Soliciting of Orders
(a) No person shall, in the Urupa, advertise or solicit any order or custom from any other person for any work whatsoever to be done in or in connection with the Urupa, or for the sale, preparation, or supply of any article, material, or thing to be set up, affixed, placed, or used in the Urupa.
(b) Except at the specific request of a purchaser of plots or their representatives or assigns, no persons shall, in the Urupa, accept or take any such order or custom as aforesaid.
(c) No commercial photographer shall, without the consent of the funeral director, or special permit in writing for the occasion from an Authorised Officer, attend any funeral for the purpose of taking photographs, including video footage.
23. Interment Charges − Poor Persons Where application is made to the Local Authority for the interment at reduced charges of any deceased poor person, the applicant shall, on making such application, furnish to the Local Authority a duly signed certificate certifying that such deceased person has not left sufficient means to pay the ordinary charge of interment fixed by this part of this Bylaw, and that his relatives and friends are unable to pay the same. Such certificate shall be in the form specified in the Fifth Schedule hereto or to the like effect. No headstone shall be allowed to be erected unless the authority's cost for purchase of plot and burial is paid for.
24. Disinterment
Where an application for a disinterment is received by a Local Authority, the disinterment shall be conducted pursuant to Sections 51 and 55 of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and subject to the payment of such fees specified in the Invercargill City Council's Annual Plan.
25. Memorial Park (Berm or Garden)
(a) Interments
Interments may be made in ground in the Urupa set apart by the Local Authority for the purpose of a memorial park (berm or garden cemetery) and shown on a plan prepared by the Local Authority, but no fences or monuments other than headstones shall be erected, or trees, shrubs or flowers planted except as approved by the Local Authority, and no kerbing shall be erected anywhere within the precincts of such memorial park cemetery.
(b) Erection of Memorials
(i) Upon application being made in that behalf and the prescribed fees paid to the Local Authority, a memorial may cause to be erected in the following manner.
(ii) The Local Authority shall construct or cause to be constructed a continuous concrete platform or berm at ground level or below as required, of a width suitable to maintain stability, ranging from 650mm Page 8of2l 8 088 if underground set on solid subsoil, to 1370mm if flush with surface on which base or platform foundation work for all memorials will be placed. The cost of the platform shall be included in the purchase price of the plot.
(iii) Concrete or granite based work for all memorials shall not stand higher than 150mm above the highest point of the concrete berm or ground level, whichever is the higher, and shall be of a depth (front to back) of 544mm and shall, where required, allow insets for flower containers. If concrete, the base for the headstone shall be finished in grey cement.
(iv) On surface berms (or platforms) a space of 75mm clear of such memorial foundation base shall be maintained, both front and back.
(v) No erected memorial shall, at the head of the plot, be wider than I m in the case of a single plot or 2m in the case of a double width (family) plot.
(vi) No erected memorial shall, at the head of any plot, be higher than 1.5m. Such memorial shall comply with sound engineering principles. All structural materials used in the memorial shall exhibit high atmospheric corrosion−resistant properties and have a minimum predicted service life of fifty years. Any stone selected shall be sound, durable and of proven suitability.
(vii) Memorials are permitted to be constructed from natural stone. Clear or frosted glass memorials, subject to design, will be approved by the Parks Manager on behalf of the Local Authority. The memorial is permitted to be coloured. No memorial will be permitted if it is deemed offensive. The plans of any memorial shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Authority before the erection of any such memorial is permitted in accordance with the Sixth Schedule.
(viii) If a memorial is deemed inappropriate by the Parks Manager, an applicant may apply, in writing, for the application to be reconsidered by the Invercargill City Council.
(ix) In constructing bases and in erecting memorials, the adjoining roads, paths or allotments shall not be injured.
(xi) Statues are permitted and subject to the same requirements as a headstone.
089
Page 9of2l 9 (c) Shrubs, Trees and Flowers
(i) No shrubs, trees or flowers shall be planted and maintained in the Urupa except such as shall be planted as and where directed by the Local Authority or its duly Authorised Officer.
(ii) In the area set aside solely for the burial of children (up to and including ten years of age), the next−of−kin may be permitted to carry out plantings of miniature shrubs or flower plants to a width of a maximum of 300mm from the front of the concrete beam.
(d) Vaults, and Brick or Walled−In Graves
(i) No vaults or brick or walled−in graves above ground shall be constructed in a memorial park cemetery.
(e) Vases or Containers
(i) All vases or containers for flowers shall be housed in insets set into the base on which the memorial is placed in such manner as shall be approved by the Local Authority.
(ii) No person shall plant anything on any plot, except for as allowed under Clause 25(c)(ii) of this Bylaw. During a period of two weeks or such other period as the Local Authority decides following interment, any wreath or other floral tribute may be placed on a plot, but shall be removed at the expiration of such period.
(iii) After such period of two weeks has expired, no person shall place on a plot any floral tribute except flowers and foliage, which shall be placed in a special receptacle of an approved type. Any such floral tribute may be removed by the Cemetery Attendant at any time after the fifth day from the latest interment in that plot.
(iv) The special receptacle hereinbefore referred to shall be installed adjoining any tablet or plaque on the side nearest the head of the plot.
(v) Every part of such receptacle shall be 50mm or more below the level of the adjoining ground surface.
(vi) The Cemetery Attendant shall at any time remove damaged receptacles or receptacles of a type not approved by the Local Authority, and the Cemetery Attendant may also remove at any time dead flowers and/or dead foliage.
26. Offences and Penalties
Every person who breaches this Bylaw commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20000 pursuant to Section 242(4) of the Local Government Act 2002.
090
Page lOof2l 10 FIRST SCHEDULE
4 INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL Parks APPLICATION FOR WARRANT OF INTERMENT Full Interment/Ash Interment
Name of Deceased:
Place of Residence:
Occupation: Date of Death:
Age:
Native of: Funeral Director or Informant:
Day/Date of Funeral: ETA at Cemetery:
Special Arrangements:
Plot in name of (for reopens only):
Details of Previous interments, names, etc
* APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF BURIAL (new plot) * Delete One
of hereby make application to purchase exclusive right of burial in perpetuity.
* AUTHORITY TO INTER (re−open) * Delete One
of being the owner/authorised agent of:
Plot Block in the Cemetery and hereby authorise the Sexton to bury the body/ashes of the above.
Date: Signed:++ Name (Print):______Address: Witness: Of:
++ By signing this form the signatory acknowledges that he/she is the authorised next of kin responsible for the deceased or has been appointed as agent to do so. For Office Use Please note, this is not an invoice Debit No. FEES COST Sexton's Warrants No. Purchase of Plot$ PRE−PAID Purchase Book Folio Interment $ YES/NO Interment Book Folio Maintenance $______Fax Received...../...... / Extras $______Document Received...../...... / Total $______
For Parks Manager Page llof2l ii [THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
092
Page l2of2l 12 SECOND SCHEDULE
INVERCARGILL CITY CORPORATION SEXTON'S WARRANT
The Sexton is hereby authorised
toInter the Body/Ashes of ......
Allotment...... Block...... Size ...... x ...... metres
Date...... Time ......
For Parks Manager
The above Body was Duly Interred by me on
...... 20 ......
Sexton
093
Pagel3of2l 13 (THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
084
Page l4of2l 14 THIRD SCHEDULE
INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL CEMETERIES/CREMATORIUM 4 Parks adrn.inis;ra non
(DATe)
CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE Thisis to Certify that...... of......
has purchased the exclusive right of interment, parcel(s) of ground in n ...... ,,. the...... Cenietery/Crematorium, numbered Block...... , Lot(s) being ...... , a Burial Plot, for which the sum of $...... has been invoiced through your Funeral Director/direct.
(Note: plot purchase only, not including other services supplied.)
N.B. This certificate is issued subject to the Burial and Crenaliori Ad 1964, and is tjct to the provisions of any By−laws, rules and regulatIons now, c tta1 may hereafter be passed, or made, relating to the said Cemetery!Crematcrium.
PARKS MANAGER
White copy to Ilient − I'ink copy oice ,k4J
095
Pagel5of2l 15 [THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
09C
Page lSof2l 16 FOURTH SCHEDULE
0VV Parks INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL L) 1 AGREEMENT FOR PRE−PURCHASE OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS:
1. Burial and Maintenance Fees (Cross Out Whichever 2. Burial of Ashes does not apply) 3. Plot Fee
Agreement is made this day of −20 between the Invercargill City Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) of the one part and Of
(hereinafter called 'the purchaser') of the other part, whereby the Council agrees to sell to the purchaser who agrees to purchase:
1. The rights to burial and plot maintenance by the Council in the cemetery at Invercargill known as the Invercargill Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga, this being a pre−purchased plot in the current burial area. 2. The rights to burial of ashes by the Council in the cemetery at Invercargill known as the Invercargill Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga, this being a pre−purchased plot in the current burial area. 3. A plot from the Council in the cemetery at Invercargill known as the Invercargill Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga. Plot number and Block to be allocated at the time of the first interment, this being the next available plot in the current burial area.
The purchase money for the said right shall be the sum of and has this day been paid by the purchaser to the Council, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged for Options 1, 2 or 3 (circle).
In the event of death of the purchaser, the local authority may, before permitting any burial, require satisfactory evidence of the devolution of the right to ownership of this right of burial and of the right of any deceased person to be buried in such plot.
This agreement is made subject to the provisions of the Bylaw relating to the Urupa (Maori Burial Site) Te Hau Mutunga, made by Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF these presents have been executed the day and year first before written.
SIGNED by the said as purchaser in the presence of:
Witness:
Occupation:
Address: Invoice No.______097
Page l7of2l 17 [THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
098
Page l8of2l 18 4− Parks
FIFTH SCHEDULE Invercargill City Council Urupa (Maori Burial Site) To Nov Mutunga Bylaw 2012 Pauper's Burial
T POMMINIIIIIIIIII Invercargill City Council Private Bag 90104 INVERCARGILL
...... do hereby certify that I was personally acquainted with the deceased, ...... of Invercargill, ...... [last−known address] for a period of ...... years/months prior to his/her death, and that such deceased person has not left sufficient means to pay the ordinary charge fixed by bylaw for cemeteries and crematorium under Invercargill City Council's control, and that his/her relatives and/or friends are unable to pay the same. These fees will be paid to the Council if sufficient funds become available from the deceased's estate, family or friends.
Request Pauper's Burial − New plot
− Existing plot
Booking − Time −Date
Funeral Director:
Date:
Signed by Applicant......
Witnessed: [Justice of the Peace]
Date:
wj: Page 1 9 of 21 1 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
100
Page 200f2l 20 SIXTH SCHEDULE
PARKS DIVISION − INVERCARG1LL CEMETERIES INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL 0 APPLICATION FOR MONUMENTAL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW ZEALAND STANDARD HEADSTONE AND CEMETERY MONUMENTS: NZS 4242: 1995
Apphcation is hereby made (or permission to carry out Name of Plot Owner or Legal Representative: monumental work In the Cemetery. ______
Plot No: Block No. ______COP No: Interred:
I hereby declare that all monumental masonry work canled out by the undersigned is done so in accordance with NZS 4242: 1995, New Zealand Standard for Headstones and Cemetery Monuments, and also In accordance with the City of Invercargill Cemetery Bylaw 1994.
Authority to be signed by owner of Plot or Agent:
I hereby give my permission for the erection of the work mentioned above, and in consideration of Council permitting the execution of such work on the above plot, I the undersigned DO HEREBY INDEMNIFY and hold safe and harmless the Council against all actions, proceedings, claims, demands, damages, costs, losses and expenses whatsoever which may be made on or Instituted agaInst or suffered by the Council in any manner whatsoever by reason of the Council having consented Ia the execution of such work.
For Office Use Only Name of Monumental Mason: Checked (signature)...... Signature of Monumental Mason: Authorised (sIgnature) ...... Type of Monument Comments...... Signature of Owner/Agent: Date...... SchNe......
101
Page2l of 21 21 102 TO: COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2012
ACTION SHEET
− Item Action Required Date for Not Complete Completion Completed 1. Scottish Hall High Court Application to Declaration be lodged December 2011 2 Freedom and Appropriate use February 2012 Mobile Home of Reserves Camping 3. Bluff Main Street Refer issue of enterprise zoning in Bluff to District Plan Committee for review
4. Sister City − A February 2012 review on Kumagaya relationship (R King) 5. Energy Policy Meeting with February 2012 Venture for a briefing 6. Events' Funding The policy will be March 2012 reviewed
103
2012 March 13 − Action Sheet I fl TO: COUNCIL
FROM: HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR
MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2012
MAYOR'S REPORT
Report Prepared by: His Worship the Mayor, Mr T Shadbolt
SUMMARY
List of engagements and current issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the report be received.
IMPLICATIONS
1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? N/A 2. Is a budget amendment required? N/A 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? N/A 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
105 ENGAGEMENTS
My engagements since the Council Meeting on 31 January 2012 are as follows:
Panellist on 'City Talk Back' CUE TV Phone interview with More FM Attend and provide welcome at the reception for the Buskers arrival in Invercargill, Drawing, Civic Theatre Attend Waitangi Day Celebrations at Te Rau Aroha Marae, Bluff Visit and give a talk about the importance of education and work ethic to the students at Frontline Training Consultancy Meeting with 'The Weight of Elephants' Film Team Phone interview with More FM Attend a provide a 'bon voyage' speech to the Spirit of Enderby Crew at the Museum organised by Limehills School Attend and provide a 10 minute welcome at the Friendship Force International Visit to Invercargill by a Bavarian Group, at the Masonic Lodge Film promotional DVD for Southern Institute of Technology aimed at International Students Present I−Pads to Year 7 and 8 Students at Aurora College Host a Mayoral Reception for French Exchange High School Students from Lycée Kernanec, Council Chambers Drop off flowers and visit Mr Ron and Mrs Eva Loan to celebrate their Diamond wedding Anniversary Attend Shakespeare in the Park 2012 opening night, Queen's Park Phone interview with More FM Attend the New Zealander of the Year Awards, Langham Hotel Auckland Attend and provide welcome at Southern Institute of Technology O'Week Orientation Host and attend Mayoral Reception for the cast, crew and funders of the 'Weight of Elephants' Film, Drawing Room Civic Theatre Phone interview with More FM Attend Zone 6 Meeting in Dunedin Attend Sister City Meeting, Gore Interview with Cue TV Perform Sonnet in Shakespeare in the Park 2012 show Participate in phone interview with Business World Australia Publication to promote Southland Attend and provide welcome at the Telecom Business Hub Southland Launch, at Jackson Wills Attend and provide welcome at RaboDirect Age Group Cycling Champs, Velodrome Phone interview with More FM Attend Southern Institute of Technology ANZA Workshop for Education Institutes and Agents, Queenstown Attend and provide five minute talk at The Rotary Club of Invercargill North official launch of 2012 Dictionaries−in−Schools project, Windsor North School Attend and Conduct Citizenship Ceremony, Council Chambers Attend Rotary Meeting − Penny Simmonds Guest Speaker Attend and provide five minute welcome at Trans Tasman 18−25 Year Old Bowls Competition, Waihopai Bowling Club Panellist on City Talk Back, CUE TV Phone interview with More FM Provide five minute welcome to visiting accountants from Auckland, Ascot Hotel Attend and participate in the Southern Gumboot Challenge, Relay for Life, Rugby Park Visit Bluejays Under 12 Marching Team practice and wish them well for upcoming competition in Hamilton, Donovan Park Primary School. I0. WHEN DISASTER STRIKES
As Mayor one of my primary roles is to inspire residents and ratepayers about life in Southland and our success as a community.
I also host and welcome visitors to the region and try to entertain them with humour, wit, and friendship. Public relations and promotional work is important but at the same time I cannot ignore the dark side of the moon. When I see impending danger I have a duty to warn the local community.
Having been in the construction industry for twelve years as a concrete layer, solid plasterer, and brick layer I was appalled to be offered a job plastering a leaky home in 1987. I was shocked to see untreated timber being used as framing and windows being installed without flashings.
When I returned to the Mayoralty, I asked Mr Simon Tonkin for his views on this issue. He had already published a report outlining his reservations on kiln dried untreated timber. For the next four years I wrote about the issue in numerous Mayor's Reports and newspaper columns, as I could imagine the impact this would have on the Council's insurance premiums.
Attached is an article I wrote a decade ago for The Southland Times published 21 September 2002 (Appendix 1) and a recent article on the subject published last month in February's Publication of North and South Magazine (Appendix 2).
NEW ZEALANDER OF THE YEAR AWARDS 2012
I was proud to support Bailey Lovett (19) of Bluff who was a close second behind Sam Johnson (Student Volunteer Army) for the award of Young New Zealander of the Year. Miss Lovett is studying to be a marine scientist and launched a project relating to the measurement of toxic levels in oysters and mussels and other seafood.
This project won the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter Southland Science and Technology Fair and was nominated for the Royal Society Event 'Realise the Dream' which it also won. The winner from this event is also awarded the Prime Minister's Future Science Prize, and from this event, Bailey and her project were selected to go to the European Young Scientists Competition, held in Finland this year. At the European Event, Bailey's project won the International Award, which is presented to the best non−European project, of which there were 20 from across the planet. Bailey did a tremendous amount of work to complete her project over a six month period and her results made a significant difference to the community her work was based in (Appendix 3).
HOSTING THE MAYORAL RECEPTION FOR 'THE WEIGHT OF ELEPHANTS'
Please find attached a photo of Mayor Tim Shadbolt, Ms Asha Dutt and the two lead stars of the film Angelina Cottrell and Demos Murphy (Appendix 4). LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
Please find attached a memo on Local Government Reform (Appendix 5).
1U? 14 APPENDIX I
(c 2 Li
0—VI)
c' C −−− o(,_ •b a), −
CC a), V Cl) bD > _cC 0, 0. CZ 'a — C C CID1) E moo a) − 0c+−−o .0 iQc) −4−a 0 14 j_cct oc0) a) _ct .− c .5 tl)19 0 0 xi C) cis C) CdDbDC a) c 0 >W, CID 0 a) cz 14−1 as a)_ a ):: mvm aa)−Cl) iflI (l) C +_− CS − w cci °o IM4CIDa)r.1 0a) w −J 00 000Oa)a)a) Fi a) 0 )a)C0 a) a) a) )Wb I−IJJ 0 Cl) Cd)
I−−I−c 0 cl) 0 0 0−E−a)o 0C.− Cl) 2fl :i Mc co − E I−0 a)+ −a) — −— 0 (1)bD Cl) a) 0 C Cl) 00 .—Cl)cID c−10 C — −a)CJ); a) 0' .ca0 C 4−bd) Cl) ct a) ba cz 0 ,C CI) +a)O J 4Oa) 0) b−Cl)
CL _C —(1) 0 (tC) C/) a)0 − CI) a) CS 0a) a) CCb o a) 00 a) a)−a) ta ! h E Lm 0 a) •− 0 0 C) C) .0 0 0 0 c 0
− cci 0 −4C0 00.Cl)0 b/) 0 al a− .−a) a)CZ ct E Cl) •a)−a) a)Q w− c a)0 ClDC co) c) a) −C) 0_ Cl) _c .0a)d) EOc 0 c CIDa)CJD ct 4 —E—−.oE cz 110
t took three years for Sarah's beau−tiful new home to make her sick. For two years or so, life couldn't Top: The Aspergillus fumigatus fungi often found glowing in the have been better. when she In 2001, lotting walls of leaky buildings can moved into her three−level town−house badly affect residents' health. in complex Evans Bay, a on Left: Stachybotrys chartarum Wellington, Sarah the of was at top causes the black mould that is her game. In her 40s, she was earning good sometimes the first sign owners of money as a senior manager in sales and water−damaged homes get that their property is leaking. marketing. She loved where she lived. There was plenty of sun and a splendid view of the Miramar hills across the water. And she liked her neighbours: "I made a lot of friends, there, you know, we had quite a community feel." A group of eight households grew espe−cially close. The excitement of life in a new place bonded them. There were spontaneous potlucks − late nights and laughter fuelled by good food and good wine. "And then one of the people in my row started to get leaks in their home;' she says. "One enterprising gentleman said, 'Okay, well, why don't we get together and investigate this?" By 2003, the problem of leaky homes in New Zealand was getting more publicity; although most reported cases seemed to be in Auckland. "But that's when more infor−mation came out in the press about the types of building design. And it ticked the boxes The group hired a specialist to take mois−ture her, "I can hear water running down the back with the way our place was built." readings.wall." The houses with visible signs Their buildings looked like a lot of the of leaking registered the highest, but Sarah's Sarah replied, "There's a house behind us, Auckland leaky houses. Built in a "Mediter−ranean"readings were normal. so that's probably their shower or something." still denial Therestyle, theywas featuredone little monolithic thing, howeverclad−ding− a Now she admits she was in then, of about big wet patch in her ground−level garage (definedwith byaBRANZ"really naive− formerlysense thetrust buy−ing Building Research Association of New ceiling. She contacted the developer, as her a new home and it was going to he fine". powerful force but the Zealand − as "cladding with the appearance place was still under guarantee. "They Denial is a informa−tion of unbroken wall surface like traditional mumbled some sort of reason and suppos−edly coming in was increasingly unpleasant. plastered masonry"); exterior walls with no fixedThatityear,and painted2003, theovergroupit." hired a building eaves; parapets (low walls around the edges Later that year, there was another thing specialist to look through the development of the roofs); balconies after for moisture problems. The inspector found, and outside a build−ing's − this one not so little. Sarah's mother, spending"footprint".a night in the spare bedroom, told and showed to the developer, three serious
112 44 1 NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 problems: cladding in contact with the The estimated cost eventually induced despondency. "It's your ground providing a path for moisture entry; home, your life savings and your health. You parapets without caps in cladding that was of New Zealand's lose friendships because you're not a happy cracking and, most dangerous, improperly leaky buildings person to be around?' waterproofed balcony decks built with un−treated Sarah was sick for three years. disaster,timber. therefore, She was not diagnosed with aspergillosis The deck substrates were untreated ply−wood,is roughly 19 per until 2006 and during that time her life fell centmeaning greaterno chemicals hadthan been to pieces. Her illness affected her ability to added to prevent decay. For waterproofing, work and in 2005 she was made redundant. the design called for a layer of butynol rubber the latest estimate By that time, her townhouse had been re−paired, sandwiched between the plywood and the of the Canterbury but she'd had enough "because I was deck tiles. This would normally include a just, you know, so burnt about home owner−ship rubber section running up under the doors earthquakes and trust". as flashing. But the developer had allowed a damage. Sarah sold it and moved to a rental prop−erty. calculated losses contractor to persuade him a cheaper spray−on She her − including sealant would work just as well (even the loss on her house, medical treatment, though it meant dispensing with flashing), time off work and building advice − totalled if sprayed according to specification. hundreds of thousands of dollars. It wasn't and it didn't. Sarah and her family had Christmas dinner I I he leaky−building catastrophe in 2003 on her second−level balcony. A few is the worst in our history. months later, when a workman pulled it Fast forward to 2004 − one of the steel If that seems like an exag−geration, apart, he told her he had "put his hands sutures from her old surgery came loose. It consider how many through [the plywood] like it was putty". took two surgeries to remove the piece and other man−made disasters She had had no idea it was so dangerous: secure the rest. haveIcost New Zealand anywhere near an "We could have gone, we could have fallen At the time, health issues associated with eighth of a year's gross domestic product. three levels." leaky buildings had yet to receive a great In 2009, the Department of Building and More moisture readings on her house deal of attention. Sarah had never heard of Housing commissioned Pricewaterhouse−Coopers were taken. Though there were very few Aspergillusfumigatus − a species of mould to "provide a re−estimate of the internal signs, apart from her leaking garage, often found in decaying organic matter. It size and cost of the leaky−homes problem". her place now showed the highest moisture turned out, as she realised much later, there Left out of the brief were rotten commercial levels of the lot. was a healthy colony ofAspergillusfumiga−tus buildings, schools and hospitals. Also left Denial was no longer possible. The growing growingout were in herestimatesrotten wall.of the health costs re−lated problem affected the group dynamic: "It Incredible as it seems in hindsight, no−body, to leaky buildings. the published July bonds you in a different way − it's not social neitherStill, her GPPwCnorreport,her specialist, in any more. It's actually really serious and thought to ask her about her living environ−ment2009, is the most comprehensive study done really scary. And you're together because you tobecause,date onshetheacknowledges,scope and financial"they burden have to be, rather than because you want to were more focused on my systemic under−lying of leaky homes. It generated two estimates be. And social life goes out the window and lungof theissues". eventual total cost. it starts to put you into a negative spiral." Immediately after the surgery, she felt The "consensus" estimate, expressed in It took about a year of specialist inspections better. Unfortunately, her lung problems 2008 dollars, was $11.28 billion from 42,000 and lobbying but the group managed to get and subsequent surgery weakened her re−sistancedwelling failures. The "extreme" estimate the developer to agree to fix the problems. wasto$22.89the poisonbillion in her from townhouse89,000 dwellingair. fail−ures. "You have to give [the developer] hats off. She went home to "recuperate" in a setting At least two people involved with the that could hardly been better including John of the They did not fold the company − they could have designed report, Gray Home have and they didn't run away. They did fix to make someone in her vulnerable state Owners and Buyers Association of NZ, be−lieve the place. But they did take their time." sick. And that's what happened. the "extreme" view is closer to reality. For most of 2004, from halfway up the It started with an "irritating cough, like a And the fact that the report focused exclu−sively ground level, her back wall was covered in wheezy cough that couldn't be relieved", on damage to dwellings suggests that, scaffolding and plastic. The developer re−movedSarah said. Then came headaches and in−somnia.if and when all the costs of all leaking build−ings one of her balconies and parked it are ever totalled, the "extreme" estimate for a year in the pétanque court below. Referring to the mould, she said: "It's al−most maybe reasonable or even low. dollars, becomes Sarah's lovely home had become a toxic, likeIna 2011steroid − it kindthis of estimate keeps you stressful, ongoing mess. awake. Even though you're terribly fatigued, $23.84 billion. That's 12 per cent, or nearly Then came the lung surgery. She had had you've got this adrenalin running." an eighth, of New Zealand's annual GDP for serious respiratory problems as a child, Then came stomach and bowel distur−bances.the year ending March 2011. Put another way, developing pneumonia in her left lung at that'sBut the$5401.26worst thingfor everywas theNew cough:Zealander. three months. It was permanently damaged, constant and embarrassing. "I couldn't say As a comparison, Hurricane Katrina (2005) and when she was 15, a piece of that lung half a sentence without having to cough." inflicted damage on the US amounting to 1.1 had to be removed surgically. Sore lungs, sore chest and the sleeplessness per cent of GDP, according to World Bank
NORTH 113 & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 1 45 at least three specific acts of government that combined to seriously degrade the New Zealand building and construction industry, bringing us leaky buildings and more. These were the 1988 dismantling and sale of the Ministry of Works, the Employment Con−tracts Act 1991, and the 1991 Building Act. Dismantling the Ministry of Works squan−dered generations of accumulated engineer−ing and building knowledge and expertise. As John Scarry, engineer and industry gadfly, put it: "All of the institutional knowledge the MoW had, as did the architecture and engi−neering departments of the boroughs, cities and districts that were destroyed as well, has been lost. [They] trained vast numbers of engineers, draftsmen and tradesmen. All trained to a superb standard. Staff the private sector depended upon. All that has been lost." The MOW commercial operations were divided into two companies, now known as Opus International Consultants and Down−er New Zealand. Today, the majority share−holder in Opus is the Malaysian Govern−ment. Downer is Australian−owned. Apprentice plumber Jack Oud helps construct a state house in Hamilton in 1975. The houses were The Employment Contracts Act helped so well built that only now, nearly 40 years later, is Oud who has a contract to repair Housing − bring about the casualisation of labour and New Zealand properties − replacing their water cylinders and other plumbing services. the decay of New Zealand's building and engineering apprenticeship system. In 2002, Jon Sutherland of the Unitec estimates. The cost of the March 11, 2011, Wbile there have always School of Architecture in Auckland described earthquake/tsunami off the coast of Japan been rotten buildings, the scene: "The building process [has] is estimated at 4.6 per cent of GDP. until 20 years ago they changed from a relatively co−ordinated one The cost of the Canterbury earthquakes was were rare in New Zea−land. to a largely unco−ordinated loose−fit group estimated by the Treasury on October 25 at ofFor subcontractexample, theassemblers. Around this group $20 billion, or 10.01 per cent of GDP. 1971 Report of the Commission of Inquiry has developed fast−moving − often inexpert In 2011 dollars, the estimated cost of New into Housing in New Zealand said: "The − cohorts of 'labour only' subcontractors for Zealand's leaky−buildings disaster, therefore, general standard of construction is reason−ably every kind of work involved: concrete−slab is 19 per cent greater than the latest estimate high.layers; Furthermore,erectors of premost−nailedof the frames, basic cladding of the Canterbury earthquakes damage. elements are strictly controlled by local and window fixers; roofers; thin and thick How will we deal with a figure that large? authority bylaws or statutory regulations plasterers; acrylic painters etc etc. All in the As Building and Construction Minister and are the subject of national standards. interests of keeping costs down and develop−ment Maurice Williamson put it: "It's simply Nor is it likely, under the present system of profits up. On−site co−ordination of ginormous. A government.., which is run−fling controls, that a basic dwelling which is these wandering tribes is largely absent. deficitsstructurally− and weakhas a forecastor lacking trackinof the basic "There is an uncertain national training deficits for environmental qualities needed for people... The many years out − has to just sit physi−cal scheme for trades entry cost there with its head in its hands, saying, healthto thecan industry any longeris a behammer, built inaNewkit of power 'Well, I just don't know how to do this." Zealand." (Emphasis added) tools, a ute and a dog." This is an understandable reaction, if The ongoing leaky−building crisis is a Probably more than any single factor, the hardly inspiring, since it can reasonably be legacy of the era of radical economic reforms 1991 Building Act, in the name of innovation, argued that the New Zealand government begun, with no popular mandate, in 1984 by efficiency and cost−reduction, laid the foun−dation was the prime actor in the cast of those in−volvedLabour Finance Minister Roger Douglas and for what may be the costliest man−made hisin allies the creationin the Treasury. of the leaky It continued−buildingsunder disaster in New Zealand's history. a debacle. And the blame has to be owned National from 1990. Introduced by Labour in September 1990 equally by National and by Labour. For those who are too young to remember, and passed under National in December So what the hell happened? Or, more to the guiding spirit of the "reforms" was a 1991, this legislation completely and radi−cally the point, how was it allowed to happen? faith in the so−called open market as the overhauled New Zealand's building How were Sarah's home and tens of thou−sandsultimate guarantor of choice, innovation control system. andof others lowerbuiltcosts.so poorly that they The overwhelming majority of leaky began to rot soon after they were finished? The spirit of the era was exemplified in buildings were built after 1992, the year the
4E 1 NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 114 p N
.'. .−−... − − −: t− .... −
− − −_v−•−−•. − • −.• − • .•− ..−−−.
−?
− •. −
−
1991 The apprenticeship system gave the country generations of skilled tradesmen. The Employment Contracts Act led to the decline of the system and the casualisation of labour.
1 1−15 NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 21112 17 Building Act came into force. Until then, is chokka with Labour and National MPS New Zealand's building−control system − congratulating themselves and each other the one referred to in the 1971 commission's and jockeying to take the credit for their housing report − was primarily a prescrip−tive respective parties. that had evolved decades, one over go−ing The trouble was, nobody in Parliament, back to theor anywhere 19th century.else, knew much at all about (A "prescriptive" building−control system the realities of a comprehensive, fully per−formance−based prescribes in detail, through legislation and building code. regulation, how a weathertight building will That's because only one other country, be built. A "performance−based" system the UK, had one. It had only just come com−pletely reverses the emphasis by mandating a de−sired online, after eight years of education result such as weathertightness. The and training. By contrast, NZ's Building Act means of achieving the result is then left up was passed on December 17, 1991, and came to the industry.) into force on July 1, 1992. The transition Industry unhappiness with New Zealand's period formally ended on January 1, 1993. mostly prescriptive system had been devel−oping In his 2010 PhD thesis, Peter Muniford, since at least the late 1970s. It was a director with the Ministry of Economic felt to be expensive and cumbersome and Development, said: "Effectively New Zea−land stifling innovation. moved into an unknown future while Also, housing prices were rising quickly. burning its bridges to past practices." Understandably, New Zealanders were In other words, the 1991 Building Act was alarmed about this and looking for solu−tions.The 1991 Building a massive, reckless, nationwide social and ActIn 1979,waswith the a blessingmassive, of National economic experiment, with a radically new Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, leaders and unproven building−control system for in the industry, academia and government reckless, nation−wide which the public will continue to pay dear−ly commenced a sequence of committees and social even though the public never asked for it. studies on New Zealand's building−control Adding to the uncertainty; the act was an system. This led to the Lange Labour Gov−ernmentand economic incomplete version of the BIC draft Building experiment,establishing the Buildingwith Industrya Act. Parliament left out significant elements. Commission (BIC) in 1986. radically and Four years later, in January 1990, the BIC new Aspeople quickly discov−ered, issued a report titled Reform ofBuilding Con−trols.unproven building−control if the Building Code It proposed an entirely new, perform−ance−based system forhad been a building, it building−control wouldsystem. have been a leaker. Interestingly, the report included the fol−lowingwhich the public It was full of holes. And willremarkscontinue about the old systemto(echo−ingthe the biggest hole was lack dearly 1971ofcommissionaccountability.of inquiry report): "It has ensured that buildings which en−dangerpay even In 2010, Professor Peter May, political thoughthe health and safetythe ofpublicusers are science chair at the University of Washing−ton, rare in New Zealand. All buildings have a never asked for It. said: As illustrated by New Zealand's potential for causing illness, injury, loss of "leaky building" crisis, accountability can be life and damage to neighbouring property, the Achilles' heel of performance−based yet the incidence of these events throughout regulation... The case of performance−based the country is very low." regulation of buildings in New Zealand illus−trates In hindsight, considering the "ginormous" a leaky regulatory regime. The regime cost of leaky buildings, there is irony here: allowed for flexibility without adequate over a decade of research, study and consul−tation accountability. The problems were system−ic, had confirmed that it was desirable to caused by a regulatory regime that placed entirely replace New Zealand's building−control too much faith on self−correction of the system even though it was reliably market place as a means of control and too producing safe and healthy buildings. little emphasis on accountability for results." Neither Parliament nor the BIC seems to Sarah's leaky home was the result of leaky have seriously considered the option of im−proving legislation. In February 2002, not long after rather than replacing the controls. she moved into her new place, the Building The old system was, in the spirit of the Industry Authority (BIA) appointed a times, binned. Weathertightness Overview Group to "in−quire This radical measure was so widely sup−ported into the weathertightness of buildings in Parliament it was passed by voice in New Zealand in general, and in particu−lar vote − no record exists of any dissenting into the current concerns regarding voice, if there was one. Rather, the record housing that is leaking and causing decay".
48 I NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 116 The report, issued in stages in August and September of that year, became known as the Hunn Report, after its chairman, Don Hunn. It stated: "The single thread that runs through the multi−faceted building sector we have portrayed is the seeming lack of accountability." A good example was in the BIA itself. It had been established by the Building Act to manage New Zealand's building legislation by "generally taking all such steps as may be necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this act". Its mission was: "To be the single focus for efficient and effective building controls that promote health and safety..." To say the BIA was under−resourced for this critical role is an understatement. For example, in 2001, the year Sarah bought her home, gross fixed capital investment in New Zealand's building and construction indus−try was $10.6 billion. The industry directly employed 115,670 people and contributed 3.6 per cent of New Zealand's GDP. By comparison, the 2001 net assets of the BIA − minus a levy reserve, which it was not allowed to use − totalled $4.43 million. There were houses in Remuera that cost more. The BIA had a staff of 14, including two part−time employees, and also engaged independent contractors. In addition, Parliament had built almost no authority, outside of the name, into the Building Industry Authority. From the Hunn Report: "In our opinion, the emphasis on self−regulation and light−handed control has led to the BIA having insufficient authority to fulfil its role. As has been said, it 'needs teeth and needs to show them occasionally'." During this time, new and relatively com−plicated building styles, such as the "Mediter−ranean" style, became popular. They were accompanied by new building products, many of which had never been properly tested. In addition, in 1995, Standards New Zea−land revised its timber standard, The Stadium Gardenstreatment Apartments (above) in Wellington were the subject of a removing the requirement for treatment for $12.7 million leaky−building claim which was settled days before it was due insect attack under certain conditions. to be heard in the High Court. The 40−unit Marion Square apartment complex (opposite page), also in Wellington, built in 1996; by 2002, of the Though it until that the was many wasn't 1998 BIA ac−tuallyleaking units were infected with the dangerous mould stachybotrys. The companyincorporatedthat built this theintocomplexthe Buildingwent into voluntary liquidation in late 2002. Code, the use of untreated timber seems to have quickly become widespread, including in applications, such as exterior balconies, for which it had never been approved. It seems, to use a phrase from one of the Court of Appeal's leaky−home judgments, that there was no "code policeman". Developments such as these combined with the acts of government mentioned
1 1 1 / NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 earlier and a shift in focus by builders and tion with local councils.) consumers to "the initial capital cost of con−structionIn November 2004, the Department of Leaky Home Buildingas opposed and Housingto the wholeannounced−of−life that Confidential cost" (Hunn Report) to create a "perfect Nationwide was in receivership and the "BIA storm" of building weathertightriess failure. is discussing plans with the receivers to transfer customer files to territorial author−ities Picture a five−storey, 90−unit I hough untested building so that inspection and certification proc−essesapartment building I I products and untreated tim−ber down your street covered can be completed." haveSix oftendaysbeen after singled this announcement, on No−vember in plastic and scaffolding. Out as the primary causes of 30, 2004, theYou'reB1A itselfprobablywas dis looking−solved. leaky buildings, others have at a leaky−building repair − the result At the time, it was one of a number a broader perspective. John of defendants in lawsuits alleging negli−gence of a mediated settlement between Scarry, the industry gadfly, pointed out in on the partownersof theandBIAseveralregardingotheritsparties, 2002: "IrrespectiveI of whether the affected performance on weathertightness issues. including your local council. timber was Hi treated [against borer attack] Want to know your council's share or untreated, the leaking due to poor design I he failures of the 1991 Build−IingAct,of the bill? Good luck with that. Nearly details and poor workmanship should never I everythingexposed primarily about any mediated leaky−homes have been allowed to happen. Any competent, by the leaky−building crises, settlement is confidential. experienced engineer or architect could have were so manifest and so In this respect, leaky−homes identified the problems in each case before many that the act was re−written negotiations are similar in some the rot set in. inrespects2004, most to commercialof it negotiations. "The basic principles of flashing and coming into force in March 2005. Confidentiality can even preclude weatherproofing buildings have been long So didIit work? Almost 20 years after the parties from revealing that established, and were practised well on stage was first set for an epidemic of leaky negotiations are taking place or a most buildings in New Zealand up to the buildings, are they still being built? The settlement has been reached. 1980s." bad news is that all of the industry figures However, it can extend into the S carry also believes leaky buildings are I talked to are certain leaky buildings are absurd. For example, in November "only the tip of the iceberg". One of the issues still being built. 2009, the rernediation of Wellington he is most concerned about is earthquakes. The "good" news is that the rate of leaky−buildingresident Alan Samson's leaky He is a man with a mission who, for years, townhouseconstruction couldhas probably only have slowed. been has been telling anybody who will listen, and Homeowners' and buyers' advocate John the result of a settlement. But many who have failed to do so, that New Gray, prominent Canterbury builder Mike if he'd actually told someone Zealand's engineering and building standards Anticich, a Wellington City Council officer what was patently obvious − that have fallen dangerously low. who wishes to remain anonymous and John there had been a settlement − For example, criticising the Christchurch S carry all agree on this. he could have been sued. Draft Central City Plan which calls for only Scarry, however, typically expressed his Because the great majority of low−rise buildings to be built, he said: "It was view in reference to the entire industry. He leaky−homes settlements involve bad engineering that caused so many prob−lems,noted the explanatory note in the Building local councils − ie, public money Amendmentnot the heightBill of the(No buildings."4) states: "Since major − the commercial parallel goes It's clear that Sarah and her mates could building regulation reform changes in 2004, only so far. Some clearly involve have used a properly resourced, proactive there has been a general improvement in millions of dollars of ratepayers' BIA with teeth − a code policeman − to en−sure building quality." Said Scarry: "This is, in the money. Yet all are confidential. accountabilitymain, incorrect.andIt can decentonly building be truly said with So why, and under what standards. regard to the weathertightness of homes, authority, are ratepayers allowed In a sense, though, Sarah was one of the which was so appalling any improvement so little access to the information lucky ones, since the developer actually had can hardly be called success." regarding this particular disposal the will and the means to front up and fix Parliament is having yet another go. The of millions of their dollars? the place. Many other developers are with−out third iteration of the Building Bill − the North & South asked the Wellington 3) oneBuildingor both.Amendment Bill (No − was re−ported City Council about a building much It wasn't just poor design and construction backliketo thethe largeHouse plasticin June.−coveredThe one that led to the debacle. When she moved in, Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is a few we mentioned above: what was the Sarah's townhouse had not received a Final months behind. dollar amount for which the council Code Compliance Certificate. In fact, 16 years The Government recently announced a was responsible in the settlement? after she moved out, there is still no Final $1 billion assistance package for certain The council responded that it CCC for that home. leaky−home victims. was withholding this information A private certifier, Nationwide Build−ing Since the ultimate cost of leaky buildings "under the Local Government Certifiersis likelyGroup,to behadmorebeenthan engaged$20 billion, this Official Information and Meetings for this work. (One of the innovative fea−tures package may cover only five per cent of that. Act 1987 section 7(2)(c) − to protect ofForthethe1991rest,Buildingapparently,Act wasNewthe Zealandersuse information which is subject to of competi−50 private building certifiers in are on their own. + an obligation of confidence".
I NORTH & SOUTH I FEBRUARY 2012 118 In other words: "We can't give you this information because it's confidential!' When asked for the policy reasons behind the confidentiality, the council replied it had none − rather, confidentiality was imposed by the court overseeing the mediation. Media lawyer Steven Price, an authority on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, points out that it's not enough simply to cite one or more of the section 7(2) subsections of the legislation. That's because section 7(1) allows the withholding of official information unless withholding is outweighed by the public interest in making that information available. a Price says a council, when reluctant to release information, will cite any number of section 7 reasons and leave it up to the requester to challenge this The great majority of leaky−home settlements through the Office of the Ombudsmen. involve local councils... Some dearly So we asked this watchdog: does the public's interest in knowing how much Involve millions of dollars of ratepayer of their money was spent outweigh the money. Yet all are confidential, confidentiality agreement of the big apartment building down the street? As this issue went to press, North & South had not received a decision its inability to find reinsurance. useful purpose in court cases the from the Ombudsmen's office. Wellington's chief financial officer, judgments are public, and even Even though the Wellington council Peter Garty, says the council at first found though mediated settlements are "does not have a policy regarding insurance with another provider but confidential he says, the lawyers all confidentiality", we found a few as of 31 August 2009 Wellington City know what the cases settle for people with experience in the area Council like all other territorial local and often ies the same lawyers willing to flesh this out a little. authorities has been unable to obtain in the cases time and again claims for confidentiality In particular, a council officer − insurance to cover leaky home The imperative from whom we'll call Mr Coady — said while 'Insurance may still be available to settle always springs the councils he says iocal bodies might not have a policy some claims made before then, he added Unlike Josephson and Langford on confidentiality, their insurers most No insurance?! No wonder everyone Coady says there are times when definitely do. There is reluctance to set else North & South talked to believes claimants are adamant they want precedents, he said; if the next claimant local authorities want confidentiality confidentiality. For example, an owner knew how much the last claimant was in mediated leaky−homes settlements of a large apartment building may feel awarded, it might encourage larger Matt Josephson, a partner in the amount of a large settlement, if claims. Also, "costs which maybe Auckland−based Grimshaw & Co, which known, could adversely affect future seen as excessive can generate bad bills itself as "New Zealand's leading sales. And sometimes, he points out; publicity as the council tries to resolve law firm in leaky building litigation", people simply don't want publicity.; the building owners, problems!' has had experience representing Stephen Franks, Wellington lawyer Interestingly Wellington City Council claimants as well as defendants. and former Act MP, has a libertarian essentially no longer has alea−buildings He says insurance companies want perspective. "Where withholding insurer. Andconfidentialityit's not alone.in order to stop people information serves a valuable purpose, Of the 85 territorial authorities in New even knowing that mediation is occurring. I fully understand." But, he says, people Zealand, 78 are insured by Riskpool, a As far as local councils are concerned, routinely like to keep information from mutual liability fund. Until July 2008, he says (emphasising that in such others as an "exhibition of power". this included the Wellington council. matters his comments are "pure He refers to US Supreme Court Itis likely its decision to withdraw speculation"): "My guess is the more Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously from Riskpool was related to the they tell people about the fact they're wrote in 1913: "Publicity is justly fund's 2006 decision to stop providing paying out, the more they'll have to pay." commended as a remedy for social leaky−building cover for all but Wellington lawyer John Langford and industrial diseases. Sunlight is "low−risk local authorities", due to believes confidentiality serves no said to be the best of disinfectants." 119 NORTH & SOUTH FEBRUARY 2012 Si 120 APPENDIX 3
M StAO3Ot_1 A)O SAM OA)SQ o ZA Y& zc')
i/\A TT
Z o)
122 APPENDIX 5 COPY FOR YOUR INFORMATION Local Government New Zeci/unci Mpg ta fi fli+'ii,
Ref: LE 01 05
MEMORANDUM
Date: 24 February 2012
To: Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives
CC National Council members
From: Mike Reid, Principal Policy Advisor, Local Government New Zealand
Subject: Recent criticisms of local government
We have had a number of requests for information that councils can use to respond to media inquiries sparked by the recent speech by the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nick Smith, and questions asked in Parliament.
The Minister has signalled a desire to initiate another round of local government reform. However, the detailed changes he wishes to make will not be known until they are signed off by Cabinet and released by the Minister. Once we have this detail we will be able to determine the implications for councils and will forward our analysis to all councils.
In the interim we have prepared the attached analysis of recent statements about council debt, spending and inefficiency which you may wish to use if faced with local media inquiries.
124 Debt
The Minister quotes Larry Mitchell as saying 15_20% of councils' debt is hitting the financial wall due to council prolificacy, lack of financial prudence due to the 2002 reforms.
There are a number of ways to measure and benchmark debt levels, one of the most generally accepted looks at the cost of servicing debt as a proportion of an organisation's income. The Internationally prudent benchmark is that debt servicing should be below 10% of income. (There may be circumstances where it is prudent to go above the 10°h benchmark.) Our own analysis of council debt shows the following:
• The average of all councils' expenditure on interest repayments as a percentage of operating revenue (Stats NZ) in 2010 was 4.53%. In 2009, this figure by the same measurement was 419%
• The top 10 councils in terms of actual dollar interest expenditures in 2010 made up 57.98% of the total interest expenditure for that year. According to Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the increase in expenditure on interest has increased from 3% to 5%, reflecting the increased use of debt" (DIA briefing paper).
Nine councils had interest payments above the 10% threshold in 2010. Almost all of these councils were fast growing councils which were borrowing to build infrastructure, anticipating population growth. A number of them are now part of the Auckland Council. The Department of Internal Affair's briefing paper to the Minister of Local Government explains the growth in debt as appearing to be due to cyclical infrastructural spending.
Labour Costs
In his speech the Minister argues that between 2008 and 2011 labour costs in local government have risen at roughly twice the rate of labour costs in the state sector, at a rate of 7.6% for local government compared to 3.9% for the state sector.
Our own analysis of the Labour Cost index shows the following:
• The Labour Cost Index shows that since 2008, labour costs in the local government sector have increased by 6.97%, in comparison to labour costs in the central government sector increasing by 7.46% over the same period.
• Since 2003, labour costs in the local government sector have increased by 25.51%, compared to labour costs in the central government sector increasing by 28.50% over the same period.
The only explanation we can think of for the discrepancy in figures is that the Government is using data from which certain occupation groups have been removed. (We believe these groups are teachers and nurses.) We suspect the rationale for this is that the Government is possibly bound by commitments made by its predecessor. It is important to note that councils will also face commitments made by their predecessors.
In terms of total staff numbers and cost of labour, the DIA's briefing to the incoming Minister of Local Government shows that councils are now spending less on employees than at any time in the last twenty years, see Table 1. This reflects an ongoing focus on efficiency and greater use of outsourcing.
Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 2 of 7 I Table 1 Employee costs
Year Expenditure on employees 1993 29% of budget 2010 23% of budget
Rate Rises and the CPI
The Minister makes a point of stating that rates are the fastest growing component of the consumer price index (CPI) since 2003. The CPI has more than 650 components and a quick overview shows that at least five components have grown faster than local authority rates over this period. The components that have grown faster than rates are "refuse disposal and recycling", "petrol", "other vehicle fuels and lubricants", "real estate services" and "dwelling insurance".
We do not know exactly which quarter the Government's analysis is based on; for consistency Local Government New Zealand has begun its analysis with the December quarter of 2002 until the December quarter of 2011. This provides a full nine years and begins just as the 2002 Act has taken affect.
The difference in growth rates are so substantial that beginning the analysis from a different quarter in 2003 will have no material impact.
Table 2 CPI component increases last Qtr 2002 to last Qtr 2011
Real estate services 85% Refuse and recycling 139% Dwelling insurance 108.6% Petrol 98.7% Local authority rates 77.3% Other fuels and lubricants 108% Gas 88%
The average annual increase in the "local authority rates and payments" class of the CPI, between June 2003 and June 2010 (as per the data range in the Ministers speech), was 6.75%. It is important to note that this is an average figure and fails to show that there is a declining trend. As shown in Figure 1:
Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 3 of 7 126 Figure 1: The rates component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Annual change in "Local Authority Rates and Payments" class of CPI 12.00%
10.00%
8.00% 277 tko oe 6.00% −−−−−−−−−−−− U Linear Trendline 4.00%
2.00%
0.000/0 I I I
Year (ended June)
However, focusing on the CPI can be misleading as council costs are driven by the cost of bitumen and construction materials rather than household consumables, such as weetbix. The cost of bitumen, for example, has risen 91% in the last ten years. Local Government New Zealand approached BERL to develop a Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) to track the movement in the inputs that drive council costs. The index shows that by 2016, the projections are for local government costs to have grown 43.7% faster than consumer costs since 2011.
• In June 2000, the LGCI was 809, and the CPI was 849 (base year June 2006 = 1000) • In June 2011, the LGCI was 1182, and the CPI was 1157. • By June 2016, the LGCI will be 1399, and the CPI will be 1308.
Affordability and sustainability
Questions have been raised about the affordability of rates and the apparent expansion of local government. The recent Productivity Commission's draft report on housing affordability notes that rates have been declining in relation to property values, indicating that in terms of household wealth rates are becoming less significant. Two other factors are relevant, the size of local government in the economy and the amount households spend on rates as a proportion of their income; is it getting larger?
This data on local government's share of the economy is graphed below in Figure 2.
Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 4 of 7 127 Figure 2: Local Authority Expenditure as a proportion of GDP
Total Local Authority Expenditure as a % of GDP 10
el
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year (ending March)
There has been a gradual increase in local government's share of GDP, which is currently sitting at 3.88%, one of the lowest in the OECD.
Affordability ultimately relates to what households spend on rates, that is, it relates to changes in household income rather than the CPI. Statistics New Zealand undertakes a Housing Expenditure Survey every three years. Looking at the last two surveys we find that the portion of household expenditure spent on rates is unchanged. This does not suggest rates are crowding out other forms of household expenditure. See Table 3 and Figure 3.
Table 3: Household expenditure on rates
Year Expenditure on rates 2007 2.25% 2010 2.25%
Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 5 of 7 128 Figure 3: Average weekly household expenditure
Average Weekly Household Expenditure 1200
1000
75 800 a Other costs E Housing U a 600 • Clothing 0 400 •Transport
0 a Food 200 • Rates 0 1997/98 2000/01 2003/04 2006/07 2009/10 Year (ended June)
Efficient Councils
An underlying theme in the Minister's speech is the Government's desire to "support more efficient councils" and an implication that councils need to "refocus" − both are objectives which Local Government New Zealand is similarly committed to. However, how big is the problem?
The best information on where councils are spending their budgets comes from Statistics New Zealand and their new data set which measures expenditure on different activities. The category "culture", "recreation & sport" would generally capture most of the "non core" activities as set out in the recent changes to the LGA 2002. In the 2010 survey these categories amounted to 13% of local government expenditure, see figure 4.
Figure 4: Expenditure on Recreation and Sport
Total Culture, Recreation and Sport Expenditure as a % of Total Local Authority Expenditure
Ui
12 10 46 5 el
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Iflh1Year (ending June) Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 6 of 7 129 As Figure 4 shows, "non−core" spending has actually been declining asa total local authority spending, with a decrease of almost five percentage points betwn 2008 and 2010 (from 18.01 percent to 13.24 percent). Total culture, recreation and sport spending fell by over $185 million during those two years.
Finally, from data provided by the 38 councils who replied to the Local Authority 2009/19 LTCCP survey (conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs), it appears that "non−core" spending will account for 14.27% on average of total planned local authority expenditure from until 2019.
Author: Mike Reid Date: 24 February 2012 Ref: LE 01 05 Page 7 of 7 130 1−31.1