MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL
COUNCIL AGENDA
WEDNESDAY 3 APRIL 2019
2.00 PM
MEMBERSHIP
Her Worship (Chairperson)
Cr G Caffell Cr B Johnson Cr J Dalziell Cr G McClymont Cr D Davidson Cr F Mailman Cr B Goodwin Cr S O’Donoghue Cr J Hooker Cr C Peterson
No ce is given that an Extraordinary Mee ng of the Masterton District Council will be held at REAP House, 340 Queen St, Masterton on Wednesday 3 April 2019 at 2.00pm.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORTS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS COUNCIL POLICY UNTIL ADOPTED
29 March 2019 Values
1. Public interest: members will serve the best interests of the people within the Masterton district and discharge their duties conscientiously, to the best of their ability. 2. Public trust: members, in order to foster community confidence and trust in their Council, will work together constructively and uphold the values of honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency. 3. Ethical behaviour: members will not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, will not behave improperly and will avoid the appearance of any such behaviour. 4. Objectivity: members will make decisions on merit; including appointments, awarding contracts, and recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. 5. Respect for others: will treat people, including other members, with respect and courtesy, regardless of their ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Members will respect the impartiality and integrity of Council staff. 6. Duty to uphold the law: members will comply with all legislative requirements applying to their role, abide by this Code, and act in accordance with the trust placed in them by the public. 7. Equitable contribution: members will take all reasonable steps to ensure they fulfil the duties and responsibilities of office, including attending meetings and workshops, preparing for meetings, attending civic events, and participating in relevant training seminars. 8. Leadership: members will actively promote and support these principles and ensure they are reflected in the way in which MDC operates, including a regular review and assessment of MDC’s collective performance.
These values complement, and work in conjunction with, the principles of section 14 of the LGA 2002; the governance principles of section 39 of the LGA 2002; and our MDC governance principles:
Whakamana Tangata Respecting the mandate of each member, and ensuring the integrity of the committee as a whole by acknowledging the principle of collective responsibility and decision‐making.
Manaakitanga Recognising and embracing the mana of others.
Rangatiratanga Demonstrating effective leadership with integrity, humility, honesty and transparency.
Whanaungatanga Building and sustaining effective and efficient relationships.
Kotahitanga Working collectively. 1 AGENDA:
The Order Paper is as follows:- 1. Conflicts of Interest (Members to declare conflicts, if any)
2. Apologies
3. Public Forum Cathy Cameron, Neighbourhood Support Coodinator Masterton and Tiff North re WEconnect Neighbourhood Support project.
4. Late items for inclusion under Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
5. Items to be considered under Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 27 February 2019 Homebush Farm Lease Solway Crescent Tender Recommendation Hood Lease Tender Process.
6. Confirmation of Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 February 2019 (031/19) Pages 101-109
7. Report of the Infrastructural Services Committee Meeting held on 20 March 2019 (043/19) Pages 301-303
8. Report of the Community Wellbeing Committee Meeting held on 20 March 2019 (044/19) Pages 201-204
FOR DECISION
9. ORDER OF CANDIDATES NAMES ON VOTING PAPERS (045/19) Pages 121-127
10. PROPOSED APPOINTMENTS TO COUNCIL ORGANISATIONS POLICY (047/19) Pages 128-139
11. PROPOSED WAIRARAPA CLASS 4 GAMBLING AND STANDALONE TAB VENUES POLICY (049/19) Pages 140-173
12. MASTERTON TOWN CENTRE GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE (051/19) Pages 175-181 2 FOR INFORMATION
13. ALCOHOL CONTROLS AT BEACH RESORTS SURVEY RESULTS (046/19) Pages 182-185
14. ELECTED MEMBER REMUNERATION 2019/2020 (053/19) Pages 186-187
15. WHAT’S OUR WELCOME – MASTERTON ENTRANCES PROJECT (052/19) Pages 188-190
16. SISTER CITIES CONFERENCE MARCH 2019 (050/19) Pages 191-194
17. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT (054/19) Pages 195-205
18. MAYOR’S REPORT A verbal report will be provided
KATH ROSS - CHIEF EXECUTIVE 3 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 3 APRIL 2019
MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:- Confirmation of Minutes 19. Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 27 February 2019
General Business 20. Homebush Farm Lease 21. Solway Crescent Tender Recommendation 22. Hood Lease Tender Process.
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) 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 considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution Confirmation of Minutes of Council meeting held 27 February 2019 Refer to page 109 Refer to page 109
Homebush Farm Lease 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the negotiations (including disclosure of information commercial and industrial for which good reason negotiations); for withholding would exist under Section 7.
Solway Crescent Tender 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Recommendation information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the negotiations (including disclosure of information commercial and industrial for which good reason negotiations) for withholding would exist under Section 7
Hood Lease Tender Process 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the negotiations (including disclosure of information commercial and industrial for which good reason negotiations); for withholding would exist under Section 7 101 031/19 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT REAP HOUSE, 340 QUEEN ST, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2019 AT 2.00PM
PRESENT
Mayor Lyn Patterson (Chair), Councillors G Caffell, J Dalziell, D Davidson, B Goodwin, J Hooker, B Johnson, G McClymont, F Mailman, S O’Donoghue, C Peterson and iwi representatives Tiraumaera Te Tau and Ra Smith
IN ATTENDANCE
Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Manager Strategic Planning, Communications and Marketing Manager, Parks Reserves and Open Spaces Manager, Policy Advisor, Governance Advisor and one media representative.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No conflicts were declared.
APOLOGIES
There were no apologies
PUBLIC FORUM
Mark Shepherd White Ribbon Accreditation gave a presentation on White Ribbon Business Accreditation requesting Council consider joining.
LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987
There were no late items.
ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 48(1)(A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987
Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 12 December 2018 Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 19 December 2018 Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded 20 February 2019 Parks and Open Spaces Procurement Queen Elizabeth Park Rejuvenation Project Stage 5 Chief Executive Interim Performance Review
Moved by Councillor B Johnson That in terms of section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the items be dealt with at this meeting. Seconded by Councillor J Hooker and CARRIED 102 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 12 DECEMBER 2018 (283/18)
Moved by Councillor G Caffell that the minutes of the meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 12 December 2018 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 19 DECEMBER 2018 (289/18)
Moved by Councillor J Hooker that the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 19 December 2018 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor J Dalziell and CARRIED
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 13 FEBRUARY 2019 (010/19)
Moved by Councillor F Mailman that the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 13 February 2019 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor G Caffell and CARRIED
REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 13 FEBRUARY 2019 (012/19)
The report of the Infrastructural Services Committee meeting held 28 November 2018 was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered Utility Services Contract Infrastructure Update Community Facilities and Activities Infrastructure Update.
Moved by Councillor G Caffell That the Report of the Infrastructural Services Committee meeting held 13 February 2019 (012/19) including the following resolutions be confirmed:
UTILITY SERVICES CONTRACT (001/19) That the Infrastructural Services Committee notes the progress to date and next steps in the procurement of the Utility Services Contract as contained in report 001/19.
INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (002/19) That the Infrastructural Services Committee notes the information contained in report 002/19.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (003/19) That the Infrastructural Services Committee notes the contents of Report 003/19. Seconded by Councillor S O’Donoghue and CARRIED
Clarification was provided on the discussion on the Homebush vision statement – it was important to use the vision statement in Council’s communications for Homebush, making it clear to the community that they own the wastewater and Council is managing it on their behalf. 103
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 13 FEBRUARY 2019 (011/19)
The report of the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meeting held 13 February 2019 was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered Gambling and TAB Venues Policies: Delegation to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group Policy Update. Building and Planning Update Environmental Services Update
Moved by Councillor J Hooker That the Report of the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meeting held 13 February 2019 (011/19) including the following resolutions be confirmed:
GAMBLING AND TAB VENUES POLICIES: DELEGATION TO THE WAIRARAPA POLICY WORKING GROUP (004/19) That the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee recommend that Council: 1. Delegates responsibility to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group to: (i) Undertake a review of the Wairarapa Gambling Venues Policy and the Wairarapa TAB Board Venues Policy; and (ii) Recommend revised policies (in a Statement of Proposal) to the three Wairarapa Councils for adoption for consultation, noting that legislation requires that the Special Consultative Procedure is followed. 2. Confirms the replacement of Councillor B Goodwin by Mayor L Patterson as the Council representative on the Wairarapa Policy Working Group for the Gambling and TAB Venues Policies review.
POLICY UPDATE (006/19) That the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee notes the contents of Report 006/19.
BUILDING AND PLANNING UPDATE (007/19) That the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee notes the contents of Report 007/19.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES UPDATE (005/19) That the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee notes the contents of Report 005/19. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED
REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 20 FEBRUARY 2019 (021/19)
The report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held 20 February 2019 was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered: Health and Safety Quarterly Report Health Safety and Wellbeing Policy Second Quarter and Six-Monthly Reports 2018/2019 Six Months to Date Financial Report Non-Financial Performance 2018/2019 Second Quarter Report 104 Audit New Zealand Audit Plan for The Year Ending 30 June 2019 Council and Committee Reports Quality Review.
Moved by Mayor L Patterson That the Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held 20 February 2019 (021/19) including the following resolutions be confirmed:
HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT (018/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee: a. receives the Health & Safety report for the second quarter (1 Oct to 31 Dec 2018) b. notes the key findings of the initial stock take of current Council health and safety practice: i. We have areas that are doing very well with H&S management ii. Record keeping is disparate across our systems iii. There is inconsistency around handling of contractor safety management and risk management across the business iv. While the culture is improving, there are systems, process and training improvements to be made. v. recommends that Council endorse the Draft Road Map contained in report 018/19 as the basis for Council’s continuous improvement programme for Health, Safety and Wellbeing.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING POLICY (016/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee: i. Notes that Council is a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; ii. Notes that Elected Members and the Chief Executive are by default, officers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; iii. Receives the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy adopted by the Senior Leadership Team on 29 January 2019; iv. Recommends to Council that Council adopt the revised Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy, noting that MDC is a PCBU and Elected Members and the Chief Executive are officers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; v. Notes that the Audit and Risk Committee monitors the policy and its implementation.
SECOND QUARTER AND SIX-MONTHLY REPORTS (017/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives: (a) the quarterly report and financial statement as at 31 December 2018 from Destination Wairarapa; (b) the six-monthly report and financial statement as at 31 December 2018 from Connecting Communities Wairarapa; (c) the six-monthly report ended 31 December 2018 from Sport Wellington Wairarapa; and (d) the quarterly report and financial statement as at 31 December 2018 from Aratoi Regional Trust. 105 2018/2019 SIX MONTHS TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT (014/19) That Audit & Risk Committee receives the 6 months to date financial report and commentary, including Operating and Capital Expenditure Statements.
NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2018/2019 SECOND QUARTER REPORT (015/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Quarter 2 non-financial performance report for the 2018-19 financial year.
AUDIT NEW ZEALAND AUDIT PLAN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2019 (019/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Audit Plan for the year ending 30 June 2019.
COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS QUALITY REVIEW (020/19) That the Audit and Risk Committee a. notes that an initial review of Council (and Committee) reports has been completed by the Chief Executive Officer as described in report 020/19. b. endorses the proposed programme of improvement to improve the quality of reports to Council and its Committees as follows: i. All staff that routinely prepare reports to Council and its Committees are trained in effective report writing to ensure legal compliance and help decision-makers make sound, well-informed decisions by June 2019 ii. All managers are trained in report reviewing to ensure reports to Council and Committees meet quality requirements and can coach and mentor new staff by June 2019 iii. Staff use a template for Council and Committee reports that is based on sector good practice and addressees the strategic, policy, financial and legislative implications of decisions and facilitates compliance with the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 iv. The Chief Executive Officer conducts another review in 2020 to identify further opportunities for improvement.
Seconded by Councillor J Dalziell and CARRIED
Investment in fossil fuels was raised and a request was made for some discussion amongst elected members on the issue. The remit submitted last year to the LGNZ AGM on the issue also needed to be resubmitted.
2019-2020 ANNUAL PLAN CONSULTATION APPROACH (022/19)
The report seeking Council approval for the community engagement approach for the 2019- 20 Annual Plan was presented by the Manager Finance and Manager Strategic Planning.
The proposal to not consult on the Annual Plan was discussed by elected members. Most members supported not consulting formally for the 2019/2020 year but noted that a process needed to be put in place for those organisations who sought funding from Council through the annual plan process rather than the grants process. 106 The Chief Executive advised that staff would be looking at how Council engages with the community and on alternatives to the NRB Survey Council currently uses. A request was made for a workshop to be held where alternatives to the formal consultation process could be discussed and an amendment to the recommendation was proposed and agreed to by the meeting to record that.
Moved by Councillor F Mailman That Council i. Resolves to not conduct formal consultation on the 2019-20 Annual Plan given there are no significant or material differences from the content of the Year 2 Long-Term Plan 2018-28. ii. Notes that the Annual Plan 2019-20 must still be adopted and the rates struck by resolution before 30 June 2019, and include an overview of any minor changes in costs along with all other information required under Part 2, Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. iii. Notes that a workshop on proactive engagement opportunities for our community will be held with elected members and iwi representatives before December 2019. Seconded by Councillor G Caffell and CARRIED Councillor Peterson requested his vote against the motion be recorded.
BYLAW REVIEW STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL (025/19)
The report seeking Council adoption of the Bylaw Review Statement of Proposal for consultation was taken as read.
Members discussed the clauses relating to wheeled recreational devices and noted that dependent on the outcome of the town centre review, the bylaw might need to be changed at some point in the future.
Moved by Councillor G McClymont That Council resolves: a. That, in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed bylaws are the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; and b. That, in accordance with sections 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed bylaws are the most appropriate form of bylaw and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms and therefore do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and c. To adopt the Bylaw Review Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 to Report 025/19 (including the draft bylaws) for consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure, as identified in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, subject to South Wairarapa District Council and Carterton District Council also adopting the bylaws for consultation; and d. To approve the consultation timeframes and approach described in this report under Significance and Engagement; and 107 e. To delegate authority to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group to hear and consider submissions and make recommendations back to the three Councils on the final bylaws. Seconded by Councillor S O’Donoghue and CARRIED
PLAY ON PARK REVIEW (TOWN CENTRE REVAMP PROJECT) (026/19)
The paper providing the review of the Play on Park trial concept was presented by the Manager Communications and Marketing.
Members had received good feedback on the trial however some expressed concern about carparking, particularly in the context of Masterton’s ageing population.
Staff were congratulated for their work on the project.
Moved by Councillor G Caffell That Council receives the review of the Play on Park trial concept. Seconded by Councillor D Davidson and CARRIED
TOWN CENTRE REVAMP PROJECT TIMELINE (027/19)
The report advising Council of revisions to the initial timeline for the development of detailed design for the Town Centre Revamp project was presented by the Manager Community Facilities and Activities.
Members discussed the timeline and whether there would be more consultation. It was advised that there had been a lot of public engagement at the beginning of the project and that this had been fed into the current process involving the Reference Group (which includes community representatives) and targeted engagement with specific groups.
Moved by Councillor J Hooker That Council receives the revised timeline for completion of developed design for the Masterton Town Centre Revamp project. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT (029/19) The Chief Executive presented the report providing Council with an update on the key projects and areas of focus for the Chief Executive and Senior Leadership Team since the last Council meeting, and also an update on work undertaken in the Community Wellbeing space following the cancellation of the February Community Wellbeing Committee meeting.
The report also sought Council endorsement of the Greater Wellington Te Kāuru Upper Ruamāhanga, Draft Floodplain Management Plan Volume 3: Waipoua Urban Reach Values, Issues and Responses for public consultation. Greater Wellington had presented Volume 3 at a Council workshop and had received feedback from elected members seeking minor amendments to aid public understanding.
Membership of the Youth Council was discussed and the need to look to a broader spectrum of youth representation was raised. 108 The Economic Development Manager was thanked for the work done on the Economic Development Strategy. It was noted that reporting back to the four councils would start happening in the future.
Moved by Councillor B Johnson That Council a. notes the information contained in the Chief Executive’s report 029/19; b. endorses the Greater Wellington Te Kāuru Upper Ruamāhanga, Draft Floodplain Management Plan Volume 3: Waipoua Urban Reach Values, Issues and Responses for public consultation subject to minor amendments to aid public understanding of the staged approach and future potential costs. Seconded by Councillor D Davidson and CARRIED
WAIRARAPA COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT (030/19) Councillor Dalziell presented his report on the 19 February meeting of the GWRC Wairarapa Committee.
Moved by Councillor J Dalziell That Council receives the information in Report 030/19. Seconded by Councillor B Goodwin and CARRIED
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED AT THE MEETING OF MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT REAP HOUSE, 340 QUEEN ST, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2018
MOVED BY: Councillor G Caffell That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:- Confirmation of Minutes 18. Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 12 December 2018 19. Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held with the public excluded 19 December 2018 20. Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded 20 February 2019
General Business 21. Parks and Open Spaces Procurement 22. Queen Elizabeth Park Stage 5 23. Chief Executive Interim Performance Review
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) 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 considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution Confirmation of Minutes of 109 Council meeting held 12 December 2018 Refer to pages 110-111 Refer to pages 110-111
Confirmation of Minutes of Extraordinary Council meeting held 19 December 2018 Refer to pages 102-103 Refer to pages 102-103
Confirmation of Report of the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting held 20 February 2019 Refer to pages 405-406 Refer to pages 405-406
Parks and Open Spaces 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Procurement information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the negotiations (including disclosure of information commercial and industrial for which good reason negotiations); for withholding would exist under Section 7.
Queen Elizabeth Park 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Rejuvenation Project Stage 5 information is necessary to enable That the public the local authority to carry on, conduct of this item without prejudice or disadvantage, would be likely to negotiations (including commercial result in the disclosure of and industrial negotiations) information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7 Chief Executive’s Interim Section 7(2)(a) Protect the privacy s48(1)(a) Performance Review of natural persons, including that of That the public deceased natural persons conduct of this item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7
And THAT Recreational Services’ Chief Executive and Senior Manager and also Tim Munro, Infracure Ltd, be permitted to remain for the item on the Parks and Open Spaces Procurement due to their knowledge of the matters to be discussed.
Seconded by Councillor C Peterson and CARRIED
The meeting moved into public excluded at 4.26pm The meeting moved out of public excluded at 6.30 pm The meeting closed at 6.30 pm Confirmed at the Meeting of the Council held on Wednesday 3 April 2019
…………………………………………………… 301
043/19 REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT REAP HOUSE, 340 QUEEN ST, MASTERTON ON WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 2019 AT 1.03 PM
PRESENT
Councillor G Caffell (Chair), Mayor Lyn Patterson, Councillors J Dalziell, B Goodwin, J Hooker, G McClymont.
IN ATTENDANCE
Chief Executive, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Parks and Open Spaces Manager, Properties and Facilities Manager, Library and Archive Manager, one media representative, three members of the public and Governance Advisor.
The Chair paid tribute to the Mayor and others who had organised the vigil on Monday 18 March in support of those who had lost people in the attacks in Christchurch.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No conflicts were declared.
APOLOGIES
Moved Mayor L Patterson That the apologies from Ra Smith and Councillor O’Donoghue for non-attendance be received. Seconded by Councillor B Goodwin and CARRIED
PUBLIC FORUM
Sally Walker spoke to the Committee about her opposition to water meters.
[See Minutes Attachment 1]
LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987
There were no late items.
WATER METERING INSTALLATION PROCEDURES (034/19)
The report seeking a decision from Council regarding the procedures staff will use for the installation of smart water meters in Masterton was presented by the Manager Assets and Operations.
In response to questions of clarification staff advised that the property owner would be charged and would recover charges from their tenants and that the annual allowance per household still hadn’t been established. Many residential properties would never exceed that allowance.
A question was asked whether it was legal for a property owner to pass on the billing and it was advised that staff would check. 302 [Note to minutes: Council has the legal ability to charge water rates to a property. The detail around the rates resolution and policy for water metering will be brought before Council next year.]
In terms of the timeframe the Manager Assets and Operations advised that installation was scheduled to start in 12-14 months’ time. Finalisation of charges would be part of next years’ annual plan.
The importance of running a pilot so households get an understanding of their usage before charges were imposed was raised.
Staff would be reporting to Council as the project progressed.
Moved by Councillor G McClymont THAT the Infrastructural Services Committee recommends that Council approves the preparation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for universal water meter installation in the Masterton district based on the following:
i. The Council will install meters on properties and invoice property owners per usage. If within annual allowance, there will be no additional water charge (the annual allowance will be covered by a water component of the rates bill);
ii. The owner of commercial properties/flats will receive the water bill and be responsible for on-charging different users on the property;
iii. The Council will install meters and check meters on cross-lease or common supplies when they are straightforward to separate;
Iv Cross-lease supplies with internal piping that cannot easily be separated will be advised that water charges will be shared between users Seconded by Councillor J Dalziell and CARRIED
PETITION OF KAREN DOW REQUESTING THE INTRODUCTION OF RANDOM ROADSIDE DRUG TESTING (039/19)
The report seeking Council endorsement of the petition requesting the introduction of random roadside drug testing was presented by the Manager Assets and Operations. Information in relation to testing for cannabis had been requested. While members supported the intent of the petition there was a concern that formally endorsing it might set a precedent. Members were reminded they could sign the petition personally. It was suggested that if a remit on the matter hadn’t been submitted for the LGNZ AGM then Council could investigate supporting it collectively with other councils. With the agreement of the meeting the recommendation was amended. Staff would find out whether there was a remit on the petition. [Note to minutes: LGNZ staff have advised that they have not received any remit on random roadside drug testing to date.] 303 Moved by Mayor L Patterson That the Infrastructural Services Committee i. receives the letter from Dr Nick Smith in relation to the petition of Karen Dow on random roadside drug testing (attachment 1 to Report 039/19) Seconded by Councillor J Dalziell and CARRIED
INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (035/19)
The report providing the Committee with an update on key infrastructure projects and areas of focus was taken as read by the Manager Assets and Operations.
The cost of the CBD paving repairs was requested.
[Note to minutes: $66,782 has been spent on paving repairs in the CBD and Kuripuni between November 2018 and Feb 2019.]
Moved by Councillor G McClymont THAT the Infrastructural Services Committee notes the information contained in report 035/19. Seconded by Councillor J Dalziell and CARRIED
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (037/19)
The report providing the Infrastructural Services Committee with an update on key projects and summary of progress since the last report, including highlights and any new issues was taken as read.
Further information was requested on the leases and the overall plan at Hood Aerodrome. Staff advised that the existing leases and the allocation of the new sites were a separate issue. There had been no change to the plan and previous reports to Council would be recirculated.
The delay to the Library Learning Centre was discussed. Staff advised that the delays due to the ground conditions and the consent had now been added to by a lack of contractor availability.
A member expressed concern about the condition of QE Park and contractor performance. Staff advised that the best way to address those issues was to put them through as service requests.
The Castlepoint toilet upgrade was discussed and staff advised that there was an issue again with contractor availability. The budget for the project didn’t need to be revised as the plans were being reviewed and savings made to make sure the project stayed within budget.
Moved by Councillor G Caffell That the Infrastructural Services Committee notes the contents of Report 037/19. Seconded by Councillor B Goodwin and CARRIED.
The meeting closed at 2.04pm MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCil R
8 2 5 NAR 2019
?ada C
ache?
d C& ce Auedan ec del
approvehe c endn'y £4 he c +c pref rab s opambe s a pro c c sŽ I IVOQVL one emcerts on.ifts Dn fl eIS GLICtÍ€t AS t-'df n roc?SS 110Cevo ene^ªjlept,r an ‰‰s rac+u h†s n a fine dervëes lAnfer. CommWie ca d sserarce ey do an n bee the avaoter. Communi/ OC ant a¬ ca. er mdea in docAtcht th d?an 34ad wey_o 4heu n e th mComna ashac+ure a¼ays rTh9 hue . ec garephe e r eony ope s years.te dreacyc MDL_mad /o aUL aasd ev malerate an n wder eters ejaarge hill he(ggay amny sbuct d!œr rerwne - alssfrac¼ure a /ù µSecoast - True we¾cr· ?ve u/here a¾ys a fpoMe rofepayers At † ofemtel'a y Ärn/S ersAc shocmane earÔT es ?esre ???. ponsale an elarmnÂas A cherebdisa‰y iscl an- /v/¬? ff . d
M?c /,as a?cl wder rodes ?ll he olilact leaKs e ppes dest a wa r mete fthe / coacKed Ad was a //tte an d e bb W?OC.&e gay afer r peroqeke ?de rrnch / d Mes do your b 3&c/ M‰ at praæ?are bds reL‰ . lv|¬o of t tŸ 'fa -tr>qlde 4hd -fhere -9 ? ero u
2f ni v{ n e5
6 ac & a a ~ as
p/y of water ??? a o ts s 6 r a ca SQGCd d e smo.e CcsnSO/VE aler whet a ehen ever l he ca n once again ho o ca an Ike as§<Åa
n 5 q an ousancInyader fo inatnkaiv7 eters. Y Q 4 o5 co of de any h buf nnake n o At Moc he cess a egalf way /Y)DL ca process is 4‰tal. ty)0C noss avt +he CoQas a O y o ?w A at lh£30 do d ad a)V)DC n matea 3?e as_a he on_Lomo ??? dowhen no) (YjQ(a ise d d fh 1 p e r Ham _ y?† h say ÃÒ we nabu e # k/hech as e fonarnun 6 Man a hfs +o de‰d †hannsa)ves ynÇ o ReT??vens aren ( bells d a e dod u o !Vioc no nM & TeÆsa aters od d as as ans /?ve a 2D we perase l?Ids hye cles - Sao h oemse nd Ip k at Wet eneters a a bs‰ue . WAer ‰Ks o PRESENT Mayor L Patterson (Chair), Councillors G Caffell, B Johnson, F Mailman, C Peterson, and John Dalziell (to 3.00pm). IN ATTENDANCE Chief Executive, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Finance, Library Manager, Senior Policy Advisor, Community Development Advisor, Properties and Facilities Manager, Parks and Reserves Manager, Senior Parks and Reserves Advisor, Connecting Communities Community Development Advisor, Governance Advisor, one media representative and four members of the public. A moment’s silence was taken in recognition of those who lost their lives in Christchurch on 15 March. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST In relation to the Public Forum item: The Mayor is a member of the Lansdowne Residents Association and Councillor Peterson also has an association with the Lansdowne Residents Association. APOLOGIES Moved Councillor B Johnson That the apologies received from Ra Smith, Tiraumaera Te Tau and Councillor D Davidson for non-attendance be accepted. Seconded Councillor F Mailman PUBLIC FORUM Ray Stewart and Sandy Ryan from the Lansdowne Residents Association gave a presentation on the work the group had been doing on the Lansdowne Recreation Trails. LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 There were no late items. HE HIRINGA TANGATA, HE HIRINGA WHENUA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (040/19) The report seeking the Committee’s endorsement of the He Hiringa Tangata He Hiringa Whenua Implementation Plan was taken as read. It was advised that reporting on the implementation plan would be to the Community Wellbeing Committee and through the Annual Report. The plan would be revised as part of the next Long-Term Plan. Members suggested further projects could be added: 202 The Community Mentored Driving Plan Fab Lab (on completion of the MOU) The Upper Plain and Lansdowne Neighbourhood Groups Digital Seniors programme Positive Aging Strategy In response to a question it was advised that the feedback on the What’s our Welcome initiative would be reported back to the next meeting. Climate Change was discussed, and one member expressed concern that a watching brief on climate change was not enough as things were changing rapidly and Council needed to take action now. It was noted that the report of the Environmental Sustainability Advisor which was in the agenda provided an update on the work Council was doing in the area. A workshop would be arranged to give elected members the opportunity to discuss what more Council could do. Moved by Councillor F Mailman That the Community Wellbeing Committee endorse and recommend Council adopt the My Masterton Our People, Our Land: He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua Strategy Implementation Plan, included as Attachment 1 to Report 040/19. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED QUEEN ELIZABETH PARK – REDWOOD TREES ASSESSMENT UPDATE (036/19) The report providing information on the QE Park Redwood Tree assessment and seeking Council endorsement of the recommended work programme was presented by the Manager Community Facilities and Activities. In response to a question it was advised that the work didn’t come under the Recreational Services Contract, as it was specialised work. Moved Councillor G Caffell That the Community Wellbeing Committee: i. notes the contents of Report 036/19 and receives the assessment report ii. endorses the Queen Elizabeth Park Redwood Trees work programme detailed in Attachment 1 to Report 036/19. Seconded by Councillor C Peterson and CARRIED CIVIC AND YOUTH AWARDS 2018/19 (042/19) The report providing an update on the Civic and Youth awards was presented by the Manager Community Facilities and Activities. (Councillor Dalziell left the meeting at 3.00) 203 Staff were congratulated on the Civic Award event which had been held in February. Moved by Councillor B Johnson That the Community Wellbeing Committee i. receives the information in Report 042/19; and ii. endorses the revised process for Youth Award nominations. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (032/19) The report providing an update on the Cultural Development work being undertaken was presented by the Senior Policy Advisor. Moved by Councillor F Mailman That the Community Wellbeing Committee notes the contents of Report 032/19. Seconded by Councillor G Caffell and CARRIED LIBRARY AND ARCHIVE UPDATE (033/19) The Manager Community Facilities and Activities presented the report providing the committee with an update on progress of the wellbeing planning, initiatives and services of the Masterton District Library and Wairarapa Archive. Moved by Councillor G Caffell That the Community Wellbeing Committee receives the update on progress of the Masterton District Library and Wairarapa Archive in Report 033/19. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY UPDATE (038/19) The report providing the Community Wellbeing Committee with an update on key environmental and sustainability activities. As previously discussed, a workshop would be arranged to address concerns raised in relation to climate change. Moved by Councillor C Peterson That the Community Wellbeing Committee notes the contents of report 038/19 Seconded by Councillor G Caffell and CARRIED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (041/19) The Manager Community Facilities and Activities spoke to the report providing an update on the progress of community development work. 204 A request was made for “We Connect” [neighbourhood support project] to present to a future Council meeting. In relation to refugee resettlement, it was advised that Masterton would get its first refugee families next year. Moved by Councillor G Caffell That the Community Wellbeing Committee receives the update on progress of community development work in Report 041/19. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED. The meeting closed at 3.31pm 121 045/19 To: Mayor and Councillors From: Tania Madden, Manager Strategic Planning Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject Order of Candidate Names on Voting Documents DECISION Recommendation: That Council, in accordance with Clause 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, agrees to random order for the listing of candidate names on voting documents for the 2019 Local Elections PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from Council regarding the order in which candidate names will be printed on voting documents for the 2019 Local Elections. BACKGROUND Clause 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 allows councils to decide the order of candidate names on voting documents. For past elections, Masterton District Council candidate names have been listed in alphabetical order by surname. Unless there is a resolution to change this by 28 June 2019, the current arrangement will continue (see Attachment 1). Masterton Community Trust, Masterton Trust Lands Trust and the Montfort Trimble Foundation have also listed candidate names in alphabetical order in the past, aligning with Council’s approach. For 2019, each of the Trusts also has until 28 June 2019 to resolve to change this, or the current arrangement continues. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS Discussion Alphabetical Order As noted, in the past Masterton District Council has opted for alphabetical ordering of candidate names on voting papers in the past. This means candidates are listed in alphabetical order based on their surname, which is also the order in which information about candidates is published in the Candidate profile booklet. Criticism of this approach is that there may be an order effect (e.g. those listed first are advantaged) that influences voting outcomes, especially if voters don’t know who they want to vote for and/or there is a longer list of candidates to choose from. Analysis of the impact of name order on voting outcomes in Masterton District Council’s 2013 and 2016 elections (see Attachment 2) shows little correlation between a candidate’s placement on the 122 list and polling outcomes. Although in three of the four elections referred to below the candidate that was listed first was successful, candidates lower down in the list were also elected. In 2016 the three highest polling candidates in each of these elections were listed on the voting form as follows: • the Urban ward (6 candidates) – 2nd, 4th, and 1st • the At Large Ward (10 candidates) – 6th, 1st and 8th • Masterton Community Trust (7 candidates) – 5th, 4th and 3rd • Masterton Trust Lands Trust (8 candidates) – 5th, 8th and 1st. Past elections have been based on a ward system with candidates choosing to stand for the Rural, Urban or At large wards. In 2016, the largest number of candidates in any one ward was ten so the longest list of candidates on the voting document for Council elections was also ten. The Representation Review undertaken by Council in 2018 resolved to remove wards and have all members elected At large for the 2019 election. This will mean that for 2019 all candidates standing for Council will be listed in one At large category on voting documents. In 2016 there was a total of 18 candidates across the rural, urban and at large wards. The change may also attract more candidates. For 2019, given the change to all ‘At large’ the list of candidates is expected to be longer than any previous ward list, and order effects may therefore be more likely. Alternative Options Alternative options for listing candidate names on voting documents include: 1. Pseudo-Random Order The order of candidate names for each issue are determined randomly (essentially the equivalent of drawing names from a hat) and are listed in the order drawn on all voting documents. While this changes the order of candidates, if there is an order effect in voter decision making (e.g. a tendency to vote for the first listed candidate), this isn’t eliminated. 2. Random Order Candidate names are listed in a different order on each and every voting document, which reduces any potential order effect. Some voters, especially those living within the same household, can find random order confusing as their voting paper will be different to others. Papers can also be more time consuming to count if a manual count is required. Historically these alternative options have cost more than alphabetical order, however with evolving technology there is no longer a cost difference. A greater number of councils are moving to random order. Electionz.com (Council’s election provider) have advised that in 2016 approximately 50% of all elections were conducted with random name order. 123 The Justice and Electoral Committee Inquiry into the 2013 Local Authority Elections (25 July 2014)1 recommended that the order of candidate names for local authority elections be completely randomised given the main argument against random order, which was the additional cost, is no longer applicable (see Attachment 3). (The Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections is not yet complete.) Options Considered Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Alphabetical • Familiarity for voters given this • There is a risk that those whose Order system has been used in the names are listed first potentially past have an advantage over those • If a voter knows who they want listed further down, especially to vote for it is easier to find when voters don’t know who that candidate’s name they want to vote for and/or when there is a longer list of • The list of candidates on the candidates to choose from. voting papers is in the same order as the candidate profile booklet, making it easier for voters to find information about candidates on the voting paper 2 Pseudo-random • Removes any potential bias • As the list generated is the same order towards those whose surnames across all voting papers, the risk are at the beginning of the of potential advantage for those alphabet being elected whose names are listed first remains. 3 Random order • Equitable for all candidates as • Potentially confusing for voters: this method removes the risk of voting papers will differ from those whose surnames come at voter to voter; it will be harder the begining of the alphabet to locate preferred candidates in having an advantage over a longer list; the candidate list others won’t align with the candidate profile handbook which is arranged alphabetically. 4. Make no decision See 1. above See 1. above (default will be alphabetical order of surnames) 1 Justice and Electoral Committee Inquiry into the 2013 Local Authority Elections (25 July 2014), page 8 https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en- NZ/50DBSCH_SCR56857_1/ca8b97160aa5b2a95f5ef70e9f6419aac3ac3b49 124 Conclusion Staff recommend option 3 to provide the most equitable outcome for all candidates given the move to all ‘at large’ is expected to result in a longer list of candidates for the Masterton District Council 2019 election. Staff have also taken into consideration the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to use random order and the fact that there is no cost difference in choosing this option. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications As noted, the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 allow councils to determine the order of candidates’ names on voting papers. If Council wish to change the way candidate names are listed on voting documents, a resolution needs to be made by 28 June 2019 to comply with public notice requirements. If there is no resolution to change, the regulations provide for the default to be alphabetical order. Significance, Engagement and Consultation The decision has been assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and is considered to be of low significance given it is an option provided for by regulation and is a procedural matter. For this reason, consultation with the community is not recommended. Public notice is required if Council accept the staff recommendation to agree to list candidates in random order on voting documents. Additional communication during the voting period as part of our elections messaging is also recommended to alert voters to the fact that their voting papers will appear different. Financial Considerations There are no financial implications as there is no difference in cost between the different options. Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori No implications for Māori have been identified in relation to this decision. Communications/Engagement Plan As noted above, consultation is not recommended. It is recommended that the community be informed of the change (public notice is required); and reminded of the change again closer to the voting period as part of our elections messaging. Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations No environmental/climate change impacts have been identified in relation to this decision. 125 ATTACHMENT 1 Local Electoral Regulations 2001 31 Order of candidates’ names on voting documents (1) The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order. (2) Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates’ names are to be arranged on the voting document. (3) If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates’ names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname. (4) If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates’ names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend. (5) In this regulation,— pseudo-random order means an arrangement where— (a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and (b) all voting documents use that order random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document. 126 ATTACHMENT 2: Order of Candidates and Results from 2013 and 2016 Elections Ranking by Highest Number of Votes 2013 and 2016 Placement of Mayoralty Rural Urban Ward At Large Ward Licensing/ Community Montfort Masterton Trust Lands Candidate on Ward Trust Trimble Trust Voting 2013* Document 2016* 2013* (alphabetical) 2013 2016 2013 2016 2013 2016 2013 2016 1st 3 2 2 3 5 2 5 5 2 2 3 2nd 2 1 3 1 1 5 7 6 3 5 5 3rd 1 6 6 2 10 3 3 1 6 8 4th 5 2 3 4 2 2 7 4 5th 7 5 7 8 1 1 1 1 6th 4 4 6 1 9 5 8 6 7th 1 4 6 6 7 4 7 8th 3 4 3 2 9th 9 8 3 10th 7 NB the Rural Ward candidate was elected unopposed in 2013, the Mayor was elected unopposed in 2016 and there was only 1 Montfort Trimble Foundation candidate in 2016 so a by-election was held subsequently. 127 INQUIRY INTO THE 2013 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS Recommendation We recommend to the Government that it consider amending the Local Electoral Act 2001 to provide a clear mandate to improve the facilitation of participation. Order of candidates’ names on ballot papers In its 2010 local authority elections inquiry report the Justice and Electoral Committee of the day recommended that the order of candidate names on all ballot papers be completely randomised. Cabinet agreed to defer work on this until after the 2013 elections. Candidate order is one of the few electoral decisions that must be made by the sitting elected members. If the elected members make no decision, the Local Electoral Act presumes names on ballot papers should be in alphabetical order. The number of local authorities using alphabetical order is declining, however. In 2013, 21 local authorities ordered ballot papers randomly, and 11 used pseudo-random order (determined by lot, with the same order applied to all ballot papers), slightly more in each category than in 2010. The main argument against random order has traditionally been cost. However, New Zealand Post, as the main printer of electoral documents, expects there will be little or no difference in 2016 between the cost of printing lists in alphabetical order and random order. We would like to see candidate names listed randomly. We consider that documents other than ballot papers need not be randomised. Recommendation We recommend to the Government that the order of candidate names on all ballot papers in local authority elections be completely randomised. Multiple voting systems The existence and effect of multiple voting systems in local elections attracted a large number of submissions, referring particularly to the potential for confusion on the part of voters. All district health board elections are conducted under the single transferable vote (STV) method, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Local authorities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system or STV. In 2013, 90 percent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections. Therefore, voting in most local elections involved a combination of FPP and STV. We understand that generally the STV councils have a higher turnout, but the incidence of invalid voting is usually far higher in DHB elections, because people tick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them. In 2008, the Local Government Commission conducted a post-election survey of voters; 52 percent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing, while 46 percent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 percent) said they would prefer a single system. We consider that there is potential for confusion where multiple systems are operating. Voting methods Some submitters were keen for at least two methods for casting votes (such as postal and booth voting) to be made available, and largely supported the introduction of online voting. There is no statutory restriction on local authorities using a combination of postal and booth voting. Nor is there any prohibition on local authorities placing collection boxes in locations other than voting booths, provided they can guarantee their security. However, 8 128 047/19 To: Your Worship and Elected Members From: Tania Madden, Manager Strategic Planning Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Proposed Appointments to Council Organisations Policy DECISION Recommendation: That Council: i. notes the content of this report; and ii. adopts the proposed Appointments to Council Organisations Policy (Attachment 1 to report 047/19). PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present the proposed Appointments to Council Organisations Policy for Council’s adoption (see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND Under Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), all Councils are required to adopt a policy that sets out an objective and transparent process for: • the identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge, and experience required of directors of a council organisation; • the appointment of directors to a council organisation; and • the remuneration of directors of a council organisation. Masterton District Council (MDC) adopted the current Appointment and Remuneration of Council Appointments to Outside Bodies Policy in 2004. No review period is specified under the LGA however a review is appropriate given the time passed since the policy was last considered. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS Proposed Appointments to Council Organisations Policy Scope of the Policy This policy applies to Council Organisations, which are defined under the LGA (s.6) as a company or entity in which MDC has a voting interest or the right to appoint a director, trustee or manager. An entity is any partnership, trust, profit-sharing arrangement, union of interest, co-operation, joint venture, or other similar arrangement. It does not include a company, or a committee or joint committee of a local authority. A list of MDC’s Council Organisations is included as an appendix to the proposed policy. 129 Proposed Amendments Amendments are proposed to the policy for the purposes of clarity and achievement of the policy aim of an objective and transparent process. Key changes are: • Add minimum skills and attributes required by any person appointed as a CO director. • Add statement on diversity and inclusion. • Add statement that an elected member being considered for a position cannot participate in the discussion or voting in relation to their or other proposed appointees. • Add statement that elected members and MDC employees are eligible for appointment as a CO director. • Clarify that elected members may personally receive any remuneration offered by the CO, while MDC employees may not. • Add factors that Council will consider when deciding to reappoint a director. • Add statement that directors will be required to follow MDC’s Governance Code of Conduct. • Add statement that directors may be removed from their position at Council’s discretion. • Minor edits that have no effect on the meaning or intent of the existing policy. Reason for Proposed Changes Each of the changes above are proposed to ensure that the policy: • provides a clear process for the selection, appointment and remuneration of CO directors; and • is clear and simple for our community, potential appointees and Council to understand. The impact of not making the proposed changes is that the policy may be difficult to understand and open to interpretation, which does not meet the requirement for an objective and transparent policy. Options Considered A summary of the options considered is included in the table below. Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Adopt the proposed Consistent with the LGA No disadvantages identified. Appointments to Council requirement to have an Organisations Policy objective and transparent policy in place for the selection, appointment and remuneration of CO directors. Provides a level of detail that will support efficient and consistent decision-making. Consistent with the approach taken by other Councils. 2 Adopt the proposed Any potential advantages would Significant changes may have policy with amendments. depend on the detail of unintended consequences proposed change/s. when applied in practice. Could delay adoption of the policy. 130 3 Do not adopt the revised No advantages identified. The existing policy would policy remain without the proposed improvements. Conclusion Staff recommend Option 1, noting the advantages stated above. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Option 1 aligns with the legal requirement under the LGA for all Councils to have a policy in place on the identification, appointment and remuneration of directors to Council Organisations. It is also consistent with the Community Outcome of ‘An Engaged and Empowered Community’ which supports equitable opportunities for everyone. Significance, Engagement and Consultation This decision has been assessed against MDC’s Significance and Engagement Policy and does not meet any of the criteria to be considered a significant decision. For this reason, consultation with the community is not recommended. It is recommended that the community be informed of the policy by publishing it on MDC’s website. Financial Considerations Budget has been allocated in the 2018-19 policy projects budget for the review of the Appointment to Council Organisations Policy. Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori No implications for Māori have been identified in relation to this decision. Communications/Engagement Plan As noted above, consultation is not recommended. It is recommended that the community be informed of the policy by publishing it on MDC’s website. Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations No environmental/climate change impacts have been identified in relation to this decision. 131 ATTACHMENT 1 Appointments to Council Organisations Policy Policy Number: MDCxxx First Adopted: Latest Version: Adopted by: Insert relevant Council/s and/or Council Committee meeting where it was adopted/approved] Review Date: 132 CONTENTS Purpose ...... 1 Scope ...... 1 Strategic Alignment...... 1 Required Skills, Knowledge and Experience ...... 2 Diversity and Inclusion ...... 2 Appointment Process ...... 2 Advertising the Position ...... 3 Assessment of Candidates ...... 3 Council Decision ...... 3 Elected Members and MDC Employees ...... 4 Remuneration...... 4 Term of Appointment ...... 4 Reappointment...... 4 Conflict of Interest ...... 4 Reporting Requirements ...... 5 Dismissal ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Review of Policy ...... 5 Definitions ...... 5 Related Documents ...... 5 References ...... 5 Version Control ...... 6 Last Updated: xx 133 PURPOSE The purpose of the Appointments to Council Organisations Policy is to ensure Masterton District Council (MDC) follows an objective and transparent process for the selection, appointment and remuneration of Council Organisation (CO) directors, in accordance with section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). To provide Council with a process to follow when making appointments to outside organisations. SCOPE This policy applies to the selection, appointment and remuneration of all MDC CO directors. The policy provides criteria for deciding when to appoint to outside bodies, the process for selection of appointees and to clarify Council’s expectations of the appointee. REASON FOR THE POLICY Section 57 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to adopt a policy on the appointment and remuneration of directors to council organisations. The policy must set an objective and transparent process for: • identification and consideration of the skills, knowledge and experience required of directors of a council organisation; and • appointment of directors to a council organisation; and • remuneration of directors of a council organisation. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Prior to deciding to appoint a CO director, Council will assess its involvement against the following strategic criteria: • The organisation’s goals and objectives, which must fit with MDC’s direction as stated in its strategic planning documents. • Any appointment must add value to the organisation and MDC. • The benefits of appointing a director must outweigh other methods of achieving MDC’s objectives. DECISION TO APPOINT TO AN OUTSIDE ORGANISATION The following reasons may prompt Council to agree to appoint representatives to outside bodies: Leadership to provide leadership, especially in new initiatives that might have originated from Council to achieve the objectives of Council’s strategic plan for the district Governance to ensure Council involvement in governance to ensure efficient oversight of the group Liaison and Co-ordination to provide liaison between Council and the group to include Council in co-ordinating bodies to ensure coordination of activity between Council and these organisations. Monitoring to safeguard Council’s investment to protect or represent Council’s interest Support Last Updated: xx Page 1 of 4 134 to indicate Council’s support for the importance of the work of the group Consideration Criteria • Does the organisation allocate significant Council funding with in the community? • Does the organisation co-ordinate the activity of particular sectors or groups within the community in an area that is significant to the achievement of Council’s own goals • Are there other ways or initiatives that Council might take to co-ordinate or establish bodies that advance Council’s strategic goals and objectives • Does the organization receive significant Council funding to undertake work that might otherwise be provided by Council • Does the work of the organization require the status that would be accorded by leadership from the Council • Is the Council a stakeholder in the services provided through this group REQUIRED SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE Section 57 further states that the CouncilMDC may appoint a person to be a director of a CO only if the Council considers the person has, in the opinion of the council, the skills, knowledge, or experience to: • guide the organisation, given the nature and scope of its activities; and • contribute to the achievement to the objectives of the organisation. As a minimum, any person appointed as a director of a CO must have the following skills and attributes: • an understanding of governance issues; • knowledge and experience that is relevant to the position; • intellectual ability; • sound judgement; • a high standard of personal integrity; • the ability to work as a member of a team; • ability to appreciate the wider public interest; and • time available to effectively undertake the position. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION MDC values diversity and acknowledges the value that a CO will gain from a broad range of skills, experience, perspectives, backgrounds, demographics and other qualities. All director appointments will be made on the basis of the skills, knowledge and experience which the CO requires to be effective, balanced with the benefits of diversity in the organisation. APPOINTMENT PROCESS The Local Government Act 2002 requires Councils to appoint to outside organisations those people who, in the Council’s opinion, have the skills, knowledge and experience required, and that their appointment is done using an “objective and transparent process”. In general there are three categories of organisation to which MDC makes appointments. 1. Those with whom MDC has a contractual agreement to provide services; 2. regional or district co-ordinating bodies for the district, Wairarapa or Wellington 3. community organisations Category 1: Where Council has determined to make an appointment to an organisation with which it has: • a memorandum of understanding; and • a service contract; and • commitment to three-year funding. Last Updated: xx Page 2 of 4 135 Council will decide in open meeting whether to advertise a particular vacancy or to make an appointment without advertising. Category 2: Regional or district coordinating or advisory Bodies For such organisations, appointments are usually made at the beginning of each triennium on the recommendation of the Mayor. Such appointments are generally elected members. Category 3: Community organisations Advertising the Position Council will decide in an open meeting whether to advertise a particular vacancy or to make an appointment without advertising. When making this decision the Council will consider: • costs associated with the advertisement and recruitment process; • the availability of qualified candidates; and • the urgency of the appointment. Where an appointment is made without advertising, Council will record that factthe decision (andincluding the reasons for not advertising the position) in the minutes of the relevant meeting. Assessment of Candidates The Council will nominate a sub-committee to manage the appointment. The sub-committee may include MDC employees and external parties, as appropriate. If the vacancy is advertised, Where Council decides to advertise a vacancy the Policy and Finance Committee will appoint a sub-committee tothe sub-committee will be responsible for: • developing a person specification; • considering applications; • interviewing shortlisted candidates; and • reporting back to Council (including making a recommendation if the sub-committee wishes to do so). If the vacancy is not advertised, Where Council decides not to advertise, the sub-committee will recommend suitable candidates to Council (identifying a preferred candidate if the sub-committee wishes to do so). In making rRecommendations the committee will take into accountconsider the: • functional relationships of the appointment;, • responsibilities and liabilities attached toof the appointment;, • key result areas for the appointment; and • specific skills/qualifications that may be required by the successful candidate. Council Decision Whether advertised or not, The preferred candidate will be appointed by Council resolution. The resolution may be made may make a final decision in a Public Excluded session if required to (thus protecting the privacy of a natural person.s) with A public announcement of the decision will be published as soon as practicable. If an elected member is under consideration for a vacancy, that elected member cannot take part in the discussion or vote on their appointment, or any other proposed appointees, at the same meeting. Vacancies may occur during a triennium, or new organisations may seek a Council representative on their governing body. In such cases the appointments will be made in accordance with the processes identified in this policy. Last Updated: xx Page 3 of 4 136 ELECTED MEMBERS AND MDC EMPLOYEES Elected members and MDC employees are eligible for appointment, except to Council-Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations. The Council will consider the potential for any conflict of interest before appointing an elected member or an MDC employee as a CO director. REMUNERATION It is Council policyMDC will not to remunerate CO directors of council organisations. Remuneration of directors by the council organisation is a matter for the organisation concerned. Elected members appointed as directors may receive the remuneration (if any) offered by the CO. If an MDC employee is appointed as a director, the remuneration (if any) shall be paid to MDC, unless the Council determines there are special circumstances. TERM OF APPOINTMENT Unless otherwise determined, appointments would beare made for three years. for a period normally in line with the period of the triennium. REAPPOINTMENT Council may reappoint an existing director for a further term without activating the formal appointment process. Where a director’s term of appointment has expired, and they are offering themselves for reappointment, Council will consider: • whether the skills of the incumbent add value to the work of the organisation; • whether there are other skills which the Governing Board needs; • whether a change to the existing director/s would compromise the organisation’s ability to pursue a desired vision and long-term strategy, or whether there is a need for new skills and ideas on the Governing Board; and • whether an appointment is necessary. A director will not be reappointed for a third successive term unless there are special circumstances, including: • succession planning; • provision of continuity for development projects; or • provision of specific areas of expertise. If reappointment is not appropriate, the formal appointment process detailed in this policy will be followed. A former appointee becomes eligible again after an absence of one full term. CODE OF CONDUCT Council appointees to outside organisations would be expected to abide by Council’s Code of Conduct. Appointees will be advised of this in the letter of appointment. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Any person appointed as a CO director is expected to avoid situations where their actions could create a conflict of interest. To minimise these situations, CO directors are required to follow the provisions of MDC’s Governance Code of Conduct. Appointees to trusts are required under the Trustee’s Act to act in the best interests of the Trust. When Council is considering a report from an organisation on performance against a contract or service agreement any Councillor appointed to the organisation would be considered to have a conflict of interest. Last Updated: xx Page 4 of 4 137 In matters of consideration of Council policy or making budget provisions the councillors appointed to organisations would not be considered to have a conflict of interest. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Reporting responsibilities of the CO director will be confirmed at the time of appointment. At a minimum, directors will report annually on the progress of the organisation.The reporting requirements of appointees will in many cases be covered by reporting arrangements between Council and the organisation. Appointees would be expected to participate in any formal reporting back to Council. In the case of co-ordinating bodies representatives are expected to provide progress reports on major developments or delays and on opportunities available to the Council resulting from considerations by the co-ordinating body. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS Council-appointed directors of COs hold office at the pleasure of the Council and may be removed from the position at any time by way of Council resolution. Without limiting the rights of the Council, the reasons likely to justify removal of a director, would be where that director: • is regularly absent from board meetings without good justification; • no longer has the confidence of the CO or the Council; • has breached ethical standards; • does not act in the best interests of the organisation; or • breaches the confidence of the CO in any way. MDC will not make any payment by way of compensation to directors who have been removed from their position. REVIEW OF POLICY This policy will be reviewed every five years. Council will review this policy in 2006 in conjunction with its review of the Long-Term Council Community Plan. DEFINITIONS Council Organisation: An organisation company or entity in which MDC has a voting interest or the right to appoint a director, trustee or manager. Refer LGA (s.6) for the full legal definition. Council Controlled Organisation: A council organisation that MDC (alone or with other local authorities) controls 50% or more of the voting rights or has the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint 50% or more of the directors. Refer LGA (s.6) for the full legal definition. Council Controlled Trading Organisation: A council-controlled organisation that operates a trading operation for the purpose of making a profit. Director: Includes company directors, trustees, members, managers and office holders of a Council Organisation (however described). Entity: Any partnership, trust, arrangement for the sharing of profits, union of interest, cooperation, joint venture, or other similar arrangement. Does not include a company, or a committee or joint committee of a local authority. Refer LGA (s.6) for the full legal definition. RELATED DOCUMENTS MDC Governance Code of Conduct REFERENCES Local Government Act 2002 Last Updated: xx Page 5 of 4 138 VERSION CONTROL Version Date Summary of Amendments Approved By Last Updated: xx Page 6 of 4 139 APPENDIX 1: SCHEDULE OF CURRENT COUNCIL ORGANISATION APPOINTMENTS Organisation Appointee/s Date of Appointment Council Organisation (CO) Cobblestones Museum Brent Goodwin 26/10/2016 Connecting Communities Vacant - Destination Wairarapa Robin Dunlop 26/10/2016 Montford Trimble Foundation Robin Dunlop 26/10/2016 Harriet Palmer Bring It to Colombo Trust Lyn Patterson 26/10/2016 Graham McClymont Bex Johnson Andrea Jackson Wairarapa Multi-Sports Stadium Trust John Dalziell 26/10/2016 Wairarapa Road Safety Council Frazer Mailman 26/10/2016 Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) MDC does not currently have any CCOs. Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) MDC does not currently have any CCTOs. Last Updated: xx Appendix 1 140 049/19 To: Your Worship and Elected Members From: Tania Madden, Manager Strategic Planning Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy DECISION Recommendation: That Council: a. receives the Social Impact Assessment of gambling in the Wairarapa; b. adopts the Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 to Report 049/19 (including the proposed policy) for consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure, as identified in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; c. approves the consultation approach described in this report under Significance and Engagement, noting dates are to be confirmed in consultation with Carterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council; d. delegates authority to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group to hear and consider submissions and make recommendations back to the three Councils on the final policy; and e. notes that Carterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council are considering the same Statement of Proposal for adoption on 3 April 2019 and resolutions (b), (c) and (d) require agreement from all three Councils before consultation can proceed. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present the Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Statement of Proposal for Council’s adoption for consultation with the community (see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND Under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003, all Councils in New Zealand are required to have policies on Class 4 gambling venues and standalone TAB venues. The intent of these policies is to minimise community harm caused by gambling. Under the legislation, both policies are required to be reviewed every three years. The current policies were last adopted in August 2016 and are due for review by August 2019. The legislation also requires Councils to have regard to the social impact of gambling in their community as part of the policy review. Masterton District Council (MDC), Carterton District Council (CDC) and South Wairarapa District Council (SWDC) have had joint policies in place since 2004, to enable a consistent approach across the region. 141 DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS Wairarapa Policy Working Group MDC has undertaken this policy review jointly with CDC and SWDC. In February 2019, Council delegated responsibility for progressing the gambling policy review to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group. Membership of this group is: • Cr Frazer Mailman, MDC (appointed Chairperson for the gambling policy review) • Mayor Lyn Patterson, MDC (replacing Cr Brent Goodwin for the gambling policy review) • Cr Rebecca Vergunst, CDC • Cr Margaret Craig, SWDC • Cr Ross Vickery, SWDC Note that CDC have advised that they will appoint a second representative in April 2019. Review Process The first stage of the policy review was the completion of a Social Impact Assessment, which is included with this report within the Statement of Proposal. A workshop was held with the Working Group on 12 March 2019 to consider the different elements of the policy and agree a recommended approach. This discussion was informed by the findings of the Social Impact Assessment. The next stage of the process is for each of the Wairarapa Councils to adopt the Statement of Proposal for community consultation. Proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy The Working Group recommended that the current policies are continued with minor amendments, as detailed in the table below. Proposed Changes Reason for Proposal Implications of Not Changing Combine the current The current Wairarapa TAB Board The policy content may not be as Wairarapa Gambling Venue Venues Policy duplicates the easy for our community to access. Policy and Wairarapa TAB content in the current Wairarapa Board Venues Policy into one Gambling Venue Policy. Combining Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling the policies removes the and Standalone TAB Venue duplication and makes the policy Policy. simpler for our community to access. Minor edits that have no To improve the clarity and The policy may be difficult for our effect on the meaning or readability of the policy. community to understand, which intent of the existing policies. may lead to confusion. 142 Options Considered A summary of the options considered is included in the table below. Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Adopt the proposed • Carries over the existing policy. • May discourage new hospitality Wairarapa Class 4 • Supports a reduction in businesses, if they need Gambling and TAB gambling venues and gaming gambling machines to be Venues Policy. machines in the long term. financially viable. • Provides balance between • May reduce over time the minimising gambling harm and amount of funding available to continuing access to gambling as community organisations. a form of entertainment and source of funding for community organisations. 2 Adopt a more • Current and potential levels of • Could negatively impact existing restrictive proposed gambling harm could be further businesses and their ability to Wairarapa Class 4 reduced. operate. Gambling and TAB • May reduce over time the Venues Policy. amount of funding available to community organisations. • May lead to some job losses in the hospitality industry. 3 Adopt a less • May have positive flow on • Current and potential levels of restrictive proposed effects to community gambling harm may increase. Wairarapa Class 4 organisations accessing pokie • Once Council consent is granted, Gambling and TAB machine proceeds. a venue or gaming machines Venues Policy. • Possible economic gain from within a venue cannot be visitors who frequent gambling removed. venues. • Would be a significant shift from Council’s current stance to promote the district’s wellbeing and may be negatively perceived by the community. Further information on the options considered by the Working Group is included in the attached Statement of Proposal. Conclusion Staff recommend Option 1 as it is the best method available to Council to achieve the policy’s aim of minimising gambling harm, taking into account the social impact of gambling in the Wairarapa. This option provides an appropriate balance between minimising gambling harm and continuing access to gambling as a form of entertainment and source of funding for community organisations. 143 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Option 1 is in alignment with the purpose of the Gambling Act 2003 to control gambling and prevent and minimise harm from gambling. Option 1 also aligns with the 2018-28 Long-Term Plan, Community Outcomes and our wellbeing strategy He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua. All statutory requirements have been addressed as detailed through this report. Significance, Engagement and Consultation In accordance with section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 65E of the Racing Act 2003, the Wairarapa community will be consulted on the proposed policy using the Special Consultative Procedure. This will include consultation with key stakeholders, including organisations that provide specialised problem gambling services in the Wairarapa and the following organisations identified in the legislation: • Each Corporate Society that holds a Class 4 venue licence for a venue in the Wairarapa; • Organisations representing Māori in the district; and • The New Zealand Racing Board. If Council adopts the Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Statement of Proposal for consultation, the following process will apply, noting that dates are to be confirmed. This is subject to CDC and SWDC also adopting the Statement of Proposal at their meetings on 3 April 2019. Date Activity/Milestone 15 April 2019 Submissions open. MDC will manage the submission process on behalf of CDC and SWDC. 15 May 2019 Submissions close Late May 2019 (date Joint MDC, CDC, SWDC hearing. TBC) It is proposed that the hearing panel role be delegated to the Wairarapa Policy Working Group. The panel would then make recommendations to the three Councils on the final policy. 26 June 2019 MDC, CDC, SWDC adopt the final policy. Financial Implications The review of the Gambling and TAB policies was allowed for in the Policy team budget for the 2018-19 year. Costs, including MDC staff time to lead the review and consultation processes, will be shared equally between the three Councils. Total staff time is estimated at approximately 65 hours, including time already spent to date. Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori Research shows that Māori communities are at a higher risk of being affected by problem gambling. Feedback will be sought from our Māori communities on the proposed policy. Communications/Engagement Plan The proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy will be publicly notified on 15 April 2019 (subject to confirmation as noted above) in the Wairarapa Times Age and on the MDC, CDC and SWDC websites. Notification will also be published via Facebook, on the Wairarapa REAP noticeboard and in Connecting Communities’ Neighbourhood Support newsletter. Notice of the consultation will be directly sent to MDC’s consultation mailing list and the key stakeholders identified above. Key stakeholders will be offered the opportunity to meet with representatives from the working group and staff. 144 The consultation will also be promoted alongside the planned communication and engagement for the 2019-20 Annual Plan over April/May 2019. Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations No environmental/climate change impacts have been identified in relation to this decision. 145 ATTACHMENT 1 STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL Proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy The Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils are undertaking a joint review of the Wairarapa region’s gambling policies to ensure they continue to meet the needs of our community. We are now seeking feedback on the proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy. Under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, every Council is required to have a policy on Class 4 gambling DEFINITIONS and standalone TAB venues. The policies: What is a Class 4 Gambling Venue? »» Must state if Class 4 gambling venues and standalone A Class 4 gambling venue is a place licenced to Class TAB venues may be established in the district and, if 4 gambling i.e. gaming machines (pokies) in pubs so, where they may be located. and clubs. Class 4 gambling does not include pokies »» Can restrict the number of gaming machines (pokies) in casinos. that can be operated at a venue. There are currently 12 gambling venues in the »» Can allow existing venues to move to a new location. Wairarapa. Of these, three are in Carterton, four are Masterton District Council (MDC), Carterton District in Masterton and five are in South Wairarapa. Council (CDC) and South Wairarapa District Council (SWDC) have had a joint Wairarapa Gambling Venue Policy What is a standalone TAB venue? and Wairarapa TAB Board Venue Policy since 2004. A standalone TAB venue is a place where the main Under legislation, both policies must be reviewed every business carried out is to provide racing or sports three years. The current policies were last reviewed in betting services. These are standalone and do not 2016 and remain in effect until a new policy is adopted. include TAB outlets or agencies that are additional activities of a bar or hotel. HOW YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SAY There are currently no standalone TAB venues in the Submissions are open until 4:30pm on Wednesday 15 May Wairarapa. 2019. See page 5 of this document for details on how you can have your say. 146 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposal is to continue the existing policies, with minor amendments. The proposed policy is provided as Appendix 1 and the key aspects are summarised below. Proposal Reason for Proposal and Alternative Options Considered 1 Combine the two current policies into The current Wairarapa TAB Board Venues Policy duplicates the content one Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and in the current Wairarapa Gambling Venue Policy. Combining the Standalone TAB Venues Policy policies removes this duplication and makes the policy simpler for our community to access. 2 Continue the current policy to prohibit This proposal means that the number of venues and gaming machines new Class 4 gambling venues and cap cannot increase from the number currently operating (12 venues and the number of gaming machines 165 gaming machines). This approach is considered the best method available to Council to minimise gambling harm over the long-term. Alternative options considered as part of the policy review were capping the number of venues at current levels or removing all restrictions on venues and gaming machines. These options are not recommended as they do not support a continuing reduction in venue and gaming machine numbers over time and, if all restrictions were removed, may see numbers increase. This is inconsistent with the policy aim of minimising harm from gambling and controlling Class 4 gambling. 3 Continue the current policy to permit This proposal means that under certain circumstances and subject existing Class 4 gambling venues to to conditions, an existing venue may be permitted to relocate. This relocate approach is considered most appropriate as it means that an existing venue will be able to relocate to another location, either temporarily or permanently, under certain cirumstances e.g. if the venue building requires earthquake strengthening. The alternative option is to remove the ability for existing venues to relocate. This option is not recommended as it may negatively impact local business. 4 Continue the current policy to permit This approach is recommended as there are currently no standalone new standalone TAB venues to be TAB venues in the Wairarapa and the risk of a significant number of established venues applying to operate is considered low. The alternative option is to prohibit new standalone TAB venues, ensuring none open in the Wairarapa. Considering the low risk, this approach is not recommended. 5 Continue the current policy not to This approach gives Council discretion on the locations where a Class 4 permit Class 4 gambling or standalone gambling or standalone TAB venue may be located. TAB venues in locations where there The alternative option is to state specific locations where Class 4 may be an adverse impact on the gambling or standalone TAB venues may be established. This option character of the district, preschools, is not recommended as it would mean Council has less flexibility when schools, places of worship or considering an application. community facilities 6 Minor amendments Minor amendments have been made to the wording to update references and to ensure the policy is clear and simple to understand. 147 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT When reviewing gambling policies, Councils are required to consider the social impact of gambling on its community. The full Social Impact Assessment is provided with this proposal as Appendix 2. In summary, the social impact of gambling in the Wairarapa showed that: »» The number of gambling venues and Class 4 gaming »» Approximately $2.9m was received by Wairarapa machines is decreasing. community organisations from the corporate »» Expenditure (the amount lost) on gaming machines is societies that operate the region’s gaming machines. increasing. »» There are benefits to gambling including community »» In 2018, expenditure was over $7.5 million. grants, providing employment opportunities and as a »» An estimated 2,035 people in the region may form of entertainment. experience some level of gambling harm. »» The benefits of gambling must be balanced with »» The region has access to three specialised problem the costs of gambling which include physical and gambling support services, less than one service per mental health problems, and impacts on finances, 10,000 people. relationships, work, study and crime. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL In accordance with section 77 of the LGA, all reasonably practicable options have been considered. The advantages and disadvantages associated with each option are detailed in the table below. We are proposing to proceed with Option 1. Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Adopt the proposed »» Carries over the existing policy. »» May discourage new hospitality Wairarapa Class »» Supports a reduction in gambling businesses, if they need gambling 4 Gambling and venues and gaming machines in the machines to be financially viable. Standalone TAB Venues long term. »» May reduce over time the amount Policy. »» Has been developed in consideration of funding available to community of the social impact of gambling in the organisations. This is the preferrred Wairarapa and provides an appropriate option. balance between minimising gambling harm and continuing access to gambling as a form of entertainment and source of funding for community organisations. 2 Adopt a more restrictive »» Current and potential levels of »» Could negatively impact existing proposed Wairarapa gambling harm could be further businesses and their ability to operate. Class 4 Gambling and reduced. »» May reduce over time the amount Standalone TAB Venues of funding available to community Policy. organisations. »» May lead to some job losses in the hospitality industry. 3 Adopt a less restrictive »» May have positive flow on effects for »» Current and potential levels of proposed Wairarapa community organisations accessing gambling harm may increase. Class 4 Gambling and pokie machine proceeds. »» Once Council consent is granted, a Standalone TAB Venues »» Possible economic gain from visitors venue or gaming machines within a Policy. who frequent gambling venues. venue cannot be removed. »» Would be a significant shift from Council’s current stance to promote the Wairarapa region’s wellbeing and may be negatively perceived by the community. 148 HAVE YOUR SAY Submissions on the proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy are welcome from any person or organisation who wishes to give feedback. Submissions close at 4:30pm on Wednesday 15 May 2019. Written submissions Hearing Written submissions can be made using either our MDC, CDC and SWDC will hold a joint hearing to provide submission form, by sending us an email or by writing a any person or organisation who makes a written letter. submission the opportunity to be heard. Please note that MDC is managing submissions on behalf Date: TBC of CDC and SWDC. Time: TBC Submit Online: www.mstn.govt.nz/current-consultations Location: TBC Email to: [email protected] Please indicate in your submission if you wish to speak at the hearing. We will contact you after submissions close Post to: Masterton District Council in early May to arrange a time. Attn: Kylie Smith Freepost 112477 PO Box 444 Want more information? Masterton If you have any questions about the proposed Deliver to: Masterton District Council Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB 161 Queen Street, Masterton Venues Policy or the consultation process, please Attn: Kylie Smith contact Kylie Smith at [email protected] or Carterton District Council phone 06 370 6300. 28 Holloway Street, Carterton Attn: Gambling Policy Review South Wairarapa District Council 19 Kitchener Street, Martinborough Attn: Gambling Policy Review Next Steps Date Activity/Milestone 15 April 2019 Submissions open. 15 May 2019 Submissions close. TBC Joint MDC, CDC and SWDC hearing. 26 June 2019 Final policy submitted to the three Wairarapa Councils for adoption. 149 Feedback Form Proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy CONTACT DETAILS Name: Organisation: Postal Address: Telephone: Email Address: Please note, for your submission to be valid we must have your name and a way of contacting you. All submissions are public documents and will be made available to the media and general public. Your contact details will not be published. YOUR SUBMISSION Do you wish to present your views in person? Please note that the hearing is scheduled for Date, Location. We will contact you after submissions close in May to arrange a time for you to present. ☐ Yes ☐ No Are you responding as/or representing a: (please tick all that apply) ☐ Class 4 Operator/Venue ☐ Standalone TAB Operator/Venue ☐ Social Service Provider ☐ Incorporated Society or Charitable Trust ☐ Other: SUPPORT FOR PROPOSAL Do you support the proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy? ☐ Yes, I fully support the proposed policy. ☐ I generally support the proposal but have suggestions for amendments. Please describe your suggested amendments and reasoning in the space provided overleaf. ☐ No, I do not support the proposal. Please explain why in the space provided overleaf. RETURNING YOUR SUBMISSION Please return this form to Masterton District Council, for the attention of Kylie Smith, by: Scanning and emailing to: [email protected] Posting to: Freepost 112477, PO Box 444, Masterton Delivering to MDC at 161 Queen Street, Masterton; CDC at 28 Holloway Street, Carterton; or SWDC at 19 Kitchener Street, Martinborough Submissions must be received by 4:30pm on Wednesday 15 May 2019. 150 COMMENTS Please provide your feedback below. Please attach additional pages if more space is required. ABOUT YOU We would appreciate if you could answer the following questions as it helps us understand which sectors of our community are providing feedback. This information will not be made public with your submission. Only collated data will be reported to Council. Gender ☐ Male ☐ Female Ethnicity ☐ NZ European ☐ Māori ☐ Pacific Islander ☐ Asian ☐ Other Age ☐ Under 20 ☐ 20-35 ☐ 36-50 ☐ 51-65 ☐ 65+ 151 Appendix 1 Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Board Venues Policy Policy Number: First Adopted: Latest Version: Adopted by: Review Date: 152 Contents 1. Purpose ...... 2 2. Scope ...... 2 3. When Council Consent is Required ...... 2 4. Establishment of New Class 4 Gambling Venues...... 3 5. Merged Gambling Venues ...... 3 6. Relocation of Class 4 Gambling Venues ...... 3 7. Restriction on the Number of Gaming Machines ...... 4 8. Standalone TAB Venues ...... 5 9. Applications ...... 5 10. Application Fees...... 5 11. Review of Policy ...... 6 12. Definitions ...... 6 13. Related Documents ...... 6 14. References ...... 6 15. Version Control ...... 6 Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 1 153 The Gambling Act 2003 (the Act) that came into effect on 18 September 2003 requires territorial local authorities to have in place a policy that: specifies whether or not class 4 venues (hereafter referred to as gaming machine venues) may be established in its district and, if so, where they may be located may specify any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at any class 4 venue (the Act established a limit of nine machines on gaming venues) specifies whether or not TAB stand‐alone venues may be established in the district The purpose of the Racing Act 2003 (the Act) is to provide effective governance arrangements for the racing industry; facilitate betting on galloping, harness, greyhound races, and other sporting events; and to promote the long‐term viability of New Zealand racing. The Act requires territorial local authorities to have in place a policy that specifies whether or not TAB stand‐alone venues may be established in the district. 1. Purpose 1.1. The purpose of the Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy is to: a) minimise the harm to the community caused by Class 4 gambling; b) have regard to the social impacts of gambling in the Wairarapa region, including the cumulative effect of additional opportunities for gambling in the district; c) control the growth of Class 4 gambling in the Wairarapa region; and d) ensure that Councils and their communities have influence over the provision of new Class 4 gambling and standalone TAB venues in the Wairarapa region. 1.2. This policy is made in accordance with the Gambling Act 2003 (s.101) and the Racing Act 2003 (s.65D). 2. Scope 2.1. This policy applies to Class 4 and standalone TAB venues in the Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa Districts (referred to collectively as the Wairarapa region). 3. When Council Consent is Required 3.1. Council consent is required before: a) A corporate society applies for a Class 4 Venue licence and a Class 4 Venue licence has not been held by any corporate society for the venue within the last six months. b) A corporate society increases the number of gaming machines that may be operated at a Class 4 Venue (this includes at a venue where clubs propose to merge). c) A corporate society changes the location of a venue to which a Class 4 Venue licence currently applies. d) The NZ Racing Board establishes a standalone TAB Venue. Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 2 154 4. Establishment of New Class 4 Gambling Venues 4.1. No new Class 4 gambling venues may be established in the Wairarapa region subject to the following restrictions. 4.2. The number of gaming machine venues operating or consented in the Wairarapa Region as of 1 January 2016 (14) will not be allowed to increase i.e. no additional new gaming machine venues will be permitted. There will be no consents granted for any new class 4 venue in Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa Districts except as provided for in clause 3.4. The effect in those districts is that if a venue ceases to operate gaming machines no new venue can take its place. This will mean that Masterton will have a maximum of five venues, Carterton a maximum of three and South Wairarapa will have a maximum of six. 4.3. Gambling machine venues existing or consented as at 1 January 2016 2019 and not ceasing operations for any period longer than six months will be regarded as existing venues under this policy and will be granted consent to continue their operations automatically. 5. Merged Gambling Venues 5.1. Where two or more clubs merge, the combined club may: a) continue to operate existing venues; b) operate on an existing single venue, which will be regarded as an existing venue for the purposes ofunder this policy, subject to section clause 47.4 of the policy; or c) apply to the Council for a single new venue to be established, provided that all existing venues are closed, subject to section 3 6 and clause 47.4 of this policy. 5.2. New Class 4 gambling venues may be established subject to compliance with the Wairarapa Combined District Plan, fee and application requirements, and the conditions set out under 3.0. 6. The LRelocation of New Class 4 Gambling Venues will be subject to the following conditions 6.1. Council may permit a Class 4 venue to re‐establish at a new site where, due to extraordinary circumstances, the owner or lessee of the Class 4 venue cannot continue to operate at the existing site. Examples of such circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following: a) expiration of the lease; b) acquisition of property under the Public Works Act 1981; or c) site redevelopment. 6.2. Any Permission to establish any newrelocate a Class 4 venue under this clause will be subject to the following conditions: a) the gambling venue operator at the new site shall be the same venue operator at the site to be vacated; b) the number of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue will not exceed the number permitted to be operated at the existing site, with a maximum of nine machines as provided by Section 94 of the Gambling Act 2003. Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 3 155 6.3. A standalone TAB venue with gaming machines may be considered as an alternate venue if a Class 4 venue closed, subject to the conditions in of this policy for Class 4 venues and conditions in the TAB Board Venue Policy.. 6.4. New Class 4 gambling venues will not be permitted where the Council reasonably believes that: a) the character of the district, or part of the district, for which the venue is proposed will be adversely affected; or b) where there is likely to be an adverse effect on any kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, or other community facilities. 6.5. Except in the case of a standalone TAB venue, Class 4 gambling venues will not be approved outside premises authorised under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to sell and supply liquor alcohol for consumption on the premise, and where the gaming area is designated as restricted and is visually and physically separated from family or children’s activities. 7. Restriction on the Number of Gaming Machines that are permitted to operate at any venue or class of venue 7.1. No increase in the number of gaming machines currently operating or consented in the Wairarapa Region as of 1 January 2016 2019 (188165) will be permitted. Further to the provision above, no additional new gaming machines will be approved in any district beyond the number operating as of 1 January 2016, i.e. the maximum number of gaming machines allowed in each district is detailed in the table below. District Maximum Gaming Machines Allowed Masterton 7864 Carterton 45 South Wairarapa 6556 7.2. In Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa Districts aAny gaming machine that is relinquished for a period of longer than six months may not be replaced on that site and may not be transferred to another site under any circumstances. 7.3. No venue may operate more than 18 gaming machines if existing at 17 October 2001 and not ceasing operations for any period longer than six months, or more than 9 machines if not existing prior to the 18 October 2001 or having ceased operations for any period longer than six months. 7.4. Where two or more club venues merge, the combined club may operate the lesser of 18, or the number of gaming machines both clubs operated immediately prior to the merger., subject to section 2.4 and 5.1.6 of this policy, and section 97A of the Gambling Act 2003. Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 4 156 8. Standalone TAB Board Venues 8.1. New standalone TAB venues may be established in the Wairarapa region. 8.2. No new standalone TAB Board venue will be permitted where the Council reasonably believes that: a) the character of the district, or part of the district for which the venue is proposed will be adversely affected; or b) where there is likely to be an adverse effect on any kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship or other community facilities. 9. Applications 9.1. Applications must be made on the approved form and must provide: a) Name and contact details of the applicant. b) Street address of the proposed or existing Class 4 gambling venue or standalone TAB venue. c) A scale site plan covering both gambling and other activities proposed for the venue, including any screening or separation from other activities proposed. d) A copy of any certificate of compliance or resource consent required for the primary activity of the venue under the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. e) For Class 4 gambling venues only, evidence of the authority to sell or supply liquor alcohol for consumption on the premise under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. f) For applications relating to the merging of two or more clubs, details of the number of machines operated at each venue immediately prior to merger and the number of machines intended to be operated at each site, as applicable. 9.2. To aid the Council in determining whether there is likely to be an adverse effect, all applications are required to be publicly notified and will include a social impact statement. 9.3. Applications will be determined by the Hearings Committee of the Council, which may receive submissions from the applicant and any interested parties at a public hearing. 9.4. Applicants will be notified of Council’s decision within 30 days after the application is received. 10. Application Fees 10.1. Fees for gambling consent applications will be set by Council annually and will include consideration of the cost of: a) processing the application; b) establishing and triennially reviewing the Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy; c) the triennial assessment of the economic and social impact of gambling in the Wairarapa region. Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 5 157 11. Review of Policy 11.1. The policy will be reviewed every three years. 12. Definitions Class 4 Gambling: Gambling that utilises or involves a gaming machine, as defined in the Gambling Act 2003 (s.30). Class 4 Gambling Venue: A place to conduct Class 4 gambling. Council: The Masterton, Carterton or South Wairarapa District Council. Gaming Machine: A device, whether totally or partly mechanically or electronically operated, that is adapted or designed and constructed for the use in gambling, as defined in the Gambling Act 2003 (s.4). Commonly known as ‘pokie machines’. Standalone TAB Venue: Premises that are owned or leased by the New Zealand Racing Board and where the main business carried on at the premises is providing racing or sports betting services under the Racing Act 2003. Venue Licence: A Class 4 venue licence issued by the Secretary for Internal Affairs. 13. Related Documents Wairarapa Combined District Plan Consent Application Form 14. References Gambling Act 2003 Racing Act 2003 15. Version Control Date Summary of Amendments Approved By 2016 Minor updates Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils 2019 Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy Page 6 158 159 Appendix 2 Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Region 160 Contents Introduction ...... 2 Types of Gambling Covered by the Policies ...... 2 Class 4 Gambling ...... 2 Racing and Sports Event Gambling ...... 2 Gambling Statistics ...... 3 Gambling Venues ...... 3 Gaming Machines ...... 4 Gaming Machine Expenditure ...... 5 TAB Venues ...... 5 National Comparisons ...... 5 Gambling Risk Profile ...... 6 Prevalence ...... 7 Density ...... 8 Ethnicity ...... 8 Community Deprivation ...... 8 Service Availability ...... 9 Social Benefits of Gambling ...... 9 Community Grants ...... 9 NZRB Sports Contributions ...... 10 Employment ...... 10 Entertainment ...... 10 Social Costs of Gambling ...... 10 Views on Gambling ...... 12 Conclusion ...... 12 References ...... 13 This Social Impact Assessment has been completed by Masterton District Council on behalf of all three Wairarapa councils. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 1 161 Introduction The Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003 require all territorial authorities to have policies on Class 4 gambling and standalone TAB venues respectively. Masterton District Council (MDC), Carterton District Council (CDC) and South Wairarapa District Council (SWDC) have had joint policies in place since 2003, to enable a consistent approach across the Wairarapa region. Under the legislation, both policies are required to be reviewed within three years. The current policies were adopted in August 2016 and are therefore due for review by August 2019. Council is required to consider the social impact of gambling within its district to inform the policy review. This Social Impact Assessment discusses the social impact of gambling in New Zealand and more specifically for the residents of the Wairarapa region. Types of Gambling Covered by the Policies Class 4 Gambling The Gambling Act 2003 classifies gambling based on the amount of money spent and the risk of problem gambling associated with an activity. Classes of gambling range from Class 1 (low‐stake, low‐risk gambling) to Class 4 (high‐risk, high‐turnover gambling). Casino and Lotteries Commission gambling are treated as separate classes under the legislation. Gaming machines in pubs and clubs (i.e. outside a casino) are defined as Class 4 gambling. Class 4 gambling may only be conducted by a corporate society and only to raise money for one or more of the following authorised purposes: charitable purpose; non‐commercial purpose that is beneficial to the whole or a section of the community; or promoting, controlling, and conducting race meetings under the Racing Act 2003, including the payment of stakes. Council can regulate the number of Class 4 gambling venues that can be established in the region and where they can be located, as well as the number of gaming machines that can be operated in the Wairarapa region. Racing and Sports Event Gambling The Racing Act 2003 facilitates gambling on galloping, harness and greyhound racing, and other sporting events. Racing and sports event gambling is delivered through the New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB). The NZRB provides on‐course services to licensed racing clubs at 65 racing venues throughout the country. Off‐course gambling is available through telephone betting, internet betting, remote betting through Sky digital TV and through retail outlets such as pubs and clubs, self‐service terminals and standalone NZRB venues (TAB venues). A TAB venue is a venue where the main business carried out is to provide racing or sports betting services. These are standalone venues and do not include TAB outlets or agencies that are additional activities of a bar or hotel. Council can regulate the number of standalone TAB venues that can be established in the Wairarapa region and where they can be located. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 2 162 Gambling Statistics Gambling Venues As at December 2018, the Wairarapa region has 12 gambling venues. Of these, three are in Carterton, four are in Masterton and five are in South Wairarapa. Number of Gambling Venues 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Wairarapa Total Carterton Masterton South Wairarapa The number of gambling venues has decreased by three (20%) since December 2015, with Carterton, Masterton and South Wairarapa each having one less venue. This continues the steady decline of gambling venues in the Wairarapa since a sinking‐lid approach (i.e. no new Class 4 gambling venues permitted) was adopted in 2008. In 2008, there were 19 gambling venues in the region. Gambling Venues 2004‐2018 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wairarapa Total Carterton Masterton South Wairarapa Each of the venues are within the central business district of the town it is located. A list of gambling venues and the number of gaming machines each operates is provided as Appendix 1. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 3 163 Gaming Machines As at December 2018, the Wairarapa region has 165 gaming machines, a decrease of 28 (15%) since December 2015. Of the 165 gaming machines, 45 are in Carterton, 64 are in Masterton and 56 are in South Wairarapa. Number of Gaming Machines 200 150 100 50 0 Wairarapa Total Carterton Masterton South Wairarapa Each district has had a reduction in the number of gaming machines operating since December 2015, with Carterton decreasing by five (10%), Masterton decreasing by 14 (18%) and South Wairarapa decreasing by nine (14%). As noted above, this continues the steady decline of gaming machines in the Wairarapa since 2008 when the sinking‐lid approach was first adopted. In 2008, there were 247 gaming machines in the region. Gaming Machines 2004‐2018 250 200 150 100 50 0 Wairarapa Total Carterton Masterton South Wairarapa Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 4 164 Gaming Machine Expenditure Despite the reduction in gambling venues and gaming machines, expenditure (i.e. the amount lost by players) on gaming machines has slowly increased since December 2015. For the quarter ending December 2018, gaming machine proceeds in the Wairarapa region were just over $1.9m, an increase of $358k (23%) compared to the same period in 2015. Gaming Machine Proceeds $2,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00 $‐ Wairarapa Total Carterton Masterton South Wairarapa The most significant shift was in Carterton, with expenditure in the December 2018 quarter at $436k, a 77% increase compared to December 2015. Masterton’s expenditure increased by $156k (17%) over the same period, while South Wairarapa had a small increase of $12k (3%). The estimated Wairarapa adult population has increased by 6% over the period. Each district has had a similar level of population growth (i.e. 6% in Masterton and South Wairarapa and 7% in Carterton). This population increase may have had some effect on the levels of expenditure but is unlikely to have had a significant impact, particularly when considering Carterton’s increase. This suggests that either more people are using gaming machines, or that people are spending more. TAB Venues There are currently no standalone TAB venues in the Wairarapa region. National Comparisons The table overleaf provides a comparison of the number of gaming machines and expenditure levels in the Wairarapa region against the national average. Population figures are based on Statistics New Zealand’s 2018 estimates for the Wairarapa region’s adult population (i.e. people aged 15 years and over).1 1 Class 4 gambling is restricted to people aged 18 and over, however, the adult population figures referenced in this report include people aged 15 and over due to Statistic New Zealand’s reporting brackets. Adult population estimates for 2018 are: Wairarapa (36,920), Masterton (20,800), Carterton (7,570), South Wairarapa (8,550). Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 5 165 Number of Gaming Gaming Machine Gaming Machine Machines/10,000 Expenditure/Person for Expenditure/Machine People as at 31/12/18 the year to 31/12/18 for the year to 31/12/18 New Zealand 39 $231 $59,689 Wairarapa 45 ↑ $204 ↓ $45,547 ↓ Carterton 59 ↑ $232 − $39,039 ↓ Masterton 31 ↓ $199 ↓ $64,650 ↑ South Wairarapa 65 ↑ $190 ↓ $28,945 ↓ Key: ↓ Below National Average ↑ Above National Average − Equal to National Average This data indicates that overall, the Wairarapa region has slightly more gaming machines than other districts in New Zealand, but that the machines are not being used as much. The expenditure per gaming machine is highest for Masterton, which suggests these machines are being used more extensively than those in Carterton and South Wairarapa. Gambling Risk Profile This gambling risk profile for the Wairarapa region has been defined using the local government resource developed by KPMG in conjunction with the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2013.2 The following five known categories of gambling risk have been assessed: Prevalence: people in the region at risk of being problem gamblers; Density: the number of gaming machines per person and expenditure per person; Ethnicity: the percentage of the population who identify as Māori or Pasifika; Level of community deprivation; and Availability of intervention services in the district. Each category has been scored based on its level of risk (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high), which is multiplied by the weighting figure to give the category risk rating. The rating for each category has been added together to form an overall risk profile for the Wairarapa region, as provided below. Category Risk Score Weighting Risk Rating Prevalence 3 2 6 (High) Number of Gaming Machines per 10,000 people 1 1 1 (Low) Expenditure per Person 1 1 1 (Low) Māori 2 1 2 (Medium) Pasifika 1 1 1 (Low) Community Deprivation 2 1 2 (Medium) Availability of Services 3 1 3 (High) Overall Risk Rating 16 (Medium) 2 KPMG & MOH (2013) Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 6 166 A risk score of 16 is considered medium risk, which according to the KPMG guidance, suggests the Wairarapa is best suited to a policy that restricts locations and/or numbers of gaming machines but may not need to go as far as having a sinking lid. When looking at each district independently, Masterton and Carterton have a medium risk rating with scores of 16 and 14 respectively. South Wairarapa has a low risk rating with a score of 12. The categories where there is a difference in the level of risk for each district are prevalence (lower risk in South Wairarapa), Māori population and availability of services (both higher risk in Masterton). Further detail on each of the categories is provided below. Prevalence This measure combines local intervention statistics with national gambling statistics to indicate the prevalence of gambling harm in the district. According to the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey,3 approximately 186,000 New Zealanders experienced some level of gambling harm in that year. MOH data4 shows that in 2017‐18, 10,555 people nationally received problem gambling treatment services. This means the national prevalence rate is approximately 5.7%. In 2017‐18, 116 people in the Wairarapa region received problem gambling treatment services. Of these, 97 were from Masterton, 16 were from Carterton and three were from South Wairarapa. Using the KPMG formula, the prevalence rate for the Wairarapa is follows: 116 5.7% 36,920 5.5% ൊ ൊ ൌ Wairarapa National Wairarapa adult Wairarapa region intervention clients prevalence rate population prevalence rate The number of intervention clients in the region (116) is divided by the national prevalence rate (5.7%). This indicates that approximately 2,035 people in the region may experience some level of gambling harm. Those 2,035 people are then divided by the Wairarapa region’s adult population (36,920) to find the region’s prevalence rate (5.5%). Prevalence greater than 1.1% is considered high risk. When broken down by district, the highest prevalence rate is in Masterton (8.2%), followed by Carterton (3.7%) and South Wairarapa (0.6%). When compared against 10 district councils, which were chosen based on a similar sized adult population, the Wairarapa region’s prevalence rate was significantly higher than all but one. Nine of the comparison councils had a prevalence rate between 0.2% to 2.5%, while one had a rate of 7.7%.5 3 Health Promotion Agency (2018), p.14 4 Ministry of Health (n.d). Intervention Client Data. 5 The following district councils were used as a comparison: Ashburton, Gisborne, Kāpiti, Marlborough, Matamata‐ Piako, Selwyn, Taupō, Waimakariri, Whakatane, Whanganui. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 7 167 Density Gambling density is a measure of the opportunities available for people to gamble. Density is measured via the following two components: Number of Class 4 gambling machines per 10,000 people; and Expenditure per person. The Wairarapa region has 45 gaming machines per 10,000 people. Having 75 or less gaming machines per 10,000 people is considered low risk. Gaming machine expenditure per person in the Wairarapa region is $204 per year. Expenditure of $300 or less per person is considered low risk. Refer to Section 3 above for further details on gaming machine numbers and expenditure. Ethnicity As at September 2018, an estimated 17% of the Wairarapa region’s adult population identified as Māori or Pasifika. Māori Pasifika Wairarapa 5,510 (15%) 840 (2%) Carterton 890 (12%) 120 (2%) Masterton 3,520 (17%) 580 (3%) South Wairarapa 1,100 (13%) 140 (2%) When broken down by district, Masterton has a slightly higher percentage of people who identify as Māori or Pasifika, compared to Carterton and South Wairarapa. The level of risk associated with ethnicity is broadly measured by the difference between the local population that identify as Māori or Pasifika, compared with the national average. As at September 2018, an estimated 14% of the national population identified as Māori and 7% identified as Pasifika. The Wairarapa region’s Māori population is slightly higher than the national average which is considered medium risk, while the Pasifika population is less than the national average which is considered low risk. Community Deprivation The New Zealand deprivation index ranks socioeconomic deprivation based on 2013 census information. The index takes into account a number of variables including: car and telephone access; receipt of means‐tested benefits; unemployment; household income; sole parenting; educational qualifications; home ownership; home living space. The scale runs from one to 10, with one representing least‐deprived areas and 10 representing most deprived areas. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 8 168 Based on the 2013 census, Masterton has a deprivation index of 6.5, while Carterton and South Wairarapa each have a deprivation index of 5.1.6 A community with a deprivation score between four to seven is considered moderately deprived, which is a medium risk. Service Availability Service availability refers to the number of intervention services available within the district that specialise in preventing and minimising gambling harm. The Wairarapa community has access to the following three services:7 Salvation Army Oasis Centre (located in Masterton); Nationwide Gambling Helpline; and Nationwide Problem Gambling Foundation. This equates to less than one service per 10,000 people, which is considered high risk. Social Benefits of Gambling Gambling can benefit New Zealand and local communities by way of community grants, providing employment opportunities and as a form of entertainment. Community Grants Under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Gambling (Class 4 Net Proceeds) Regulations 2004, all corporate societies that conduct Class 4 gambling are required to distribute 40% of their net proceeds to an authorised purpose. There are two types of corporate society that operate gaming machines: those that apply funds to their own purposes (e.g. clubs); and those that make grants to other organisations for community purposes. There is currently no requirement that proceeds from gaming machines are distributed within the community from which it derived. This means that not all proceeds from gaming machines that operate in the Wairarapa will necessarily be returned to the region. However, this also means that the Wairarapa region may benefit from proceeds of machines that operate in other districts. Nationally, more than $200m in gaming machine proceeds is returned to communities each year.8 The majority of this funding is distributed to sports organisations, and social and community service organisations. In 2017‐18, approximately $2.9m was received by community organisations in the Wairarapa from the corporate societies that operate the region’s gaming machines.9 The total value of grants is likely to be greater as it does not include grants received from corporate societies that don’t operate in the Wairarapa region. There is also a likely broader benefit to the Wairarapa region from grants received by national organisations, though the value of this cannot be quantified. 6 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (n.d.) 7 Ministry of Health (n.d.) 8 Department of Internal Affairs (2016), p.5 9 Sourced via grant distribution lists for Lion Foundation, One Foundation Ltd, Trust House Foundation, Trillian Trust and Pub Charity. Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 9 169 Despite the clear benefit of community grants, it should be considered alongside the $7.4m lost by players in the Wairarapa region in 2017‐18, considerably more than what is returned to the community. NZRB Sports Contributions NZRB makes a significant contribution to the development of sports in New Zealand through the commission paid to national sporting bodies for sports on which they take bets. NZRB’s 2018 Annual Report noted that in 2017‐18, the board paid commissions totalling $10.2m to national sporting organisations across the country. Employment The existence of Class 4 gaming and sports and racing betting creates employment opportunities for the corporate societies administering the gaming machines, the venues operating them, and the servicing industries. A survey undertaken in 2009 estimated that nationally there were 300 full‐time equivalents (FTEs) directly employed by class 4 non‐club corporate societies and 215 employees of external service providers and contractors also working for the corporate societies.10 NZRB’s 2018 Annual Report noted that the Board directly employs around 863 personnel nationally. Entertainment Gambling is a popular form of entertainment, with approximately 2.7 million New Zealanders aged 15 years and over participating in some form of gambling in 2016.11 Gambling is usually a harmless activity, from which most people who participate derive personal enjoyment and positive social effects. Research has show that the more communal the gambling activity, the higher the level of fun and enjoyment.12 Social Costs of Gambling Most people do not experience problems resulting from their gambling. However, for the minority that do develop a problem, the impacts can be far‐reaching. Problem gambling is particularly associated with gaming machines, due to the continuous nature of the activity that allows money to be quickly reinvested. Almost half of the people who received intervention services in 2016‐17, identified gaming machines outside of casinos as their main gambling activity.13 The 2016 Health and Lifestyles survey,14 indicates that almost half (49%) of the people who played gaming machines in pubs or clubs at least once a month reported at least some level of risk of gambling harm. 10 KPMG (2013), p.19 11 Health Promotion Agency (2018), p.12 12 KPMG (2013), p.19 13 Sapere Research Group (2018), p.54 14 Health Promotion Agency (2018), p.14 Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 10 170 The most prevalent forms of gambling harm are listed below:15 Personal impacts: including elevated physical and mental health problems relative to the general adult population and, in extreme cases, suicide attempts and suicide. Financial impacts: on average, problem gamblers spend approximately 15 times more than non‐ problem gamblers per month on gambling. Interpersonal impacts: including relationship breakups and family neglect. Close family members of heavy gamblers are most often affected. In extreme cases, children of problem gamblers may be left with reduced access to necessities, including adequate housing, warmth and food. Parenting impacts: people who report having a parent with gambling problems are significantly more likely to experience gambling problems themselves, so problem gambling has the potential to have an impact on future generations. Work and study impacts: including lost time at work or study and in extreme cases, resignation or termination of a job or a course, due to gambling‐related absenteeism or crime. Criminal and legal impacts: problem gambling has been linked to criminal activity, and studies have suggested that much of the crime goes unreported. Apart from the financial cost of gambling‐related crime to organisations and individuals directly involved, there are often financial and other costs for problem gamblers who are convicted, and their families. These impacts flow on to cause broader harm to communities, including but not limited to:16 increased costs to the health system both in terms of treatment for gambling and costs associated with other medical conditions caused or exacerbated by gambling e.g. other addictions or stress‐ related illness; cost of providing services to assist people with emotional and psychological harm; increased reliance on both community and government provided welfare; costs to the family law courts and associated organisations; costs of caring for dependents no longer supported; perpetuation of poverty and welfare reliance from a generational perspective; costs to business relating to job turnover and absenteeism; direct costs of criminal activity in terms of the investigation of crime, costs to the judicial system, incarceration, probation, and parole; and financial and emotional cost to victims of crime. 15 KPMG (2013), p.20 16 Central Queensland University and Auckland University of Technology (2017), p. 128 Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 11 171 Views on Gambling The 2016 Health and Lifestyle Survey found that:17 60% of respondents believed that pokies in pubs and clubs are a particularly harmful gambling activity (compared to 68% in 2014 and 2010). 55% of respondents said some forms of gambling were socially undesirable. Of those who thought some forms of gambling were socially undesirable, 59% considered gaming machines at a pub or club to be socially undesirable (compared to 74% in 2010). 46% of respondents thought that raising money through gambling did more harm than good in the community; 43% of respondents said they had some degree of concern about the level of gambling in their community. At the Waifest event on Waitangi Day 2019, the community was asked how they felt about the number of gambling venues and gaming machines currently operating in the Wairarapa region. Of the 54 responses: 59% said there are currently too many gambling venues, 35% said the current number is about right and 6% said there aren’t enough. 69% said there are too many gaming machines, 26% said the current number is about right and 6% said there aren’t enough. Further views from the Wairarapa community will be sought during the consultation period on the proposed Wairarapa Class 4 Gambling and Standalone TAB Venues Policy. Conclusion The Wairarapa region experiences benefits from gambling operations in the region and nationally, associated with entertainment and employment opportunities, and significant amounts of community grants. However, problem gambling is an issue in the Wairarapa region, which can result in significant negative impacts to the gambler, their family and friends, and the wider community. In 2017‐18, 116 people in the Wairarapa region sought help from problem gambling support agencies. Not all problem gamblers seek help, so the actual number of gamblers and family/friends who are experiencing harm from gambling in the Wairarapa region is unknown. Based on the national prevalence rate of 5.7%, there could be more than 2,000 people in the Wairarapa region that experience some level of gambling harm. The analysis of the Wairarapa region’s gambling risk profile suggests that the Wairarapa is best suited to a policy that restricts locations and/or numbers of gaming machines, but that these restrictions do not necessarily need to include implementing a sinking lid on numbers of venues or machines. 17 Health Promotion Agency (2018), p.16 Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 12 172 References Central Queensland University and Auckland University of Technology. (2017). Measuring the Burden of Gambling Harm in New Zealand. Retrieved from www.health.govt.nz Department of Internal Affairs. (n.d.). Gambling in Pubs and Clubs: Class 4. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: https://www.dia.govt.nz Department of Internal Affairs. (n.d.). Racing Policy. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: https://www.dia.govt.nz Department of Internal Affairs. (2018). Gaming Statistics. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: https://www.dia.govt.nz Department of Internal Affairs. (2016). Pokies in New Zealand: A Guide to how the System Works. Retrieved from www.dia.govt.nz Health Promotion Agency. (2018). Gambling Report: Results from the 2016 Health and Lifestyles Survey. Retrieved from: www.hpa.org.nz KPMG & Ministry of Health. (2013). Gambling Resource for Local Government. KPMG & Ministry of Health. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (n.d.). Regional Economic Activity. Retrieved from: webrear.mbie.govt.nz Ministry of Health. (n.d.). Intervention Client Data. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: www.health.govt.nz Ministry of Health. (n.d.). Find a Service Near You. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: www.health.govt.nz New Zealand Racing Board. (2018). 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: www.nzrb.co.nz Sapere Research Group. (2018). Gambling Harm Reduction Needs Assessment. Retrieved 25/02/19 from www.health.govt.nz Statistics New Zealand (n.d.). Population Estimates. Retrieved 25/02/19 from: http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Page 13 173 Appendix 1: Wairarapa Gambling Venues Society Name Venue Address Gaming Machines Carterton The Lion Foundation 2008 Ev's Bar 3 Belvedere Road 9 One Foundation Limited Marquis of Normanby 63 High Street 18 Trillian Trust Royal Oak Hotel 321 High Street South 18 Masterton Trust House Foundation Jackson Street Bar 20 Jackson Street 18 Kuripuni Tavern Queen Street South 18 The Farriers 4 Queen Street 18 Wairarapa Services & Citizens Wairarapa Services & 20 Essex Street 10 Club Inc Citizens Club South Wairarapa The Lion Foundation 2008 Empire Hotel Johnston Street, 15 Featherston Trust House Foundation Greytown Hotel 33 Main Street, Greytown 9 Pukemanu Tavern The Square, 14 Martinborough Pub Charity Ltd Messines Bar & 57 Fox Street, 5 Restaurant Featherston South Wairarapa Working South Wairarapa Working 120 Main Street, 13 Men’s Club Men’s Club Greytown Assessing the Social Impact of Gambling in the Wairarapa Appendix 1 175 051/19 To: Your Worship and Elected Members From: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Masterton Town Centre Group Terms of Reference FOR DECISION Recommendation: That Council approves the revised Terms of Reference for the Masterton Town Centre Reference Group contained in Attachment 1 to Report 051/19. Purpose The purpose of this paper is to seek Council approval for a revised Terms of Reference for the Masterton Town Centre Reference Group, as recommended by the Reference Group. Background The Masterton Town Centre Reference Group Terms of Reference (TOR) were approved by Council on 19 September 2018. The Reference Group’s role is to provide advice to Council and the project team, including the design consultants, on the three projects identified for initial scoping to give effect to the Town Centre Strategy adopted by Council (after significant community engagement). The group have met several times since September and questions have arisen as to their purpose and responsibilities, decision making and timeframes for giving feedback. Discussion and options: The Group have prepared a draft revised TOR with the assistance of staff. The revisions proposed include • Clarification of reports and feedback timelines • Clarification regarding decision making • Administration matters. The Reference Group now seeks approval of the revised Terms of Reference as identified using track changes in Attachment 1. Option 1 – Adopt the Reference Group’s suggested changes. The suggested changes add clarity to the TOR and will give comfort to the Group that reasonable timeframes for feedback will be given. There are no negative impacts from this option. Option 2 – Keep with the status quo. The Group’s changes are largely operational and could be achieved outside of an amendment to the TOR. However, there are likely to be negative impacts given the effort the Group has put into 176 suggesting the revisions and the negative feeling that could be generated if Council was seen to dismiss their views. There are no identified issues beyond those highlighted by the Reference Group, therefore options to adopt a different set of revisions or disband the Reference Group have not been assessed. Conclusion Staff recommend option 1 for the reasons above. Before embarking on future Masterton Town Centre projects it would be appropriate to review the need for the Group, its TOR and membership and to compare this process with other ways of gaining advice and engagement. This can be considered alongside the development of the Communications and Engagement Strategy due to be developed before the end of 2019. Significance and Engagement This decision has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy is not considered to be significant. No further consultation beyond that done with the Reference Group is recommended or required. Financial Implications Nil Statutory Requirements Nil Impact on Iwi/Māori Communities Iwi are represented on the Reference Group and engagement on the Town Centre rejuvenation is occurring outside of the Reference Group meeting process. Climate change Nil 177 ATTACHMENT 1 Terms of Reference MASTERTON TOWN CENTRE REFERENCE GROUP Purpose To assist Council in the concept design of Town Centre projects to give effect to the Town Centre Strategy 2018. There are 3 initial projects to proceed. The Reference Group members will provide an ‘on the ground’ view to complement the expertise of the project team (including designers), previous and ongoing community and stakeholder feedback and inform Council decision making and detailed design. Objectives The Masterton Town Centre Reference Group (MTCRG or Reference Group) will: a) inform and work alongside Council to implement the Town Centre Strategy 2018 a)b) provide a ‘sounding board’ to the design process as representatives of nominated interest groups and community diversity b)c) provide a point of contact to the interest groups and wider community such that its members can communicate back and advocate for the benefits of the town centre projects and provide information to the Council and its project team (including the design consultants Council employs to implement the strategy). Membership The Reference Group will have a dynamic membership which is based on the projects requiring inputs. The group is expected to be no more than 8 people at any one time. It is anticipated that a ‘base’ membership will be drawn from: • Masterton District Council – elected members Jonathan Hooker, Graeme McClymont Bex Johnson • Ngati Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tirau Te Tau (or rep) Tai Gemmell • Rangitane o Wairarapa Mike Kawana (or rep) Tiraumaera Te Tau • Retail representative David Hedley • Community representatives Aaron Slight, Sandy Ryan • Arts community representative Samuel Ludden • Heritage advisor David Kernohan Masterton Lands Trust Andrew Croskery The following will be invited to attend as required: • Heritage advisor David Kernohan • Masterton Trust Lands Trust Andrew Croskery It is expected that the MDC project manager for each of the the town centre programme / projects will provide the primary first point of communication and contact including the programming of meetings. 178 The reference group may be supported by advice and input from interest groups or segments of our community (such as Masterton Trust Lands Trust, Trust House, NZTA, GWRC, primary and secondary children, older persons etc). The Chair of the Reference Group is Jonathan Hooker. 179 Protocols a) Members will commit to functioning in an environment that creates and extends opportunities for collaboration, consensus, collective effort and innovation. b) Members will act at all times in the spirit of providing constructive feedback and will not take any issues to media or use social media to communicate unless otherwise agreed by the MDC project manager in consultation with the Chair. c) Members of the Reference Group and members of the Project Team (including the designers) may disagree on certain issues but acknowledge they are one team striving to implement the Town Centre Strategy 2018 and catalyse the vision it contains. As such they will act and behave with mutual respect and everything we do should build trust. b)d)The work of the Reference Group is confidential, unless otherwise agreed by the Chair and Project Manager. If there is any doubt as to the nature of material, advise will be sought from the project manager in the first instance. e) Members acknowledge that the final decisions on any project within the Town Centre Strategy2018 rests with the Council on behalf of the district. The project team and Council may engage with other partners, groups and individuals outside of the Reference Group process and scheduled meetings. f) The Council members and staff involved in the Reference Group recognise the opportunity the Strategy implementation offers for iwi, community and interest groups to catalyse change that complements the Town Centre Strategy2018 and is in accordance with their own aspirations, strategies and plans. g) Members will represent the ‘interests’ they have been appointed to the Group to represent to the best of their abilities and are not required to conduct consultation or engagement to fulfil their role. h) Members will not substitute their own personal interests (or the interests of their partners, friends and close associates) for those of the groups they have been chosen to represent. For the avoidance of doubt elected members are on the group to represent the interests of district they serve, a retail representative is on the group to represent the interests of the retail community in Masterton, community representatives are on the group to represent the interests of the geographic (belonging to an area or locality) communities of the district etc. i) Members of the Reference Group will be required to disclose conflicts of interest relating to the Reference Group and the implementation of the Town Centre Strategy. Members of the Reference Group who have a specific, real conflict of interest in relation to an issue or item will advise the Chair and Project Manager and excuse themselves from consideration of those issues or items. a) Apologies should be tendered to MDC project manager in the event of inability to attend scheduled meetings. 180 j) The MTCRG is not a decision- making body – it will provide inputs to the design process at the scheduled meetings and by comments recorded in notes or by email (when requested) and these inputs will be presented to Council by Council staff and the Chair of the Group.. c) d)k) MDC reserves the right to terminate the MTCRG memberships or change the terms of reference at its discretion. e)a) All meetings will be at MDC offices or in Masterton at venues to be advised. Meetings b)a) The composition of the reference group will be confirmed in the Project Planning set-up stage of each project. c)b) The appropriate approach and invitation to prospective MTCRG members will be made by MDC. d)c) Reference group meetings will be facilitated by an MDC elected member or by delegation to another of the nominated MTCRG members. e)d) Meeting notes will be taken and distributed by MDC staff e) Meetings will be scheduled at the Project Planning set up stage of each project. It is expected that there will be no more than 3 reference group meetings in 2018. Meetings are expected to be no more than 2 1.5 hours in duration. Meetings to be held between 12pm and 2pm.. f) All meetings will be at MDC offices or in Masterton at venues to be advised. g) Apologies should be tendered to MDC project manager in the event of inability to attend scheduled meetings. h) Agendas and items for discussion will be provided by the project manager to the reference group at least 3 clear working days in advance of a scheduled meeting. This will not prevent late items being tabled and sufficient time will be allowed for those items to be presented. i) Whenever possible time will be set aside during Reference Group meetings for members to provide their feedback direct to the project manager and project team (including the designers) on matters included in the agenda or tabled. f)j) Any paper work to be received at least 3 days prior or sooner to any meeting. Timeframes for feedback outside of meetings will be agreed in meetings, with the default timeframe for feedback being no less than 10 days. k) Where any member feels they may not be able to provide feedback in a timeframe agreed at a Reference Group meeting (or within 10 days) they should raise the issue immediately and propose an alternative timeframe to the project manager who will consult with the Chair of 181 the group and the Project team / designers to agree the timeframe. All reasonable requests to be accommodated. g)l) All agendas will specify whether lunch is to be provided h)a) The MTCRG is not a decision making body – it will provide inputs to the design process at the scheduled meetings and by comments recorded in notes. Payment Any reasonable travel costs will be reimbursed by MDC on presentation of receipts. Time costs are not reimbursed by MDC. 182 046/19 To: Your Worship and Elected Members From: Tania Madden, Manager Strategic Planning Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Alcohol Controls at Beach Resorts Survey Results FOR INFORMATION Recommendation: That Council notes the results of the survey regarding alcohol control measures used at Castlepoint and Riversdale Beach over the New Year holiday period. Purpose The purpose of this report is to present the results of the survey on alcohol control measures used at Castlepoint and Riversdale Beach over the New Year period. Background Masterton District Council (MDC) agreed the following alcohol control measures at Castlepoint and Riversdale Beach for the 2018‐19 New Year period: Alcohol‐free zones in effect from 6pm on 30 December 2018 until 6am on 1 January 2019. Road closures in effect from 4pm on 31 December until 6am on 1 January 2019. Council agreed to survey the community over the summer period to seek their views on the alcohol controls that were put in place for the 2018‐19 New Year period. This feedback will inform decision‐ making on alcohol control measures in the future. Feedback Period A survey specifically relating to alcohol control measures at Castlepoint and Riversdale Beach was open for feedback from 21 December 2018 to 28 February 2019. Each person who completed the survey went into the draw for a $100 petrol voucher. Feedback forms and submission boxes were delivered to: Castlepoint Store Castlepoint Camp Ground Riversdale Beach Golf Club Riversdale Beach Camp Ground The survey was also available online. A flyer encouraging people to have their say was sent to the 497 Castlepoint and Riversdale Beach Ratepayers with the rates demand notices that were posted in January 2019. The remaining 107 ratepayers who did not receive a rates demand notice were notified by email or post. 183 The survey was also advertised on Facebook and the Facebook post was boosted immediately after the New Year period to encourage feedback while the controls for that period were fresh in peoples’ minds. Survey Results There were 78 responses to the survey. Of these: Just over half of the respondents (51%) identified as residents or ratepayers at Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach. Another 41% were residents or ratepayers elsewhere in the Masterton district and the remaining 8% were from outside the district. 62% were at either Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach over the New Year period. 74% were female, 26% were male. Almost half (44%) of respondents were aged 51+, but there were also a number of responses from younger age groups with just over one quarter (26%) of responses from those aged 35 or under. The balance (30%) were in the 36‐50 age group. Support for the alcohol‐free zones at Castlepoint/Riversdale Beach for the 2018‐19 New Year's period? Of the 77 people who responded to this question, 91% (70) agreed with the alcohol‐free zones and 9% (7) disagreed. The alcohol‐free zones were supported by: 92% of respondents (44 individuals) who were at Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach over the period. 95% of respondents (37 individuals) who identified as residents or ratepayers of Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach. 184 Support for the vehicle ban at Castlepoint/Riversdale Beach for the 2018‐19 New Year's period? 76% of the people (59 individuals) who responded to the survey agreed with the vehicle ban, 21% (16 people) did not agree with the ban and 4% (three people) said they didn’t know. The vehicle bans were supported by: 81% of respondents (39 people) who were at Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach over the period. 87% of respondents (34 people) who are residents or ratepayers at Castlepoint or Riversdale Beach. Summary of Comments Of the 43 comments received, just over half (53%) referred to supporting the alcohol control measures for reasons of public safety and enhancing the quiet enjoyment of the beaches over the holiday period. The remaining feedback was either general comments of support (9%) or, as summarised below, reasons for not supporting the measures (9%) or suggestions for improvements (26%). Neutral comments or comments unrelated to the survey topic are not included in this summary. Reasons people gave for not supporting the alcohol‐free zones and/or the vehicle bans: People should be allowed to drink on the beach. New Year’s Eve is the one day of the year where everyone just wants to have a good time. Unfairness that people who work during the day cannot go to the beach late afternoon due to the vehicle ban. The vehicle ban is unworkable given the number of people that visit the beach over this period and there are no alternatives for parking. Respondents made the following suggestions in relation to the alcohol‐free zones: Extend the alcohol‐free zone (and vehicle ban) to 9am on 2 January. Apply with flexibility e.g. being able to walk between houses with a bottle of wine should be allowed. 185 Establish alcohol zones i.e. allow alcohol in a confined space so people can get together. Like a closed street party that is policed. Respondents made the following suggestions in relation to the vehicle ban: Consider starting the ban from 6pm on 31 December, given distance from town. Improve control of vehicle access over a longer period, noting concern about the number of vehicles parked over the summer holiday. Improve communication, including whether vehicles can leave after the vehicle ban begins, and information to residents on the practical implementation of ban e.g. how residents can enter and exit while the ban is in place. Apply with flexibility e.g. residents allowed access through the checkpoint, allowing access for people who must work on New Year’s Eve. Sticker or register vehicles entering during the ban to ensure they are genuinely going to a residence in the settlement Allocate a small area as an access point for cars to drop off disabled people, boats etc. At Riversdale, move the vehicle checkpoint inland to allow beach access to people from the Riversdale Beach Holiday Park and local residents (west of the 50kph sign as you enter Riversdale). Stated the use of quad bikes as the form of vehicle. At Castlepoint, ban vehicles at the area down by the lagoon or alternatively anywhere past the shop. Next Steps Feedback from the survey will be taken into consideration when Council decides on alcohol control measures for the beach resorts for New Year’s Eve 2019. 186 053/19 To: Her Worship the Mayor & Councillors From: David Paris, Manager Finance Endorsed by: Kath Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Elected Member Remuneration 2019/2020 FOR INFORMATION Recommendation: That the Council acknowledges receipt of the Remuneration Authority’s notification dated 1 March 2019, which signals the changes to elected members’ remuneration from 1 July 2019 and beyond the 12 October 2019 Local Government elections. Purpose The purpose of this report is to pass on advice from the Remuneration Authority in which they have provided advance warning, for budgeting purposes, of the members’ remuneration they will set by determination for the 12 month period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. Executive Summary The Remuneration Authority (RA) is the body designated by central Government to set the remuneration for local government elected members. They determine the amounts to pay, but the funds to pay the renumeration comes from Council’s operating budgets (largely funded by local authority rates). The RA completed a major review of councils’ remuneration in 2018 and as a result they have resized each council and began a three‐step implementation of those new remuneration levels. The revised council size index is the basis of the new determination. The size index is built up by many factors, including population, expenditure and responsibilities such as territorial, regional or unitary. The factors used have been considered relevant determinants for setting remuneration. The year beginning 1 July 2019 is the start of the second of three steps of transition to that new scale. The third step increase will be applied from the election of the new council following the October 2019 Local Government election. That step also involves a ‘total pool’ approach being required to be paid. The Figures From 1 July 2019 the new remuneration figures will be as follows: Mayor’s salary $109,100 (6.2% incr) Councillors’ honorarium $ 29,550 (9.6% incr) 187 The current regime of allowances being paid for technology allowance and for travel will continue to be applied. The multipliers for additional duties for the Deputy Mayor and committee chairs will continue to apply. Total cost of Mayor and Councillors will be $438,582 pa, plus travel expenses and reimbursing allowances. An average annual increase of 8.8%. Beyond the 2019 Election Masterton District currently operates a ‘partial pool’ approach where the Authority determines base councillor pay, and allows for up to 2 times a base councillor rate as a pool for allocation to councillors holding positions of responsibility. Not all of that ‘pool’ has been allocated as there was a cap on the size of the multiplier that could be applied and the Council only identified three members with positions of responsibility. Post‐election the RA is changing to a ‘Total Pool’ approach where they nominate the total dollar figure for remuneration for all Councillors, excluding the Mayor, and that amount must be paid out. The Council can decide the basis of dividing the amount up, recognizing higher duties and workloads. That new ‘total pool’ has been set at $372,130 pa and the Mayor’s salary at $122,000. The new total remuneration will be $494,130, which is $55,548 pa more than the prior regime, a further 12.6% increase. This increase was not allowed for in year 2 of the LTP, but it has now been built into the Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2019/20. It will only have a partial impact on the 2019/20 year as it takes effect from declaration of the results following 12 October 2019, but it is a significant cost increase that was not anticipated in the LTP (some $85,000 more than was planned). The newly elected Council will have the opportunity, after the election, to review and reset the higher duties allowances. The base councilor rate is likely to be around $32,000, depending on the higher duties. The technology allowance will also be reviewed as devices for accessing meeting agendas and reports will be made available to all elected members as soon as possible after the election. Options The Council has no option but to receive the information and pay the remuneration as per the RA’s determinations. 188 052/19 To: Your Worship and Members From: Shanna Crispin, Communications and Marketing Manager Endorsed by: Kath Ross, Chief Executive Subject: What’s our Welcome – Masterton entrances project Date: 3 April 2019 FOR INFORMATION Recommendation: That Council notes the results of the “What’s our Welcome” survey and the “What’s our Welcome” project’s next steps contained in Report 052/19 Purpose This paper is intended to: 1. Update Council on the results of the What’s our Welcome survey run in February 2019 2. Outline next steps for the project. Background Over summer 2018/19 there was a high‐level of interest in the entrances into Masterton. It was a positive opportunity to engage the community in a broader conversation around how Masterton “welcomed” people into town. SIL Research was engaged to design a survey asking for feedback on the main entrances into town and what makes Masterton different to other towns. The survey was available online, at the Council office, library and other selected locations (cafes, sports clubs, car boot sale, farmers market and Waifest). Meetings were also held with the Solway Neighbourhood Planning Group and the Lansdowne Residents’ Association. A total of 445 completed surveys were used in the final analysis (NB: around 550 surveys were submitted, however not all were completed). SIL Research has advised that a sample size of 445 gives a 95% confidence level. People aged under 18 were under‐represented in the results (8.1% responses versus 26% pop) while the 34‐44 age group was significantly over‐represented (20% responses versus 12% pop). Most other age groups were relatively well represented. 189 Results About 8 in 10 residents agreed Council needs to do something about the entrances into town. The majority of residents care about the entrances (86%). Just over half (56%) agreed the approaches need to be changed, but they were unsure what the change should be. 54% of residents disagreed there were too many different signs, artworks and garden bed displays. Overall, flower bed displays were the most discussed topic; 47% of residents mentioned flowers or flower beds. The comments suggested overall disagreement with the idea of removing the flower displays. Solutions proposed included drought‐resistant planting and an improved watering system. 30% of residents mentioned changes to Masterton’s signage. Keep signs clear, noticeable and simple were the most cited comments. 27% of respondents mentioned the Pou; 12% specifically said the Pou need improvements. When asked what makes Masterton different, the most common responses were “People/community” (20%) and elements related to Masterton’s landscape: nature, trees, coast, mountains (20%). Masterton’s iconic events (especially the Golden Shears), Queen Elizabeth Park and rural provincial setting were also common attributes – each receiving comments from about 15% of respondents. Queen Elizabeth Park came out as Masterton’s best asset with 39% of respondents mentioning it, aside from more general answers such as people and landscape, Henley Lake also featured highly. Next steps Work is currently being undertaken to return plantings to the garden beds at the entrances to Masterton, in line with feedback in the survey and an update on this is provided in the Chief Executive’s report to tis (March 2019) Council meeting. The survey was a good opportunity to start the conversation around a longer‐term option for Masterton’s entrances. However, more work needs to be done before any thought is given to outputs that relate specifically to signage or the “welcome” more generally, including revisiting feedback gathered during the Pou project and engagement with those parties that Council maintains signage etc. on behalf of. Other actions should include: a. Feedback from Town Centre engagements since 2016 incorporated into the next stage of understanding b. Workshops held with school‐aged children to ensure their views are represented c. Best‐practice examples from other regions gathered for reference d. Engagement with iwi The project also needs to be aligned with work being done around Masterton’s Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy, Recreation Trail signage and Town Centre Revamp. 190 Recommendation A key risk with a project around entrances is inconsistency and inability to make an impact. With this in mind, such a project requires strong management by a project team which has the benefit of being across various separate, but related, projects. An internal project team will be established consisting of Council staff to progress through to a proposed refresh of Masterton’s welcomes, including the development of a project and implementation plan for this next phase, further engagement with target stakeholders, including those referenced above, and regular reporting to the Community Wellbeing Committee on progress. Management through an internal project team will ensure there is appreciation of separate, but inter‐ related, projects to avoid inconsistency. This project team will undertake engagement with the community to refine thoughts and ideas from what has already been gathered with a view of presenting a proposal to Council for consideration in late 2019/early 2020. Budget impacts The proposed does not have an impact on current budgets as funding has been allocated to capital and operational expenditure signage/welcome in 2019/20. 191 050/19 To: Elected Members Councillor Jonathan Hooker, Chair, Masterton District Council From: International Relations Committee Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Sister Cities Conference March 2019 Recommendation: That Council receives the information in Report 050/19. Purpose To provide an update to members on the Sister Cities Conference held in Palmerston North 21‐23 March 2019 attended by Mayor Lyn Patterson and Councillor Jonathan Hooker. Presentations: 1. NZ Institute of Economic Research Report Launch. https://nzier.org.nz/publication/from‐sister‐to‐global‐cities (Report and Presentation available) NZIER was commissioned in 2003 by Sister Cities New Zealand to investigate the economic benefits of Sister Cities relationships and explore their potential for supporting regional economic development. They Interviewed 40 respondents in 15 businesses, 5 Councils and 3 Schools. NZIER were recommissioned in 2019 to follow up with the original interviewees and find out how their businesses have changed and explore what have been the learnings from successful attempts by 192 some Sister Cities to commercialise their relationships. There are some thought provoking observations and an appendix with Best Practice and Guidelines for Councils. Comment was made that council Sister City relationships sit between the Govt response (MFAT) and Business and are the glue in the middle between these two entities. Councils need to be strategic where we are. Session 1 – Contribution of global city partnerships to NZ Economic Development and Foreign Affairs Malcolm Alexander (LGNZ) o Localism is not all Central Government. o What’s the return on investment – what’s the dividend and need to tell the story. o Strategy is nothing without execution and communication. Peter Bayley (MFaT) o All about relationships. o We have a limited number of potential customers within a 5000km radius, less than most countries. Our barrier to trade is maintaining our relationships not the cost of sending goods. o Japan built a high‐speed train service throughout the country – passengers only. Trade increased because business people could travel easier to meet clients. Rex Capil (Southland District Council) o Relationships not just about trade but also sport and culture. o Think global act local. o Industry and Local Govt working together. Linda Stewart (Central EDA) o Where are the young and Maori represented in Sister Cities’? o If you can’t do it alone collaborate with someone else. o Do the big just get bigger or collaborate and include others to help grow them? Session 2 – 2019 China NZ Year of Tourism Hao Zhongwei (China) o 149.72 million Chinese outbound tourists. o Out of 3.82 million visitors to NZ 11% NZ inbound Chinese second only to Australians visiting o More Free and Independent visitors. Richard Davies (MBIE) o Not just about numbers Jim Boult (Queenstown Mayor) o Tourism largest employer and money earner o $1.5 billion o Chinese spend 50% more than Australian Tourists o 40 000 base population peaking at 100,000. Fan of the tourist “tax” Session 3 – Regional Forums What’s being done in the Wellington region and the opportunities for future collaboration. Mayor Ray Wallace to lead this. 193 Session 4 – From Strategy to Action Hamish McDouall (Whanganui Mayor) o Ad hoc relationships until 2017 till they did an International Relations Strategy 2017. o Waiting for their strategy and the potential to adapt as Masterton doesn’t have one. o Looked at the attributes of Whanganui and then found a city in China that fitted closest to them. Jack Chaney (Christchurch City Council) o Regularly look at their relationships and re‐sign and realign their agreements. Session 5 – Workshops Trade and Business, International Education, Emergency Management, Youth Development and Art and Culture. Session 6 – International Environmental co‐operation and knowledge exchange. Jan Thomas (Massey University) o Tell the story. Educational Exchange the founding relationship. International students being educated easy to measure the $ but can’t measure the cultural and social benefits. o Sister Cities have credibility and international recognition. Fausto Lopez Crozet (Argentine Ambassador) o Govt to Govt and Council to Council good but really, it’s the people to people. Amy Hughes (Wellington Zoo) o Sustainability leader worldwide, 1st carbon neutral Zoo. Session 7 – Maori and Indigenous exchange Mike Tana (Mayor Porirua) o What are you sharing and can it be productive and positive in the relationship for Iwi. Michelle Elia‐ Silota (PM Scholarship to China 2017‐18) o The exchange program she has been on was life changing. Daniel Walker (NZ Maori Tourism Board) o Showed a clip of the official welcome to Australia versus NZ of the Chinese President. Full cultural welcome to NZ not to Aussie. The delegation is still talking about it. Different reactions by the President to both. In support of the President’s speech a local group sang a waiata in Mandarin. Chinese have similar thinking, the importance of food and where you come from. o Intergenerational investment and Maunga to Maunga relationship. Jason Mika (Maori Business and Leadership Research Centre Massey) o Tourism is a relationship door opener – living and breathing the culture. o Making a space to be able to have a conversation about cultural matters. o Culture Exchange, young over and young back. 194 Follow Ups: Whanganui Strategy. Opportunity to review our Changchun and Hatsukaichi Relationships. Changchun our key “friends” have either retired or gone into private enterprise. Key Masterton locals are now very elderly. The teacher exchanges are still however active. Hatsukaichi – more active Mayor to Mayor, and with exchanges (Dame Robin White) and students, than it has been for many years Tuia Program (Mayors’ mentoring program) as part of the program a youth leader exchange. See the link below for copies of presentations and speeches: https://sistercities.org.nz/conference‐2019/ 195 054/19 To: Your Worship and Members From: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive Date: 3 April 2019 Subject: Chief Executive’s Report FOR INFORMATION Recommendation: That Council notes the information contained in the Chief Executive’s Report 054/19. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update (as at 26 March 2019) on the key projects and areas of focus for the Chief Executive and Strategic Leadership Team since the last CEO report to Council (27 February 2019). Chief Executive’s Overview 1. Transport and Roading: Tenders close next month (3 April 2019) for our roading operations and maintenance contract. The current Government Policy Statement (GPS) (with its focus on safety, access, environment and value for money) has impacted funding levels for state highway projects (with many projects being re‐evaluated) and local roads. There is unlikely to be enough money nationally and regionally for all walking, cycling and multi modal projects and those proposals put forward under the new targeted enhanced funding assistance rate for the five national priority programmes1 (NPPS). The likely implication of this is that the Regional Land Transport Plan will need to be revisited and aligned with the GPS. Updates are likely to be provided to the next Regional Transport Committee meeting (10:00am Tuesday 9th April 2019). A separate report to Council will be made when more information is available. 2. Water: Progress update on the Three Waters Review John McGrath (MoH) updated the Rural and Provincial Sector meeting on 8 March 2019 on the review and proposed changes to the regulation of drinking water. 1 The five NPPs are: Safety on local roads (reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on the transport network); Improving the effectiveness of public transport (supporting an expansion in public transport networks and services); Walking and cycling improvements (supporting an expansion in walking and cycling infrastructure); Improving network resilience (supporting local road and state highway improvements and upgrades that provide resilience); and Regional Improvements (supporting investment in regional activities that improve safety, resilience, the environment and access for people and goods). 196 A twin track approach is emerging with an immediate focus on: Urgent and minor changes to the Drinking Water Standards Strengthening Water Safety Plan requirements Urgent amendments to the Health Act (currently being considered by Parliament) Review criteria for Drinking Water Assessors Drinking Water Advisory Group For the medium term: A new regulatory regime for drinking water Accountability Scope of regulation Compliance, monitoring and enforcement A dedicated drinking water regulator The current thinking is to extend the existing regulations to cover the 800,000 people who receive drinking water from unregulated suppliers (excluding single self‐supply households), an obligation to supply safe drinking water, with no exemptions for affordability. Drinking water suppliers will be required to treat drinking water to manage risks to public. The only exception will be at the discretion of the regulator, who may exempt a water supplier from residual disinfection if the water supplier can demonstrate that the water is safe through other means. There are also proposals to cover point sources discharges from wastewater treatment plants and manage overland flows into the water the environment (coastal and freshwater) with national standards. All proposals include enhanced oversight, compliance, monitoring and enforcement of obligations including new responsibilities for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further details on the proposals under discussion can be found here or via the DIA website www.dia.govt.nz/Three‐waters‐review. Detailed proposals on drinking water are to go to Cabinet in June 2019, with supply arrangements to be considered by the end of the year. There is an expectation that some form of rationalisation of supply arrangements will be proposed. As an aside, South Wairarapa District Council have an extraordinary meeting (Hearing) on 27 March on their consultation to join Wellington Water. Their Council meeting of 3 April 2019 will receive and consider the recommendation from the hearing. 197 The Utility Services Contract The Utility Services Contract (for the maintenance of the water, sewerage and stormwater networks in the Masterton District) Registration of Interest process has closed, with sufficient interest to proceed to the next stage. Te Kāuru Upper Ruamāhanga Floodplain Management Plan Following the close of public feedback on the proposed approach to flood management in Masterton (on 05 March 2019) Greater Wellington met with Elected Members on 20 March to present feedback, the proposed Te Kāuru Floodplain Management Plan and explain the next steps. GW are now seeking public submissions on the proposed Te Kāuru Floodplain Management Plan www.tekauru.co.nz, closing date 14 April 2019. Public hearings will take place at the end of April and the FMP will be finalised and adopted in June 2019. We will not be making a submission. Council has provided significant input into the development of the proposed FMP and may be invited to participate in a hearings panel should hearings proceed (ie if submitters wish to be heard in support of their written submissions). The governance structure for implementing Te Kāuru proposes that a formal Advisory Committee be established to oversee the implementation of the Te Kāuru FMP, including three representatives from Masterton District Council and two iwi representatives. Homebush A very successful open day was held at Homebush Wastewater Treatment Plant on Saturday, 23 March. Approximately 100 people visited the Plant. Members who have not seen the updated video of Homebush (showing an aerial overview, treatment ponds, wetlands, cropping, willow tree trials, and riparian planting) may wish to access it at www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5ZUJtTmh0o Water restrictions We continue to have water restrictions in place. 198 This is affecting our planting plans for the Northern Entrance (traffic islands) to Masterton. On 15 November 2018 Masterton District Council shared news that it would not be planting the typical bright bedding plants in the garden beds approaching the northern roundabout. This decision was driven primarily by changes to MDC water uptake consent from the Greater Wellington Regional Council, which significantly reduced the amount of water available for plant maintenance. In addition, a trend for drier, hotter summers resulted in sustained hosepipe bans for the region which preclude utilising sprinklers to protect tender annual plants. Since 1 February we had had restrictions on sprinklers in place for 41 out 54 days, or for 75% of the time. This is likely to change now that we are through the peak of the summer, but in previous years rivers flows have remained low into April. Normally, summer bedding plants would be being removed now and replaced with winter bedding e.g. pansies or polyanthus. New planting would normally occur around Easter depending on conditions, i.e. weather. With the dry conditions we are now looking to May for replanting with drought tolerant plants (which will require some watering through the establishment period to ensure they survive). We understand that there is concern with the look of the beds now so we will share the landscape plan with the public, continue education around water conservation and the Water Conservation Plan we are operating too, and work with NZTA on their requirements for State Highway 2 including traffic management. On a positive note the delay has allowed us to pick up the feedback from the What’s Our Welcome survey and creates an opportunity to link to ongoing design work for the CBD. 3. Tsunami awareness WREMO has been working with communities at Castlepoint, Mataikona and Riversdale around tsunami awareness. This includes painting what’s called “Blue Lines” on roadways. The blue lines have been painted in other locations such as Island Bay and work as an indicator of the height people need to get above in case of a tsunami. Communications around the blue lines have gone to all communities via a letterdrop. Owners of homes in the immediate vicinity of the blue line locations have also been written to separately. Social media, website updates and signage are also underway. The lines are expected to be painted in the first two weeks of April. 4. Communications and Engagement MEDIA: There were 25 media items covering Masterton District Council in March, many as a result of reports to Council. As a result, there were fewer media requests. The main trends in coverage include the Town Centre Revamp project, water meter installation and the parks and open spaces maintenance contract. Proactive media engagements have also proven successful with editorial coverage of the Homebush Open Day and bylaws review consultation. 199 SOCIAL MEDIA: MDC Facebook follower numbers have seen a steady increase at 7 per cent (from 2445 followers to 2620) since the last update, with engagement (clicks, comments, likes) high on posts involving the Masterton’s welcome and water restrictions. Statistics indicate that the posts with maximum traction have been those related to the Christchurch attacks and a post about lost dogs in the district. High‐profile comments over the month include: Water restriction: Why not just keep it as hand held hose if it’s going to change on the daily Water restriction: Lol I encourage Masterton DC to come up with a better plan and when it is pouring rain all winter to save the water for when it is needed or sell it off to the rest of the world when they want it. Water is a commodity like oil Water restriction: MDC maybe all the wasted water comes thru watering during daylight hours try watering from 9pm thru to 5am as the sprinklers u use are pumping water out just to evaporate into the air foolishness. To busy trying to spend money on bad investments like our beloved sports bowl. That is used by 10 people at best or the atrocious sculptures Rec trails: Love your tracks, thank you for maintaining them WoW: Can we please stop spraying all the verges with roundup!!! This leaches into our water table, cancer rates sky rocket from this poison! WoW: I would like to see all the empty shops filled with retailers that stop people from going to Wellington or palmy to spend. WoW: Is a change really going to happen? Seems we have answered regularly questions and given input how to make Masterton more liveable, enjoyable etc but nothing ever changes. I have little trust this current action will do anything different. WoW: WHY! There's nothing wrong with what we have now. stop wasting the rate payers $$$ WoW: Yea fix ur bloody roads man😑 there worst then Melbourne 🤦 & why is it ur Green Waste bin is only emptied once a month🤔… MyMasterton Facebook follower numbers saw an increase of 3 per cent (from 7156 followers to 7363) with posts related to Christchurch and events in the Wairarapa receiving high engagement. WEBSITES The MDC website had 4736 users in March (to date: 22 March), with a bounce rate of 51.75% (people who left the site after visiting one page). This is slightly down on the same period in February. Most visited pages were the homepage, followed by rates, the Wairarapa Combined District Plan consultation, water services and lost dogs. Most site visitors are coming via organic search (75% using Google to find Council information), followed by links on social media (FB) and the remaining through direct links or referrals. The Town Centre website has had low levels of traffic in the March month to date, largely due to less communication activity around the project. 200 DIRECT COMMS The March edition of the Masterton Monthly Wrap was the third edition to go out to our community. All have had outstanding results far surpassing industry benchmarks for electronic direct mail campaigns. With the March edition, the general trend we observe is a slight decline in the “Open rate” (number of people that open the email). The “Click‐through rate” (number of people that clicked a link) was significantly lower (although still higher than industry benchmark). The content is the March edition (Bylaws review and Homebush Open Day) did not prompt the same level of interest as previous editions. The number of people that unsubscribed was less than the February edition. Unsubscribes Recipients Open Rate CTR INDUSTRY BENCHMARK 21.17% 8.57% 1.14% Jan MMW 2103 66.24% 37.31% 0.72% (14 people) Feb MMW 2009 61.03% 28.99% Mar MMW 2005 56.57% 15.85% 0.6% (12 people ENGAGEMENTS The Communications Team has continued to support the Town Centre Revamp project with direct stakeholder engagement. Around 25 1‐2‐1 meetings have been held with business and building owners. This engagement will continue as the project progresses. The Comms Team also managed a business engagement event at Ten O’Clock Cookie Company, intended to share plans for Queen Street. Anecdotal reports are that attendees (about 50) found it useful and there was a high‐level of engagement. Wider communications is planned for when the next iteration of designs are received from Boffa Miskell. The ‘What’s Our Welcome’ campaign wrapped up at the end of February and was highly successful. In total, around 550 submissions were received. The responses are currently being analysed with results and trends due to be provided back to Council in coming weeks. The Communications Team has also commissioned a survey of the Masterton community regarding preferred communications channels. The research will give clear data around current media usage and where people prefer to get their information. This will then be fed into a broader strategy for the Council’s communications. The draft report is expected 10th April. 201 PLANNING AHEAD The Communications Team is currently working on comms around the following significant projects for April: Wheelie bin rollout Annual Plan Water Meters 5. Compliments / complaints From 8 February 2019 to 22 March 2019: Three official complaints have been received, all three have been completed. 11 compliments have been received (ranging from compliments on our newspaper advertisements regarding saving water, the Waifest event, Lansdowne Recreational Trail work and Hydroslide repairs). 6. Service Requests Over the 8 February to 22 March period, Council has received 798 service requests. 205 of these remain open. Nine of the total number of service requests have come via Elected Members (3 of which were requests to contractors (i.e. to Recreational Services) and 6 were to internal staff). The remainder came from the public. In general, the service requests cover the full range of Council activities such as footpaths, leaking tobies, signs, dogs, trees etc. People have continued to be pro‐active in reporting water leaks. 7. Civic Centre The project remains on track to deliver the Market Demand and Economic Impact Report for a civic centre within Masterton. Quotes have been obtained for design consultants to commence conceptual strengthening options. 8. Town Centre Rejuvenation Project The Town Centre Project and Reference Group have this week received an updated version of developed design plans for Queen, Bruce and Park Streets. The designers have worked to balance feedback from all businesses and the community in line with objectives from each street outlined in the Town Centre Strategy. Over the next fortnight we are continuing to get feedback through: Meeting individually with key stakeholders whose businesses/buildings are impacted Inviting other businesses in Park and Bruce Street to come to joint discussions Holding drop‐in sessions at Queen Street Thursday and Friday (week commencing 1 April) Emailing all businesses on our Town Centre database (184) to update on latest progress Emailing our wider town centre database (community members) to update on latest progress 202 9. Wairarapa Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan Over the last month, the Governance Group supported the Martinborough Dark Sky Society’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). The Dark Sky Project is a regional visitor and tourism priority for plan. We are also progressing Destination Accommodation Planning, supporting the Food Story group for acceleration projects, and framing the water resilience strategy referred to in the plan. We look forward to hearing the outcome of the Water Storage Project PGF application too. We continue to develop a multi‐year programme to support beyond‐school transitions for at‐risk rangatahi (youth), with a view to seeking external funding with the support of the Governance and Steering Groups for the Plan. Alongside this, and as part of implementing Council’s own Education Strategy, a successful inaugural meeting of the tertiary community of learning (TCoL) was held on 21 February. There appeared to be a genuine willingness to improve coordination and collaboration amongst the group to strengthen programme provision and to promote more needs and interest‐based programmes. The inaugural meeting of the Wairarapa Tertiary Advisory Group (WTAG) was also held with UCOL on Thursday the 14th of March. The purpose of this organisation is to develop mechanisms to better support and encourage and work with tertiary providers in the region to ensure the regions educational needs (especially vocational) are being met. Deloittes have been engaged by the Greater Wellington Regional Council, in partnership with the Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency, to co‐design a Workforce Development Plan for the Wellington region. Surveys of businesses / employers and a face‐to‐face meeting in the Wairarapa occurred this month. This work will compliment the work already underway to address the primary sector skills requirements in the Wairarapa. 10. Financials 8 months to 28 February 2019 The two financial statements attached show the overall financial performance as at 8 months through the year. Net expenditure against Rates funding shows as 2.9% underspent year to date. There are unders and overs, with the main ones being bullet‐pointed below. In general, where variances from Plan show currently, they can be expected to still be variances by the 30 June, end of the financial year. A full set of operating statements and capital expenditure reports for 9 months to date will be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee scheduled for 8 May. A full year forecast will be produced for the May Council meeting. The Statement of Revenue & Expenditure shows a surplus of $1.46m versus our expected budget position of a YTD deficit of $203,000. Reasons for this better than plan variance include: Higher roading subsidies of $275,100 relates to more income from NZTA as subsidised roading expenditure is ahead of budget for the first 8 months 203 Financial contributions from subdivision developments generated $1,144,500 in the eighth months. That is $702,368 more than planned, reflecting the continuing high number of new sections being developed Interest income is ahead of Plan by nearly $250,000 due to more funds invested than expected (eg Waiata House settlement delayed, early draw down of funds for March bond repayment) Other Revenue from fees & charges is up on Plan by $554,500 (10.8%) due largely to building consent income ahead of planned level and transfer station fee income also running ahead of planned. Personnel costs are 4.6% less than planned YTD (across several areas of the business where staff vacancies have yet to be filled). Other operating costs are running close to the planned levels at 2.0% or $256,200 over. The over Plan spending relates to a number of activities, the more significant ones are mentioned below. In the Rates Requirement Summary, analysis of major variances by activity area follows: The Statement at 8 months to date shows a large surplus of Rates Income (plan and actual) – this is due to the planned repayment of debt of $2.0m allowed for in March 2019. Roading has run above the planned rates required as a number of renewals contracts were progressed in the first three months of the year. These include footpaths, kerbing and roadmarking. It is expected that these are timing variances that will even out over the balance of the year. District Building has realised savings vs plan as the Plan allowed for Waiata House costs to start early in the year (eg rates, insurance, depreciation and loan interest). Additional costs of external rent on Public Trust and Bannister Street offices have not had a significant negative impact. Resource Mgmt & Planning better than Plan reflects the higher level of resource consent fee income from subdivision developments than planned. Building Development revenue is 10.4% ahead of the plan, but the costs of processing the high volumes of consents are also up. Legal costs have also offset the higher than plan income, the net result being a $78,500 deficit YTD. Internal functions overall show $51,100 in net costs less than planned (1.0% of expenditure). 204 Statement of Revenue & Expenditure 8 Months Year to Date to 28 February 2019 8 months 8 months 2018/19 Full Year Revenue Actual 2018/19 Plan Variance 2018/19 Rates Revenue* 19,502,003 19,476,604 25,399 0.1% 29,459,396 Interest Received (external) 715,874 466,000 249,874 53.6% 697,800 NZTA Roading Subsidies 3,177,045 2,901,943 275,102 9.5% 4,983,638 Financial Contributions 1,144,532 442,164 702,368 158.8% 682,000 Fees, Charges & Other Revenue 5,677,059 5,122,522 554,537 10.8% 7,834,319 Total Operating Revenue 30,216,512 28,409,233 1,807,279 6.4% 43,657,153 Expenses Personnel Costs 5,878,332 6,163,085 284,754 4.6% 9,008,253 Other Operating Expenditure 13,150,173 12,893,965 (256,208) ‐2.0% 19,939,606 Interest Expense 1,790,212 1,732,112 (58,100) ‐3.4% 2,598,123 Depreciation & amortisation 7,933,236 7,823,072 (110,164) ‐1.4% 11,734,546 Total Operating Expenses 28,751,952 28,612,234 (139,718) ‐0.5% 43,280,528 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $1,464,560 ($203,001) $1,667,561 $376,625 *Rates Revenue excludes rates on Council properties 205 2018/19 8 Months to 28 February 2019 Rates Requirement Summary 2018/19 2018/19 Variance 2018/19 8 months YTD Plan Full Year Plan RATES REQUIRED BY ACTIVITY $ $ $ % $ Transport Roading 3,670,538 3,524,871 (145,667) 5,982,777 Water Services Urban Water supply 2,039,004 2,124,605 85,601 3,124,067 Rural Water supplies & races 57,847 62,783 4,936 94,844 Sewerage Services Urban Sewerage system 3,455,466 3,527,016 71,550 6,794,503 Rural Sewerage systems 164,346 163,105 (1,241) 310,574 Stormwater Services Stormwater 273,145 306,601 33,456 495,041 Solid Waste Services Solid Waste Services 314,758 411,804 97,046 636,804 Waste Minimisation Services 198,028 226,826 28,798 348,707 Community Facilities/Activities Parks, Reserves & Sportsfields 1,583,866 1,630,519 46,653 2,458,917 Trust House Recreation Centre 637,500 647,030 9,530 935,884 Cemeteries 38,364 55,075 16,711 89,233 Library & Archive 1,337,781 1,316,096 (21,685) 1,934,811 District Building 252,328 446,348 194,020 748,161 Housing for Elderly 75,616 65,346 (10,270) 40,830 Other Property 434,373 465,422 31,048 695,359 Hood Airport 55,719 45,926 (9,793) 179,238 Mawley Holiday Park 29,776 29,572 (204) 99,416 Community Wellbeing Community Development 753,422 753,568 146 994,956 Arts & Culture 324,191 326,582 2,391 486,423 Economic Devlpmt & Promo 718,118 726,585 8,467 993,757 Environmental Initiatives 69,371 66,406 (2,965) 164,268 Planning & Regulatory Services Resource Mgmt & Planning 454,255 500,074 45,819 776,445 Building Development 329,243 250,723 (78,520) 344,701 Environmental Services 242,239 262,139 19,900 406,937 Parking Control (55,032) (33,432) 21,600 (50,142) Animal Services 16,067 36,599 20,532 73,202 Emergency Management 137,773 157,760 19,987 215,120 Governance Representation 399,089 397,998 (1,091) 653,569 Internal Functions (net) 93,844 144,945 51,100 1 Total Rates Requirement $ 18,101,036 $ 18,638,891 $ 537,855 2.9% $ 30,028,406 RATES INCOME Masterton District Council rates 20,028,865 19,965,604 63,261 29,948,406 Penalty Income 170,388 160,000 10,388 200,000 Rates Remissions (116,832) (90,000) (26,832) (120,000) Discounts Given ‐ ‐ Net Rates Income $ 20,082,421 $ 20,035,604 $ 46,817 0.3% $ 30,028,406 Surplus/(Deficit) of Rates Income $ 1,981,385 $ 1,396,714 $ 584,671 3.1% $ 0