New Plymouth District Council

Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Agenda

MEETING AGENDA

COUNCIL

Tuesday 10 April 2018 at 3.30pm

COUNCIL CHAMBER LIARDET STREET NEW PLYMOUTH

Chairperson: Mayor Neil Holdom Members: Cr Richard Jordan (Deputy) Cr Shaun Biesiek Cr Gordon Brown Cr Murray Chong Cr Harry Duynhoven Cr Richard Handley Cr Stacey Hitchcock Cr Colin Johnston Cr John McLeod Cr Alan Melody Cr Mike Merrick Cr Marie Pearce Cr Roy Weaver Cr John Williams

1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Agenda

Purpose of Local Government The reports contained in this agenda address the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to decision making. Unless otherwise stated, the recommended option outlined in each report meets the purpose of local government and:

 Will help meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses;

 Would not alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of the Council, or transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council.

END

2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Health and Safety

Health and Safety Message

In the event of an emergency, please follow the instructions of Council staff.

Please exit through the main entrance.

Once you reach the footpath please turn right and walk towards Pukekura Park, congregating outside the Spark building. Please do not block the foothpath for other users.

Staff will guide you to an alternative route if necessary.

If there is an earthquake – drop, cover and hold where possible. Please be mindful of the glass overhead.

Please remain where you are until further instruction is given.

3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Apologies

APOLOGIES

Cr Roy Weaver

4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Deputations

ADDRESSING THE MEETING Requests for public forum and deputations need to be made at least one day prior to the meeting. The Chairperson has authority to approve or decline public comments and deputations in line with the standing order requirements.

PUBLIC FORUM Public Forums enable members of the public to bring matters to the attention of the committee which are not contained on the meeting agenda. The matters must relate to the meeting’s terms of reference. Speakers can speak for up to 5 minutes, with no more than two speakers on behalf of one organisation.

 Liam Matuku and Daniel McWatters - Honorary Ambassadors

 Sport Taranaki – Howie Tamati with Colin Stone, Regional Partnerships Manger, Sport NZ

DEPUTATIONS Deputations enable a person, group or organisation to speak to the meeting on matters contained on the agenda. An individual speaker can speak for up to 10 minutes. Where there are multiple speakers for one organisation, a total time limit of 15 minutes, for the entire deputation, applies.

 None advised

5 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Previous Minutes

PREVIOUS COUNCIL MINUTES Recommendation That the minutes of the following meeting of the Council, and the proceedings of the said meeting, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record:

6 March 2018 26 March 2018 (Extraordinary)

COMMITTEE MINUTES Recommendation That the minutes of the following meetings, as circulated be received and: a) Decisions made under delegated authority by the committees be incorporated in the minutes of this meeting of the Council. b) Recommendations made by committees be included in the business to be considered at this meeting of the Council.

Audit and Risk Committee 21 March 2018 Te Huinga Taumatua 22 March 2018 Planning Committee 28 March 2018 Performance Committee 28 March 2018

END

6 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Table of Contents

REPORTS

1 Planning Committee Recommendations

Min 2 Consultation on a Proposed Revised Naming and Renaming of Roads, Private Roads and Right-of-Ways Policy

Min 3 Community-Wide Emissions Database and Climate Change Planning and Monitoring

Min 4 Policy Review – Approval Attendance at Conferences

Min 5 Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria

2 Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations

Min 5 Disaster Recovery Reserve

Min 6 Insurance Framework

END

7 1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE

2. Amendments to Existing Vehicle Prohibitions on Specified Roads in Bell Block Industrial Area ECM 7648521 The matter for consideration by the Council is amendments to vehicle prohibitions on specified roads in the Bell Block industrial area.

Planning Committee Recommendation: Mayor Holdom ) Cr Biesiek ) That having considered all matters raised in the report and pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2008 Part 13: Traffic, the following vehicle restrictions within the Bell Block industrial area be imposed on Monday to Sunday during the times of 7pm to 7am:

De Havilland Drive area:

1. Pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw, Part 13, clause 26.3, vehicle prohibitions created under clause 26.1 are revoked for the following roads: a. De Havilland Drive (full length) b. Connett Road (from Paraite Road to Devon Road - SH3) c. Corbett Road (from Devon Road - SH3 to Arthur Road) d. Hudson Road (full length) e. Mustang Drive (full length) f. Catalina Place (full length) g. Dakota Place (full length) h. Auster Place (full length) i. Cygnet Drive (full length) j. Swans Road (full length) k. Vampire Place (full length) l. Hercules Place (full length) m. Albatross Place (full length)

2. Pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw, Part 13, clause 26.1A, a vehicle restricted zone is created over the following roads on Monday to Sunday during the times of 7pm to 7am: a. De Havilland Drive (full length) b. Connett Road (from Paraite Road to Devon Road - SH3) c. Corbett Road (from Devon Road - SH3 to Arthur Road) d. Hudson Road (full length) e. Mustang Drive (full length) f. Catalina Place (full length) g. Dakota Place (full length) h. Auster Place (full length) i. Cygnet Drive (full length)

8 1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

j. Swans Road (full length) k. Vampire Place (full length) l. Hercules Place (full length) m. Albatross Place (full length)

Cody Place area:

3. Pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw, Part 13, clause 26.3, vehicle prohibitions created under clause 26.1 are revoked for the following roads: a. Rifle Range Road (from Vickers Road to the Waste Water Treatment Plant) b. Hurlstone Drive (full length) c. Katere Road (full length) d. Oropuriri Road (full length) e. Dean Place (full length) f. Gregory Place (full length) g. Wendy Avenue (full length) h. Cody Place (full length) i. Craig Place (full length)

4. Pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw, Part 13, clause 26.1A, a vehicle restricted zone is created over the following roads on Monday to Sunday during the times of 7pm to 7am. a. Rifle Range Road (from Vickers Road to the Waste Water Treatment Plant) b. Hurlstone Drive (full length) c. Katere Road (full length) d. Oropuriri Road (full length) e. Parakau Road (full length) f. Dean Place (full length) g. Gregory Place (full length) h. Wendy Avenue (full length) i. Cody Place (full length) j. Craig Place (full length) Carried

Cr Melody having declared an interest took no part in the deliberation and voting on the preceding matter.

Cr Handley was not present for deliberation and voting on the preceding matter.

3. Community-Wide Emissions Database and Climate Change Planning And Monitoring ECM 7639836 The matter for consideration is whether the Council goes beyond the information gathering Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) which we already

9 1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

participate in, and joins the more aspirational and publicly engaging Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Global Covenant of Mayors).

Planning Committee Recommendation: Cr Hitchcock ) Mayor Holdom ) That having considered all matters raised in the report the Council increases its commitment to emission reduction and climate change preparedness by participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Carried Cr Handley abstained from voting on the preceding matter.

4. Policy Review – Approval Attendance at Conferences ECM 7625090 The matter for consideration by the Council is revocation of the Approval for Attendance at Conferences Policy and adoption of a new policy to outline the approval process for elected member attendance at professional development events.

Planning Committee Recommendation: Cr Handley ) Cr Melody ) That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Policy P01-014 Approval Attendance at Conferences be revoked.

b) The Approval to Attend Professional Development Events Policy be approved with the inclusion of “normal and reasonable” as per the Elected Members Remuneration Policy and with the inclusion of Wānanga under the definition of events. Carried

5. Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria Policy Review ECM 7626757 The matter for consideration by the Council is a review of the Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria Policy.

Planning Committee Recommendation: Mayor Holdom ) Cr Hitchcock ) That having considered all matters raised in the report the Council:

a) Adopt the amended Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria Policy

b) Revoke D98-009 Appointment of Honorary Ambassadors and delegate authority to the Mayor to consider nominations and make appointments of Honorary Ambassadors of the New Plymouth District. Carried

10 1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Report Details Prepared By: Jan Holdt (Committee Adviser) Team: Governance Approved By: Julie Straka (Governance Lead) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 3 April 2018 File Reference: ECM 7681636

------End of Report ------

11 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING VEHICLE PROHIBITIONS ON SPECIFIED ROADS IN BELL BLOCK INDUSTRIAL AREA

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is amendments to vehicle prohibitions on specified roads in the Bell Block industrial area.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report and pursuant to the New Plymouth District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2008 Part 13: Traffic, the following vehicle restrictions within the Bell Block industrial area be imposed on Monday to Sunday during the times of 7pm to 7am:

De Havilland Drive area:

12 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

j. Swans Road (full length) k. Vampire Place (full length) l. Hercules Place (full length) m. Albatross Place (full length)

Cody Place area:

13 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

1. Resolve under clause 26 of the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw 2008 – Part 13 Traffic to implement restricted zones in the Bell Block Industrial area Options following the recent Bylaw amendment. Refer appendix one.

2. Retain prohibited roads and update signage to comply with R7-10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter Affected persons are Council officers, road users, Police and the wider community.

Recommendation This report recommends option one for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No. Implications

Significant Policy and Plan No. Inconsistencies

BACKGROUND On 30 January 2018, Council resolved to amend the New Plymouth District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2008 Part 13: Traffic (the Bylaw). The amendment enables the Council, by resolution, to specify any zone that is restricted to defined classes of vehicle (see appendix one for clause 26 of the Bylaw).

This amendment came about as the Police V Whale case, which related to Police’s enforcement of the Bylaw’s prohibition (as per clause 26), was successfully challenged in the District Court. It was found that the Council’s signage at the Bell Block industrial area did not comply with the general regulatory signage requirements in R7-10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. It was determined the signs contained more information than necessary, were not readable in the dark and were not able to be read from a moving vehicle travelling at least within the upper limit of the road speed restriction.

14 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

In assessing the design issues raised by this court case, the Council identified another issue with the bylaw signage – the locational requirements, and the large number of signs required to advise of the prohibitions. To address this matter, the Council resolved to amend the Bylaw to allow the Council to specify zones which are restricted to certain classes of vehicle.

In 2009 and 2011, the Council resolved to prohibit vehicles weighing less than 3,500kg from the areas below. These prohibitions were put in place in response to a number of incidents and complaints about street racing vehicles in these areas. Problems included incidents of fuel spillages, noise, extreme and dangerous driving, littering and damage, as well as incidence of arson.

Vehicle prohibitions that came into place in 2009: - De Havilland Drive, - Dakota Place - Auster Place - Corbett Road Central - Mustang Drive - Connett Road - Hudson Road - Connett Road East

Vehicle prohibitions that came into place in 2011: - Rifle Range Road (from Vickers Road intersection going north) - Cody Place - Katere Road - Egmont Road (from Katere Road intersection) - Craig Place - Hurlestone Drive - Wendy Avenue - Dean Place - Gregory Place - Connett Road West - Albatross Place - Hercules Place - Vampire Place - Swan Road - Cygnet Drive - De Havilland Drive West - Oropuriri Road - Swans Road

15 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

In order to implement the amended Bylaw, and therefore the new signage requirements, Council must now, by resolution, revoke the above prohibitions and in accordance with Part 13, clause 26.1A (refer appendix 1), adopt the below vehicle restricted zones: a. De Havilland Drive (full length) b. Connett Road (from Paraite Road to Devon Road - SH3) c. Corbett Road (from Devon Road - SH3 to Arthur Road) d. Hudson Road (full length) e. Mustang Drive (full length) f. Catalina Place (full length) g. Dakota Place (full length) h. Auster Place (full length) i. Cygnet Drive (full length) j. Swans Road (full length) k. Vampire Place (full length) l. Hercules Place (full length) m. Albatross Place (full length) n. Rifle Range Road (from Vickers Road to the Waste Water Treatment Plant) o. Hurlstone Drive (full length) p. Katare Road (full length) q. Oropuriri Road (full length) r. Parakau Road (full length) s. Dean Place (full length) t. Gregory Place (full length) u. Wendy Avenue (full length) v. Cody Place (full length) w. Graig Place (full length)

Council officers have consulted on the proposed amendments with Police, and with affected residents and business owners (via letter drop). The feedback received was positive, the main query related to police enforcement of employees coming and going from the area on legitimate work duties. Police provided the below response:

To the affected businesses in the Industrial Areas of Bell Block/Rifle Range Road/Egmont, Hurlstone and Katere Rd areas:

The “Boy Racer” Bylaw banning vehicles from these areas between 7pm and 7am daily, has always had exemptions - such as Police and security guards in the course of their duties, and has always included persons with legitimate reasons for being in the area, such as those travelling to or from home, or to or from work, in these areas.

In short, if there is a legitimate reason for a vehicle under 3500kgs being in the area, Police are not going to ticket you.

The concern is the illegal street racing and other associated activities that occur in these areas. That, is the target audience – not those lawfully entitled to be in the area.

16 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

Under section 156 of the Local Government Act (2002) a local authority, may by resolution publicly notified: a. Make minor changes to, or correct errors in, a bylaw, but only if the changes or corrections do not affect— I. an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty of any person to whom the bylaw applies; or II. an existing status or capacity of any person to whom the bylaw applies.

Council officers consider the amendment is minor, and in essence, the same outcome will be achieved through zones as has occurred for the current prohibitions.

Once resolutions specifying zone restrictions have been made, signage can be installed (refer appendix three) after which the restrictions will be enforced by the Police. Signs take approximately two weeks to manufacture and install.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance. Council officers consider the amendment as minor, and in essence, the same outcome will be achieved through zones as has occurred for the current prohibitions and the community’s existing rights will not be affected. There are no significant impacts on the district and the community.

OPTIONS Option 1 Resolve under Clause 26 of the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw 2008 – Part 13 Traffic to implement restricted zones in the Bell Block Industrial area.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications This option will result in financial savings for signage installation. Zones have simpler signage requirements, therefore, the cost of traffic signage in the Bell Block industrial area will be reduced from $30,755.42 to $11,380.10.

b) Risk Analysis There is no perceived risk, as community response was supportive of the restricted zones. Council will ensure that new signage meets required as specified in R7-10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes There will be no change to the promotion or achievement of Community Outcomes.

17 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

d) Statutory Responsibilities The Council will need to update signs informing of restricted zones to comply with R7-10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

The Council is required to publicly notify the amendment. This responsibility will be met.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans The proposed amendment is consistent with the Council’s Policies and Plans.

f) Participation by Māori There are no specific effects for Maori for this matter.

g) Community Views and Preferences Police and affected residents and businesses views have been sought on the proposed amendments. Police were supportive of the amendments, and other feedback was predominantly questioning the enforcement issues for employees coming and going from businesses in the area. These queries have been answered.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages The advantage of this option is that the Council will have less onerous signage requirements for the restricted zones, in comparison to the signage requirements for the prohibitions on these roads. There is the potential for reducing signage costs. There are no perceived disadvantages of this option.

Option 2 Retain prohibited roads and update signage to comply with R7- 10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications The Council will be required to adhere to the signage requirements for prohibited roads. This will cost $30,755.42 rather than signs for a restricted zone which will cost $11,380.10.

b) Risk Analysis Increased signage cost to the Council.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes There will be no change to the promotion or achievement of Community Outcomes.

18 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

d) Statutory Responsibilities Council will need to update signs informing of prohibited roads to comply with R7-10, Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans This option is also consistent with Council’s Policies and Plans.

f) Participation by Māori There are no specific effects for Maori for this matter.

g) Community Views and Preferences The community have expressed support for the ‘boy racer bylaw’, they have not expressed a view on whether this is achieved through prohibitions or restricted zones.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages The disadvantage of this option is that the Council will have to implement signage requirements for prohibited roads, rather than restricted zones. This will be an increased cost to the Council of approximately $19,400.

There are no perceived advantages for this option.

Recommended Option This report recommends option one: Resolve under clause 26 of the New Plymouth District Council Bylaw 2008 – Part 13 Traffic to implement restricted zones in the Bell Block Industrial area, as per appendix one, for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES 1. Clause 26 depicting amendment of Bylaw enabling the implementation of restricted zones. 2. Maps of roads over which restricted zones are proposed. 3. Proposed signage for Bell Block industrial area.

Report Details Prepared By: Cheryl McGrath (Compliance Lead) Team: District Services Approved By: Katrina Brunton (Customer and Regulatory Solutions Manager) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 19 February 2018 File Reference: ECM 7648521 ------End of Report ------

19 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX ONE

Clause 26 depicting amendment of Bylaw enabling the implementation of restricted zones.

26. Prohibited and restricted times on roads

26.1 The Council may by resolution specify any road or part of a road and the days and times during which motor vehicles weighing less than 3,500 kilograms are prohibited from being used on that road or part of that road or roads.

26.1A The Council may be resolution specify any zone, the use of which is restricted to the classes of vehicle or road user listed in clause 26.1B, and the days and times during which such restrictions apply.

26.1B The classes of vehicle or road user to whom a restriction under clause 26.1A applies are:

a) Any motor vehicle weighing 3,500 kilograms or more;

b) Any emergency services vehicle being used in the execution of duty;

c) Any vehicles carrying persons to premises within the zone described in a resolution made under clause 26.1A; and

d) Any utility, trade, Council, delivery, security, or other vehicle being used on business in the zone described in a resolution made under clause 26.1A.

26.2 Before the Council makes a resolution under clause 26.1 or 26.1A, the Council must consider:

a) The reasons why it is necessary to pass the proposed prohibition or restriction; and

b) The types and locations of roads or zones the proposed prohibition or restriction will apply to (e.g. local roads, arterial roads; urban areas, residential areas, or industrial areas); and

c) The length of, and days on which, the proposed prohibition or restriction will apply (e.g. it is not envisaged that a prohibition or restriction will apply 24 hours per day, seven days per week); and

d) Whether the Police support the proposed prohibition or restriction; and

e) Any other information the Council considers relevant.

26.3 The Council may by resolution subsequently amend or revoke any resolution made under clause 26.1 or 26.1A.

26.4 Subject to the Council installing the signage referred to in clause 26.5, no person may use a motor vehicle weighing less than 3,500 kilograms on any part of a road described in a resolution made under clause 26.1 during the times and on the days specified in the resolution, unless:

20 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX TWO

Maps of roads over which restricted zones are proposed. a) De Havilland Drive area

21 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation b) Cody Place area

22 1.1 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX THREE

Proposed signage for Bell Block industrial area. a) Zone entry and repeater sign: Approx. 675mm high x 885mm wide Text 50mm, Space 25mm, Border 25mm

RESTRICTED ZONE 7AM - 7PM PERMITTED VEHICLES: - Vehicles over 3500kg. - Emergency Service Vehicles. - Vehicles carrying persons to premises in zone or on business in zone.

b) Zone exit sign: Approx. 205mm high x 390mm wide Text 50mm, Space 25mm, Border 25mm

RESTRICTED

ZONE ENDS

23 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

COMMUNITY-WIDE EMISSIONS DATABASE AND CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING AND MONITORING

MATTER The matter for consideration is whether the Council goes beyond the information gathering Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) which we already participate in, and joins the more aspirational and publicly engaging Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Global Covenant of Mayors).

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report the Council increases its commitment to emission reduction and climate change preparedness by participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.

COMMUNITY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS The Inglewood, Kaitake, Clifton Community Boards endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

Waitara Community Board Recommendation The Waitara Community Board recommended option 2: Continue to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) without public target setting or community engagement.

TE HUINGA TAUMATUA RECOMMENDATION Te Huinga Taumatua endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

1. Participate in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and allocates $25,000 in the Long Term Plan for the associated Community-Wide Emissions Options Inventory.

2. Continue to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) without public target setting or community engagement.

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter Affected persons are the current and future New Plymouth District community.

24 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

COMPLIANCE

Recommendation This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / Yes. $25,000 cost over two years for external assistance in Annual Plan compiling a community-wide emissions inventory. Implications

Significant Policy and Plan No. Inconsistencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council has been using a climate change emissions reporting portal called the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for over 12 months.

The Council has now built up a good internal database of emissions directly resulting from Council operations and made one annual submission to CDP for assessment. Appendix 1 provides a ‘Snap Shot’ report of NPDC’s performance. In summary, the Council scored well for risk identification and our stormwater/flood protection programme of works. However our ‘Snap Shot’ is somewhat incomplete due to the fact we do not hold a community-wide emissions database, publically disclose or have climate action or adaptation plans in place. We are unable to easily compare our Council’s emission profile with others until we widen our database to include community-wide emissions.

The Council resolved (16 May 2017) that officers were to report back on the Council’s participation in CDP after the first 12 month period to review progress and consider the Council progressing in its climate change adaptation journey.

Participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors means:

1. Having a meaningful conversation with our community about climate change and how best to adapt.

2. Progressing in the delivery of commitments made in the Council’s polices, plans and declarations.

3. Preparing our district to adapt to climate change using internationally recognised guidelines.

4. Keeping up with other New Zealand councils and being able to track and compare progress transparently.

5. Cost of $25,000 over two years to develop a community-wide emissions inventory (proxies are used when information not available).

25 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

BACKGROUND In 2010 the Council signed up to the Communities for Climate Change Protection programme. This programme was administered by ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and has evolved into the Compact of Mayors. Around this time the Council was also a member of the Australasian Mayors Council for Climate Protection.

In February 2017 Mayor Holdom was invited by ICLEI to participate in the Compact of Mayors (now called the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy). This initiative establishes a common platform to capture the impact of cities’ collective actions through standardised measurement of emissions and climate risk, and consistent, public reporting of their efforts. Refer to Appendix 2 for more information.

The Council resolved to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in the short term. CDP is used by local governments around the world to gather information about their emissions, risks, opportunities and resilience strategies and report publicly if they chose to.

It was viewed that participating in CDP would assist the Council in being well positioned for more work with the community in this area in the future. Data gathering and ‘getting our house in order’ under CDP was considered a more appropriate first step towards moving towards the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Global Covenant of Mayors), which has higher levels of commitment and engagement.

Many participating cities within the Global Covenant of Mayors use CDP to manage their database. Therefore the two initiatives complement each other. CDP can either feed into the more comprehensive Global Covenant of Mayors or remain as a basic emissions database in isolation.

Participation in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

Step 1 Anytime Online registration. Receive official “Committed” badge for use in public relations. Step 2 Within 1 Community-wide emissions inventory submitted covering year stationary energy and transport. Step 3 Within 2 Emission reduction target setting, hazard/vulnerability years assessment, expand community-wide inventory to include emissions by sources/sectors. Step 4 Within 3 Action and adaptation plans submitted. years Step 5 After 3 Receive official “Compliant” badge for use in public years relations. Step 6+ Thereafter Review and update data annually.

26 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

The Council’s Progress in Terms of Climate Change Preparedness The table below summarises some of the actions that the Council is taking in comparison to other Councils. It is envisaged that the Council progresses in its climate change adaptation journey over time. The recommended next step for the Council is to participate in the Global Covenant of Mayors. As the Council progresses through the three year Global Covenant of Mayors programme we will be better placed to formally adopt meaningful climate change adaptation policies.

Commitment Plans/polices in place

Leaders Climate Carbon Global Covenant Climate Change Change Disclosure of Mayors, UN Strategy/Policy Declaration Project (CDP) or Cities Programme formally adopted (LGNZ) 2017 other database or CEMARS

New Plymouth Recommended Next step after District Council under this report Global Covenant Auckland Council Palmerston Nth City Council Tauranga City Council Rotorua Lakes District Council Kapiti Coast District Council Wellington City Council Christchurch City Council Dunedin City Council

Developing a community-wide emissions database is required under the Global Covenant of Mayors which is the recommended way forward. Wellington City Council’s community-wide emissions inventory can be viewed here and includes:

 Stationary Energy Emissions

 Transportation Emissions

 Waste Emissions

 Industrial Emissions

 Agricultural Emissions

 Forestry Carbon Sequestration and Emissions

27 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

A high level summary of Tauranga City Council’s community-wide emissions inventory can be found here.

Dunedin City Council has recently adopted a target of a 100% reduction in net emissions by 2050 according to The Otago Daily Times article published 15 February 2018.

Central Government The Minister for Climate Change released a number of climate change related documents late last year. Of particular relevance is the Coastal hazard and Climate Change Guidance. The guidance supports decision-makers to manage and adapt to the increased coastal hazard risks posed by climate change and sea-level rise. The report recommends that planning for the impact of climate change on coastal hazards follow a 10-step decision cycle. The cycle is made up of elements to secure and implement a long-term strategic planning and decision-making framework for coastal areas potentially, or already, affected by coastal hazards and climate-change effects, such as sea-level rise. Refer to Appendix 3 for more information on the 10-step decision cycle.

The Minister for Climate Change has also announced that the Government is moving towards a Zero Carbon Act when saying, ”the Bill will be a cornerstone of New Zealand’s transition to a low emissions, climate resilient future”. Refer to the Ministry for the Environment website for more information.

Climate Data According to the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere, 2016 was New Zealand’s warmest year since records began in 1909. NIWA also describes 2017 as a “year of extremes” with above normal rainfall, higher than usual temperatures and droughts in parts of the country. NIWA has recently released data stating that January 2018 was New Zealand’s hottest month on record.

The Ministry for the Environment has produced an infographic called ‘New Zealand’s atmosphere and climate at a glance (2017)’, summarising our position on matters such as emissions, sea level rise, deforestation, glacier loss and acidification of oceans. This infographic can be viewed in Appendix 4.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance. Climate change has the potential to greatly impact the district, however progress is already being made to address the potential risks and the Council can increase its commitment of resources in this space at any time.

28 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

OPTIONS There are two reasonably practicable options:

1. Increase Council’s commitment to emission reduction and climate change preparedness by participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and allocate $25,000 in the Long Term Plan for the associated Community-Wide Emissions Inventory.

2. Continue to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) without public target setting or community engagement. Both options are assessed simultaneously below for ease of comparison. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There is no fee to participate in either CDP or the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Global Covenant of Mayors).

The staff time required to continue to participate in CDP is 40 hours per annum which can be provided within current resourcing levels.

It is estimated that the staff time required to participate in the Global Covenant of Mayors would exceed 200 hours over three years in order to comply with the community wide emissions inventory, hazards report, vulnerability assessment, climate action and adaptation plan requirements and engaging with key stakeholders throughout the process. This work can be can be done within current resourcing levels if deemed a high priority.

Other Councils such as Christchurch, Palmerston North and Wellington have engaged AECOM to compile their community-wide emissions inventories. AECOM is a global network of design, engineering, construction and management professionals. It is assumed that should the Council participate in the Global Covenant of Mayors we would also engage AECOM at approximately $25,000 over the first two years, in addition to the aforementioned staff time. This budget is not currently allocated within the Long Term Plan and requires consideration for inclusion.

The cost of reducing emissions or implementing adaptation measures is unknown at this time as no targets or plans have been developed. b) Risk Analysis Gathering data under the CDP programme has built internal capacity. The Council is now well placed to step up to the more meaningful Global Covenant of Mayors should that decision be made.

The primary risk of participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors is that some within the community may not see this work as a priority for the Council.

29 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

The risks of continuing to participate in CDP only are:

1) The District remains at risk of being under prepared for climate change given CDP does not require the inclusion of community emissions within our database, emissions reduction target setting, community engagement or adaptation planning.

2) Potential reputational risk around the perceived lack of Council commitment to this issue. c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Participating in CDP currently assists the Council in delivering the three Community Outcomes. However the benefits of the CDP programme are limited unless the data gathered feeds into a more comprehensive system such as the Global Covenant of Mayors which involves the community, requires target setting and adaptation planning.

Participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors will greater assist in the delivery of our Community Outcomes in the following ways:

PEOPLE/He Tangata: Putting people first As New Plymouth grows so too will our emissions. It is likely that the community’s expectations on the Council to be active in this space will increase over time as pressure for action mounts globally. The Council may become more relevant to younger generations who tend to place a high value on climate change related matters given they are inheriting the challenges of today.

PLACE/Tiakina: Caring for our place Allows the Council and community to measure and therefore manage the district’s emission profile. The hazard and vulnerability assessments required will provide a better understanding of the district’s exposure to climate change related risk and what the options for adaptation might be.

PROSPERITY/Āwhina: Supporting a prosperous community The Council has an opportunity to engage with our community in relation to climate change resilience and empower community driven solutions. Increased community and asset resilience will be driven by the adaptation planning required e.g. water supply, preventing sewer overflows, flooding and erosion. The Council can lead local businesses new to this space, potentially resulting in a more informed and internationally competitive local economy.

30 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation d) Statutory Responsibilities Both CDP and the Global Covenant of Mayors will assist the Council in meeting its obligations under section 14(1)(h) of the Local Government Act 2002 relating to “taking a sustainable development approach” and section 5(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. Refer to the Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal Hazards and Climate Change: Guidance for Local Government (2017) for a full list of statutory responsibilities relating to climate change.

The Climate Change Minister will introduce a Zero Carbon Bill to cabinet in 2018. Should a Zero Carbon Act eventuate, it is likely that there will be new compliance requirements placed on local government. Participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors is likely to better prepare the Council for such requirements. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans The Global Covenant of Mayors provides a greater opportunity for the Council to ‘walk the talk’ and deliver on the intentions set within the relevant policies, plans and strategies below when compared to CDP programme which we currently participate in.

 Strategic vision: Building a lifestyle capital.

 Blueprint Key Directions: Communities, Citizens, Environment, Growth, Industry.

 Long Term Plan.

 Infrastructure Strategy.

 Asset Management Plans.

 Energy Management Policy.

 Coastal Erosion Strategy.

 Coastal Strategy.

 Economic Development Strategy.

 Procurement Manual.

31 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

The Council has also committed to the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017 (refer to Appendix 5). By signing up to this declaration the Council has committed to “Developing and implementing ambition action plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support resilience within our own Councils and for our local communities”. Stepping up to the Global Covenant of Mayors will assist the Council in delivering on this commitment. f) Participation by Māori Climate has always been important for Māori. It affects natural environmental systems and resources, influences social-ecological knowledge and practice, shapes community vulnerability and resilience, and is directly linked to economic investment and government policy.

Given the diverse realities and climate sensitivities that exist for tangata whenua, there is a widening interest to know more about the implications (and risks) of a variable and changing climate on iwi, hapū and whānau in Taranaki.

The Rohutu Block (Waitara East Beach) for example, perhaps demonstrates the vulnerability of Māori coastal communities to the impacts of climate change. Coupled with Māori land in multiple ownership, and a high percentage of such blocks having no formal management structure in place, makes decision-making complex.

Taranaki iwi, hapū and whānau wish to learn more about: the links between climate adaptation, natural hazards and sustainable development; how they can strengthen their resilience to the projected climate change impacts; and to promote Māori knowledge and values in environmental policy, planning and management.

Reaffirmation of traditional ways and knowledge as well as new and untried strategies will be important for ensuring the long-term sustainability of climate sensitive areas important to Taranaki Māori communities.

Iwi, hapū and whānau participation is likely to contribute to both outcomes desired by Māori, and make a unique contribution towards the Council’s commitment towards the overarching goals of the Global Covenant of Mayors. g) Community Views and Preferences The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the current and future New Plymouth district community.

By participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors, the Council has the opportunity to have a conversation with the community about our vulnerability as a district and what steps we might take in order to adapt to change over time.

32 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

The public disclosure required under the Global Covenant of Mayors may better provide for the Council to meet the growing community expectations around sustainable living and climate action.

The Colmar Brunton Better Future Report 2016 indicates that 69% of kiwis rate ‘sustainable cities and communities’ as very important and 64% of kiwis also see ‘climate action’ as very important. This perspective was reflected locally through the recent Proposed Ten Focus Areas Survey with the following conclusions drawn from the submissions received as a part of the Thriving Central City survey (a non-environmental focus survey):

The council should be planning for or 62% Strongly Agree investing in the long-term future of the district. The council should be working to 53% Strongly Agree improve our natural environment. The council should be working to 58% Strongly Agree improve our district for the benefit of everyone who lives here. The council should only focus on “core” 43% Disagree services.

Furthermore, the environment was identified as a key focus in the Keep Talking survey when asked “Do you have any new ideas or suggestions on what NPDC’s priorities should be for the next three years”. Refer to Appendix 6 for the infographic summarising this feedback.

In terms of the views of the oil and gas sector, Shell New Zealand state the following in their 2014 Sustainability Report:

At Shell, we advocate for changes in policies that could lead to a reduction in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is focused on three key areas:

1. Encouraging countries to switch from coal to gas which could slow the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere;

2. Encouraging policy makers to set effective and meaningful pricing on CO2 emissions; and

3. Encouraging governments to provide support over a limited amount of time for all lower-carbon technologies including carbon capture and storage and renewables.

As leaders in the oil and gas sector, it is assumed that others within this industry share similar views to Shell and would support better emissions data and climate change preparedness.

33 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation h) Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages

Option 1. Increase Requires a community wide Compilation of a community Council’s emissions inventory, wide emissions database will commitment to vulnerability assessment and cost approximately $25,000 emission reduction action/adaptation plans over two years assuming and climate change meeting international best external assistance is sought. preparedness by practise. These will assist the participating in the district in reducing emissions Global Covenant of and adapting to climate Mayors for Climate change. and Energy. Setting and disclosing Places additional workload on emission reduction targets existing staff to engage the will help track progress over community and develop the time and increase various assessments/plans. transparency. Greater engagement with our community and increased likelihood of meeting community expectations around climate action. Assists the Council in meeting its commitment under the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017. Option 2. Continue Allows Council to choose The district remains at risk of to participate in the whether to engage the failing to adequately adapt to Carbon Disclosure community during the climate change in the Project (CDP) process and decide whether absence of applying an without public target to publically disclose targets internationally recognised setting or and/or performance. system such as the Global community Covenant of Mayors. engagement. Does not engage the community unless Council proactively consults. The scope of CDP is smaller (Council emissions only) unless used to feed into a more comprehensive system such as the Global Covenant of Mayors. This makes participating in CDP only less meaningful.

34 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

Recommended Option This report recommends option 1. The Council will increase its commitment to emission reduction and climate change preparedness by participating in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 CDP ‘Snap Shot’ Report of NPDC’s Performance 2017 Appendix 2 The Compact of Mayors (now Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy) Appendix 3 Coastal Hazard and Climate Change Guidance for Local Government Appendix 4 New Zealand’s Atmosphere and Climate at a Glance Appendix 5 Local Government Leaders Climate Change Declaration Appendix 6 ‘Keep Talking’ Survey Result Summary

Report Details Prepared By: Dion Cowley (Senior Infrastructure Planning) Team: Strategy Approved By: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 20 February 2018 File Reference: ECM 7639836 ------End of Report ------

35 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

New Plymouth District Council CDP Cities 2017

Thoroughness indicator

Community Emissions

36 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Climate Hazards and Adaptation Actions

Renewable Energy

37 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX 2 - THE COMPACT OF MAYORS (NOW CALLED THE GLOBAL COVENANT OF MAYORS FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY)

38 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX 3 - COASTAL HAZARD AND CLIMATE CHANGE GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT)

39 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX - 4 NEW ZEALAND’S ATMOSPHERE AND CLIMATE AT A GLANCE

40 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration

In 2015, Mayors and Chairs of New Zealand declared an urgent need for responsive leadership and a holistic approach to climate change. We, the Mayors and Chairs of 2017, wholeheartedly support that call for action.

Climate change presents significant opportunities, challenges and risks to communities throughout the world and in New Zealand. Local and regional government undertakes a wide range of activities that will be impacted by climate change and provides infrastructure and services useful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resilience.

We have come together, as a group of Mayors and Chairs representing local government from across New Zealand to: 1. acknowledge the importance and urgent need to address climate change for the benefit of current and future generations; 2. give our support to the New Zealand Government for developing and implementing, in collaboration with councils, communities and businesses, an ambitious transition plan toward a low carbon and resilient New Zealand; 3. encourage Government to be more ambitious with climate change mitigation measures; 4. outline key commitments our councils will take in responding to the opportunities and risks posed by climate change; and 5. recommend important guiding principles for responding to climate change.

We ask that the New Zealand Government make it a priority to develop and implement an ambitious transition plan for a low carbon and resilient New Zealand. We stress the benefits of early action to moderate the costs of adaptation to our communities. We are all too aware of challenges we face shoring up infrastructure and managing insurance costs. These are serious financial considerations for councils and their communities.

To underpin this plan, we ask that a holistic economic assessment is undertaken of New Zealand's vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and of the opportunities and benefits for responding. We believe that New Zealand has much at stake and much to gain by adopting strong leadership on climate change emission reduction targets.

We know that New Zealanders are highly inventive, capable and passionate about the environment. New Zealanders are proud of our green landscapes, healthy environment and our unique kiwi identity and way of life. Central and local government, working together with communities and business, can develop and implement ambitious strategies based on sound science, to protect our national inheritance and security.

41 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Council Commitments For our part we commit to: 1. Develop and implement ambitious action plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support resilience within our own councils and for our local communities. These plans will: a. promote walking, cycling, public transport and other low carbon transport options; b. work to improve the resource efficiency and health of homes, businesses and infrastructure in our district; and c. support the use of renewable energy and uptake of electric vehicles.

2. Work with our communities to understand, prepare for and respond to the physical impacts of climate change. 3. Work with central government to deliver on national emission reduction targets and support resilience in our communities.

We believe these actions will result in widespread and substantial benefits for our communities such as; creating new jobs and business opportunities, creating a more competitive and future-proof economy, more efficient delivery of council services, improved public health, creating stronger more connected communities, supporting life-long learning, reducing air pollution and supporting local biodiversity. In short, it will help to make our communities great places to live, work, learn and visit for generations to come.

Guiding Principles The following principles provide guidance for decision making on climate change. These principles are based on established legal1 and moral obligations placed on Government when considering the current and future social, economic and environmental well-being of the communities they represent.

1. Precaution There is clear and compelling evidence for the need to act now on climate change and to adopt a precautionary approach because of the irreversible nature and scale of risks involved. Together with the global community, we must eliminate the possibility of planetary warming beyond two degrees from pre-industrial levels. This could potentially threaten life on Earth (Article 2 of the UNFCCC). Actions need to be based on sound scientific evidence and resourced to deliver the necessary advances. Acting now will reduce future risks and costs associated with climate change.

2. Stewardship/Kaitiakitanga Each person and organisation has a duty of care to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our environment on which we all depend and to care for each other. Broad-based climate policies should enable all organisations and individuals to do all they feasibly can to reduce emissions and enhance resilience. Policies should be flexible to allow for locally and culturally appropriate responses.

1 These Guiding Principles are established within the: Treaty of Waitangi, Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, Oslo Principles 2014, Principles of Fundamental Justice and Human Rights.

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

42 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

3. Equity/Justice It is a fundamental human right to inherit a habitable planet and live in a just society. The most vulnerable in our community are often disproportionately affected by change and natural hazards. Approaches need to consider those most affected and without a voice, including vulnerable members in our community, our Pacific neighbours and future generations.

4. Anticipation (thinking and acting long-term) Long-term thinking, policies and actions are needed to ensure the reasonably foreseeable needs of current and future generations are met. A clear and consistent pathway toward a low carbon and resilient future needs to provide certainty for successive governments, businesses and communities to enable transformative decisions and investments to be made over time.

5. Understanding Sound knowledge is the basis of informed decision making and participatory democracy. Using the best available information in education, community consultation, planning and decision making is vital. Growing understanding about the potential impacts of climate change, and the need for, and ways to respond, along with understanding the costs and benefits for acting, will be crucial to gain community support for the transformational approaches needed.

6. Co-operation The nature and scale of climate change requires a global response and human solidarity. We have a shared responsibility and can not effectively respond alone. Building strong relationships between countries and across communities, organisations and scientific disciplines will be vital to share knowledge, drive innovation, and support social and economic progress in addressing climate change.

7. Resilience Some of the impacts of climate change are now unavoidable. Enhancing the resilience and readiness of communities and businesses is needed so they can thrive in the face of changes. Protecting the safety of people and property is supported by sound planning and a good understanding of the risks and potential responses to avoid and mitigate risk.

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

43 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

THE FOLLOWING MAYORS AND CHAIRS SUPPORT THIS DECLARATION

Mayor Dave Cull Mayor Lianne Dalziel Dunedin City Council Christchurch City Council

Mayor Grant Smith Mayor Ray Wallace Palmerston North City Council Hutt City Council

Mayor Rachel Reese Mayor Steve Chadwick Nelson City Council Rotorua Lakes Council

Mayor Wayne Guppy Mayor Don Cameron Upper Hutt City Council Ruapehu District Council

Chris Laidlaw, Chair Mayor David Ayers Greater Wellington Regional Council Waimakariri District Council

Mayor Winston Gray Mayor Bill Dalton Kaikoura District Council Napier City Council

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

44 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Mayor Gary Tong, JP Mayor Lyn Patterson Southland District Council Masterton District Council

Mayor Andy Watson Stephen Woodhead, Chair Rangitikei District Council Otago Regional Council

Mayor Allan Sanson Mayor Tony Bonne Waikato District Council Whakatane District Council

Mayor Justin Lester Mayor K (Guru) Gurunathan Wellington City Council

Mayor Phil Goff Mayor Bryan Cadogan Auckland Council Clutha District Council

Mayor Sam Broughton Mayor John Tregidga Selwyn District Council Hauraki District Council

Rex Graham, Chair Mayor Neil Holdom Hawke’s Bay Regional Council New Plymouth District Council

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

45 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Mayor John Booth Mayor Viv Napier Carterton District Council South Wairarapa District Council

Mayor Alex Walker David MacLeod, Chair Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Taranaki Regional Council

Bill Shepherd, Chair Mayor Tim Cadogan Northland Regional Council Central Otago District Council

Mayor Tracy Hicks Mayor John Leggett Gore District Council Marlborough District Council

Mayor Jenny Shattock Mayor Hamish McDouall South Waikato District Council Whanganui District Council

Mayor Tim Shadbolt Acting Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst Invercargill City Council Hastings District Council

Mayor Brian Hanna Steve Lowndes, Acting Chair Waitomo District Council Environment Canterbury

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

46 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Doug Leeder, Chair Mayor Jan Barnes Bay of Plenty Regional Council Matamata-Piako District Council

Alan Livingston, Chair Mayor Garry Webber Waikato Regional Council Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Mayor Greg Brownless Bruce Gordon, Chair Tauranga City Council Horizons Regional Council

Nicol Horrell, Chair Mayor Meng Foon Environment Southland Gisborne District Council

Mayor Mike Tana Mayor Richard Kempthorne Porirua City Council Tasman District Council

Mayor Alfred Preece Mayor Malcolm Campbell Chatham Islands Council Kawerau District Council

Mayor Jim Mylchreest Mayor Tony Kokshoorn Waipa District Council Grey District Council

New Zealand Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration 2017

47 1.2 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX 6 – ‘KEEP TALKING’ SURVEY RESULT SUMMARY

48 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

POLICY REVIEW – APPROVAL ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is revocation of the Approval for Attendance at Conferences Policy and adoption of a new policy to outline the approval process for elected member attendance at professional development events.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report: a) Policy P01-014 Approval Attendance at Conferences be revoked. b) The Approval to Attend Professional Development Events Policy be approved.

COMMUNITY BOARDS RECOMMENDATION The Inglewood, Kaitake, Clifton and Waitara Community Boards endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

TE HUINGA TAUMATUA RECOMMENDATION Te Huinga Taumatua endorsed the officer’s recommendation with b) reading: b) The Approval to Attend Professional Development Events Policy be approved with the inclusion of wananga under the definition of events.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

1. Revoke the current policy and adopt the proposed Options policy.

2. Revoke the current policy and adopt the proposed policy with amendment.

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter Affected persons are elected members.

Recommendation This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

49 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

COMPLIANCE

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications

Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report reviews the Council’s Approval Attendance at Conferences Policy. The report recommends revoking the current policy and adopting a new Approval to Attend Professional Development Events policy. The proposed policy reflects current practice relating to representation and attendance at conferences and other professional development events. The proposed policy includes community board members in the definition of elected members.

BACKGROUND The Council receives advice of a number of conferences, training events, seminars and other learning opportunities. In addition, elected members and staff are also directly advised of different events which may be of interest to elected members.

In 2001, the Council delegated authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive to jointly approve the elected member attendance at conferences. At the same time, the Council adopted a policy outlining the process by which the Mayor and Chief Executive would select councillors to attend conferences on the Council’s behalf. Prior to 2001, expressions of interest would be sought and determination of attendees would be done by Council resolution.

Since 2001, a wider interpretation of “conference” has been taken to include a range of events for both councillors and community board members including zone meetings, networking events, seminars and other training opportunities.

This report recommends the policy be updated to reflect current practice. No change is recommended in relation to the Mayor and Chief Executive’s delegation to determine attendees.

The proposed policy also applies to non-elected members who have been appointed to a committee (for example a member of Te Huinga Taumatua). To reflect that, the definitions section states that the term “elected-member” is extended beyond the Mayor, councillors and community board members.

50 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance. The proposed changes do not substantially alter the current policy, there are no financial or resourcing implications and there are no levels of service implications proposed.

OPTIONS The following options assessment relates to both options. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There are no financial or resourcing implications envisaged. Funding for elected member professional development is provided for in the Civic and Democracy Budget. b) Risk Analysis There are no known risks related to revocation of the existing policy and adoption of the proposed policy. c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes The proposed policy recognises that elected members taking up professional development opportunities provides a benefit to the Council and assists elected members in their decision-making. Attendance at professional development events therefore contributes to all of the community outcomes. d) Statutory Responsibilities There are no statutory responsibilities relating to adoption of the proposed policy. However, many of the professional development events that elected members attend will provide a level of knowledge to enable elected members and the Council to meet their wide-ranging statutory responsibilities. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans The proposed policy is not inconsistent with the Council’s policies and plans. f) Participation by Māori There has been no participation by Māori in the development of the proposed policy. g) Community Views and Preferences Some members of the community will not be supportive of the costs for elected members to attend professional development events. Other members of the community expect elected members to have appropriate skills and knowledge to undertake their roles.

51 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

Recommended Option This report recommends option 1 – revoke the current policy and adopt the new policy for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES Appendix One Proposed New Policy

Appendix Two Current Policy (P01-014 Approval Attendance at Conferences)

Report Details Prepared By: Julie Straka (Governance Lead) Team: Governance Team Approved By: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 8 February 2018 File Reference: ECM 7625090

------End of Report ------

52 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

Appendix One

New Plymouth District Council

Approval to Attend Professional Development Events

POLICY PURPOSE This policy sets out the approval process for elected members to attend Professional Development events including training courses and representing the Council at conferences, seminars and zone meetings.

POLICY STATEMENTS In this policy:

“elected member” Refers to the Mayor, councillors and community board members and non-elected members who have been appointed to committees.

“event” Refers to a gathering for the purposes of, knowledge- sharing, training, skills development or local government related networking and includes conferences, seminars and LGNZ zone meetings.

1. Where the Council receives advice of an event, the Mayor and Chief Executive will consider the relevance of the event and whether elected member attendance would be beneficial to the Council. Advice of events can be forwarded to the Mayor’s office by elected members, internal staff or external organisations.

2. Where an event is determined to be beneficial to the Council, the Mayor and Chief Executive will seek expressions of interest from councillors and/or community board members. The expression of interest process will be coordinated through the Mayor’s office.

3. The Mayor and Chief Executive will determine which elected members will attend the event.

4. When determining who should attend an event, the Mayor and Chief Executive will consider:

 An individual elected member’s interests and experience in the event purpose.

 Relevance to the committee appointments and/or community board membership of the individual elected member.

53 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

 Availability of the elected member to represent the Council.

5. The Mayor and Chief Executive will endeavour to ensure there is an even spread of the workload among elected members.

6. All administrative arrangements will be made through the Mayor’s office.

7. Elected members attending conferences at the Council’s expense are to provide a written report on the conference to the next appropriate community board, committee or Council meeting.

POLICY CONTACT The policy holder is the Governance Team within the Strategy Group.

54 1.3 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX TWO

P01-014 Approval Attendance at Conferences

That the Council adopts the following procedures and policy for approving the attendance by elected members at conferences: i) The Mayor and Chief Executive will determine whether or not conferences are relevant and that attendance by elected member(s) would be beneficial for the Council; ii) Details of relevant conferences will be circulated to elected members with a request for them to register their interest in attending the conference; iii) The Mayor and Chief Executive, when deciding who should attend a conference, will take into consideration the elected members interests and experience in the conference subject and relevance to the committees/sub-committees that the elected member has been appointed to; iv) The Mayor and Chief Executive, when deciding who should attend a conference, will endeavour to ensure that there is an even spread of the workload among elected members; v) Elected members attending conferences at the Council's expense are to provide a written report on the conference to the next appropriate standing committee meeting.

55 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

HONORARY AMBASSADORS SELECTION CRITERIA POLICY REVIEW

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is a review of the Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria Policy.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report the Council: a) Adopt the amended Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria Policy b) Revoke D98-009 Appointment of Honorary Ambassadors and delegate authority to the Mayor to consider nominations and make appointments of Honorary Ambassadors of the New Plymouth District.

COMMUNITY BOARDS RECOMMENDATION The Inglewood, Kaitake, Clifton and Waitara Community Boards endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

TE HUINGA TAUMATUA RECOMMENDATION Te Huinga Taumatua endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

Options 1. Adopt the draft amended policy.

2. Adopt the draft policy with further amendments.

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter Affected persons are the citizens of New Plymouth District.

Recommendation This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications

56 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

COMPLIANCE

Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report sets out the results of a review of the Council’s Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria. The report recommends some minor amendments to the policy reflecting changes in practice since the policy was last reviewed.

BACKGROUND New Plymouth City Council initiated the Honorary Ambassadors Scheme in 1986. Following amalgamation, the New Plymouth District Council adopted the scheme in 1990. Since 1986, the Council has appointed 618 individuals as Honorary Ambassadors.

The scheme is one means of the Council facilitating civic engagement, formally recognising the achievements of citizens and their participation in activities which help shape our community.

The Council receives nominations for participants in annual events, such as the Global Young Leaders Conference. This reflects an awareness of the Honorary Ambassador scheme by those organising the participants. Council officers are aware that a number of eligible nominees are not put forward for consideration. In many cases, their circumstances are not known until after they have returned from participating in an activity or event. One focus of the scheme is the ability for participants to promote or enhance the reputation of the District, ambassadorships are not generally awarded after an event, as the opportunity has passed.

Successful recipients are invited, along with their guests, to a morning or afternoon tea with the Mayor where they are presented with an honorary ambassador’s lapel pin and a certificate.

Proposed amendments The proposed policy amendments reflect changes in practice since the policy was last reviewed. The key changes are listed below.

1. No requirement to be a New Zealand citizen Proof of a nominee’s citizenship has never been asked for. The policy does require an ambassador to be a resident of, or have a strong relationship with, New Plymouth. The key point is that the recipient has the opportunity to promote or enhance the reputation of the District.

57 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation

2. Removal of term of ambassadorship The certificate presented to nominees does not state the term of the ambassadorship. There is an assumption that the granting of the ambassadorship is perpetual. The Council has traditionally only granted an ambassadorship once. Individuals who have been selected for subsequent events, and for which new individuals have been awarded ambassadorships, have been invited to attend the ceremony with their fellow travellers. A subsequent certificate and badge is not issued. Their attendance, and achievements, is noted at the ceremony. For that reason, the draft amended policy does not include a section relating to the term of the ambassadorship. The draft policy includes a new statement that enables the Mayor to acknowledge a previous honorary ambassadorship and acknowledge subsequent success in an appropriate manner.

3. Determination of nominations Delegation D98-009 delegated authority to the Chairperson and/or the Deputy Chairperson of the Policy Committee to consider nominations and make appointments of Honorary Ambassadors of the New Plymouth District. The Policy Committee was not re-established following the 2016 triennial election. Since the election, the Mayor has considered nominations received and appointed Honorary Ambassadors. This report recommends that that process be formalised through delegation of authority to the Mayor. In the Mayor’s absence, the Deputy Mayor would have delegated authority to make decisions.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance because the proposed changes do not substantially alter the current policy, there are no financial or resourcing implications and there are no levels of service implications proposed.

OPTIONS The following options assessment relates to both options. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There are no substantial changes to the current arrangements for acknowledging Honorary Ambassadors. The costs for lapel badges, certificates and hosting recipients are met from the civic receptions budget. Provision of additional material would have an impact on that budget. b) Risk Analysis Many eligible nominees are unaware of the scheme. This has the risk of disappointing potential recipients who would have appreciated being made Honorary Ambassadors of the District.

58 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

Item for Recommendation c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes The Honorary Ambassadors Scheme recognises members of our community and supports the People / He Tangata community outcome. d) Statutory Responsibilities There are no statutory responsibilities relating to the Honorary Ambassadors Scheme. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans The proposed amendments do not substantially alter the current policy and are not inconsistent with other Council policies and plans. f) Participation by Māori There has been no participation by Māori in reviewing the policy. g) Community Views and Preferences Recipients of Honorary Ambassadorships often express their gratitude for the recognition of their achievements. The morning or afternoon tea provides an opportunity for residents to meet with elected members in an informal environment which is often appreciated.

Recommended Option This report recommends option 1 – adopt the amended policy for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Draft amended policy with tracked changes

Appendix 2 Ambassadorships granted since 2010.

Report Details Prepared By: Julie Straka (Governance Lead) Team: Governance Approved By: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 2 February 2018 File Reference: ECM 7626757

------End of Report ------

59 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX 1 - Draft amended policy with tracked changes

P00-012 Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria

That as a matter of policy the New Plymouth District Council adopt the following Honorary Ambassadors Selection Criteria:

POLICY PURPOSE This policy sets out the criteria for selecting Honorary Ambassadors of the New Plymouth District and the manner of recognising their appointment.

POLICY STATEMENTS

Eligibility a) Recipients of an Honorary Ambassadorship shall meet the following criteria:

i) Be New Zealand citizens; a) ii) Reside in, or have a close relationship with, the New Plymouth district; and b) iii) Have been chosen through a recognised national selection process to represent New Plymouth, Taranaki or New Zealand at an international event in a cultural/artistic/sporting or academic field; or

iv) Have been chosen through a recognised national selection process to represent New Zealand at an international conference or gathering where the New Plymouth District may be promoted; or c) v) Be involved in an international activity or event, including an international conference, which is likely to enhance and promote the reputation of the New Plymouth District. b) Granting of Honorary Ambassadorships shall recognise:

i) Involvement in a specific event or occasion which shall be defined in the citation; or

ii) Past or future contributions to the enhancement and promotion of the New Plymouth District.

Term c) Honorary Ambassadorships shall be granted foras a one-off. Further ambassadorships will not usually be granted to an individual, however subsequent achievement may be acknowledged in another manner (such as a morning or afternoon tea).;

60 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

i) The term of a specific event or occasion; or

ii) A specified period of years; or

iii) Life;

whichever is more appropriate.

Expectations d) Honorary Ambassadors shall be are expected to: a) i) Achieve their best; b) ii) Be good ambassadors of the New Plymouth District and be prepared to take opportunities to promote the district in a positive way; and c) iii) Report back to the Council. e) The Honorary Ambassadors Scheme shall be promoted by utilising Council publications, community boards and clubs and organisations to encourage nominations from the community.

Receipt of nominations Nominations will be received by the Mayor’s office and forwarded to the Mayor for consideration.

Recognition Recipients will be recognised at an appropriate function, usually a morning or afternoon tea, and will be presented with a certificate and a badge to acknowledge receipt of the ambassadorship.

61 1.4 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Planning Committee

APPENDIX 2 - Historical Information

Year Recipients 2018 Thai–New Zealand Language & Cultural Students Exchange Programme (3) 2017 Global Young Leaders Conference (6) Art Taranaki – de retour à Paris (7) 2016 Cross Country World Schools Championships (1) 2015 Australian Championships Long Distance Running (2) Special Olympic Summer Games (4) NASA Space School (2) Global Young Leaders Conference (15) ‘Young Endeavour’ crew member from Turkey to Southampton – part of the centenary of the WWI Landings (1) 2014 Exhibition by the ‘Virtual Tart’ artists of Taranaki, Paris (7) Foundation for International Space Education (2) Global Young Leaders Conference (23) International Final of Future Problem Solving (4) “Rip Curl” World Grom Search (1) 2013 NZ Development Volleyball team competing against Vanuatu (2) Winter Paralympic Games (1) Global Young Leaders Conference (12) 2012 Hague International Model United Nations, Europe (1) World School Conference (4) Rose of Tralee finals – Ireland (1) Under-19 Women’s Kayaking Team – Czech Republic (1) World Championships of the Performing Arts (12) Global Young Leaders Conference (14) Tennis Achievements – various (1) Singing - numerous (1) World Track Champs, Los Angeles (1) 2011 Special Olympics - Ten-pin bowling, Athens (1) International Championship for Performing Arts (1) Position at London’s Laine Theatre Art College (1) Scholarship, Biofutures seminar in Brisbane (1) NZ Secondary Schools’ Choir (1) Shakespeare Globe Centre NZ Young Shakespeare Company (1) Global Young Leaders Congress, Washington (3) Lesley Pearse Women of Courage Award (1) World School Conference, Italy (4) 2010 Racewalking, Australia (1) Rugby (1) World Performing Arts Championships, Los Angeles (1) Junior Worlds &Junior Olympics inline Hockey, Los Angeles (6) Age Group Sprint Distance World Championships, Budapest (1) World Age Group Triathlon Championships, Budapest (3) Business connections (1)

62 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE

5. Disaster Recovery Reserve ECM7666392 The matter for consideration by the Council is the future of the Disaster Recovery Reserve.

Audit and Risk Committee Recommendation: Cr Jordan ) Mayor Holdom ) That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Disaster Recovery Reserve is retained as part of the NPDC Insurance Framework and the proposed approach for managing the Reserve is approved. Carried

6. Insurance Framework ECM7597257 The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to the Audit and Risk Committee to inform its recommendation to Council that NPDC’s Insurance Framework (as discussed at the December 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting) be approved.

Audit and Risk Committee Recommendation: Cr Handley ) Mayor Holdom ) That, having considered all matters raised in the report NPDC’s Insurance Framework is approved. Carried

Report Details Prepared By: Jan Holdt (Committee Adviser) Team: Governance Approved By: Julie Straka (Governance Lead) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 3 April 2018 File Reference: ECM 7681669

------End of Report ------

63 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

DISASTER RECOVERY RESERVE

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is the future of the Disaster Recovery Reserve.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Disaster Recovery Reserve is retained as part of the NPDC Insurance Framework and the proposed approach for managing the Reserve is approved.

COMPLIANCE This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report discusses the current purpose of the Disaster Recovery Significance Reserve and whether it should be retained and, if so, how it could be managed.

This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter, specifically in relation to the future of the Disaster Recovery Reserve:

1. Retain the Disaster Recovery Reserve as part of the NPDC Insurance Framework and implement the Options suggested policy settings for its ongoing management.

2. Discontinue the Disaster Recovery Reserve by not replenishing it as it is depleted by expenditure on recovery activities after damaging events.

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are ratepayers (current and future) who will either be requested to provide funding for the ongoing management of Affected persons the Disaster Recovery Reserve or, if the decision taken is to discontinue the Reserve, to fund alternative means of recovering from damaging events.

Recommendation This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter. Yes – an allocation for the Disaster Recovery Reserve has been Long-Term Plan / made in the draft 2018-28 Long-Term Plan ($1.9m over the Annual Plan life of the plan) so if a decision is made to discontinue the Implications reserve then that allocation will need to be removed. Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies

64 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

BACKGROUND At its December 2017 meeting the Audit and Risk Committee approved the Insurance Framework that will guide the Council’s decisions around retaining or transferring risk through insurance during 2018/19 and beyond, subject to ensuring that:

 decisions around the Disaster Recovery Reserve are aligned with funding decisions in the Long-Term Plan;

 the Council makes a submission on the 60/40 review discussion paper once released by central government; and

 the Insurance Framework identifies how significant financial risks that are not insured are being addressed.

The modifications to the framework are discussed in another report, while this report focuses on the future of the Disaster Recovery Reserve. As at March 2018 the reserve’s balance was $700,000. The draft 2018-28 Long-Term Plan allocates $150,000 to the reserve in each of the first two years, increasing to $200,000 per annum for the remainder of the plan ($1.9m in total over 10 years).

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT This matter is assessed as being of some importance. This report discusses the current purpose of the Disaster Recovery Reserve and whether it should be retained and, if so, how it could be managed.

OPTIONS The following assessment relates to each option: a) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes As guardians of community assets with a Gross Current Replacement Cost of $2.9 billion1 the Council is responsible for ensuring that it is adequately protected from a range of perils so critical assets can be repaired or replaced as soon as possible after an event and service delivery is disrupted as little as possible. Those perils include volcanic, earthquake, flood, storm, fire and tsunami hazards.

We normally associate insurance with providing the necessary protection by transferring the financial risk of damage or loss to a third party. However, there are other approaches that can be taken to protect the Council’s balance sheet, and in doing so facilitate a timely return of Council assets and services to their pre-event state. Currently this includes maintaining a Disaster Recovery Reserve and relying on a strong balance sheet and significant borrowing capacity as a fall back option if other options for obtaining funding are exhausted. Regardless of

1 The Optimised Depreciated Replacement Cost of those assets is $2.1 billion. Of that amount, around half is not insured as it is the roading network. The recovery from widespread damage to the network is expected to be assisted by central government.

65 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

the options, the Council needs to demonstrate that it has considered its disaster risk exposure and analysed options for funding recovery activities if a damaging event occurs. b) Statutory Responsibilities Section 11A of the Local Government Act 2002 states that a local authority, in performing its role, must have regard to the contribution to its communities of core services such as the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. An example of a mitigation for the effects of natural hazards is making provision for the potential cost of recovering from a damaging natural event – either through the Disaster Recovery Reserve or another ready source of funding.

Section 64 of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 states that Councils must ensure that they are able to function to the fullest possible extent, even though this may be at a reduced level, during and after an emergency. With emphasis on ‘after an emergency’, making provision for potential recovery costs through the Disaster Recovery Reserve or borrowing will enable the organisation to recover faster. c) Consistency with Policies and Plans Nothing in this report is inconsistent with Policies and Plans. The draft Insurance Framework will be adapted to accommodate the Council’s decision relating to the Disaster Recovery Reserve. d) Participation by Māori The decision whether to retain the Disaster Recovery Reserve is an administrative matter. Māori have not been participants in drafting this report but this does not preclude involvement in the decision about what provisions the Council should make for responding to damaging events. e) Community Views and Preferences The Community has not been canvased on its preferences relating to this administrative matter. Nevertheless, there will be an impact depending on the decision made, either annually through a consistent allocation or application of any surpluses, or at the time the Council is needing to fund the recovery from a damaging event. f) Advantages and Disadvantages The advantage of retaining the Disaster Recovery Reserve and implementing the proposed policy settings for its management is that the Council will have certainty that an amount of funding will be available when needed, rather than having to accept lending terms at a time when there could be other calls on providers. The Council will also be able to demonstrate to central government that it has identified its potential loss profile and how it will fund it ahead of a time when central government assistance may also be needed, especially for events that cause widespread damage.

66 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

However, in order to build the reserve to the proposed level there is a need for an annual allocation (as currently proposed in the draft Long-Term Plan) or the application of a one-off surplus to that reserve. There is an opportunity cost with both approaches. Intergenerational equity may be another consideration in that retaining and building the reserve will require funding from current ratepayers for an event that may not occur in their lifetime. That said, indications are that we can expect more regular damaging events than has been the case previously.

Option 1 Retain the Disaster Recovery Reserve as part of the NPDC Insurance Framework and implement the suggested policy settings for its ongoing management. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications The Council’s Disaster Recovery Reserve is essentially a ‘self-insurance’ reserve that is called on when uninsured losses are suffered e.g. to the roading network as a result of the June 2015 storm event. The reserve seeks to smooth the impacts year-on-year on the community when the Council needs to significantly increase operating costs to repair Council assets/facilities after a damaging event.

In March 2018 the Council’s Disaster Recovery Reserve stood at $700,000, with the last withdrawal being of $750,000 in 2016-17 to contribute to the Council’s cost of recovering from the June 2015 storm event. The reserve has previously been grown through a number of methods. The size of the reserve (and therefore its ability to absorb uninsured losses) contributes, along with other considerations such as the Council’s overall financial position, to decisions about which assets to insure and the level of deductible set.

If the reserve is retained, then as part of the three-yearly review of the Insurance Framework the purpose and size of the reserve will be reconsidered to inform decisions about its potential use ahead of a significant event. At this point, the policy settings below are proposed for ongoing management of the reserve:

 The target level of the reserve should be set at approximately 2% of the Council’s total budgeted operating costs in a year (for the current year this amounts to $2.6m). An increase in costs at this level has been assessed as being the point at which most activity centres, if unable to recoup those costs, would need to reduce their level of service if they are to meet budget.

 The release of funds to offset operating costs can only be approved by a Council resolution on the recommendation of Officers.

 The total funds that may be released in any one financial year is a maximum of 50% of the total balance in the reserve.

67 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

 If the reserve falls below the target level then provision should made equally in each of the following three years to return the balance to the targeted level.

 If the balance is above the target level then the reserve should remain unadjusted.

If a decision is made to retain the reserve then a further decision is needed on how the reserve will be built up to the proposed target level (a gap of $1.9m currently). Option 1(a) would involve the consistent application of funding through the Long-Term Plan as is currently proposed in the draft 2018-28 plan. Option 1(b) would instead involve the application of budget surpluses as they are realised. b) Risk Analysis Although there may be some community reservations based on the need to increase funding for the Disaster Recovery Reserve to bring it up to the recommended level this may be offset by a recognition that making such a provision now is a form of self-insurance for potential future losses from damaging events.

Option 2 Discontinue the Disaster Recovery Reserve by not replenishing it as it is depleted by expenditure for recovery activities after damaging events. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications The implications of discontinuing the Disaster Recovery Reserve will not be known until the lending terms of providers are provided at the time the Council seeks funds from providers. In the meantime there will be a minor benefit in that the fund can be used to cover losses incurred by the Council as a result of damaging events, saving unit budgets for other purposes. b) Risk Analysis Discontinuing the reserve will mean that the Council has one less option for covering losses associated with a damaging event, and mean that it is more reliant on sourcing funds from providers. The community may also perceive that step to be an indication of a lack of planning and preparedness on the part of the Council. If the Council can secure certainty of lending from its providers then that may mitigate these risks.

Recommended Option This report recommends option 1 – retention of the Disaster Recovery Reserve as part of the NPDC Insurance Framework and implementation of the suggested policy settings – for addressing the matter. If the reserve is retained then the recommendation is that the reserve is built up to the proposed level by the consistent application of funding through the Long-Term Plan (as per the current draft plan).

68 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.1

Item for Recommendation

REPORT DETAILS Prepared By: Rowan Betts (Risk Management Lead) Team: Business Performance Group Approved By: Alan Bird (Chief Financial Officer) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 8 March 2018 File Reference: ECM 7666392 ------End of Report ------

69 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

Item for Recommendation

INSURANCE FRAMEWORK

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to the Audit and Risk Committee to inform its recommendation to Council that NPDC’s Insurance Framework (as discussed at the December 2017 Audit and Risk Committee meeting) be approved.

RECOMMENDATION That, having considered all matters raised in the report NPDC’s Insurance Framework is approved.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT This report provides additional information for Audit and Risk Committee members. There is no change to the significance and engagement assessment provided in the report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 1 December 2017 (ECM 7318454).

DISCUSSION At its December 2017 meeting the Audit and Risk Committee approved the Insurance Framework that will guide the Council’s decisions around retaining or transferring risk through insurance during 2018/19 and beyond, subject to ensuring that:

 decisions around the Disaster Recovery Reserve are aligned with funding decisions in the Long-Term Plan;

 the Council makes a submission on the 60/40 review discussion paper once released by central government; and

 the Insurance Framework identifies how significant financial risks that are not insured are being addressed (note that the framework already addresses what needs to be considered when deciding to insure an asset e.g. cover for replacement or demolition only, and excess setting).

In response to these conditions of approval, the framework has been modified as per the track changes in the appendix, subject to funding decisions around the Disaster Recovery Reserve that are yet to be made in the context of the Long-Term Plan (see the Disaster Recovery Reserve paper for the March 2018 Audit and Risk Committee). In terms of the 60/40 review, no indication has been given by central government as to when a discussion paper will be released. Once that occurs it is likely that Local Government New Zealand will look to Councils for input into a ‘sector’ submission, and NPDC will be an active participant in that process.

The modified framework includes detail on how significant financial risks that are not insured are being addressed. This includes options such as considering obtaining new

70 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

Item for Recommendation insurance cover where available and cost-effective, self-insuring (e.g. through a continuation of the Disaster Recovery Reserve if that is what the Council decides), or accepting the situation in the absence of a feasible alternative. Those considerations will be revisited every three years as part of a review of the framework or annually as part of the renewal of the programme that flows from the framework.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCING IMPLICATIONS This report provides additional information for Audit and Risk Committee members. There is no change to the financial and resourcing implications (none) that were identified in the report to the Audit and Risk Committee on 1 December 2017 (ECM 7318454).

IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT This report confirms that the matter concerned has no particular implications and has been dealt with in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Specifically:  Council staff have delegated authority for any decisions made;  Any decisions made will help meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses;  Unless stated above, any decisions made can be addressed through current funding under the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan;  Any decisions made are consistent with the Council's plans and policies; and  No decisions have been made that would alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of the Council, or would transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council.

APPENDIX Draft NPDC Insurance Framework

REPORT DETAILS Prepared By: Rowan Betts (Risk Management Lead) Team: Business Performance Group Approved By: Alan Bird (Chief Financial Officer) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 28 December 2017 File Reference: ECM 7597257 ------End of Report ------

71 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

APPENDIX – DRAFT NPDC INSURANCE FRAMEWORK

Introduction

As guardians of community assets with a Gross Current Replacement Cost of $2.9 billion1 the Council is responsible for ensuring that it is adequately protected from a range of perils so critical assets can be repaired or replaced as soon as possible after an event and service delivery is disrupted as little as possible. Those perils include volcanic, earthquake, flood, storm, fire and tsunami hazards.

We normally associate insurance with providing the necessary protection by transferring the financial risk of damage or loss to a third party. However, there are other approaches that can be taken to protect the Council’s balance sheet, and in doing so facilitate a timely return of Council assets and services to their pre-event state. In combination, the following provides comprehensive protection currently:

1. A recovery fund reserve – in October March 20187 the Council’s Disaster Recovery Fund Reserve stood at $700,000, with the last after the withdrawal being of $750,000 earlier in 2016-17 to contribute to the Council’s cost of recovering from the June 2015 storm event. The fund reserve has previously been built up over a number of years.

2. Being a member of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) mutual fund. LAPP provides some cover for losses of (generally underground) structures in the water, wastewater, stormwater and flood protection networks as a consequence of a ‘disaster’.

3. Purchasing commercial insurance for other assets, mainly through the Material Damage policy that covers property (commercial, community and residential) and contents, but also for potential liabilities arising from Council activities.

4. The Council’s Public Liability and Professional Indemnity cover was previously provided through a related entity to LAPP (RiskPool and then Civic Liability Pool) but that cover was withdrawn for 2017/18 so the Council moved to another provider on more beneficial terms (relating to both cover and premium) via NPDC’s broker.

5. A fall back option of relying on a strong balance sheet and significant borrowing capacity.

72 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

While there is confidence about the adequacy of existing arrangements, Councils operate in a dynamic environment2 so there is a need to periodically review these arrangements and the mix of coverage (e.g. between mutual fund and commercial options) to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

This framework outlines the elements to consider through such reviews, making it clear what the Council’s approach is to retaining risk (through self-insurance or not insuring some assets) and sharing the remaining risk that it would not be prudent to accept (through the purchase of insurance). In that regard, the framework is aligned with the Council’s Risk Management Framework in that residual risks that are unacceptable (and not able to be mitigated through further controls) are candidates for insurance. This framework also outlines how broking services are to be procured and periodically tested, and the effectiveness of the framework monitored and reported on.

Principles

The primary objective of the Insurance Framework is to ensure that the Council is effectively positioned to return in a timely manner to its pre-event state (or as close to it as possible), regardless of the scale of the event. To that end, this framework provides a structure for future decision making about how we use insurance to provide cover for financial risks that, if realised, the Council and the community would be unable to absorb. In developing the framework a key consideration is defining alternative sources to rates to fund the restoration of community assets after damaging events.

When considering the amount of risk to retain the Council aims to minimise the cost of insurance while ensuring adequate cover is in place for mitigating risks to the achievement of the organisation’s objectives as set out in the Long Term Plan. The framework, therefore, considers the Council’s ability to, and appetite for, absorbing a level of risk that matches the ability of the organisation’s balance sheet to absorb financial losses from a damaging event. Furthermore, decisions relating to cover and deductibles will be informed by sound knowledge of our assets and their likely performance during such an event. Decisions are also based on advice provided by insurance specialists.

The framework is to be reviewed every three years to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in the context of changes in the insurance market, Council assets and activities, and the environment. The insurance programme that flows from the framework is renewed each year, and is adjustable to meet the needs of the Council as identified during any given insurance year and as part of the three-yearly review.

Approach to reviewing the Insurance Framework

The following should be considered when reviewing the framework:

2 For example, the Treasury is indicating that Councils will need to take more responsibility for covering (through their own reserves and insurance) the cost of damage to underground and flood protection infrastructure from a natural disaster up to a Probable Maximum Loss, as a prerequisite for any central government contribution to the cost of repairing those assets.

73 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

Environmental scan

The impact of internal and external changes to the environment in which the Council operates needs to be considered as it will influence changes to cover, limits, and deductibles. Internal changes might include those to the structure of the organisation or in the services delivered or investments made. External changes might include legislative amendments that place more responsibilities on local government, or policy changes such as that anticipated through the 60:40 review. This also includes changes in the insurance market brought on by the appearance or disappearance of providers, and the reaction of the market to natural disasters e.g. removal of cover or increased premiums at renewal.

Risk appetite

As part of considering the Council’s context there is a need to ensure that the insurance programme matches the Council’s risk appetite. For example, the Council currently transfers most of its natural disaster risk to the insurance market. Nevertheless, not all fixed assets are included because it has not been cost effective to do so (e.g. roading network assets). Therefore, this can be seen as a ‘balanced’ risk appetite. In comparison, a ‘tolerant’ risk appetite in this situation would involve retaining more risk through ‘self-insurance’ or not insuring more assets, which would then reduce premiums. However, taking that approach requires the organisation to have:

 a detailed knowledge of its asset base, especially existing levels of cover in relation to assets of critical importance to continued service delivery and a Probable Maximum Loss;

 an understanding of how much financial loss the Council is prepared to accept by not insuring all assets; and

 confidence in the adequacy of other sources of funding available to the Council should losses of uninsured assets be suffered.

The table below shows, by asset category, what NPDC’s current approach is to either transferring (through insurance) or retaining (self-insurance) risk. The table does not include the non-asset categories that are part of the Council’s insurance programme – Public Liability, Professional Indemnity, Overseas Travel, Personal Accident, Statutory and Employers Liability, and Cyber. Nevertheless, the need for these covers and any new ones to address emerging risks will be considered each year as part of the renewal process.

74 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

Insurance status Asset category Insured Self-insured Water and Wastes3 Water  Wastewater  Stormwater  Flood protection  Transport Roading network4  Property Council facilities5  Community halls6  Forestry Joint Ventures  Airport  Parks Tracks7  Structures8  Arts Collections  Other Motor vehicles 

What to insure and on what basis

In reviewing the Council’s insurance programme the treatment of specific assets needs to be considered so an appropriate response to loss can be applied e.g. replacement (like for like), indemnity (no better or no worse), demolition costs only, or no insurance. This is informed by addressing the following questions and insuring buildings on that basis accordingly:

1. What buildings would be replaced (i.e. those identified as essential assets to the ongoing delivery of services to our community)?

Replacement value insurance is appropriate.

3 The ‘structures’ included here tend to be below or in-ground assets, such as dams, intakes, treatment chambers, storage reservoirs, reticulation networks and outfalls. Although LAPP provides some ‘disaster’ cover, whether this is adequate will be assessed in the lead up to the renewal of our insurance programme for 2018/19 as informed by the outcome of work underway to identify the Council’s Probable Maximum Loss. 4 Includes the road surface, bridges and other roading infrastructure e.g. culverts. Although these assets are uninsured, as demonstrated during the recovery from the June 2015 flooding event the NZ Transport Agency can provide a contribution to the cost of repairs to the roading network. 5 This covers the main Council facilities such as the Civic Centre, Puke Ariki, Aquatic Centre, and TSB Stadium. 6 Some community halls come under the Council programme while others arrange their own insurance but apply to the Council for a grant to cover that cost. 7 Although tracks are generally uninsured, the Coastal Walkway is covered under LAPP. 8 Significant structures are named in the Material Damage schedule e.g. pedestrian bridges.

75 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

2. What buildings would be replaced with something different (i.e. those identified as desirable but not essential in the short to medium term to the ongoing delivery of services to our community)?

Functional replacement value (less than actual replacement) or indemnity value are options.

3. What buildings would not be replaced?

Indemnity value, demolition costs only, or no insurance are options.

4. What buildings are being held for future projects (e.g. acquired for roading)?

Demolition costs or no insurance are options.

The annual review will capture additions or deletions to the Council’s asset holdings. It is also an opportunity to consider whether there are any significant asset groups e.g. roading, where cover should be implemented when it has not been previously based on the prohibitive cost.

The Council’s fixed assets are formally valued every three years. The most recent valuation is as of 30 June 2016. In contrast, insurance valuations are completed every two years. While the potential to routinely align both valuations has been investigated, the advice received was that this would have implications for the calculation of the Fire Service Levy. Any valuation older than two years would result in an increased levy that would outweigh the cost of more regular insurance valuations. Therefore, the Council will continue to commission insurance valuations every two years.

Another option available is determining a ‘loss limit’ rather than having the more expensive aggregated replacement value we do currently. However, this approach requires a detailed understanding of the Council’s asset base and its ability to (and appetite for) absorbing potentially significant losses should the limit be proven to be inadequate. This approach was considered in 2005 and rejected on the basis that a premium saving of between $3,000 and $10,000 from having a cap of $100 million did not justify the increased risk that the cap would be inadequate to cover actual losses in a significant event. Nevertheless, during 2017/18 our broker has raised the possibility of such a limit, so the benefits and drawbacks will be explored again.

The deductible/premium balance

The Council has a range of deductibles defined for its insurance programme. However, for its most significant policy in terms of premium the Council determined its existing $100,000 deductible for the Material Damage policy as a result of a review in 2005 (increasing it from $2,500 provided savings of $100,000 per annum). In 2013, the deductible level was reviewed again with a view to possibly increasing it to $150,000 or $200,000, along with the option of not insuring buildings valued at less than $250,000.

76 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

That review also completed a categorisation exercise so all assets were identified as one of the following:

1. Essential: includes predominately water and wastewater assets, office and administration facilities. 2. High community demand: includes mainly events, aquatic, regulatory and heritage buildings. 3. Moderate community need/commercial obligations: includes camps, parks buildings, toilets and the like. 4. Non-essential: includes generally housing, rural halls, and clubs. 5. Demolish-disposal: includes those assets that are to be sold or are for demolition.

Over half of the Council’s assets in terms of value and insurance premium were categorised as essential and/or high community demand, so were confirmed as requiring full replacement cover. In terms of considering not insuring assets valued under $250,000, it was determined that the premium saving at that time ($35,000) was outweighed by the financial risk posed by not insuring those assets ($22 million) especially if there was a widespread disaster. In relation to the deductible, it was concluded that, based on the advice of our broker (Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT)), $100,000 was an optimal level given an increase would not produce savings worth the increased retained risk.

The 2013 review also identified that, especially post-Canterbury earthquakes, the earthquake component of premiums increased significantly. There is an option to exclude earthquakes as a peril covered by insurance for selected assets. While that would lead to a significant decrease in premiums for those assets this would not be prudent, especially in light of the Kaikoura earthquake, where buildings that were not assessed as earthquake prone or risk, particularly in Wellington, appear to have suffered significant failures.

For the 2016/17 renewal JLT asked us to consider whether to reduce our natural disaster deductible from 5% of site value to 2.5%. In the unlikely scenario that there was a total loss of assets on the asset schedule the difference in deductibles would be $9.5 million. More realistically, if a building such as the Civic Centre was lost then the difference would be $1.1 million. The cost of reducing the deductible was $43,000. On that basis, the deductible was left at 5% of site value for 2016/17. This option was again explored for 2017/18 but declined on the basis that the cost had almost doubled, mainly as a result of the Kaikoura earthquake.

Membership of LAPP

The Council has been a longstanding member of the LAPP mutual fund, which provided cover when commercial alternatives were either unavailable or not cost effective. However, increasingly there are commercial alternatives that are cost effective so there is, in order to demonstrate continued value for money to ratepayers, a need to confirm whether membership of LAPP remains appropriate. This is particularly in light of the

77 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

impact on the fund of the Canterbury earthquakes and (to a far lesser extent) the Kaikoura earthquake on the availability of LAPP funds for future events.

The outcome of the 60:40 review will also determine whether LAPP will be capable of meeting the Council’s future requirements compared with commercial alternatives.

Aligning asset information with the insurance programme

As part of improving its asset management practice generally the Council is gradually improving the quality of its asset information to facilitate more effective management of its assets. This means that we will be well placed to complete the modelling needed to calculate the Probable Maximum Loss that will likely need to be covered (through a mix of insurance (external and self), and borrowing) to qualify for any central government assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

Aside from improving decisions around asset maintenance, renewal, upgrade or replacement, higher quality information will lead to a better understanding of how resilient our assets might be during a significant natural event. This will, in turn, help our insurers to define their risk profile in this region and increase their comfort level about the accuracy of that profile.

The Disaster Recovery FundReserve

The Council maintains a Disaster Recovery Fund Reserve as essentially a ‘self-insurance’ fund that is called on when uninsured losses are suffered e.g. to the roading network as a result of the June 2015 flooding event. The fund reserve seeks to smooth the impact on the community when the Council incurs significantly increased operating costs in recovering from a disaster.

The fund reserve has previously been grown through a number of methods. The size of the fund reserve (and therefore its ability to absorb uninsured losses) contributes, along with other considerations such as the Council’s overall financial position, to decisions about which assets to insure and the level of deductible set. Therefore,The future of the fund reserve is to be determined. If it is retained, then as part of the three-yearly review of the framework the purpose and size of the reserve fund will be considered to inform decisions about its potential use ahead of a significant event. The review will consider:

 the excesses paid for significant assets to assess if the $100,000 excess that Formatted: Normal, Add space between paragraphs of generally applies to those assets (except for natural disasters, when a 5% of site sum the same style, No bullets or numbering insured excess is applied) is appropriate. Previous experience is that an increase in excess above $100,000 will deliver only small premium savings relative to the increase in retained risk; Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0"  the scale of previous uninsured losses e.g. damage to uninsured assets through Formatted: Normal, Add space between paragraphs of weather events such as the June 2015 and August 2017 weather events. This will enable the same style, No bullets or numbering

78 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

an analysis of whether the size of the fund is adequate for dealing with those events (and potential ones) without impacting on rates or levels of service; Formatted: Normal  the Council’s overall financial position, including the borrowing facilities available. Formatted: Normal, Add space between paragraphs of The level of unplanned expenditure (rates increases) the community could be the same style, No bullets or numbering reasonably expected to absorb will also be considered as the last resort when the Disaster Recovery Fund and other sources of funding are exhausted; and  what level the fund should be kept at, how that level can be achieved in the first place (e.g. through consistent allocation under the Long Term Plan), under what circumstances the fund can be drawn on, and how (and how quickly) the fund is to be replenished when drawn on (e.g. one-off application of a surplus or consistent allocation over several years).

The current settings are as follows: Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1. The fund is only available to smooth the impacts year-on-year on the community 0.3", Don't add space between paragraphs of the same when the Council needs to significantly increase operating costs to repair Council style, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" assets/facilities after an adverse event.

2. The target level of the fund should be set at approximately 2% of the Council’s total budgeted operating costs in a year (for the current year this amounts to $2.6m). An increase in costs at this level has been assessed as being the point at which most activity centres, if unable to recoup those costs, would need to reduce their level of service if they are to meet budget. 3. The release of funds to offset operating costs can only be approved by a Council resolution on the recommendation of Officers.

4. The total funds that may be released in any one financial year is a maximum of 50% of the total balance in the fund.

5. If the fund falls below the target level then provision should made equally in each of the following three years to return the balance to the targeted level

6. If the balance is above the target level then the fund should remain unadjusted.

Once the risk modelling referred to earlier in this document is completed, the Probable Maximum Loss identified will also inform what level of fund would be appropriate, along with the other considerations above.

Trend analysis

In the lead up to renewal of the insurance programme Council Leaders will be asked whether their areas have suffered any ‘below deductible’ losses (when the loss is less than the applicable deductible so no claim is made) during the previous 12 months. This information will be combined with that on claims made to inform the decision about the deductible level set, and to assist with risk management where any trends are identified, especially about losses in a given part of the organisation.

79 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

Approach to procuring broking services

The Council implements this Insurance Framework through the placement of the insurance programme annually with an insurance broker. The broker serves as a crucial conduit between the Council and the insurance market. As such, the procurement and monitoring of the broker’s performance will be completed in accordance with the Council and central government’s procurement requirements.

Since 2010 the Council has obtained insurance through a regional collaboration with South Taranaki and Stratford District Councils, and Taranaki Regional Council. The collective uses JLT to deliver broking services. The broker market was tested in 2017 using the All of Government process managed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This involved approaching a panel of providers – JLT, Aon, Crombie Lockwood, Marsh, and Willis – with our required terms and accessing the pricing the Ministry has previously negotiated with them. The selection criteria for the broking service provider included:

 a proven record of placing insurance with local and global insurers for the full range of insurance cover potentially required e.g. natural disaster insurance;

 a thorough understanding of the risks facing this Council specifically as well as the local government sector generally;

 a proven record of delivering timely claims management services and responses to ad hoc requests for advice;

 a commitment to monitoring significant movements in providers and market conditions, and advising the Council of threats to existing cover (e.g. a downgrading of an insurer’s credit rating) and opportunities that can be taken during the insurance year or at renewal; and

 the ability to deliver or refer the Council to expert loss modelling services as required.

As a result of the tender JLT was awarded the contract for the Taranaki Councils’ insurance broker services until 30 June 2020 with an option to extend for another two years depending on circumstances at that time.

Monitoring and review

The Insurance Framework is to be reviewed every three years to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in the context of changes in markets, Council assets and activities, and the operating environment generally.

80 Council agenda (10 April 2018) - Recommendations from Audit and Risk Committee 2.2

The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the implementation of this framework and approval of the insurance programme. An annual report will be provided to the Audit and Risk Committee that details the arrangements made in accordance with this framework and any environmental changes that could impact on those arrangements and the level of confidence that they remain appropriate. After each three-yearly review the revised framework will be provided to the Audit and Risk Committee for approval.

Summary

The purpose of the Insurance Framework is to provide a structure for determining the balance between risk retention and sharing. Every three years the framework will be reviewed, considering:

 changes to the Council’s operating environment and risk appetite (as informed by changes to its asset base, the amount of loss that can be accepted before insurance is needed, and confidence in other sources of funding);

 what assets are being insured and on what basis, to enable an informed decision about the deductible/premium balance;

 whether to continue membership of LAPP or exploring commercial options (noting that if the Council withdraws from LAPP a return to LAPP in the future would be unlikely);

 the alignment between asset information and the insurance programme;

 the purpose, size, and rules around the use of the Disaster Recovery Fund Reserve (if retained) as a partial alternative to insurance; and

 trends from claims history.

The insurance programme that flows from this framework will be renewed each year. Furthermore, the market for broking services will be tested every three to five years. This will help to ensure that the Council’s insurance arrangements effectively enable the Council to recover to its pre-event state as soon as possible. The results of these reviews will be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee.