MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 5 AUGUST 2020

MEMBERSHIP

Her Worship (Chairperson)

Cr G Caffell Cr B Gare Cr D Holmes Cr B Johnson Cr G McClymont Cr F Mailman Cr T Nelson Cr T Nixon Cr C Peterson Cr S Ryan

Noce is given that a meeng of the Masterton District Council will be held at 3.00pm on Wednesday 5 August 2020 at Waiata House, 27 Lincoln Rd, Masterton.

RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORTS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS COUNCIL POLICY UNTIL ADOPTED

31 July 2020 Values

1. Public interest: members will serve the best interests of the people within the Masterton district and discharge their duties conscientiously, to the best of their ability. 2. Public trust: members, in order to foster community confidence and trust in their Council, will work together constructively and uphold the values of honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency. 3. Ethical behaviour: members will not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, will not behave improperly and will avoid the appearance of any such behaviour. 4. Objectivity: members will make decisions on merit; including appointments, awarding contracts, and recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. 5. Respect for others: will treat people, including other members, with respect and courtesy, regardless of their ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Members will respect the impartiality and integrity of Council staff. 6. Duty to uphold the law: members will comply with all legislative requirements applying to their role, abide by this Code, and act in accordance with the trust placed in them by the public. 7. Equitable contribution: members will take all reasonable steps to ensure they fulfil the duties and responsibilities of office, including attending meetings and workshops, preparing for meetings, attending civic events, and participating in relevant training seminars. 8. Leadership: members will actively promote and support these principles and ensure they are reflected in the way in which MDC operates, including a regular review and assessment of MDC’s collective performance.

These values complement, and work in conjunction with, the principles of section 14 of the LGA 2002; the governance principles of section 39 of the LGA 2002; and our MDC governance principles:

Whakamana Tangata Respecting the mandate of each member, and ensuring the integrity of the committee as a whole by acknowledging the principle of collective responsibility and decision‐making.

Manaakitanga Recognising and embracing the mana of others.

Rangatiratanga Demonstrating effective leadership with integrity, humility, honesty and transparency.

Whanaungatanga Building and sustaining effective and efficient relationships.

Kotahitanga Working collectively. 1

AGENDA:

The Order Paper is as follows:

1. Conflicts of Interest (Members to declare conflicts, if any)

2. Apologies

3. Public Forum:  Kerri McGill, NZ Pacific Studio Masterton District Fellow 4. Late items for inclusion under Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

5. Items to be considered under Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:  Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 24 June 2020  Contaminated Sites  Recreation Trail Development  CE Annual Review 6. Confirmation of Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 June 2020 (092/20) Pages 101-121

FOR DECISION

7. ELECTED MEMBER REMUNERATION 2020/2021 (094/20) Pages 131-137

8. 2020 LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: REMITS (096/20) Pages 138-188

9. COMBINED WAIRARAPA DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – JOINT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (097/20) Pages 189-202

10. ELECTORAL SYSTEM TO BE USED FOR THE 2022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION (098/20) Pages 203-225

11. MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL PART 11: SPEED BYLAW SCHEDULES 2021 (101/20) Pages 226-245

12. WATER REFORM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (102/20) Pages 246-281

FOR INFORMATION

13. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT (104/20) Pages 282-307

14. MAYOR’S REPORT A verbal report will be provided

2

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 5 AUGUST 2020 MOVED BY: SECONDED BY:

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:-

Confirmation of Minutes 15. Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 24 June 2020

General Business 16. Contaminated Land 17. Recreation Trail Development 18. CE Annual Review

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:-

General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in section 48(1) for considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution Confirmation of Minutes Refer to page 120-121 Refer to page 120-121 of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 24 June 2020

Contaminated Land 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) information is necessary to enable That the public conduct of the local authority to carry on, this item would be likely to without prejudice or disadvantage, result in the disclosure of negotiations (including information for which good commercial and industrial reason for withholding would negotiations) exist under Section 7.

Recreation Trail Development 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) information is necessary to enable That the public conduct of the local authority to carry on, this item would be likely to without prejudice or disadvantage, result in the disclosure of negotiations (including information for which good commercial and industrial reason for withholding would negotiations) exist under Section 7.

CE Annual Review 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of s48(1)(a) natural persons, including that That the public conduct of of deceased natural persons). this item would be likely to

result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7

101 092/20 MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD AT WAIATA HOUSE, 27 LINCOLN ROAD, MASTERTON, ON WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2020 AT 3.00PM

PRESENT

Mayor Lyn Patterson (Chair), Councillors G Caffell, B Gare, D Holmes, B Johnson, G McClymont, F Mailman, T Nelson, T Nixon, C Peterson and S Ryan and iwi representative and Ra Smith (from 3.48pm).

IN ATTENDANCE

Chief Executive, Manager Finance, Manager Assets and Operations, Manager Community Facilities and Activities, Manager Strategic Planning, Communications and Marketing Manager, Properties and Facilities Manager, Library Manager, District Archivist, Senior Advisor Wastewater Strategy and Compliance, Contract and Relationship Manager, Community Development Advisor, Senior Advisor Climate Change and Environment, Governance Advisor and one media representative.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No conflicts were declared.

APOLOGIES Moved Councillor Nixon That the apologies for non-attendance from Tiraumaera Te Tau and for lateness from Ra Smith be received. Seconded by Councillor Johnson and CARRIED Her Worship acknowledged Councillor Holmes and Councillor Nixon’s recent family bereavements Mike Kawana opened the meeting with a karakia PUBLIC FORUM  Tuia Programme representative Waiaria Pitau was introduced to elected members  Youth Council members Kitty Riach and Riley Uhr spoke to Council on the pedestrianisation of Queen Street and requested a Youth Council tab be added to the MDC website  Jeremy Logan, Wairarapa Extinction Rebellion, spoke about what Council could do in relation to climate change. . MAYORS REPORT The Mayor’s verbal report was brought forward. Her Worship recognised the work staff and elected members had done throughout lockdown and also acknowledged the award of a Queen’s Service Medal to Masterton’s District Archivist, Gareth Winter, in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.

102 LATE ITEMS FOR INCLUSION UNDER SECTION 46A(7) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

There were no late items

ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 48(1)(A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

 Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 27 May 2020  Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 4 March 2020  Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 20 May 2020  Report of the Awards and Grants Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 17 June 2020  Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process  Masterton District Council Appointments to the Montfort Trimble Foundation  Trust House Recreation Centre Moved by Councillor D Holmes That in terms of section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the items be dealt with at this meeting. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 27 MAY 2020 (070/20) Moved by Councillor T Nixon That the minutes of the meeting of the Masterton District Council held on 27 May 2020 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 17 JUNE (SPEED LIMIT REVIEW DELIBERATIONS) (084/20) Moved by Councillor S Ryan That the minutes of the meeting of the Masterton District Council (Speed Limit Review Deliberations) held on 17 June 2020 be confirmed. Seconded by Councillor T Nelson and CARRIED

REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 4 MARCH 2020 (028/20) The report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 4 March was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered:

 Item Left to Lie on the Table from the Previous Meeting - Audit Report to Council on the Year Ended 30 June 2019 (227/19)  Second Quarter Reports 103  2019/2020 Six Months to Date Financial Report  Non-Financial Performance 2019-20 Second Quarter Report  Audit Plan for the Year Ending 30 June 2020  Health and Safety Quarterly Report  Non-Financial Performance 2019-20 Second Quarter Report  Policy Review Work Programme Moved by Councillor T Nixon That the Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held 4 March 2020 (028/20) including the following resolutions be confirmed: ITEM LEFT TO LIE ON THE TABLE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING - AUDIT REPORT TO COUNCIL ON THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2019 (227/19) (021/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee i. Agrees that the item left to lie on the table at the 20 November 2019 Audit and Risk Committee meeting in relation to the Audit Report to Council on the Year Ended 30 June 2019 (Report 227/19) be uplifted from the table ii. Notes the additional information provided in report 021/20 and staff’s commitment to simplify and streamline future Annual Reports as far as possible, while still meeting legal requirements and without losing essential information to tell the story of Council’s performance. iii. That Council moves to simplification of the Annual Report for the 2021- 2022 financial year. SECOND QUARTER REPORTS (023/20) That Council receives: (a) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from the Aratoi Regional Trust. (b) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Destination Wairarapa; (c) the six-monthly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Connecting Communities Wairarapa (d) the six-monthly report and financial information as at 31 December 2019 from Sport Wellington Wairarapa

2019/20 SIX MONTHS TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT (025/20) That Audit & Risk Committee receives the 6 months to date financial report and commentary, including Operating and Capital Expenditure Statements contained in Report 025/20. AUDIT PLAN FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2020 (024/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Audit Plan for the year ending 30 June 2020. HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT (022/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Health & Safety report for the second quarter (1 October to 31 December 2019). 104 NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2019-20 SECOND QUARTER REPORT (026/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Quarter 2 non-financial performance report for the 2019-20 financial year.

POLICY REVIEW WORK PROGRAMME (027/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the update on the policy review work programme. Seconded by Councillor G McClymont and CARRIED

REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 20 MAY 2020 (061/20)

The report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 20 May 2020 was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered:

 Third Quarter Reports  Audit Engagement and Audit Proposal Letters for 2020, 2021, and 2022  Review of Treasury Management Policy  2019/20 Nine Months to Date Financial Report  Non-Financial Performance 2019-20 Third Quarter Report  Finance Update  NZTA Investment Audit Report Action Update  Health & Safety Quarterly Report  Exception to Procurement Policy

Moved by Councillor T Nelson That the Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held 20 May 2020 (061/20) including the following resolutions be confirmed: THIRD QUARTER REPORTS (047/20) That Council receives: (e) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 March 2020 from the Aratoi Regional Trust. (f) the quarterly report and financial information as at 31 March 2020 from Destination Wairarapa

AUDIT ENGAGEMENT AND AUDIT PROPOSAL LETTERS FOR 2020, 2021 AND 2022 That the Audit and Risk Committee reviews and endorses the Audit Engagement and Audit Proposal letters for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 financial years.

REVIEW OF TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY (055/20) That the Audit & Risk Committee i. receives Report 055/20 105 ii. recommends that Council adopts the changes proposed to the Treasury Management Policy, as set out in Report 055/20 and shown in the marked up Policy (Attachment 1 to Report 055/20) including a minor amendment made at the meeting as follows: Bullet point 3 in Section 4 Principles Of Treasury Activity on page 1 of the Policy (page 441 of the Agenda) to “All Where debt is raised for a specific activity or project, and therefore the debt servicing and repayment is funded from the revenue mechanisms associated with that activity”. 2019/20 NINE MONTHS TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT (049/20) That Audit & Risk Committee receives the 9 months to date financial report and commentary, including the Operating and Capital Expenditure Statements contained in Report 049/20. NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2019-20 THIRD QUARTER REPORT (050/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Quarter 3 non-financial performance report for the 2019-20 financial year. FINANCE UPDATE (051/20) That the Audit & Risk Committee receives the report and notes the information regarding: ‐ rating valuations (QV contract and revaluations) ‐ LGFA changes - Council’s insurance programme for 2020/21. NZTA INVESTMENT AUDIT REPORT ACTION UPDATE (052/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee notes the action update on the July 2019 NZTA Investment Audit Report July 2019 recommendations. HEALTH AND SAFETY QUARTERLY REPORT (022/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee receives the Health & Safety report for the third quarter (1 January to 31 March 2020). EXCEPTION TO PROCUREMENT POLICY (054/20) That the Audit and Risk Committee notes the exception to the procurement (in relation to maintenance work on the Queen Elizabeth Park Kids Own Playground Flying Fox) reported in Report 054/20. Seconded by Councillor F Mailman and CARRIED

REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 10 JUNE 2020 (074/20) The report of the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting held 10 June 2020 was taken as read, noting that the following items had been considered:

 Henley Lake Services Upgrade  Infrastructure Update  Community Facilities and Activities Infrastructure Update

106 Moved Councillor B Johnson That the Report of the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting held 10 June 2020 (074/20) including the following resolutions be confirmed: HENLEY LAKE SERVICES UPGRADE (071/20) That the Infrastructure and Services Committee: i. recommends that Council revokes the decision made on 28 February 2018 (035/18) to approve the construction of a new campervan dump station at the Solway Showgrounds; and ii. approves funding of $30K to provide a publicly available dump station at Henley Lake; and iii. recommends that Council approves a one-off grant to the A&P Society of $10K to assist with the installation of a dump station for use by their customers; and iv. confirms that the Mawley Park site is only available for customers of the campground, with no requirement for the operators to provide a publicly available facility, once the Henley Lake Dump Station is operational. INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (072/20) That the Infrastructure and Services Committee notes the information contained in Report 072/20. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE (073/20) That the Infrastructure and Services Committee notes the contents of Report 073/20. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

REPORT OF THE AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 17 JUNE 2020 (083/20) It was noted that the meeting went directly into public excluded but that at the meeting the resolution to grant a Civic Award to Roy Bambry had been brought out of public excluded and so was confirmed.

Moved Councillor G Caffell That the Report of the Awards and Grants Committee meeting held 17 June 2020 (083/20) including the following resolutions be confirmed: CIVIC AWARD (079/20PE) That the Awards and Grants Committee: i. considers the nomination received for a Civic Award, noting that due to the circumstances, it is not possible for the award to be held over until the next Civic Award round; ii. retroactively confirms the award of a Civic Award to Roy Bambry Seconded by Councillor B Johnson and CARRIED

107 APPOINTMENTS TO COUNCIL ORGANISATIONS POLICY – MONTFORT TRIMBLE FOUNDATION (076/20)

The report seeking Council agreement to appoint members to the Montfort Trimble Foundation was taken as read. The Manager Strategic Planning noted that it was a procedural decision needed before the appointments could be considered in the public excluded part of the meeting.

Moved by Councillor D Holmes THAT Council agrees to make two appointments to the Montfort Trimble Trust for the remainder of the triennium without advertising in accordance with the Appointment to Council Organisations Policy, as there are two qualified and experienced candidates available and one position is vacant already and needs to be filled as soon as possible without the time and expense associated with undertaking a recruitment process. Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

RURAL ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE (079/20)

The report seeking Council feedback or approval of the terms of reference for the Rural Advisory Group was taken as read.

A request was made for the group, once constituted, to have input into the terms of reference, which would then need to come back to Council for final approval.

Councillors Holmes and Nixon were nominated for appointment to the group, with Councillor Holmes being selected as chair.

Moved by Councillor Caffell THAT Council i. Receives Report 078/20 in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group. ii. Notes that Council agreed to establish a Rural Advisory Group for the Masterton District at its Inaugural Meeting on 30 October 2020. iii. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Masterton District Council Rural Advisory Group as attached to Report 078/20 (see Attachment 1). iv. Appoints Councillors Tina Nixon and David Holmes to the Masterton District Rural Advisory Group and Councillor David Holmes as the Chairperson. Seconded by Councillor Mailman and CARRIED

COMBINED WAIRARAPA DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – CONSULTANCY APPOINTMENT (080/20) The report seeking Council agreement to the appointment of Boffa Miskell as the consultancy firm to provide support for the combined Wairarapa District Plan review was presented by the Manager Strategic Planning, who noted that the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee would be coming back to Council in August or September.

108 Moved by Councillor F Mailman That Council: a. Receives the report ‘Combined Wairarapa District Plan Review – Consultancy appointment’ 080/20; and b. Approves the appointment of Boffa Miskell as the consultancy firm to provide support for the combined Wairarapa District Plan review. Seconded by Councillor T Nixon and CARRIED

(Ra Smith joined the meeting at 3.48pm)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTERTON DISTRICT METERED PARKING AREA SCHEDULE (081/20)

The report seeking Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Masterton District Metered Parking Area Schedule to align with phase 2 of the Council COVID-19 relief package (to provide free parking in the town centre to 31 August 2020) was presented by the Manager Strategic Planning. Moved by Councillor Johnson That Council: i. Receives the ‘Proposed Amendments to the Masterton District Metered Parking Area Schedule’ Report 081/20; and ii. Adopts the proposed amendments to Schedule 2M (Metered Parking Areas) of Part 10 (Traffic) of the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019, as specified in Attachment 1, being: a) To add a permanent maximum parking time limit of 120 minutes (P120) to all metered parking spaces, effective immediately. b) To add ‘Free Parking 2-hour limit’ to the window of all parking meters and to update the Metered Parking Zone signage to align with regulations, to reflect the ‘P120’ time restriction. c) To revert the ‘free parking’ back to fee-paid parking from 1 September 2020 whilst maintaining the P120 time restriction. Seconded by Councillor Nelson and CARRIED

LGFA SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING (082/20)

The report seeking Council’s position on matters being put forward for consideration at the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Special General Meeting (SGM) on 30 June 2020 was presented by the Manager Finance.

Moved by Councillor Gare That Council: 1. Appoints the Manager Finance as proxy to vote on behalf of the Council at the Local Government Funding Agency’s Special General Meeting on 30 June 2020, with the meeting chairperson as alternate; 109 2. Agrees that the proxy or alternate votes in favour of the Local Government Funding Agency’s proposal as follows: i. To increase the foundation policy financial covenant net debt / total revenue from the current 250% to 280% for local authorities with a long-term credit rating of ‘A’ equivalent or higher; ii. That until 2025/26, local authorities with a long-term credit rating of ‘A’ equivalent or higher must comply with the “Alternative Net Debt / Total Revenue covenant” as below. Alternative Net Debt / Total Revenue Covenant Financial Year (Test Date) Net Debt / Total Revenue

30 June 2020 <250%

30 June 2021 <300%

30 June 2022 <300%

30 June 2023 <295%

30 June 2024 <290%

30 June 2025 <285%

3. Notes the amended foundation policy financial covenant of 280% will apply in the 2025/26 financial year and annually thereafter.

Seconded by Councillor S Ryan and CARRIED

OPAKI WATER RACE STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL (087/20)

The report seeking Council agreement to undertake the Special Consultative Procedure and adopt a Statement of Proposal for the closure of the Opaki Water Race was presented by the Manager Assets and Operations.

Moved by Councillor Johnson That the Council undertakes the Special Consultative Procedure and adopts the Statement of Proposal to close the Opaki Water Race in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. Seconded by Councillor Gare and CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 4.00 and reconvened at 4.12pm

All members were present when the meeting resumed.

GRANT FUNDING POST COVID-19 (093/20)

The report providing an assessment of how Council’s grants and events funds are managed and to seek a decision from Council on how they can be adapted to respond to COVID-19, or similar scenarios, to support the community was presented by the Manager Community Facilities and Activities.

110 Members discussed the recommendations. There were mixed views with some members agreeing with the recommendation in relation to the delegation to staff to speed the process up, some thinking that the staff delegation should be increased to $5,000 and others that all decision making on grants should remain with the Committee.

Councillor Nixon moved an alternative recommendation (iii), which proposed the delegation to staff to grant applications be set at up to $5,000. The recommendations were taken in parts with (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) taken first and Councillor Nixon’s motion taken second.

Moved by Councillor F Mailman That Council approve the following amendments to criteria and process for the Community Wellbeing Grant and Community Events Fund: i. Expanding the criteria to explicitly include “disaster recovery” response initiatives that our community has identified, while still meeting the eligibility criteria of being not-for profit, and excluding health and education providers or activities that benefit only few individuals ii Where government funding or other external funding is available, applicants are required to have made an application, e.g. the Foodbank from the Food Secure Community Grants Fund. iv. Community Wellbeing Grants change from one funding round per annum to two funding rounds per annum in July and early in the new year v. Community Events Fund to be an open ended/rolling funding round where grants are received throughout the year Seconded by Councillor S Ryan and CARRIED

Moved Councillor Nixon iii Elected Members delegate decision-making for granting applications for $5,000 or less to staff for up to 50% of the total Community Wellbeing Grant and the Community Events Funds. Seconded Councillor B Gare and LOST

Councillor McClymont put the original recommendation delegating decision making to staff for applications up to $3,000. With the agreement of the mover and seconder the motion was amended to include a review of the delegation after 12 months as part of the LTP process.

Moved by Councillor McClymont iii Elected Members delegate decision-making for granting applications for $3,000 or less to staff for up to 50% of the total Community Wellbeing Grant and the Community Events Funds, for a 12 month period to be reviewed as part of the LTP process. Seconded by Councillor Nixon and CARRIED

FOR AGAINST Mayor L Patterson Councillor Caffell 111 Councillor G McClymont Councillor Johnson Councillor Gare Councillor Nelson Councillor Holmes Councillor Peterson Councillor Mailman Councillor Ryan Councillor Nixon

RESOLVED:

That Council approve the following amendments to criteria and process for the Community Wellbeing Grant and Community Events Fund: i. Expanding the criteria to explicitly include “disaster recovery” response initiatives that our community has identified, while still meeting the eligibility criteria of being not-for profit, and excluding health and education providers or activities that benefit only few individuals ii Where government funding or other external funding is available, applicants are required to have made an application, e.g. the Foodbank from the Food Secure Community Grants Fund. iii Elected Members delegate decision-making for granting applications for $3,000 or less to staff for up to 50% of the total Community Wellbeing Grant and the Community Events Funds, for a 12 month period to be reviewed as part of the LTP process. iv. Community Wellbeing Grants change from one funding round per annum to two funding rounds per annum in July and early in the new year v. Community Events Fund to be an open ended/rolling funding round where grants are received throughout the year

MASTERTON REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT STEERING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE (090/20)

The report seeking Council approval of the Terms of Reference for the Masterton Refugee Resettlement Steering Group was presented by the Manager Community Facilities and Activities. Councillor Ryan was nominated as appointee to the group. Moved by Mayor L Patterson That Council (i) approves the Terms of Reference for the Masterton Refugee Resettlement Steering Group contained in Attachment 1 to Report 090/20. (ii) appoints Councillor Sandy Ryan as the Chair of the Masterton Refugee Resettlement Steering Group for the remainder of the 2019-2022 triennium. Seconded by Councillor C Peterson and CARRIED

Moved by Councillor B Gare

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:-

112 28. Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process

Town Centre Upgrade Tender 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Process information is necessary to enable That the public conduct of this the local authority to carry on, item would be likely to result in without prejudice or disadvantage, the disclosure of information negotiations (including commercial for which good reason for and industrial negotiations) withholding would exist under Section 7.

Seconded B Johnson and CARRIED

The meeting moved into public excluded at 4.42pm

The meeting moved out of public excluded at 5.00pm

TOWN CENTRE UPGRADE TENDER PROCESS (089/20PE) The resolution in relation to the Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process, excluding cost information, was brought out of public excluded Moved by Councillor Johnson That Council: (a) Rescinds clause b) ii) of the following resolution made by Council at the meeting held on 26 June 2019 to prioritise the construction of Park Street (Report 131/19): “That Council: a) Notes the information and recommendations of the Reference Group contained in Report Town Centre Revamp Options 131/19. b) Agrees to: i. Progress Park Street and Lower Queen Street (Jackson to Bannister St) to detailed design ii. Prioritise the construction of Park Street as the first CBD upgrade project iii. continue work on Bruce Street’s developed design as resources allow. iv. agrees to the development of a Parking Masterplan for the Masterton Town Centre” (b) Agrees to tender the work outlined in the detailed design report for the south end of Queen Street (from Jackson to Bannister Streets) with an estimated cost of $4.69 million. (c) Request the CE explores external funding options to complete the construction of Park street for the Long Term Plan Seconded by Councillor Nixon and CARRIED

113 ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL PLAN 2020/2021 (086/20) The report seeking Council adoption of the Annual Plan and Fees and Charges for 2020/2021 was presented by the Chief Executive.

The Mayor thanked staff for all their work on the Annual Plan and elected members for their input.

Moved by Councillor Ryan That Council: a) notes that the 2020/21 Annual Plan reflects the decisions made by Council at the Deliberations Meeting held on 27 May 2020; b) adopts the 2020/21 Annual Plan including the funding impact statement and schedule of fees and charges; c) delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve minor edits that don’t change the intent of the content prior to publication of the Annual Plan 2020-21 document; and d) notes that the final 2020/21 Annual Plan will be published within one month of its adoption. Seconded by Councillor Mailman and CARRIED

RATES RESOLUTION 2020‐21 (085/20)

The report seeking Council adoption of the 2020-21 Rates Resolution was presented by the Manager Finance. Moved by Councillor G Caffell That Council, having adopted the 2020-21 Annual Plan for Masterton District, adopts the 2020-21 Rates Resolution 2020-21 MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL RATES RESOLUTION That, pursuant to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Masterton District Council, hereby sets the rates and charges as set out in this resolution in respect of rateable properties in the Masterton District for the period of one year commencing on 1st July 2020 and ending on 30th June 2021.

The Council has adopted, in accordance with the special consultative procedure, its 2018-28 Long-Term Plan, including a Revenue & Financing Policy. It has also adopted its 2020-21 Annual Plan, including the Rating Funding Impact Statement 2020-21. These documents contain definitions of "Rural rating area", "Urban rating area" and "differential groups U1, U2 and R1” and “separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit”. The resolution below will enable the Council to generate rating revenue to fund the services and activities as outlined in the Annual Plan.

114 RATES HEREBY SET IN THE DISTRICT:

Rates quoted are per dollar of land or capital value and are listed inclusive of GST. GST has been added at the prevailing rate of 15%. Total dollars being raised are also stated inclusive of GST and have generally been rounded to nearest $1,000.

All section references are references to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

1. RATES SET ACROSS THE DISTRICT

A series of targeted, differential rates set under section 16(3)(a) and (4)(b) will be set as described:

1.1 Roading Rate – per dollar of land value as follows:

U1 (0.001777 per dollar of land value) raising $1,884,000 U2 (0.003554 per dollar of land value) raising $ 711,000 R1 (0.001709 per dollar of land value) raising $3,098,000 Total $5,693,000

1.2 Representation & Development Rate – per dollar of capital value as follows:

U1 0.000857 per dollar of capital value raising $2,360,000 U2 0.001714 per dollar of capital value raising $ 778,000 R1 0.000308 per dollar of land value raising $ 885,000 Total $4,023,000

1.3 Regulatory Services Rate – per dollar of capital value as follows:

U1 (0.000562 per dollar of capital value) raising $1,548,000 U2 (0.001124 per dollar of capital value) raising $ 508,000 R1 (0.000202 per dollar of capital value) raising $ 580,000 Total $ 2,636,000

1.4 Sundry Facilities & Services Rate – per dollar of capital value as follows:

U1 (0.000628 per dollar of capital value) raising $1,730,000 U2 (0.001256 per dollar of capital value) raising $ 568,000 R1 (0.000251 per dollar of capital value) raising $ 721,000 Total $3,019,000

2. TARGETED UNIFORM CHARGE (TUC)

A differential targeted rate [referred to as a Targeted Uniform Charge in the Funding Impact Statement] set in accordance with section 16(3)(a) and (4)(b) on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit, with a differential between urban and rural properties based on allocation of costs between rating areas, as detailed in the Revenue & Financing Policy and as follows:

U1 & U2 $330.00 per part of rating unit, raising $3,168,000 115 R1 $486.00 per part of rating unit, raising $1,873,000 Total $5,041,000

3. CIVIC AMENITIES RATE

A differential targeted rate set under sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(b), assessed in the urban rating area only, for civic amenities costs allocated to that area as per the Revenue and Financing Policy and as follows:

Civic Amenities Rate – per dollar of capital value as follows:

U1 0.000869 per dollar of capital value raising $2,394,000 U2 0.001738 per dollar of capital value raising $ 786,000 Total $3,180,000

4. UNIFORM ROADING CHARGE (ROADING CHARGE)

4.1 A differential targeted roading charge will be set in accordance with sections 16(3)(a) and (4)(b) 17 and 18. This rate is in addition to the (land value) Roading Rate, and will be set on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

4.2 The Uniform Roading Charge will be as follows:

U1 & U2 $ 46.00 per part of rating unit, raising $ 442,000 R1 $ 345.00 per part of rating unit, raising $1,329,000 Total $1,771,000

5. WATER SUPPLY RATES AND CHARGE

Targeted on a Uniform Basis and a Capital Value Rate

5.1 According to sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(a) and (4)(b), and 19, a differential targeted Capital Value Rate applying to connected and serviceable rating units (excluding those charged by metered rate) plus a Uniform Charge for water supply for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit throughout the serviced area where the rating unit is connected to the Masterton urban water supply scheme. Note: urban connected properties will be liable for both rates, rural connected properties will be liable for the uniform charge and a volume-based charge (as per 5.3 below).

5.2 The rates are as follows:

Uniform Water Supply Charge

(i) Connected $ 102.00 Raising $ 975,000

Differential Water Supply Rate - per dollar of capital value will be:

116 U1 & R1 0.000768 per dollar of capital value raising $2,152,000 U2 0.001536 per dollar of capital value raising $ 773,000 Total $2,925,000

The Rate and the Charge raising a total of $ 3,900,000

Metered Water Supply 5.3 A targeted rate for water supplied to metered rural and out-of-district properties from the urban water supply, based on volumes of water supplied through water meters (and in addition to the Water Supply Charge in 5.2 above).

5.4 The metered rates are as follows:

(i) Minimum charge for use per quarter for 50 cubic mtrs or below $57.50 (ii) Price per cubic mtr for consumption between 50 and 100 cubic mtrs per quarter $1.40 (iii) Price per cubic mtr for consumption over 100 cubic mtrs per quarter $1.80

6. SEWERAGE RATES AND CHARGE

Targeted on Uniform Basis and Capital Value Rate

6.1 According to sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(a) and (b), 17, and 18 Council will set a targeted capital value rate on connected and serviceable rating units, plus a uniform charge for sewerage disposal for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit throughout the Masterton serviced area where rating units are connected to the urban sewerage system. Note: connected properties will be liable for both rates.

6.2 The rates are:

Uniform Sewerage Charge

(i) Connected $ 200.00 Raising $ 1,879,000

Differential Sewerage Rate - per dollar of capital value will be:

U1 & R1 0.001467 per dollar of capital value raising $ 4,136,000 U2 0.002934 per dollar of capital value raising $ 1,475,000 Total $ 5,611,000

The Rate and Charge raising a total of $ 7,490,000

7. RECYCLING COLLECTION CHARGE

7.1 According to sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(a), a uniform targeted rate for kerbside recycling collection on the following basis: 117

(i) Urban – on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit situated within the urban area of Masterton to which Council is prepared to provide the service; (ii) Rural – on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit situated within the rural area of Masterton to which Council is prepared to provide the service.

7.2 The uniform charge will be: $74.00 Raising $ 696,000

8. RURAL TARGETED SERVICES RATES & CHARGES

According to sections 16(3)(b) and (4)(a), the Council will set:

8.1 A targeted rate for the Opaki Water Race on each rating unit serviced by the Opaki Water Race.

The land value rate for 2020-21 is: $0.001989

Raising a total of $ 63,300

8.2 A targeted rate for the Tinui Water Supply on each connected rating unit.

The uniform targeted charge for 2020-21 is: $450.00

Raising a total of $ 14,000

8.3 A targeted rate for the Riversdale Beach Sewerage Scheme on each assessed residential equivalent (RE) (based on Sch 3, cl 8 of the LG (Rating) Act 2002) of each connected rating unit (including those that will be connected during the year).

The uniform targeted charge for 2020-21 is: $554.00 per RE

Raising a total of $ 206,800

8.4 A targeted rate for the Riversdale Beach Sewerage Scheme on each serviceable, but not connected rating unit within the serviced area of the scheme.

The targeted uniform charge for 2020-21 is: $122.00

Raising a total of $ 10,000

8.5 Riversdale Beach Sewerage Capital Contributions

Based on the Capital Project Funding Plan adopted in 2010, targeted rates for the Riversdale Beach Community Sewerage Scheme (RBCSS) capital contributions for the 2020-21 year will be charged on the basis of connected residential equivalents (REs) within the scheme area, on those properties that elected the 20 year time payment option, or were defaulted to that option, payable via property rates.

A RBCSS 20 Year time payment charge per residential equivalent connection for 2020-21 (year11 of 20) of 1,643.40 Estimated to be charged on 38 REs, raising a total of $ 62,400 118

8.6 Targeted rates for the Tinui Sewerage Scheme for the 2020-21 year, on the basis of connected rating units and elected capital contributions. There will be three separate rates as follows:

The Tinui Sewerage Operating Costs rate per connected rating unit (and including Tinui School as 5 connections based on assessed usage) for 2020- 21 is: $455.00 Raising a total of $9,100

The Tinui Sewerage Part Capital Contribution (stage 1) rate per connection for 2020-21 is: $212.50 (1 property will be charged this sum, which meets their capital contribution spread over 20 years).

The Tinui Sewerage Part Capital Contribution (stage 1 & 2) rate per connection for 2020-21 is: $744.50 (7 properties will be charged this sum, which meets their capital contribution spread over 20 years). Raising a total of $5,200

8.7 A targeted rate, known as the Beach Refuse & Recycling Collection Charge, on those rating units in the Riversdale Beach and Castlepoint localities to which the Council is prepared to provide refuse bag and recycling collection services: Targeted uniform charge for 2020-21 is: $208.00 Raising a total of $ 99,800

8.8 A targeted rate for the Castlepoint Sewerage Scheme on each rating unit connected to the scheme: Targeted uniform charge for 2020-21 is: $428.00 Raising a total of $ 83,000

8.9 A targeted rate known as the Sewage Treatment Charge on each connected rating unit in the rural area discharging effluent from septic system outflows to the urban sewerage system, and including Rathkeale College assessed as 50 residential equivalents based on estimated flow volumes.

The targeted uniform charge is: $465.00 per residential equivalent Raising a total of $31,200

9. OUT-OF-DISTRICT WATER & SEWERAGE CHARGES

Council proposes to set the following charges (to be levied by Carterton District Council) for non-metered water supply and sewerage services which are supplied to properties in the Carterton District on the following basis:

(i) Water supply – per dollar of Capital Value will be $0.001536 (applied to rating units connected and not metered) plus a Uniform Water Charge of $102.00 on all connected rating units. (ii) Sewerage – per dollar of Capital Value at $0.002934 on all serviceable rating units, plus a Uniform Sewerage Charge of $200.00 on all connected rating units. (iii) Trade Waste bylaw charges (as listed in the Funding Impact Statement) if Trade Waste Charges are applicable,

119 10. GOODS & SERVICES TAX (GST) GST has been added to the rates at the prevailing rate of GST and will be included in each instalment notice/tax invoice when it is raised.

11. INSTALMENTS, PENALTIES

Invoice Dates and Due Dates: There will be four instalments for rates assessed as follows: Month of Invoice Last Day to Pay (i) 1st instalment July 2020 20th August 2020 (ii) 2nd instalment October 2020 20th November 2020 (iii) 3rd instalment January 2021 22nd February 2021 (iv) 4th instalment April 2021 20th May 2021

Penalty Charges - Pursuant to section 57 and 58(1)(a) a penalty as listed below will be added to such part of each instalment of rates which remain unpaid on the due date as follows: Penalty % Date Penalty Added (i) 1st instalment 0% 21st August 2020 (ii) 2nd instalment 10% 23rd November 2020 (iii) 3rd instalment 10% 23rd February 2021 (iv) 4th instalment 10% 21st May 2021

Penalty on Arrears - Pursuant to section 58(1)(b)(ii) an additional penalty of 0% will be added to all rates remaining unpaid as at 30th June 2020. The penalty will be applied on 2nd July 2020.

Pursuant to section 58(1)(c) an additional penalty of 10% will be added to rates on which the penalty on arrears (above) was applied and remain unpaid 6 months later. The penalty will be added to the unpaid rate arrears on 5th January 2021.

Roundings - The Rates Statements will be subject to roundings. The rates due will be calculated to the nearest cent but rounded to the nearest 10 cents for ease of payment.

Seconded by Councillor B Gare and CARRIED

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT (088/20)

The report providing Council with an update (as at 12 June 2020) on Council operations and changes in the national and regional context for Council since the last CEO report to Council on 13 May 2020 was presented by the Chief Executive.

Moved Councillor D Holmes That Council notes the information contained in the Chief Executive’s report 088/20. Seconded Councillor B Gare and CARRIED 120 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2020

MOVED BY: Councillor Holmes That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of the meeting of the Masterton District Council:-

Confirmation of Minutes 24. Minutes of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 27 May 2020 25. Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 4 March 2020 26. Report of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 20 May 2020 27. Report of the Awards and Grants Committee meeting held with the public excluded on 17 June 2020

General Business 28. Town Centre Upgrade Tender Process 29. Masterton District Council Appointments to the Montfort Trimble Foundation 30. Trust House Recreation Centre

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:-

General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in section 48(1) for considered relation to each the passing of this matter resolution Confirmation of Minutes Refer to page 109 Refer to page 109 of the Council meeting held with the public excluded on 27 May 2020

Confirmation of the Report of the Refer to page 405 Refer to page 405 Audit and Risk Committee meeting Held with the public excluded on 4 March 2020

Confirmation of the Report of the Refer to page 405-406 Refer to page 405-406 Audit and Risk Committee meeting Held with the public excluded on 20 May 2020

Confirmation of the Report of the Refer to page 601 Refer to page 601 Awards and Grants Committee Meeting held with the public excluded on 17 June 2020

Town Centre Upgrade Tender 7(2)(i) The withholding of the s48(1)(a) Process information is necessary to enable That the public conduct the local authority to carry on, of this item would be Trust House Recreation Centre without prejudice or disadvantage, likely to result in the negotiations (including commercial disclosure of information and industrial negotiations) for which good reason 121 for withholding would exist under Section 7.

Masterton District Council 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of s48(1)(a) Appointments to the Montfort Trimble natural persons, including that That the public conduct Foundation of deceased natural persons). of this item would be

likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under Section 7

Seconded by Councillor Johnson and CARRIED The meeting moved into public excluded at 5.20 pm The meeting moved out of public excluded at 5.40 pm The meeting closed at 5.40 pm

Confirmed at the Meeting of the Council held on 5 August 2020

………………………………………………… 131

094/20 To: Her Worship the Mayor & Councillors

From: David Paris, Manager Finance

Endorsed by: Kath Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject: Elected Member Remuneration 2020/21

FOR DECISION Recommendation: That Council i. receives the 2020/21 elected members’ remuneration determination for Masterton District Council ii. acknowledges the determination by the Remuneration Authority with respect to the Mayoral salary for 2020/21 iii. confirms the changes to Members’ Expense Rules and Reimbursing Allowances for the 2020/21 year (as per Attachment 1 to Report 094/20).

Purpose To confirm receipt of the Remuneration Authority’s determination for the 2020/21 financial year and adopt the revised Member’s Expense Rules and Reimbursing Allowances. Executive Summary The Remuneration Authority (RA) is the body designated by central Government to set the remuneration for local government elected members. They have determined the mayoral salary and total remuneration pool for other elected members, to be applied for the year from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021. After the October 2019 election, the Council determined how it would divide up the pool of funding that the RA had allocated for Masterton District elected members. The RA has not changed the remuneration pool amount but has altered the mayoral salary as below. The RA has reduced the mayoral salary by $6,100 pa for a period of six months from 9 July 2020. The version of the Member’s Expenses and Reimbursing Allowances adopted in October 2019 and subsequently amended in December 2019 is proposed to have a further amendment – the removal of the travel time allowance.

Discussion The Remuneration Authority determination provides for the following:  The Mayor’s salary has been determined as $122,000 pa for the 2020/21 year. This is no change from the prior year, but: o The Mayor’s salary is to be reduced to $115,900 for six months from 9 July 2020.

132

o The temporary reduction was determined by RA in June 2020. The RA has applied reductions across all Councils (where remunerations are above $100,000 pa) in order to allow public sector leaders to show leadership during the COVID‐19 restriction period and subsequent period of economic impacts.  The councillors’ remuneration pool total for 2020/21 has been advised as $372,130 pa (no change for 2019/20 post‐election)  The allocation of that pool amongst elected members has been left unchanged from the determination adopted following the Local Government elections in October 2019.  The full determination is available to members upon request.  The Members’ Expense Rules and Reimbursing Allowances document needs to be re‐confirmed for the 2020/21 financial year. The document was amended in December 2019 to align with the RA guidance on reimbursing allowances and adding the childcare allowance.  A further change is proposed now, to remove the travel time allowance. The RA guidance says councils ‘may’ pay a travel time allowance. Her Worship the Mayor has sought clarification from the RA and been advised that this allowance was included for those councils where travel times to attend council meetings were well in excess of an hour each way. Masterton District does not have those geographical challenges, so the allowance is considered to not be required.

Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Council is required by the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and subsequent amendments, to follow the determinations of the Remuneration Authority.

Significance, Engagement and Consultation The decision to adopt the Remuneration Authority’s recommendation is a statutory requirement and so is not a significant decision and there is no engagement or consultation required.

Financial Considerations

When preparing the 2020/21 Annual Plan, staff anticipated no change to remuneration levels for the councillors’ funding pool and that the Mayor’s salary would be reduced for six months. The Draft Annual Plan prepared in March 2020 had included provision for increases in these costs. Removing those provisions has assisted the Council to reduce the rates required for the 2020/21 year.

Treaty Considerations/Implications for Māori

The adoption of this report will not trigger any Treaty considerations or implications for Māori.

Communications/Engagement Plan

No communication or engagement plan is required.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations There are no environmental/climate change impacts or considerations arising from the adoption of this report.

133 ATTACHMENT 1

MEMBERS’ EXPENSE RULES & REIMBURSING ALLOWANCES APPLICABLE TO ELECTED MEMBERS OF MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2020 TO 30 JUNE 2021

Originally adopted by the Council 30 October 2019, revised 5 August 2020.

SECTION 1 – MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Contact person for enquiries:

Name: David Paris Designation: Manager Finance

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 06 370 6263 (DDI)

SECTION 2 ‐ DOCUMENTATION OF POLICIES

This Policy replaces all previous policies, rules and procedures relating to the expenses and allowances payable to elected members.

SECTION 3 ‐ AUTHENTICATION OF EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS AND ALLOWANCES

Set out below are the principles and processes under which this Council ensures that expense reimbursements and allowances payable in lieu of expense reimbursements  are in line with council policies  have a justified business purpose  are payable under clear rules communicated to all claimants  have senior management oversight  are approved by a person able to exercise independent judgement  are adequately documented  are reasonable and conservative in line with public sector norms  are, in respect of allowances, a reasonable approximation of expenses incurred on behalf of the local authority by the elected member  are subject to internal audit oversight.

134

1. Council policy states that elected members should not be ‘out‐of‐pocket’ for expenses incurred in the course of their duties as an elected member (ie actual and reasonable costs are reimbursed). 2. Members are required to obtain the approval of the Mayor and CEO prior to incurring costs for any training, conference or travel where they will be seeking reimbursement of costs from the Council. The Mayor and CEO will assess the business need / justification for the expenditure prior to approval. 3. Members review and approve the policy at least once in each triennium and confirm it annually at the time of receipt of the Remuneration Authority’s determination. 4. The CEO is involved in the process described in 2 above. The Manager Finance undertakes periodic reviews of expenses reimbursements. 5. A member may claim a vehicle mileage allowance to reimburse that member for costs incurred in respect of local authority business. All claims are to be supported by evidence of meeting attendance and use of a private vehicle. The allowances payable are set out below. For other costs (ie parking in Wellington) full receipts are required. Members are responsible for the preparation of their own expense claims. 6. Policies set by Council reflect public sector norms of reasonableness and conservatism and are aligned to the Remuneration Authority’s guidelines. 7. Internal audit is incorporated into the Financial Accountant’s overview of the payroll process and this includes checking members’ expense claims for reasonableness.

SECTION 4 ‐ VEHICLE PROVIDED

The Mayor is provided with a vehicle and is allowed full private use. A deduction from the mayoral salary, as calculated based on the Remuneration Authority’s formula for full private use, will be made.

For general Council business, Council ‘pool’ vehicles are available to members. In the case of trips of more than one night away, a rental vehicle may be used at Council’s expense.

SECTION 5 ‐ MILEAGE & TRAVEL ALLOWANCES

1. Rates of allowance paid for petrol/diesel vehicles per kilometer are: ‐ $0.79 per km for the first 14,000 km per annum and ‐ $0.30 per km for any distance over 14,000 km per annum 2. Rates of allowance paid for electric vehicles per kilometer are: ‐ $0.79 per km for the first 14,000 km per annum and ‐ $0.09 per km for any distance over 14,000 km per annum. The rates are based on the maximum allowed by the Remuneration Authority 3. A vehicle mileage allowance will be payable, but only if ‐ ‐ a private vehicle is used ie there is no Council vehicle practically available ‐ the purpose of the travel is for Council business ‐ the travel claim is based on the direct route distance ‐ there is no reimbursement of costs that are chargeable to others ‐ out of town meetings kms are based on a log book record.

135

4. A Travel Time Allowance is payable to members (other than the Mayor), but only if ‐ a. the travel time exceeds a 1 hour threshold on any one day b. the travel is undertaken for Council business c. the travel is the quickest form of transport in reasonable circumstances d. a maximum amount of travel time allowance in a 24‐hour period is 8 hours

The maximum amount payable is $37.50 per hour for hours above the threshold.

The vehicle allowance is not subject to withholding tax. the travel time allowance is.

SECTION 6 ‐ TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION (excluding mileage claims ‐ refer Section 5)

Taxis, train fares and other transport Car parking, taxis, train fares, buses & shuttles will be reimbursed, only with a receipt and only where they are associated with Council‐related meetings, training courses or conferences.

Carparks Councillors can use the town square car park whenever they are attending to Council business – a ‘free parking’ card will be issued and will need to be displayed.

Use of rental cars Rental vehicles may be arranged via the General Inspector where time away and distance of travel make them an appropriate option to attend out‐of‐town meetings

Air Travel Domestic The rules for domestic air travel are:

To be booked through the Council so expense is payable by the Council. Only to be used in association with Council‐related training/ courses/ conferences.

Air Travel International No international air travel, funded by the Council, is anticipated under this policy.

Airline Clubs/Airpoints/Airdollars The Council has no subscriptions to airline clubs (such as the Koru Club). The Council does not accrue airpoints or airdollars earned on travel, accommodation etc., hence they are not available for the private use of members.

Accommodation costs whilst away at conferences, seminars, etc. Actual and reasonable costs will be reimbursed.

136

Council would prefer that accommodation is booked and paid for via the Council to enable control over the ‘reasonable’ nature of the accommodation.

Private accommodation paid for by local authority No private accommodation (such as an apartment) is provided to any member by the Council.

Private accommodation provided by friends/relatives No allowances are payable in respect of accommodation provided by friends/relatives when travelling on Council business.

SECTION 7 ‐ ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY

The reasonable costs of hospitality or entertainment, where it relates to a Council function or Council hosting of visiting dignitaries (eg from a Sister City) will be reimbursed. No Council credit card is issued to any elected members.

SECTION 8 ‐ COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

Equipment and technology provided to elected member

Equipment and technology provided to elected members for use at home and/or on council business? PC or laptop YES/NO Printer YES/NO Broadband YES/NO Second landline to house YES/NO Consumables and stationery (for printers) YES/NO Mobile Phone YES/NO* iPad/Tablet** YES/NO Other equipment or technology** YES/NO

*The Mayor’s cell phone is on the Council plan and a mobile device/tablet is available for use by the Mayor.

** Technology advances in the area of smart phones and tablets has seen efficiencies in the distribution of documents using these devices. During 2020 members will be supplied with devices to use at Council meetings and to receive Council information. In the interim period, a technology allowance will be paid as per below.

Home telephone rental costs and telephone calls (including mobiles)

No home telephone rental costs or call expenses are reimbursed.

137

Allowances paid in relation to communication and/or technology provided by elected member

Until communications and/or technology equipment is provided to members by the Council, a reimbursing allowance will be paid to recognise the cost the members may incur to conduct Council business – including partial use of mobile phone, home phone, home broadband, home computer and printer.

The allowance is set at $25 per fortnight, per member and is not taxable.

SECTION 9 ‐ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS`

Reasonable expenses will be reimbursed in respect of members’ attendance at professional development courses, conferences and seminars.

Bookings are to be made through the Council, and where possible, paid directly by the Council. Actual and reasonable costs incurred and paid directly by members will be reimbursed if receipts are available.

No expenses are reimbursable or allowances paid in respect of subscriptions to clubs or associations

SECTION 10 ‐ OTHER EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS AND ALLOWANCES

No other expense reimbursements are payable. The Council holds an insurance policy that covers the Mayor, Councillors and staff in case of accidental death. The benefits are payable to the Council.

SECTION 11 ‐ TAXATION OF ALLOWANCES

Any allowable mileage allowances are not subject to withholding tax deductions. Reimbursements of actual business expenses are not subject to withholding tax deductions. Travel time allowances will be subject to withholding tax.

138

096/20 To: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillors

From: Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject: 2020 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting: Remits

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council endorses the remits to the 2020 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting.

Purpose This report seeks Council to endorse the remits proposed in the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2020 Annual General Meeting Remits document.

Context

The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) remits are voted on at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting (AGM). This year there are 11 remits. Refer Attachment 1 for the full LGNZ 2020 Annual General Meeting Remits document.

Proposed remits address current strategic issues. They have a national focus articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level.

Remits raised by a council must have formal support from at least one zone or sector group meeting or five councils prior to being submitted, as they must be relevant to local government as a whole.

The proposed remits are then voted on by the councils in a ballot at the LGNZ AGM and require more than 50% support for LGNZ to advocate for them on behalf of the sector.

Once passed, remits become official policy to be actioned by LGNZ.

Analysis and Advice The table below outlines all 11 remits with advice on our proposed level of support for each.

139

No Remit Detail Considerations Advice 1. Public transport  The Government to work with Greater Wellington Regional Council Support support councils to maintain the financial (GWRC) is the agency responsible for Even though public transport is (Greater viability of public transport during the public transport in the region. GWRC’s responsibility, any impacts Wellington recovery phase of COVID‐19 on public transport will have direct or Regional  A joint work programme between the indirect effect on our ratepayers. Council) Government and councils (through E.g. potential decrease in services or LGNZ) on policy to maintain the increase in cost will affect commuters financial viability of public transport across the district and in particular during the recovery phase Wairarapa train commuters.  Proposals to be taken to Ministers. 2. Housing  To introduce legislation to enable The Wairarapa Economic Development Support in Principle affordability councils to address housing Strategy 2018 (WEDS) identifies a serious Careful consideration needs to be (Hamilton City affordability in their communities and ongoing shortage of social and given as to whether a legislative Council and through a range of value uplift and affordable housing in Wairarapa and pathway is the appropriate tool. It is Christchurch capture tools, one such tool being highlights the need for the development important that any tools do not City Council) ‘inclusionary zoning’ of a Wairarapa Housing Plan. hinder the development and/or add  Establish a working group on unnecessary burden to councils. affordable housing, comprising of MDC undertook housing stocktake in relevant/affected Councils, central 2019 which confirmed the need for more Support Government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, affordable housing in the district. Establishment of a working group and MSD), iwi, and the community more national consistency such as housing sector NPS.  Advocate for developing an affordable housing National Policy Statement (NPS).

140

3. Returning GST  To enable the 15% GST charged on GST on MDC rates is approximately $5m Support in Principle on rates for rates to be returned to councils to per year. Any additional external funding from councils to spend on local or regional GST collected on rates could be spend on infrastructure projects NZTA subsidies on local road expenditure targeted to 3 waters infrastructure, infrastructure  Returning proportion of GST to the are already returning petrol tax and road reducing the costs borne by our local (Hamilton City region where it was generated user charges to Council to offset the costs communities. Council and of maintaining the local road network. New Plymouth District Council)

4. Natural hazards  A review of the current law relating Natural hazards are addressed in the Support in Principle and climate to natural hazards and climate Wairarapa Combined District Plan, A consistent national approach and change change adaptation along New Chapter 14. further clarity would provide a more adaptation Zealand's coastlines effective way of dealing with very (Hauraki District  Coordinate the development of a There needs to be a greater integration of complex and potentially very costly Council) New Zealand coastline strategy climate change and resource issues. including: the roles and management. The current legislation is responsibilities of territorial disjointed at times and presents a barrier However, developing another high‐ authorities, regional councils and for more efficient dealing with the level strategic document will take central government; greater direction current climate change and natural time and may not be ‘pragmatic’ on an integrated approach; and hazards issues. enough to deal with the actual and development of principles for “who urgent issues. We recommend that pays”; how managed retreat should more consideration is given to what be implemented including funding is the most appropriate and most arrangements; how councils could be efficient tool. supported to implement appropriate restrictive zoning behind defensive measures to respond to ‘moral hazard’ issues; and how adaptive planning approaches should be implemented. 141

5. Annual regional  To develop an annual regional Council currently has very little visibility Support in Principle balance of balance of transfers to show how of these numbers as they pertain to our Improved transparency around transfers much each region contributes in region. where taxes are raised and spent (New Plymouth taxes and how much each region would be a good thing, but it may District Council) receives in government funding. highlight where subsidies are provided to some communities, which could undermine the ‘collective good’ approach of the national taxation system. 6. Local  Extending the local government Support in Principle Government electoral cycle from three to four Will enable better long term strategic electoral cycle years. and financial decision making. (Northland Regional It can potentially save money. Council; Rotorua Lakes Community may consider this an Council; attempt at limiting democracy. It Whanganui may require a clear accountability District Council; process/framework to safeguard and Hamilton transparency and accountability and City Council) to enable citizens to call a new election should the governing body become inoperable. 7. Water bottling  A moratorium on applications to take GWRC is a consenting authority for water Support in Principle (Queenstown‐ and/or use water for water bottling take and/or use. We support a nationwide discussion Lakes District or bulk export on the issue of water bottling. Council)  Require and enable regional councils Some of the issues raised here are likely to review inactive water bottling to be addressed through the Proposed Wairarapa currently does not have consents, with a view to withdrawal Natural Resources Plan. issues with bulk export and water of the consent and discourage bottling and the water take/use consent ‘banking’ consenting lies with GWRC, therefore, our support in principle. 142

 Undertake a holistic assessment of the potential effects of the current industry, its future growth and the legislative settings that enable Councils to effectively manage those effects  Initiate a nationwide discussion on the issue of water bottling and implement any changes to legislation and policy settings as required. 8. Quorum when  Amend legislation to enable elected Regarding the conduct of meetings, we Support attending local or appointed members, connecting follow the Masterton District Council The COVID‐19 Response (Urgent authority remotely to a public council meeting, Standing Orders as per the Local Management Measures) Legislation meetings to be included in the quorum Government Act 2002 and the Local Act 2020 allowed local authorities to (Waikato  Update the Standing Orders template Government Official implement and benefit from District Council) to reflect the proposed legislative Information and Meetings Act 1987. innovative ways to continue holding changes. public meetings remotely while maintaining public access to local government decision‐making. It is a more efficient use of members time as well as more cost effective. 9. Use of macrons  To amend complex Local Government Using and applying macrons supports our Support by local Act process and put in place a cultural development priorities and Use of macrons should not require a authorities simplified process for the addition of strategic directions in our Wellbeing lengthy and somewhat costly process (Waipa District macrons to council names if Strategy He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa and be an obstacle for the correct use Council) requested by that council or its Whenua ‐ integrating tangata whenua of te reo Māori. community. values, culture and language into the business of Council; supporting language Te reo Māori was made an official and culture being celebrated in our language of New Zealand under the district. Māori Language Act 1987.

143

Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori (the Māori Language Commission) have guidelines for Māori language orthography that provide a best practice guide for spelling and writing in te reo Māori (which includes macrons). 10. Rates rebates  Lift the level of rates rebates MDC has a high proportion of ratepayers Support for low income available for low and fixed income (approximately 10%) who apply for and Annual increases of at least the rate property property owners – with yearly receive rates rebates. of inflation should be occurring. owners increases taking into account the cost (Whanganui for inputs into local government District Council) services.

11. Local Suitable government department (based MDC, jointly with regional TAs and Support Government’s on the United Kingdom model operated coordinated by GWRC, commissioned the The Ministry for the Environment CO2 emissions by the Department of Business, Energy Wellington Regional and Wairarapa produces New Zealand's Greenhouse (Whanganui and Industrial Strategy) tasked with: Combined GHG Inventory. Combining the Gas Inventory, the official annual District Council)  measuring and reporting on carbon efforts across the Greater Wellington estimate of all human‐generated emissions at a district level Region made this exercise affordable for greenhouse gas emissions in New  publishing interactive local authority us. Using consistent methodologies also Zealand. Having a government level emissions maps. enabled the regional GHG inventory to be department produce district level comparable between the districts. Our inventories would provide greater regional approach proves that greater efficiency, cost effectiveness and efficiency and consistency is gained when consistency across the country. reporting and monitoring is ‘centralised’. Currently there are differences in methodologies, frequency, quality of the district level inventories. Inconsistencies make it difficult to compare between the regions/districts/organisations. 144

Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications

The remits align with the intent of relevant MDC policies and strategies, as described in the table above.

Significance, Engagement and Consultation

The decision has been assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and is considered to be of low significance.

Communications/Engagement

No communication or engagement plan is required as a result of this decision.

Financial Considerations

No financial implications as a result of this decision.

Implications for Māori

The application of macrons by local authorities to council names reflects best practice orthographic conventions for spelling and writing in the Māori language and recognises the status of the Māori language as an official language of New Zealand.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations

No direct implications as a result of this decision.

Next Steps

The LGNZ remits will be voted on at the LGNZ AGM in August 2020.

145 ATTACHMENT 1

2020 Annual General Meeting Remits 146

1 Public transport support

Remit: That LGNZ: • Acknowledges the Government for its recognition during COVID-19 of public transport as an essential service; • Acknowledges the strong financial support provided by the Government through Waka Kotahi NZTA during the COVID-19 Alert Levels, that enabled councils to continue to provide public transport for people providing essential services and transport for the public to receive essential services up to 30 June 2020; • Recognises that councils will continue to be under significant financial pressure to maintain the viability of public transport under current FAR rate settings for many months during the recovery phase from COVID-19; and • Calls on the Government to work with councils to maintain the financial viability of public transport during the recovery phase of COVID-19.

Proposed by: Greater Wellington Regional Council

Supported by: LGNZ Regional Sector

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The Remit is important as an acknowledgement to the Government from the Local Government sector for the strong support for public transport during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, and to reinforce the need for ongoing support during recovery from COVID-19 to ensure the financial viability of public transport in councils across New Zealand.

The Remit meets the tests for acceptance of a proposed Remit to the LGNZ AGM in that it addresses a major strategic “issue of the moment”, and it has a national focus articulating a major interest and concern at the national political level.

2 147

2. Background to its being raised

This Remit gives deserved acknowledgement to the Government for its strong support of public transport during the response phase to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. We know from experience in China that recovery of patronage on public transport has been slow following the passing of the worst of COVID-19. The recovery phase from COVID-19 in New Zealand may take many months, and even years, based on current projections.

The Government through Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) required and funded the delivery of public transport (as an essential service) throughout the Alert Levels.

NZTA has also funded:

• The shortfall in revenue for bus, ferry and train operations; • The additional costs that resulted from COVID-19 such as cleaning, stickers and advertising collateral; and • The Total Mobility Service receiving a full subsidy for a taxi service up to $80 /trip until the end of June.

As at 11 June, we do not know what financial support will be available from the Government through NZTA for public transport beyond financial year 2020/2021. This Remit is calling for the Government to continue to work in partnership with councils to ensure the ongoing viability of public transport in the regions, cities, towns and communities across New Zealand.

3. New or confirming existing policy

This issue is not currently covered by existing LGNZ policy.

It is new policy, in so far as it relates to COVID-19 and the associated ongoing financial viability of public transport. One possible tool could be an increase in the appropriate Financial Assistance Rate (FAR) during the Recovery Phase from COVID-19.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

The issue directly relates to Issue “1. Infrastructure and Funding” of LGNZ’s “The six big issues for New Zealand councils, Our work, Our policy priorities”: https://www.lgnz.co.nz/our-work/ourpolicy-priorities/the-six-big-issues/

This also indirectly relates to LGNZ’s social priorities, as it is vital that public transport continues to be available to those in our communities who rely on it.

3 148

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

Because of the speed by which the pandemic has become an issue, no work has been undertaken on this issue by either LGNZ or the proposer. Current government support has primarily been concerned with the need to sustain public transport through the immediate response or emergency phase. This Remit is concerned with the sustainability of public transport during the recovery and rebuild phase’s post-COVID-19.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

• Land Transport Management Act 2003 , no 118 (as at 22 October 2019): http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0118/77.0/DLM226230.html • Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, 2021/22 – 30/31 including Outcome “Inclusive Access” (which includes “access to work, education and healthcare”), and Outcome “Resilience and security” (which includes “recovering effectively from disruptive events”): https://www.transport.govt.nz/multimodal/keystrategiesandplans/gpsonlandtra nsportfunding/gps-2021/ • National Action Plan 3 “Unite Against COVID-19”, as of 23 April 2020, National Crisis Management Centre: https://uniteforrecovery.govt.nz/assets/resources/legislation-and-key- documents/COVID19-National-Action-Plan-3-as-of-22-April-extended.pdf

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone or Sector meeting

Zone and Sector Meetings have not been held during COVID-19 Alert Levels.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

That the President of LGNZ write to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Local Government, to convey the Remit and seek a meeting with the Ministers to discuss a joint work programme between the Government and councils (through LGNZ) on policy to maintain the financial viability of public transport during the recovery phase of COVID-19.

4 149

2 Housing affordability

Remit: That Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ): • Calls on the Government to introduce legislation that would fully enable councils to address housing affordability in their communities through a range of value uplift and capture tools, one such tool being ‘inclusionary zoning’; • Seeks to establish a working group on affordable housing, comprising of relevant/affected councils, central government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, MSD), iwi, and the community housing sector; and • Advocates to central government for an affordable housing National Policy Statement to be developed.

Proposed by: Hamilton City Council and Christchurch City Council

Supported by: Tauranga City Council; Tasman District Council; Waipa District Council; South Waikato District Council; and Waitomo District Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Many towns and cities in New Zealand are grappling with how to provide more affordable housing – dwellings that are affordable to buy or rent for households on low to median incomes with secure tenure.

A more joined-up response is necessary. This remit therefore calls for:

• A working group on affordable housing be established, comprising of relevant/affected councils, LGNZ, central government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, MSD), iwi and the community housing sector; and • LGNZ to advocate to central government for an affordable housing National Policy Statement to be developed.

The remit also covers one specific proposal: inclusionary zoning.

Councils need more tools to enable them to respond to housing needs in their communities. One such tool is inclusionary zoning that seeks land or financial contributions from developers being vested to nominated housing land trusts.

5 150

While this is not commonplace in New Zealand currently, it is widespread in other major housing hotspots around the world including in parts of the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.

The term inclusionary zoning refers to district plan rules that require a portion of new land development to be retained as affordable housing for people on low-to-moderate incomes. The theory of inclusionary zoning is that when land is up-zoned (for example, from rural to residential), it creates a significant uplift in value, and the community should share in the benefit of that uplift. This value uplift is enabled through council planning processes, including but not limited to private plan changes, granting of resource consents or council-initiated district plan rezoning under the Resource Management Act (RMA) process.

As an example of inclusionary zoning, a council’s district plan could require that land developers provide 5 per cent of titled sections from up-zoned land or on a specific unit threshold of consented residential development, or the equivalent monetary value, to a community housing trust. This land would then be retained on behalf of the community in perpetuity and used for affordable housing.

It is critical that government reinstate the ability to secure financial contributions as one of the options for local government funding for securing and providing a basis for a monetary contribution. This remit supports the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA) and its proposal to repeal the current provisions which stop the ability to secure contributions after April 2022.

An early form of inclusionary zoning was central to the early success of the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust (QLCHT), enabling it to grow its housing stock significantly since it was established in 2007. Inclusionary zoning was a key tool for the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC), utilised primarily for the period from 2006 through to 2013, ensuring that the Council could negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing through the planning process.

Although QLDC’s first inclusionary zoning plan change was settled in July 2013, Queenstown was subject to legal challenges in the Environment Court, High Court and Court of Appeal by some land developers during the period 2009-2013 on its plan change to add a set of objectives, policies and rules into its district plan. The settlement forced the Council to make its inclusionary zoning provisions a matter of assessment, rather than rule-based and mandatory, reducing the effectiveness of these provisions in addressing the District’s severe housing affordability issues. Today these provisions represent an inclusionary zoning opportunity that was not completely realised, having achieved only piecemeal and limited further contributions, facilitated through non-mandatory schemes and with limited certainty going forward.

Because of continuing acute housing affordability issues, the QLDC intends notifying new inclusionary zoning provisions in the next stage of its district plan review and is anticipating the same legal challenges and likely lengthy and costly appeals process.

6 151

The housing affordability challenge is wide ranging and complex. Inclusionary zoning is not the sole answer. However, it is a vital tool in enabling councils to secure a longer-term supply of land or funds in partnership with registered housing trusts and that legislation is needed to ensure inclusionary zoning can be applied consistently across the regions and minimise the risk of legal challenge.

For the avoidance of doubt, this remit proposes that councils have the clear legal opportunity in legislation to pursue inclusionary zoning. It would not be mandatory.

2. Background to its being raised

The Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust

In 2007, QLDC recognised a serious lack of affordable housing in its district and acted by forming the QLCHT. The trust is an independent, not-for-profit, community-owned organisation that maintains a strong relationship with the Council, with a shared goal of creating decent, secure housing for the community. The consensus to establish the QLCHT and develop planning tools to deliver affordable housing were two of 34 action items set out in the 2005 ‘Housing Our People in our Environment’ strategy, a significant milestone of council commitment to address its housing issues with local leadership, and central government participation and investment.

The Trust operates across the housing continuum. As at June 2019, it had assisted 130 households into their assisted ownership programmes, ten into rent-to-buy schemes and 34 into affordable rental properties. The Trust has over 600 households on its waiting list and has set the goal of providing 1,000 homes over the next ten years. This goal was reaffirmed though the October 2017 Mayoral Housing Affordability Task Force report.

QLDC negotiated its first inclusionary zoning agreement with a developer over 15 years ago. This resulted in a cash payment of over $5 million, which enabled the trust to buy a large piece of land and build its first development in an affordable subdivision of Queenstown. Since then, subsequent agreements with developers have delivered residential land valued at over $12 million to the Trust, with some further cash contributions.

This remit suggests that the approach taken by QLDC has been one of the few effective approaches in the country in capturing and retaining value uplift for delivery as affordable housing.

Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2019 (NPS-UD)

Although the proposed NPS-UD looks at providing for intensification and a range of housing typologies, density and variety to support housing capacity assessments, the policies are not generally focused on housing affordability, despite this being an essential part of providing for peoples wellbeing in the proposed Objective O2 of this NPS.

7 152

Establishment of the Waikato Community Lands Trust

A housing stocktake, carried out by the Waikato Regional Housing Initiative in 2018, found that Hamilton was the third least affordable house market in New Zealand, with a median house price of 6.8 times the average household income. Three times the median income is considered affordable.

In 2019, Hamilton City Council approved the establishment of the Waikato Community Lands Trust to help address housing affordability – a community owned trust with the purpose of holding land in perpetuity to provide access to affordable housing for the benefit of the community (like the QLCHT model). Hamilton City Council also committed an initial $2 million to the Trust as a seed funding for purchasing land. However, for the trust to grow its capacity and build a sustainable, long-term model going forward, inclusionary zoning provisions will be needed.

Other councils

While we understand that other councils are interested in exploring the use of inclusionary zoning, few have the appetite for the risks of legal challenge through the Environment Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal that QLDC faced. However, if there were an acceptable pathway that councils could follow to enable their implementation of a local housing strategy, founded on a robust needs assessment, which allowed inclusionary zoning as one of their tools, many are likely to consider such a path. The lack of enablement to local government was raised as the primary barrier to wider uptake at the 25 February LGNZ Housing Symposium.

Challenges to implementing inclusionary zoning

At present, councils that introduce inclusionary zoning provisions into their district plan open themselves up to legal challenge. The risk of lengthy and expensive legal challenges is a key barrier to councils adopting inclusionary zoning as a housing affordability lever.

The risk of legal challenge can be seen from the Queenstown example. In 2010, the QLDC inclusionary zoning requirements were challenged in the Environment Court. The outcome of the initial legal challenge was favourable for the Council and housing trust. The Court decided that the inclusionary zoning provisions were allowed under the RMA because they were a way for the Council to ‘mitigate’ the impacts of its policy to protect the area’s unique landscape by constraining land use (which is critical for tourism and economic development in the area but puts pressure on land prices).

Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal by a small set of developer appellants during the period 2009-2013 on its plan change to add a set of objectives, policies and rules into its district plan were focused only on whether affordable housing was an RMA matter. The successive rulings in council’s favour affirmed that in the specific case of QLDC’s tourism-based economy focused on protecting the outstanding natural landscapes of the district, housing affordability was in fact a matter within scope of resource management, and therefore, application of district plan provisions. However, the substantive case of whether the specific rules and implementation provisions were correct was never heard by any Court.

8 153

Therefore, a cloud remains as to whether the specific mandatory tools designed by QLDC for implementation through a local housing trust would comply with the RMA. The settlement forced the Council to make its inclusionary zoning provisions a matter of assessment, rather than rule-based and mandatory, reducing the effectiveness of these provisions in addressing the District’s severe housing affordability issues.

QLDC is currently considering further provisions for delivery of affordable housing through its District Plan Review. Clear legal authority from central government to enable councils to address affordable housing would assist both QLDC, Hamilton City Council, and likely any Council around New Zealand which has the local mandate to develop and implement its local housing plan.

3. New or confirming existing policy

This is a new policy.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

Affordable and healthy housing are key ingredients to promoting wellbeing in local communities. LGNZ has recognised housing affordability as a key issue and its National Council agreed that housing should be a 2018 priority topic. As part of its Housing 2030 Project workstream, LGNZ currently has two separate working groups – the Supply Working Group and Social and Community Housing Working Group.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

Community Housing Aotearoa (CHA) has outlined in its submissions to central government on the Urban Development Bill the need for councils to have clear enabling authority to implement tools locally such as inclusionary zoning. The reason CHA supports this approach is that it supports local strategies between councils and community housing providers across the country to combine local land value uplift with investment through philanthropic channels, blended with central government investment (such as the Income Related Rent Subsidy for social housing or Progressive Homeownership fund) to deliver locally-relevant housing solutions. CHA will continue to work with councils and Local Government New Zealand on the enabling approach to see this tool work for councils that choose to utilise it.

9 154

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The RMA enables district plans to explore inclusionary zoning policies to a limited degree but only if councils retain the ability to seek and secure financial contributions. However, without a legislated mandate for affordable housing and in the absence of legislation like the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (2013) (HASHAA) which is now rescinded, this still comes with uncertainty and relies on individual councils making a strong demonstrable evidence- based case for its own housing need and has a risk of legal challenge.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

Not possible in the revised timeframes.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

We assume that, by August’s LGNZ AGM, it will be too late to alter the proposed NPS-UD, although it may be possible to make changes at the time of any subsequent amendment. Instead, the remit calls for LGNZ to advocate for there to be a National Policy Statement specifically focused on affordable housing.

This remit also encourages a working group be formed, compromising of relevant/affected Councils, central Government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, MSD), iwi, and the community housing sector. The group would work on the inclusionary zoning proposals set out in this remit, and work in partnership on other means of addressing the affordable housing challenge, leading to the delivery of the proposed National Policy Statement.

10 155

3 Returning GST on rates for councils to spend on infrastructure

Remit: That Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) request that the Government use the appropriate mechanisms to enable the 15 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST) charged on rates be returned to councils to spend on local or regional infrastructure projects.

Proposed by: Hamilton City Council and New Plymouth District Council

Supported by: Auckland Council; Christchurch City Council; Tauranga City Council; Nelson City Council; Tasman District Council; Gisborne District Council; Waipa District Council; Waikato District Council; and South Waikato District Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Whereas GST is not applied on the vast majority of other taxes, it is applied on rates. This causes hundreds of millions of dollars per year to leave the area in which they were generated and go to central government, whilst driving up rates.

One option, of course, would be not to levy this ‘tax on a tax’. The option proposed in this remit is that LGNZ negotiate with central Government for this sum to be returned to councils for them to spend directly on local or regional infrastructure. This option has been proposed by – amongst others – respected economist Shamubeel Eaqub.

As well as, we believe, being a fairer and more rational system, this would provide much needed support to councils, whilst ensuring the money is ringfenced to be spent on infrastructure projects of local, regional and national benefit, thus helping to address New Zealand’s longstanding infrastructure challenge.

2. Background to its being raised

In 2017, a remit from Gisborne District Council proposing that a proportion of all GST be returned to the region in which it was generated, for councils to use on servicing visitor infrastructure was supported at LGNZ’s Annual Conference, although subsequent discussions with the Government did not prove fruitful.

11 156

Three years on, with pressure on local government greater than ever following the COVID-19 outbreak, we think the time is right to raise a similar issue. This remit has also been developed noting that the need for investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure, particularly in its three waters infrastructure, is ever clearer.

3. New or confirming existing policy

The proposed remit would be consistent with LGNZ’s position, as voted through at Annual Conference in 2017, that some GST should be returned to the local or regional level. However, the exact focus of this remit is different.

The issue around GST was also raised by LGNZ in its February 2015 Funding Review discussion paper, as well as in their submission to the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s Local Government Funding and Financing Inquiry that commenced in July 2018.

Hamilton City Council also raised the issue of investigating use of various financing tools that are linked to the growth and development in a council’s administrative area in its submission to the Productivity Commission’s Local Government Funding and Financing Inquiry. The submission noted that “this could involve councils receiving a set portion of the Government’s GST ‘take’ from their administrative area, or alternatively, a set amount of the total ‘spend’ in a council’s administrative area that is captured as an additional levy to the current GST component, potentially in the form of an increase to the GST rate. Such funding streams should be dedicated to core infrastructure maintenance and enhancement”.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

The remit is broadly consistent with existing LGNZ policy, but with a slightly different focus.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

No formal work undertaken.

6. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone or Sector meeting

Not possible in the revised timeframes.

12 157

4 Natural hazards and climate change adaptation

Remit: That central government undertakes, in collaboration with all of local government, a comprehensive review of the current law relating to natural hazards and climate change adaptation along New Zealand's coastlines, and coordinates the development of a coastline strategy for the whole of New Zealand which would cover: the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities, regional councils and central government; greater direction on an integrated approach; and development of principles for “who pays”.

Proposed by: Hauraki District Council

Supported by: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council; Napier City Council; Hastings District Council; and Northland Regional Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Central government has provided guidance to local government on how to apply a risk-based adaptive approach to planning for climate change in coastal communities. Many councils are now following this guidance and working with their communities using adaptive planning approaches. As these councils look ahead to how adaptive approaches can be implemented, they are encountering limitations in existing legislation and a lack of guidance from central government on the legalities and practicalities of doing so.

Councils report difficulty in determining their respective roles (territorial and regional) and who should do what in the area of managing the risks of natural hazards arising from climate change. Furthermore, they note that there is a lack of direction over who pays for what and who owns/maintains/is liable for any assets that may be required.

Councils also have many unanswered questions around how a managed retreat option should be implemented. For example, where managed retreat is identified as a preferred adaptation option, how should this be undertaken, by who, where should costs fall, whether compensation is payable and if so by whom?

Furthermore, councils see difficulties in how adaptive approaches can be implemented through statutory documents such as District and Long Term Plans, especially as councils are being asked to plan at least 100 years into the future using adaptive approaches which may require rapid implementation (eg in response to a ‘trigger’ event). This combination of long timeframes, deep uncertainty, and potentially rapid action is not well provided for by these documents.

13 158

2. Background to its being raised

Beginning in 2014, Hawke’s Bay councils (Napier City Council; Hastings District Council; and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) and tangata whenua partnered to develop a Coastal Hazards Strategy that was ultimately the first project of its type to follow the approaches set out in the Ministry for the Environment’s coastal hazards guidance (the Guidance). The councils and tangata whenua are now working on the implementation phase of the strategy.

Hauraki District Council are working with Waikato Regional Council, Waikato District Council and Iwi to prepare a community plan (Wharekawa Coast 2120) for the western Firth of Thames area, using a similar approach to the Hawke’s Bay Coastal Strategy, and following the Guidance. Hauraki District Council is aware of other work of this nature being undertaken in the Waikato region by Thames-Coromandel and Waikato District Councils, in the Wellington region, and scoping is underway for work in the Northland region.

All of these projects recognise the importance of regional and territorial authorities working collaboratively with their communities to respond to increasing natural hazard risks in coastal areas, due to climate change. These projects are at different stages of development, but eventually will all be facing the same implementation issues.

3. New or confirming existing policy

This remit is a new policy.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

This remit raises issues around how local government can practically implement approaches and responses to natural hazards risks in coastal areas developed under the Guidance. These issues are related to LGNZ’s policy priorities: Climate Change and Environment (Natural Hazards). In particular, the topics of community resilience and climate future fit, as well as LGNZ’s climate change project.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

The Ministry for the Environment recently published a case study on challenges with implementing the Hawke’s Bay Coastal Strategy. This case study highlights many of the issues identified by this remit and provides more detailed analysis.

The Wharekawa Coast 2120 Joint Working Party (comprising elected members and iwi representatives) recently considered a paper on project implementation funding issues. Discussions regarding this information, and other papers reviewing Deep South Science Challenge research, prompted the preparation of this remit.

14 159

Also of relevance to the issues raised by this remit is the Productivity Commission’s recent local government funding and financing inquiry.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The following legislation is considered relevant to the remit: Resource Management Act 1991 and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, Local Government Act 2002, Public Works Act 1981, and Building Act 2004.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

This has not been discussed at zone or sector meetings to date.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

LGNZ works with central government to prepare a nationwide coastal strategy that provides further direction on an integrated approach to climate change adaptation issues including: a. The roles and responsibilities of territorial and regional councils; b. How managed retreat should be implemented including funding arrangements and whether compensation is payable and if so by whom; c. A protocol for considering how costs for adaptation actions should be allocated both between local government itself (territorial and regional councils), between local and central government, and between public and private beneficiaries; d. How adaptive planning approaches should be implemented, for example by providing better linkages between LGA and RMA processes or by potentially new natural hazard risk management and climate change adaptation-specific legislation; and e. How councils could be supported to implement appropriate restrictive zoning behind defensive measures to respond to ‘moral hazard’ issues.

15 160

5 Annual regional balance of transfers

Remit: That LGNZ work with Treasury, Statistics New Zealand and other government agencies to develop an annual regional balance of transfers to show how much each region contributes in taxes and how much each region receives in government funding.

Proposed by: New Plymouth District Council

Supported by: Thames-Coromandel District Council; South Taranaki District Council; Hastings District Council; Rangitīkei District Council; and Rotorua Lakes Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Regional New Zealand often questions whether the government returns more or less to the region than it receives in tax and other revenue sources. This remit proposes that LGNZ work with relevant government agencies – particularly Treasury and Statistics New Zealand – to develop an annual publication of a regional balance of transfers outlining the inwards and outwards flow of money between the region and the government.

As with many regions, Taranaki has perceived that it has received low investment from government compared to the amount of tax paid by the region. Various attempts have been made to provide an estimate of the gap, however obtaining regional financial information from government agencies has proved difficult. Many agencies cannot provide breakdowns of expenditure and collection of revenue is difficult to obtain at a regional level.

A regional balance of transfers would provide transparency for all of New Zealand and promote more open democracy where inclusiveness and accountability is strengthened. It would enable better performance measurement and the assessment of outputs in a community against that of other regions and New Zealand.

2. Background to its being raised

Attempts to get a clear picture of a regional balance of transfers – identifying what is paid to and received from central government – have been unsuccessful. There is great inconsistency in reporting and data collection between government agencies and a general unwillingness to be open and transparent in what is spent in regions.

16 161

Official Information Act requests often generate responses such as “our information is not structured in such a way that would enable the questions to be answered”.

It is recognised that a full set of actual data may not be able to be provided and assumptions will need to be made in some situations, such as when making “overhead allocations” to the regions for national costs of government.

In recent years there has been a greater focus on measuring the performance of local authorities but not of the performance of central government. A regional balance of transfers would be one factor to help measure equity and the performance of government.

A balance of transfers would also go a long way to build trust in government through transparency and accountability of where public money is spent and where it has come from and in decision-making. This data would also be able to be used by government ministers to help monitor the performance and of their portfolios in an open and consistent manner.

According to Treasury, an objective of the Government “is to continually improve public confidence in the tax system and Inland Revenue. The system should help people meet their obligations, be fair, and inspire confidence. The Government is committed to raising revenue in ways that meet these objectives”. It is believed that the gathering and reporting of a regional balance of transfers would greatly assist government in this aim.

3. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

This remit is related to the LGNZ and New Zealand Initiative work on localism whereby this data would help ensure that power and authority flows up from citizens and communities, not down from the government.

LGNZ has led the way in the assessment of council performance through the successful CouncilMARK™ programme that provides qualitative assessment of council performance across a wide range of facets. This remit would help LGNZ to do the same for our communities when considering central government performance and equity.

This remit would also contribute to LGNZs six big issues for New Zealand councils – particularly infrastructure and funding, social and economic.

4. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

Attempts have been made to gather the required information from government agencies to create a regional balance of transfers. This has been unsuccessful as the data is apparently not gathered.

17 162

5. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The remit seeks LGNZ to work with Treasury, Statistics New Zealand and other government agencies to develop a regional balance of transfers to show how much each region contributes in taxes and how much each region receives in government funding. To be successful, this would require directives to all government agencies to gather data and give it to either Treasury or Statistics New Zealand to compile and report on.

6. Suggested course of action envisaged

This remit suggests that LGNZ work with Treasury, Statistics New Zealand and other government agencies to develop an annual regional balance of transfers that show how much each region contributes in taxes and how much each region receives in government funding. This is likely to require government Ministers to give such a directive.

18 163

6 Local Government electoral cycle

Remit: That the local government electoral cycle be extended from three to four years.

Proposed by: Northland Regional Council; Rotorua Lakes Council; Whanganui District Council; and Hamilton City Council.

Supported by: Hastings District Council; Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Rangitīkei District Council

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The election cycle, or term of office, refers to the number of years an elected representative serves between local government elections. In New Zealand, the length of the term of office of a local government elected representative is three years. At a meeting of Northland Regional Council on 18 February 2020, it was agreed to seek formal support for this remit from Zone One as a pre-requisite for proposing at the LGNZ 2020 AGM.

2. Background to its being raised

Northland Regional Council’s remit background

Advocates for extending the election cycle to four years would say that a longer electoral term:

• Promotes longer term thinking and decision-making by councillors. An example of this would be a longer electoral cycle would encourage councillors to lengthen their investment horizon when making financial investment decisions; • Allows for more time to implement a local government vision by extending the productive working time of a council and reducing councillor turnover; • Gives more time for new councillors to learn and conduct their duties thereby increasing councils’ overall productivity as councillors spend more time governing and less time campaigning; • Reduces voter fatigue and in turn may result in increased voter turnout; • Reduces the administration costs of setting up and inducting a new council thereby increasing operational efficiency – particularly of governance staff;

19 164

• Provides more opportunity to direct energy and provide certainty for longer term planning and more significant activities such as large capital projects; • More stable decision-making framework for council through greater opportunity for long term planning; • Enables implementation of longer term council policies within a single term of office; • Less pressure on new councillors to get up to speed; • Longer terms have the potential to be more conducive to stable governance; and • Provides cost savings by reducing the number of elections. The cost of the last election was approximately $180,000 – a four year cycle would save this complete amount each third electoral cycle.

Opponents would say that:

• A longer electoral term is a barrier to participation as potential councillors must make a longer commitment to their term in office; • There is additional expense to educate the public of the change as New Zealanders are very accustomed to three year electoral cycles for both local and national government; • The shorter term enforces more accountability on elected representatives who face getting voted out if they don’t perform as expected; • Elected representatives must engage more frequently with constituents as they seek to stay top of mind for the next election; • A longer term may be seen by some as reducing accountability as the community must wait a year longer to judge their council’s performance through the voting process; and • A longer time between elections gives voters less opportunity to express their opinions on the performance of their elected officials.

Extending the local government electoral cycle from three to four years would result in local government and central government elections being held in the same year once every three years. If this was considered to be an issue, then the central government electoral cycle could also be extended to four years. Similar advantages and disadvantages to the change would apply.

Rotorua Lakes Council remit background

By international standards, New Zealand’s three- year electoral cycle is short. Far more jurisdictions have a four-year term for central government and in most cases, the length of term of office of local government will be the same as that of their central government.

Madden (2013, July 16) notes that “New Zealand is the only liberal democratic country with a unicameral system and a three-year term. Other unicameral democracies with proportional electoral systems – such as Israel, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, have four year terms.”

20 165

Boston et al. (2019) state “For decades, numerous politicians, civic leaders and academics have supported extending the term of Parliament to four years. It has been argued that a modest extension of this nature would enhance the capacity for governments to undertake thoroughgoing policy reforms in a more careful, considered, evidence-informed manner…”

The members of the Constitutional Advisory Panel (2013, November) found that while a reasonable proportion of people supported a longer term, others felt that “elections are the best means for voters to hold government to account and should not be made less frequent.”

Those in favour of a four-year term provided the following reasons for their support:

• The ability to take more time to develop and implement policy could result in the public having better information about the intention of policy, to weigh the pros and cons and see results. • The three-year term was seen as reducing certainty as policies are perceived to change every three years. • Conversations regularly highlighted that any extension to the term of Parliament would need to be counter-balanced by mechanisms to improve law-making and accountability.

An Australian report (Bennett, 2000) promoting four-year terms for the House of Representatives provided a list of benefits that supporters for a four-year term claim.

Those of relevance to New Zealand Central and Local government include:

• Longer terms would encourage governments to introduce policies that were long- term rather than merely politically expedient. • Longer terms would enhance business confidence. • Over time money would be saved by having fewer elections. • Australians dislike the frequency they are required to vote. • Longer periods between elections would raise the standard of political debate.

Boston et al. (2019) note that any reforms to the electoral cycle would require public endorsement via a referendum and that the main political challenge would be convincing the public of the desirability of change. They also point to the two referenda held in New Zealand in 1967 and 1990 on increasing the parliamentary term, which were both heavily defeated. The Constitutional Advisory Panel (2013, November).

While achieving public support for change would be a challenge, another commentator (Singh, S., 2019) notes that the composition of New Zealand has changed dramatically since the two referenda. He points out that New Zealand’s migrant population has significantly increased and that “to many…who have lived overseas and seen a five-year parliamentary term, the idea of a three-year cycle, is an intriguing deviation from an experience they have understood as normal.”

21 166

While the case for changing the electoral cycle for central government may be stronger, discussion by elected members in local government in New Zealand supports a change to a four- year term for local government also. Their comment is included below.

• The new norm is that there is an expectation that central and local government will work together in partnership. The current three-year electoral cycle is unbalanced. In addition, generally seven out of every ten years is an election year for either local or central government. This is disruptive and short-term political decision-making results. • In local government, a longer electoral cycle would enable new councillors to be better educated and informed on long term, infrastructure and financial planning. Currently the importance of the Long Term Plan window (ten years) is not well understood in the sector. • Short-term political decision-making by local government results in uncertainty and a lack of investor confidence. This is also detrimental to the new partnership approach that councils are seeking to develop with their local investors and stakeholders.

Dr Mike Reid notes that for a four-year term for local government to be acceptable to New Zealand citizens, there must be an adequate accountability framework to protect communities. He notes that if local government was to move to a four-year term, there must be a way for citizens to call a new election should the governing body become inoperable. An accountability framework could include a recall provision which would, on the basis of a petition signed by a sufficient number of residents, force a new election, as argued for in the LGNZ manifesto in 2017.

22 167

7 Water bottling

Remit: That LGNZ works with the Government to: 1. Place a moratorium on applications to take and/or use water for water bottling or bulk export; 2. Require and enable regional councils to review inactive water bottling consents, with a view to withdrawal of the consent and discourage consent ‘banking’; 3. Undertake an holistic assessment of the potential effects of the current industry, its future growth and the legislative settings that enable Councils to effectively manage those effects; and 4. Initiate a comprehensive nationwide discussion on the issue of water bottling and implement any changes to legislation and policy settings as required. Proposed by: Queenstown-Lakes District Council

Supported by: Greater Wellington Regional Council; Tauranga City Council; Thames- Coromandel District Council; Upper Hutt City Council; and Waitaki District Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The water-bottling industry in New Zealand is young and relatively unregulated. A comprehensive review of legislation and policy needs to be developed in order to fully understand and address its potential effects on community wellbeing and resilience.

The sustainability of water bottling and its associated implications for global plastic waste, local property rights and Māori freshwater rights need to be considered. The effects of climate change on groundwater systems are not yet well understood. Further research is required.

The implications of ‘banking’ water-bottling consents needs to be fully explored. The amount of water bottled reaches 157.8 million litres annually (as at January 2018), however there are consents available to extract 71.575 million litres of water per day for both bottled water and for mixed uses. The consequences of rapid uptake and growth in the industry are unknown, but could artificially raise land values and make access to water unaffordable.

23 168

Therefore, where water is unlikely to be bottled, consents should be available to be reviewed, or in the case of mixed-use consents, water bottling removed as a purpose of the water take.

It is timely to reconsider legislation and policy, given many catchments are nearing their allocation limits and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is under development.

It is important to note that the intent of this remit is not to impact existing water-bottling operations, nor to make judgements on the merits or otherwise of the industry. The focus of this remit is on obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the industry, its potential for growth, the range of externalities such growth may cause and the policy and legislative settings required to address this.

2. Background to its being raised

The Industry

Large-scale water bottling is a relatively new industry in New Zealand. As a result, there is no clear policy governing the use of water for bottling, and the industry is not specifically regulated. Managing the effects of the industry requires the alignment of a range of interdependent policies and legislative tools that determine who can access water, for what purpose and under what conditions. A review is required to understand how best to co-ordinate these tools.

The value proposition of water bottling has resulted in the ‘banking’ and sale of water bottling consents, raising the value of land and effectively creating an unregulated market for water. This can lead to confusion between these outcomes and s122(1) RMA which states that a resource consent is neither real nor personal property. This issue is exacerbated by increasing demand for water, the fact that many catchments are at or approaching full allocation, and the extent to which some regional plans enable existing water consents to be varied to enable water bottling. As the future utilisation of water will become increasingly competed for, understanding what our communities’ priorities for this resource are must be fully debated and understood.

Any review needs to also consider the value and reliance placed on consents by owners and operators, and the impact on established property rights, which will need to be addressed.

Overseas Interests

Since 2013, New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (NZTE) has invested in eight water bottling companies through its Focus 700 Group programme, to support the growth of water exports. Although NZTE no longer encourages the sale of NZ’s water, it does facilitate the sale of land for the holders of water permits. It is worth noting that certain provisions of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) make it unclear whether NZ drinking water suppliers can be prioritised to ensure NZ communities will always have access to affordable clean drinking water.

24 169

Under the OIA foreign investment in NZ’s water cannot be managed effectively as water is not defined as a ‘sensitive’ asset. Treasury has confirmed that our existing free trade agreements do not allow the creation of new classes of sensitive assets.

Therefore, foreign investment in water bottling can only be limited where the water is to be extracted from sensitive land and only if the ‘good character’ or ‘benefit to NZ’ tests are not met.

In 2018 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) Minister Eugenie Sage was unable to decline Cresswell NZ’s application to purchase of sensitive land for a water bottling plant. She stated that the provisions of the Overseas Investment Act prevented her declining the application. Subsequently, the government has proposed amendments to the OIA6 that (if enacted) will allow applications involving the extraction of water for bottling to be declined if they are likely to result in a negative impact on water quality or sustainability.

Community Sentiment and Maori Cultural Values

New Zealand has demonstrated community concern in relation to water bottling in recent years, presenting petitions and participating in protests on a number occasions.

On the matter of water export and Maori cultural values, Ngati Awa has appealed the Environment Court Decision arguing that the application is “for too much water to be sold too far away” (at [35]). Their position is that in these circumstances te mauri o te wai and their tangata whenua right to act as kaitiaki of the water are lost.

Waste and Plastic

On the matter of plastic production, it is unclear under which vehicle this can be managed. In the Minority Judgement of the Environment Court against Cresswell NZ (10 December 2019), Commissioner David Kernohan found (at [346]) that “the pollution created from the production and specifically end use disposal of plastic water bottles does not meet the objectives and policies of the RMA”. However, the Majority of the Court found that the end uses of the water which involved putting the water in plastic bottles were found to be “ancillary activities which are not controlled under the Regional Plan” and that there had been “no suggestion that control of such activities comes within the ambit of the functions of the regional council under s30RMA” (at[64]).

Impact on Local Government

The effects of the water bottling industry on local councils, as water suppliers and as the owners of transport networks, may be significant and there are a number of examples of this being the case. However, their ability to submit and appeal may be limited by notification provisions.

There are currently three appeals before the High Court. These challenge applications for consent in Belfast and Otakiri and deal with questions related to the allocation of water for water bottling including the ability to consider the effects of plastic bottle production as an end- use of water, the effects of water export on te mauri o te wai and kaitiaki rights under Te Tiriti and the correct process for changing the purpose of a water take.

25 170

A levy on water bottling is a response to perceived issues of fairness but this policy could itself have unintended consequences if implemented in isolation and without an assessment of the kind proposed by this remit.

QLDC is therefore proposing comprehensive policy and legislation based on consultation with councils and the community.

3. New or confirming existing policy

This Remit represents a new policy position for LGNZ and for central government.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

This remit could accelerate the debate on water allocation and highlight any issues within the RMA and/or the NPS-FM. This could significantly influence the existing LGNZ programme of work in relation to strategic and policy advice to Central Government.

The results may feed into Stage 2 of the reform of the RMA as well as LGNZ’s Water 2050 project which could lead to changes that ensure communities are resilient in the face of climatic changes that will impact productive land and water bodies, including sources of drinking water.

The following matters may be raised in delivery of the current work programme in relation to this remit: Resource Management Act

• Adding consideration of the effects of plastic production to the RMA as a Part 2 matter of national importance. • Adding effects on Climate Change to the RMA as a Part 2 matter of national importance. • Greater use of regional councils’ powers under s30 RMA to allocate water amongst competing activities with a view to: o Zoning water and controlling its use in the same way land use is controlled. o Using water allocation as a tool to incentivise resilience and sustainable outcomes. o Protecting our deep, clean aquifer water for domestic and community supply. • Reviewing the provisions governing the variation and transferability of water permits and the effects of those on consent holders’ rights as well as the possibility for unregulated water markets.

26 171

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management Development

• Redefining ‘efficient allocation’ in the draft NPS-FM and regional plans so that when councils are deciding “how to improve and maximise the efficient allocation of water” and identifying in “methods to encourage the efficient use of water”12 within regional plans, it is clear they are seeking to not only maximise jobs and minimise ‘waste’, but also to maximise the wider economic, social, cultural, environmental and health benefits of water allocation. • Re-wording Policy 4 of the draft NPS-FM and the policies for implementing integrated management of land and freshwater (at 3.4 (1) to (4))13. The proposed approach is one directional, considering only the effects of land use on fresh water. Rewording these policies may lead to more efficient and sustainable allocation of water.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

QLDC wrote to Minister Parker in February requesting a moratorium on new and existing water bottling consents. This was written in support of an initial proposal by Upper Hutt City Council.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

Existing legislation, policy and practice reflects a complex landscape where far greater alignment is required if effective regulation and understanding is to be achieved.

There is some concern that a levy implemented in isolation may not address the issues that communities and local councils will be faced with if the industry grows. Concerns have also been raised that a levy may incentivise or prioritise the grant of water bottling consents as a result of the revenue stream that would be created.

Section 30 RMA 14 provides regional councils with the power to add rules to their plans to allocate water amongst competing activities, in much the same way as district councils can zone land and prioritise, discourage, prohibit or otherwise control different land uses. This power has not been exercised to any great extent to date. Regional Councils have preferred to allocate water on a ‘first complete application, first assessed’ basis in line with case law, and to grant consent as long as the water ‘take’ is sustainable and the purpose reflects efficient use. However, in theory, regional councils could undertake a broader assessment of the effects of using water for bottling, and then either prioritise, discourage or prohibit water bottling (across whole catchments or for specified water bodies or depths).

Christchurch’s ground water zones are by and large fully allocated and new applications to take water are prohibited. Consent holders have been applying to Environment Canterbury to vary existing industrial and irrigation consents to enable water bottling. There is no ability to use s127 due to the activity being outside the scope of the original applications.

27 172

The process being used to vary the consents involves the grant of a new ‘use’ consent. Whether this process is lawful under the RMA and the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, will be determined by the Court. This highlights the difficulty for planners implementing resource management provisions that are unclear and inadequate in terms of managing the allocation of water in fully allocated catchments. Three consents have been varied in this way and a fourth is being processed.

Plan changes of this nature would come at significant cost to the ratepayer and could not be implemented quickly. Signalling such a plan change might trigger a wave of applications. Therefore, and given that this an issue that will affect all councils (albeit in different ways), the best way forward is likely to be a moratorium on new consents followed by a review or discussion covering the matters set out below. Any significant policy changes could be required to be implemented via Schedule 1 and an amendment to the NPS-FM, but only if a clear problem is identified and only after consultation with LGNZ and Councils.

The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) also references water bottling and this is now with the Select Committee Finance and Expenditure (submissions closing 31 August 2020). Currently the Amendment Bill reads that if overseas investment in sensitive land involves the extraction of water for bottling or other extraction in bulk for human consumption, then an additional factor of the benefit to NZ test would be whether the overseas investment is likely to result in a negative impact on water quality or sustainability. If enacted this would not apply to all investments in water bottling plants by overseas interests.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

Not considered by a Zone or sector meeting.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

That LGNZ works with the Government to:

• Place a moratorium on applications to take and/or use water for water bottling or bulk export; • Require and enable regional councils to review inactive water bottling consents, with a view to withdrawal of the consent and discourage consent ‘banking’; • Undertake a holistic assessment of the potential effects of the current industry, its future growth and the legislative settings that enable Councils to effectively manage those effects. • Initiate a comprehensive nationwide discussion on the issue of water bottling and implement any changes to legislation and policy settings as required.

28 173

8 Quorum when attending local authority meetings

Remit: That LGNZ requests central government amend legislation to enable elected or appointed members, connecting remotely to a public council meeting, be included in the quorum. This would provide an option for local authority meetings to be held completely remotely, if required.

Proposed by: Waikato District Council

Supported by: Hamilton City Council; Hauraki District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; Taupō District Council; Ōtorohanga District Council; South Waikato District Council; Waipa District Council; and Waitomo District Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, legislation required that members had to be physically present at a meeting to be included in the quorum. Under the LGNZ template Standing Orders, members attending by audio or audio-visual means can participate and vote on matters presented at meetings.

To enable public meetings to continue during COVID-19, the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Legislation Act 2020 (the COVID-19 Act) amended sections of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

These amendments included:

• Local authority or committee members who join a meeting by audio or audio-visual means were counted for the purpose of a quorum. • Open public meetings to be livestreams, where reasonably practicable to do so. • Provide either an audio or video recording, or written summary, of the open public meetings on the local authority’s website as soon as practicable after the meeting.

For many councils, this has provided an opportunity to adopt an innovative approach to hold public meetings, resulting in benefits for local government democratic processes, financial and resource efficiencies and environmental improvements (detailed further below).

This remit requests that the legislative amendments introduced for COVID-19 are retained (beyond the term of the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020) as an option for local authorities to adopt via their Standing Orders.

29 174

For clarity, the remit:

• Contemplates that: o Members attending meetings by audio or audio-visual link are still entitled to participate and vote on agenda items; and o Requests to attend a meeting by audio or audio visual link should still be made to the Chairperson, for his/her approval, prior to the meeting, as detailed in the LGNZ template Standing Orders; • Does not propose that meetings where a quorum (or more) of members attends remotely become the only or dominant means to hold local authority meetings; simply that this is retained as an option for each council to consider using via its Standing Orders; and • Supports the retention of the COVID-19 LGOIMA amendments to protect transparency and public access to local authority meetings.

2. Background to its being raised

The LGA was amended in 2014 to enable members to join a meeting by audio or audio-visual link, subject to certain procedural requirements being met and the local authority’s Standing Orders permitting such remote attendance. However, only members physically present are to be counted toward the meeting’s quorum. For council meetings, this requires:

• Half of the members to be physically present (if the number of members, including vacancies, is even); or • A majority of members to be physically present if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

The COVID-19 Act was enacted in response to the restrictions imposed on the New Zealand population, including travel prohibition and social distancing. The COVID-19 Act’s amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA (noted above) meant public meetings could be undertaken entirely by remote means (ie audio or audio-visual), subject to certain requirements to protect public access and transparency of local authority meetings. In particular, all members of a local authority or committee could attend remotely and be included in the quorum for a meeting (rather than having to be physically present at a specified meeting venue). These legislative amendments will be repealed on the expiry or revocation of the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID- 19) Notice 20201.

The remit’s proposal is made in a climate of uncertainty about the long-term impacts of the global pandemic, including financially for communities and councils alike, as well as the opportunities and flexibility that the legislative amendments have brought for local authorities and their respective communities in relation to public meetings.

30 175

3. New or confirming existing policy

This remit supports LGNZ’s existing policy framework around local democracy and the environment, in particular. No new policy work is required.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

The remit supports some of LGNZ’s key policy priorities: Local democracy

• Remote meetings help with LGNZ’s goals of reinvigorating local democracy and modernising local government legislation. • Wider public access to local authority and committee meetings, with potential of a significant increase in members of the public able to view livestreamed coverage compared to travelling to attend a meeting. This is a particular benefit for local authorities with large geographic boundaries or that have a significant rural resident population. • The wider reach of livestreamed meetings also enhances community engagement and understanding of local government, which may have a positive effect on voter participation at local authority elections. • The public still being able to participate in open public meetings, if required, via audio-visual tools available. • Supporting more diversity in representation as this would facilitate people who are unable to travel or be present in person because of workload, family commitments, disability or other factors.

Climate change

• Enabling members and communities to adapt towards a low carbon economy through reduction in travel.

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

With the advance of COVID-19 Act changes, local authorities have been required to implement, and benefitted from, innovative ways to continue holding public meetings while maintaining the public’s access to local government decision-making. This has been able to be achieved at minimal cost to local authorities, which may not otherwise be in a position to put in place more high-tech options for live-streaming of meetings from council offices. As a result, for some councils, returning to a requirement for a quorum to be physically present at all meetings will be a ‘step backwards’.

31 176

In addition to the advantages already canvassed, providing an option for local authorities to have a quorum (or more) of members attending meetings remotely has resulted in:

• More efficient use of members’ time (eg reduction in travel required) for their other roles and responsibilities; and • Reduced operating costs associated with holding public meetings at council premises.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

The current, temporary legislative framework that has enabled greater utilisation of remote meetings has been noted above. The remit proposes that the legislative amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA are embedded permanently, with each council having the option of incorporating this framework in its Standing Orders (similar to that contemplated under clause 25A(1)(a), Schedule 7, LGA).

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

The issues in this remit have been discussed at the Waikato Mayoral Forum.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

LGNZ is to:

• Work with central government and relevant stakeholders to advocate for legislative changes to the LGA and LGOIMA, enabling a quorum (or more) of members to attend a public local authority meeting remotely; and • Update the Standing Orders template to reflect the proposed legislative changes, which each local authority can adopt as an alternative option to holding ‘in person’ meetings.

32 177

9 Use of macrons by local authorities

Remit: That LGNZ work with central government to put in place a simplified process for the addition of macrons to council names if requested by that council or its community.

Proposed by: Waipa District Council

Supported by: Zone Two

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

Waipā is proposing that LGNZ work with central government to address the issue of the use of macrons by local authorities through legislative or other reform. Local authorities are corporate bodies created by statute under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), the legal names are listed in Schedule 2 of the LGA which can only be changed through rather complex legislative processes. Councils are not able to have trading names in the way that companies do, but some councils use a ‘trading name’ for the name or brand that the council prefers to operate under, which is different from the legal name in the LGA.

This is not uncommon, for instance, Kapiti Coast District Council trades as the Kāpiti Coast District Council, the Rotorua District Council trades as the Rotorua Lakes Council and the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council trades as the Horizons Regional Council.

There are some particular situations where Council needs to use its legal names (eg legal proceedings, contracts, invoices, etc) but other than that, it can use a trading name, for example for branding and signage.

2. Background to its being raised

To date, changes to local authority names to include macrons have resulted from applications to the New Zealand Geographic Board, which can alter the name of a district if the local authority consents to (third parties can apply), or requests the alteration. There is no fee for the request but a council will incur costs in preparing an application by undertaking research and preparing evidence to support the application (such as evidence of consultation with local Iwi).

33 178

Consideration of applications can take one to two years and involve the Geographic Board undertaking consultation on the matter. Any opposition is referred to the Minister for Land Information for decision. If the application is successful, then there will be a formal change in name for the district and the Government is obligated to instigate an Order in Council process to change the name in Schedule 2 of the LGA.

There are three councils which have gone through this process in the last two-three years. The Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council applied to change its own name (to include the macron and adding an ‘h’ in to “Whanganui”). The two other changes for Ōpōtiki and Ōtorohanga District Councils resulted from applications by the Office of Treaty Settlements as part of settlement agreements with local Iwi.

Other councils, including Waipā use macrons but for which there is no macron in the legal name, as follows: • Kaikōura District Council; • Kāpiti Coast District Council; • Rangatīkei District Council; • Taupō District Council; and • Whakatāne District Council.

There are other councils which could include macrons but which do not currently use them and for which there is no macron in their legal name. For this reason, Waipā District Council considers that this matter has implications for the local government sector as a whole and that it would not be efficient or cost effective for councils to individually go through the legislative processes to change a name. Perhaps the use of a macron could be managed at a national level through a change for example to the LGA.

3. Suggested course of action envisaged

Based on legal advice from Simpson Grierson, there are five potential options for addressing this issue at a national level as follows:

• Option 1: New Zealand Geographic Board could proactively change the names of districts and regions. • Option 2: The Minister of Local Government could recommend local authority name changes that involve the addition of the macron (no legislative reform required for either of these options). • Option 3: Parliament could amend Schedule 2 of the LGA to change all local authority names that should include macrons. • Option 4: Parliament could amend Schedule 2 of the LGA to change the names of self-elected local authorities who wish to include macrons in their names. • Option 5: Parliament could insert a new section in the LGA to provide that use of a local authority name, or a district or region name, with the addition of a macron, is lawful and will not invalidate any action.

34 179

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these options. It is more appropriate that LGNZ assess the options and any other possible options and explore them further with central government. Waipā District Council passed the following resolution at its meeting on 31 March 2020 in relation to using a macron and in particular to a proposed LGNZ Remit: That – a) The ‘Use of Macron in Local Authorities Names’ report (document number 10374311) of Jennie McFarlane, Legal Counsel be received; b) Council adopt a trading name of “Waipā District Council” incorporating the use of a macron to reflect correct pronunciation, which may be used in all circumstances other than when the legal name of Council under the Local Government Act 2002 and other local government legislation is required to be used; c) Council approve taking a remit to the next Annual General Meeting of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), whenever that is held, requesting that LGNZ work with central government to address the use of macrons and changes to the names of local authorities, through legislative or other reform, in the interests of the local government sector and the wider community, in accordance with the process required by LGNZ for remits; d) Council to approve seeking support at the next Zone Two meeting or directly, from other local authorities in New Zealand for the proposed remit as required by the LGNZ remit process; and e) Council undertake further consultation with Waikato Tainui.

35 180

10 Rates rebates for low income property owners

Remit: That the Government lift the level of rates rebates available for low and fixed income property owners – with yearly increases taking into account the cost for inputs into local government services.

Proposed by: Whanganui District Council

Supported by: Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council; South Taranaki District Council; and Rangitikei District Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The following issues have been identified: (a) The level of rates rebates for low and fixed income property owners as a proportion of rates has gradually reduced for those on low and fixed incomes. (b) This level of support has not kept pace with the cost of living and provides significant financial hardship for some members of the community. (c) This level of support has not kept pace with the benchmark for council costs and provides significant financial hardship for some members of the community.

2. Background to its being raised

The rates rebate scheme is a partial refund for people who pay rates to their council, providing financial relief for low income residents who own their own home. This is funded by central government through the Department of Internal Affairs. A person who directly pays local authority rates, and meets the household income criteria, is currently eligible for a rates rebate of up to $640.

In 2006 the rates rebate was significantly increased and over the last decade there have been incremental yearly adjustments, however, these have lagged behind CPI increases. A further small boost to the scheme was introduced in 2019 – lifting the rate from $630 to $640 and the income abatement threshold from $25,180 to $25,660.

36 181

As local authority costs have increased above that of inflation, this has resulted in local authorities either needing to increase rates or reduce existing levels of service. The effect of this is that, over time, the level of rates rebates as a proportion of the total local authority rates has significantly decreased.

This issue is of particular concern for low and fixed income property owners who may be experiencing housing stress, notwithstanding the fact that they may own their own family home mortgage-free (eg superannuitants).

As at 2 March 2020 the Department of Internal Affairs had approved payments for 103,367 applications – a total of $60,201,285 (GST inclusive).1

Table 1: Increase in rates rebate, CPI and local authority costs from 2010 to 2020

Difference Difference between local between CPI Benchmark for authority costs CPI Max and Max Rebate local authority and Max Rebate Year Rebate % Change (Stats NZ) increases costs (Berl) increases

2010/11 $ 570 3.64% 5.35% -1.72% 2.28% 1.36%

2011/12 $ 580 1.75% 9.51% -7.76% 3.05% -1.30%

2012/13 $ 590 1.72% 7.23% -5.51% 1.94% -0.21%

2013/14 $ 595 0.85% 1.64% -0.79% 1.68% -0.83%

2014/15 $ 605 1.68% 3.80% -2.12% 2.09% -0.41%

2015/16 $ 610 0.83% 4.28% -3.45% 1.29% -0.47%

2016/17 $ 610 0.00% 1.74% -1.74% 1.49% -1.49%

2017/18 $ 620 1.64% 1.48% 0.16% 1.88% -0.25%

2018/19 $ 630 1.61% 1.67% -0.05% 2.77% -1.16%

2019/20 $ 640 1.58%

3. New or confirming existing policy

This remit would build on existing policy and would require the level of rates rebate to increase, with yearly adjustments taking into account the cost increases for inputs into local government services.

1 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/119883361/productivity-commission-recommends-scrapping-rates-rebate-scheme Retrieved 12 March 2020.

37 182

The Productivity Commission suggests that: “the rates rebate scheme is poorly targeted and unfair”. It recommends that it be replaced with a national rates postponement programme, or that the scheme at least shift to being online. Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta has indicated that the government is carefully considering the recommendations.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

‘Social’ is one of LGNZ’s five policy priorities. This focuses on disparity, housing issues and ageing communities: “Social: Working alongside central government and iwi to address social issues and needs in our communities, including an aging population, disparity between social groups, housing (including social housing) supply and quality, and community safety.”

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

This remit was originally prepared in 2018 and submitted for consideration. The LGNZ Remits Committee reviewed this and referred it instead to officials to raise with the Productivity Commission as part of the review of local government funding.

The Productivity Commission has since recommended that the government remove the rates rebate system and replace it with a national scheme for postponing rates. The Commission considered that central government is in the best position to tackle pressures on low-income households facing high housing pressures and the current scheme is inequitable, as well as administratively ‘cumbersome’ and modest in its approach (amounting to little over $12 a week).

This has not found favour with many groups – particularly those who advocate for older New Zealanders. For example, the national president of Grey Power has stated that the organisation “absolutely disagreed” with abolishing the scheme. In addition, a local association (Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty) submission to the Commission recommended a resetting of the maximum rebate to restore it to previous levels and to align this with cost of living increases. This suggested a maximum rebate of $1,000 – indexed each year by the average rate increase across the country.

38 183

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

Rates Rebate Act 1973

• Provides for a rates rebate on local council rates by a specified amount each year, dependant on income. • Since 2008 the specified amount has been adjusted each year through Orders in Council. • 2019/20 – Maximum rebate - $640.

Accommodation Supplement

• Available for very low incomes.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

With the relevant Zone meeting postponed, support was sought from councils directly. The following councils endorse this remit: • Palmerston North City Council; • Napier City Council; • Manawatū District Council; • South Taranaki District Council; and • Rangitīkei District Council.

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

That LGNZ pursue an increase in the rates rebate for low income property owners and that this should match ongoing cost increases for local government.

9. Discussion and conclusion

The affordability of rates is not just a question of the quantum of rates and charges but also the ratio of rates and charges relative to income. The rates rebate scheme was introduced in 1974 and was designed to provide assistance to low income residential ratepayers. Over the longer term the quantum of the rates rebate has generally matched CPI, however, this ignores the fact that local authority core inputs are rising well above those of core inflation. Furthermore, over time the Act has not kept pace with the changing nature of tenure or technology. It is requested that the Government lift the level of rates rebates available for low and fixed income property owners.

39 184

11 Local Government’s CO2 emissions

Remit: That the Government implement an independent scheme, based on the United Kingdom model operated by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to measure and report on carbon emissions at a district level.

Proposed by: Whanganui District Council

Supported by: Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; South Taranaki District Council; Hastings City Council; and Horizons Regional Council.

Background information and research

1. Nature of the issue

The following issues with the current system have been identified:

• There is no national standard for reporting on carbon emissions at a district or regional level. • The system lacks incentives, structures and information sharing mechanisms that would enable and encourage local government authorities, regional economic development agencies and individual businesses to:

o Identify best practice in similar regions; and o Undertake targeted work that prioritises the reduction of their CO2 emissions.

• The proposal that large energy users publish Corporate Energy Transition plans as outlined in MBIE’s Discussion Document: Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, will only address these concerns to a limited degree.

2. Background to its being raised

New Zealand is committed to both domestic and international climate change progress. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, progress towards meeting our commitments is documented in New Zealand’s National Communication and Biennial Reports.

40 185

These summarise New Zealand’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions profile, climate change policies and measures, our support for developing countries, and progress on implementing our obligations under the UNFCCC. At present, New Zealand is not meeting its international targets and further actions need to be taken.

A feature of our national psyche is the pride New Zealanders place on performing above our weight in the sporting arena. There is significant, untapped potential for the nation’s competitive streak to be harnessed in pursuit of fulfilling our climate change mitigation ambitions. Developing and reporting on an externally administered measure of each district’s progress in reducing its climate impact in terms of CO2 outputs is one such way of doing this.

3. New or confirming existing policy

The remit may require minor amendment to the Local Government Act to ensure that information that is needed for calculations to be made is required to be produced at specified intervals.

4. How the issue relates to objectives in the current Work Programme

This remit directly aligns with LGNZ’s ‘Environment’ policy priority. In particular, it supports the Climate Change Project and is related to Outcome three: “A local government view on emission reduction targets for New Zealand, and how to achieve these.”

It assists with the following project deliverable: “Support councils to take action to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and encourage greater action by their communities on contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”

5. What work or action on the issue has been done and what was the outcome

No work has been undertaken specifically on this. However, the proposed model recommends use of the United Kingdom’s approach, which is administered by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-regional-carbon-dioxide- emissions-national-statistics-2005-to-2017

The United Kingdom Greenhouse Gas inventory (GHGI) is compiled annually and reported on an end-user basis using international best practice guidance, drawing on a variety of National Statistics and sector specific data sources.

This is a technically complex statistical analysis which individual local authorities would be unable to replicate, but provides consistent inventories and emissions projections of greenhouse gases and air quality pollutants.

41 186

The credibility of the report allows the results to be reported each year to the UNFCCC and the European Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR). It is also used to assess compliance with the United Kingdom’s domestic and international emissions.

The model has been used since 2005 and provides: “an important body of information [for] local authorities (LAs) and other relevant organisations to help identify high emitting sources of CO2 and energy intensive sectors, monitor changes in CO2 emissions over time and to help design carbon reduction strategies.” (Local and Regional Carbon Dioxide Emissions Estimates for 2005– 2017 for the UK Technical Report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/812146/Local_authority_C02_technical_report_2017.pdf)

Over the period for which this model has been used, and where figures are currently available (2005-17), emissions have decreased in all regions of, and for all 391 local authorities, in the United Kingdom. A scan of local authorities suggests that performing well on these measures is a key ambition that drives decision-making for many of these bodies.

6. Any existing relevant legislation, policy or practice

• Local Government Act 2002. • Climate Change Response Act 2002. • Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019.

7. Outcome of any prior discussion at a Zone/Sector meeting

With the relevant Zone meeting postponed, support was sought from councils directly. The following councils endorse this remit: • Palmerston North City Council; • Napier City Council; • South Taranaki District Council; • Hastings District Council; and • Horizons Regional Council.

42 187

8. Suggested course of action envisaged

That a suitable government department be tasked with: (a) Analysing and publishing each district’s carbon emissions, in order to provide the most reliable and consistent possible breakdown of CO2 emissions across the country; and (b) Publishing interactive local authority level emissions maps that allow users to zoom in to any district and see the emissions for the area, as well as identify the significant point sources. Such maps should be possible to filter by different sectors, to view how emissions have changed across the time series so that areas of best practice can be identified.

This system would provide incentives, structures and low cost information sharing mechanisms that would enable and encourage local government authorities, regional economic development agencies and individual businesses to identify best practice in similar regions or businesses. It would also encourage them to undertake targeted work to reduce their CO2 emissions.

9. Discussion and conclusion

This proposal aligns with New Zealand’s international commitments, our national direction and LGNZ’s work programme in terms of the mitigation of climate change. It is a system that has been shown to have positive benefits in the United Kingdom and leverages existing characteristics of New Zealanders to achieve these collective goals.

43 188

Remits not going to AGM

The Remit Screening Committee’s role is to ensure that remits referred to the AGM are relevant, significant in nature and require agreement from the membership. In general, proposed remits that are already LGNZ policy, are already on the LGNZ work programme or technical in nature will be referred directly to the National Council for their action. Remits that fail to meet criteria will be declined.

1. Chief Executive remuneration

Remit: That LGNZ works with central government to investigate the potential of a centralised and independent organisation (such as the State Services Commission or the Remuneration Authority) to establish recommended remuneration levels/packages of local government chief executives.

Proposed by: Hamilton City Council

Supported by: Tauranga City Council; Waipa District Council; Tasman District Council; and Napier City Council.

Recommendation: That the remit is referred to the National Council for consideration.

2. Loans for low cost housing

Remit: That the Government provide interest-free loans to support the delivery of new low cost housing by relevant agencies, including councils, and that central government consider any additional mechanisms that would support councils and other relevant community agencies to respond to the housing crisis.

Proposed by: Whanganui District Council

Supported by: Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council; South Taranaki District Council; and Hastings District Council.

Recommendation: That the remit is declined on the basis that it is largely the same as the social housing remit adopted in 2019.

44 189

097/20 To: Your Worship and Council

From: Angela Jane, Strategic Planning Manager

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject Combined Wairarapa District Plan Review – Joint Committee appointment

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council: a. Receives the report ‘Combined Wairarapa District Plan Review – Joint Committee appointment’ dated 5 August 2020; and b. In accordance with sections 34(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (''RMA'') and clause 30 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002, the Masterton District Council: (i) unites with the Carterton District Council and South Wairarapa District Council in appointing a joint committee, to be known as the Wairarapa Combined District Plan Joint Committee to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council under the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 which are delegated to the Joint Committee; and (ii) agrees that each council will appoint two members to the Joint Committee with the ability to appoint alternate members to cover absences; and (iii) agrees to the appointment to the Joint Committee of 2 members (one member representing Rangitāne o Wairarapa and one member representing Kahungunu ki Wairarapa) to be appointed by the four iwi entities (Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui ā Rua Trust, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust); and (iv) agrees that the Joint Committee will appoint an appropriately qualified Commissioner as an independent Chair and the Joint Committee will appoint one of its members as the Deputy Chair; and (v) agrees that the removal of the office of Chair and Deputy Chair is within the powers of the Joint Committee; and (vi) agrees that the quorum of the Joint Committee will be five members and include at least one member of each territorial authority; and (vii) appoints the following councillors as the Masterton District Council members to the Joint Committee: - Councillor Frazer Mailman - Councillor Tina Nixon (viii) Appoints the following councillor as the alternate member of the Joint Committee to cover the absence of one of the appointed members: - Councillor [to be named] 190

c. In accordance with Section 34 of the Resource Management 1991 the Masterton District Council delegates to the Wairarapa Combined District Plan Joint Committee all its functions, powers and duties under the First Schedule to the Act.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present Council with the recommended composition of the Joint Committee to oversee the review and potentially act as a hearing panel for the formal notification process and to present the Joint Committee’s proposed delegations.

BACKGROUND In 2019 the Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils agreed to review the Wairarapa Combined District Plan jointly and approved the commencement of the review. The new term of Council was provided with the background to the review of the combined District Plan in a report to the June 2020 Council agenda. The June 2020 report outlined the legislative background for the review and the scope and approach for the review and the procurement process followed for the consultancy support. At the June 2020 Council meetings, the three councils approved the appointment of Boffa Miskell as the consultancy to provide support for the combined Wairarapa District Plan review. Staff from the three councils and Boffa Miskell are currently working on the detail for a project plan in advance of the Joint Committee being established. The following three stages are envisaged for the review of the plan: Stage 1: Review, research and scoping Milestones include:  Project plan  Engagement and communication plan  Significant resource management Issues identified  Effectiveness of current District Plan recorded  Issues and options documents  Draft plan Stage 2: Consultation on possible changes through draft plan Milestones include:

 Draft Plan for engagement Stage 3: Formal notification and submission process Milestones include:

 Proposed District Plan for notification, including associated Section 32 reports  Summary of Submissions Report  Pre‐hearing meeting records and Section 42A Reports 191

 Hearing minutes  Decision reports on submissions  Final section 32 report (including s32AA evaluation)  Operative District Plan

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS Joint Committee for review and hearings For the last review the three councils appointed a joint committee prior to the formal notification process to act as the hearing panel. Staff are recommending that the joint committee for this review be appointed at the commencement of the process and act as the governance advisory through the review period and the preparation of a new plan and act as the hearings panel for the submissions to the formal notification process to ensure good continuity of the knowledge built up over the process. In 2005 Simpson Grierson provided the basis for the joint committee appointment resolutions and staff have used this information to guide the drafting of the resolutions and proposed terms of reference for the new joint committee. The legislative references have been updated to match small changes in the legislation since 2005. The full wording of the relevant legislative clauses is included in Attachment 1. Clause 30(1) of the Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002 ("LGA") provides an express power for local authorities to appoint joint committees, as follows: “Power to appoint committees, subcommittees, other subordinate decision‐making bodies, and joint committees (1) A local authority may appoint: (a) the committees, subcommittees, and other subordinate decision‐making bodies that it considers appropriate; and (b) a joint committee with another local authority or other public body in accordance with clause 30A”

A joint committee appointed under clause 30(1)(b) is deemed to be both a committee of the appointing local authority and a committee of each other local authority or public body that has appointed members to the committee. Most of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act provisions relating to local authorities and their members apply to joint committees, however, a joint committee has the following differences noted: (a) the powers to discharge any individual member and appoint another in his or her stead must be exercised by the local authority or public body that made the appointment; and (b) the quorum at a meeting of the committee consists of: (i) half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an even number; or (ii) a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an odd number; and (c) the following matters may be varied by an agreement under subclause (1): 192

(i) the procedure by which the chairperson and deputy chairperson are to be appointed: (ii) the procedure by which the chairperson or deputy chairperson may be removed from that office: (iii) whether a quorum must include 1 or more members appointed by each party, or any party: (iv) the extent to which the standing orders of any local authority or public body apply to meetings of the joint committee

Since 2005 new mayoral powers were introduced to the Local Government Act. The Mayor is now deemed a member of all committees of a territorial authority. If the Mayor attends a joint committee under these mayoral powers, and was not one of the appointed members, they are not counted in the quorum calculations (Clause 6A within Section 30A). Delegation of functions Simpson Grierson advised that delegating the functions to prepare and act as a hearings panel were preferable to transferring powers. Section 34 of the RMA provides for delegations and the relevant subsections include:

(1) A local authority may delegate to any committee of the local authority established in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act. (7) Any delegation under this section may be made on such terms and conditions as the local authority thinks fit and may be revoked at any time by notice to the delegate. (8) Except as provided in the instrument of delegation, every person to whom any function, power, or duty has been delegated under this section may, without confirmation by the local authority, exercise or perform the function, power, or duty in like manner and with the same effect as the local authority could itself have exercised or performed it. (9) Every person authorised to act under a delegation under this section is presumed to be acting in accordance with its terms in the absence of proof to the contrary. (10) A delegation under this section does not affect the performance or exercise of any function, power, or duty by the local authority.

Committee membership Continuity of membership The high‐level timetable indicates that the review and preparation stages, including engaging on a draft plan, are projected to be completed within the current term. More detailed timelines to be determined in the first stage of the process will inform the overall timeline further. To provide good continuity from the review and plan preparation phase through to the hearing of submissions it is recommended we retain as many members of the Joint Committee as possible. Guaranteeing election results however is out of the bounds of council control. An option available is to appoint the Joint 193

Committee members as Commissioners. This enables these members to continue to act as the hearings committee past the election should they not seek re‐election or be unsuccessful. Members of RMA hearing panels must be accredited. The Minister for the Environment determines the qualification required to establish a person’s accreditation. The current options for qualification include the successful completion of the ‘Making Good Decisions’ programme developed by the Ministry for the Environment (and the recertification course for person’s whose accreditation has expired); appointment as a High Court Judge; appointment as an Environment Judge; appointment as an Environment Commissioner or Deputy Environment Commissioner. The Making Good Decisions Programme qualification expires three years after date of issue; recertification expires five years after date of issue. The recertification programme has been booked for Councillor Mailman later this year and the certification programme has recently been completed by Councillor Nixon. Once accredited these councillors are eligible to be appointed as a Commissioner.

Alternate members The appointment of alternate members to cover absences is standard practice for the regional committees and is recommended for the District Plan Joint Committee. It will enable all three councils to be represented more easily at all meetings and for the Joint Committee to maintain its schedule of meetings and overall progress.

Members appointed by Iwi In February this year the Wairarapa Shared Services Working Group requested that iwi representation be included on the Joint Committee. After consulting with the three mayors and three chief executives a letter of invitation has been sent to the four iwi entities (Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui ā Rua Trust, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust) to appoint two members to the Joint Committee (one member representing Rangitāne o Wairarapa and one member representing Kahungunu ki Wairarapa). The invitation points out that submissions to the review process and the notified plan need to be kept away from the iwi representative appointed to the Joint Committee to minimise the chance of challenges to the process. Given the level of commitment being sought and the distancing required between the appointed member and the iwi’s involvement in the review, it is also noted that the councils fully appreciate that the invitation may be declined. The invitation notes that this is a great opportunity for an appointee with a real interest in gaining accreditation and participating in not only the development of the new plan but in putting forward firm recommendations to the councils.

Members as commissioners If a local authority considers appointing one or more hearings commissioners to exercise a delegated power to conduct a hearing under Part 1 or 5 of Schedule 1, then the local authority must consult tangata whenua through relevant iwi authorities on whether it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū. 194

The decision to make the hearings panel members commissioners can be taken closer to the time of the formal notification process which may coincide with the next election.

Quorum The quorum for joint committees is stipulated under Section 30A(6) as: (i) half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an even number; or (ii) a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an odd number; and

The local authorities appointing the joint committee may stipulate if the quorum must include one or more members of each party. Staff recommend that the three councils agree that the quorum must include one member of each council to ensure matters are not relitigated through the development/preparation stages and that all councils are fairly represented at all stages of the review process. For the last hearings panel three members from each council were appointed, which meant the quorum was five members. Under the current legislation the mayors may also attend (if not one of the appointed members). With three councillors from each council and potentially three mayors attending, this would result in a very large group of individuals to organise for scheduling purposes. This has more potential for patchy attendance and the potential for rework of some topics missed by some members. The commitment from specific councillors suggested for this review is for a longer period than last time and meeting efficiencies need to be considered to contain the budgets and consultancy resource. More councillors would have to commit to gaining or retaining their accreditation which also has a budget implication for the councils to consider. Staff recommend that two members be appointed from each council, the Mayors and Chief Executives have recommended that two iwi representatives are appointed and staff recommend an experienced RMA practitioner is appointed as an independent member to act as Chairperson. The independent member would hold a Commissioner qualification and their experience would bolster the reduced councillor membership through the hearings phase. The recommended membership of six councillors, two iwi representatives and an independent Chair would mean the quorum was five, with at least one councillor from each council being in attendance.

Terms of reference for Joint Committee The proposed terms of reference for the Joint Committee are attached (see Attachment 2).

SUPPORTING INFORMATION Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications The legislative implications have been described in the background section of the report.

195

Significance, engagement and consultation The District Plan review process will incorporate the appropriate engagement and consultation to meet legal obligations and council aspirations.

Financial considerations The budget for the review, excluding any extenuating circumstances that may evolve from the formal notification process and consequential appeals, has an adequate provision in the current long term plan. Any changes to the approach for the plan’s review will take into account the budget provisions available and if necessary, the Joint Committee will request the three councils revisit budgets in the development of the 2021‐2031 long term plan.

Treaty considerations/implications for Māori The Resource Management Act provisions enable participation by Maori in the review of the District Plan. The Joint Committee will be considering treaty considerations and implications for Maori throughout the process.

Communications/engagement plan Developing a communication and engagement plan is part of the core work programme for the review.

Environmental/climate change impact and considerations Environmental and climate change impact is core content to be considered in the review of the District Plan. 196

ATTACHMENT 1 Legislative excerpts relevant to appointment of Combined Plan Joint Committee Local Government Act 2002 30A Joint committees (1) A local authority may not appoint a joint committee under clause 30(1)(b) unless it has first reached agreement with every other local authority or public body that is to appoint members of the committee. (2) An agreement under subclause (1) must specify— (a) the number of members each local authority or public body may appoint to the committee; and (b) how the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the committee are to be appointed; and (c) the terms of reference of the committee; and (d) what responsibilities (if any) are to be delegated to the committee by each local authority or public body; and (e) how the agreement may be varied. (3) An agreement under subclause (1) may also specify any other matter relating to the appointment, operation, or responsibilities of the committee that the parties agree. (4) A local authority or public body must not enter into an agreement under subclause (1) that is inconsistent with any enactment applying to that local authority or public body, or its members. (5) A joint committee appointed under clause 30(1)(b) is deemed to be both a committee of the appointing local authority and a committee of each other local authority or public body that has appointed members to the committee. (6) This Part applies to a joint committee except that— (a) the powers to discharge any individual member and appoint another in his or her stead must be exercised by the local authority or public body that made the appointment; and (b) the quorum at a meeting of the committee consists of— (i) half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an even number; or (ii) a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an odd number; and (c) the following matters may be varied by an agreement under subclause (1): (i) the procedure by which the chairperson and deputy chairperson are to be appointed: (ii) the procedure by which the chairperson or deputy chairperson may be removed from that office: (iii) whether a quorum must include 1 or more members appointed by each party, or any party: (iv) the extent to which the standing orders of any local authority or public body apply to meetings of the joint committee. 197

(6A) For the purposes of subclause (6)(b), a mayor who is a member of the committee solely by operation of section 41A(5) is not counted as a member of the committee for the purposes of determining— (a) the number of members required to constitute a quorum; or (b) whether a quorum exists at a meeting. (7) Nothing in subclauses (1) to (4) applies to a joint committee constituted or continued by, or required to be constituted or continued by, an enactment other than this Act.

41A Role and powers of mayors (1) The role of a mayor is to provide leadership to— (a) the other members of the territorial authority; and (b) the people in the district of the territorial authority. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), it is the role of a mayor to lead the development of the territorial authority’s plans (including the long‐term plan and the annual plan), policies, and budgets for consideration by the members of the territorial authority. (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a mayor has the following powers: (a) to appoint the deputy mayor: (b) to establish committees of the territorial authority: (c) to appoint the chairperson of each committee established under paragraph (b), and, for that purpose, a mayor— (i) may make the appointment before the other members of the committee are determined; and (ii) may appoint himself or herself. (4) However, nothing in subsection (3) limits or prevents a territorial authority from— (a) removing, in accordance with clause 18 of Schedule 7, a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor under subsection (3)(a); or (b) discharging or reconstituting, in accordance with clause 30 of Schedule 7, a committee established by the mayor under subsection (3)(b); or (c) appointing, in accordance with clause 30 of Schedule 7, 1 or more committees in addition to any established by the mayor under subsection (3)(b); or (d) discharging, in accordance with clause 31 of Schedule 7, a chairperson appointed by the mayor under subsection (3)(c). (5) A mayor is a member of each committee of a territorial authority. (6) To avoid doubt, a mayor must not delegate any of his or her powers under subsection (3). (7) To avoid doubt,— (a) clause 17(1) of Schedule 7 does not apply to the election of a deputy mayor of a territorial authority unless the mayor of the territorial authority declines to exercise the power in subsection (3)(a): (b) clauses 25 and 26(3) of Schedule 7 do not apply to the appointment of the chairperson of a committee of a territorial authority established under subsection (3)(b) unless the mayor of the territorial authority declines to exercise the power in subsection (3)(c) in respect of that committee.

198

Resource Management Act 1991

34 Delegation of functions, etc, by local authorities (1) A local authority may delegate to any committee of the local authority established in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act. (2) A territorial authority may delegate to any community board established in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act in respect of any matter of significance to that community, other than the approval of a plan or any change to a plan. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent a local authority delegating to a community board power to do anything before a final decision on the approval of a plan or any change to a plan. (3A) A unitary authority may delegate to any local board any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act in respect of any matter of local significance to that board, other than the approval of a plan or any change to a plan. (3B) Subsection (3A) does not prevent a unitary authority delegating to a local board power to do anything before a final decision on the approval of a plan or any change to a plan. (4) [Repealed] (5) [Repealed] (6) [Repealed] (7) Any delegation under this section may be made on such terms and conditions as the local authority thinks fit, and may be revoked at any time by notice to the delegate. (8) Except as provided in the instrument of delegation, every person to whom any function, power, or duty has been delegated under this section may, without confirmation by the local authority, exercise or perform the function, power, or duty in like manner and with the same effect as the local authority could itself have exercised or performed it. (9) Every person authorised to act under a delegation under this section is presumed to be acting in accordance with its terms in the absence of proof to the contrary. (10) A delegation under this section does not affect the performance or exercise of any function, power, or duty by the local authority. (11) In subsections (3A) and (3B), Auckland Council and local board have the meanings given in section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

34A Delegation of powers and functions to employees and other persons (1) A local authority may delegate to an employee, or hearings commissioner appointed by the local authority (who may or may not be a member of the local authority), any functions, powers, or duties under this Act except the following: (a) the approval of a proposed policy statement or plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1: (b) this power of delegation. (1A) If a local authority is considering appointing 1 or more hearings commissioners to exercise a delegated power to conduct a hearing under Part 1 or 5 of Schedule 1,— (a) the local authority must consult tangata whenua through relevant iwi authorities on whether it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū; and 199

(b) if the local authority considers it appropriate, it must appoint at least 1 commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū, in consultation with relevant iwi authorities. (2) A local authority may delegate to any other person any functions, powers, or duties under this Act except the following: (a) the powers in subsection (1)(a) and (b): (b) the decision on an application for a resource consent: (c) the making of a recommendation on a requirement for a designation. (3) [Repealed] (4) Section 34(7), (8), (9), and (10) applies to a delegation under this section. (5) Subsection (1) or subsection (2) does not prevent a local authority delegating to any person the power to do anything before a final decision on a matter referred to in those subsections.

80 Combined regional and district documents (1) Local authorities may prepare, implement, and administer the combined regional and district documents as set out in subsections (2) to (6). (2) A local authority may prepare, implement, and administer a document that meets the requirements of 2 or more of the following: (a) a regional policy statement: (b) a regional plan, including a regional coastal plan: (c) a district plan. (3) Two or more territorial authorities may prepare, implement, and administer a combined district plan for the whole or any part of their combined districts. (4) Two or more regional councils may prepare, implement, and administer a document that meets the requirements of the following: (a) a regional plan, including a regional coastal plan, for the whole or any part of their combined regions: (b) a regional policy statement, for the whole or any part of their combined regions: (c) a regional plan, including a regional coastal plan, and a regional policy statement, for the whole or any part of their combined regions. (5) One or more regional councils or territorial authorities may prepare, implement, and administer a combined regional and district plan for the whole or any part of their respective regions or districts. (6) A regional council and all the territorial authorities within the region may prepare, implement, and administer a document that meets the requirements of the following: (a) a regional policy statement for the region; and (b) a regional plan, including a regional coastal plan, for the region; and (c) either— (i) a district plan for each of the territorial authorities; or (ii) a combined district plan for their combined districts. (6A) In preparing or amending a combined document, the relevant local authorities must apply the requirements of this Part, as relevant for the documents comprising the combined document. 200

(6B) The relevant local authorities may also, in preparing the provisions of a regional plan or a district plan, as the case may be, for a combined document that includes a regional policy statement,— (a) give effect to a proposed regional policy statement; and (b) have regard to an operative regional policy statement. (7) Without limiting subsections (1) to (6B), local authorities must consider the preparation of the appropriate combined document under this section whenever significant cross‐boundary issues relating to the use, development, or protection of natural and physical resources arise or are likely to arise. (8) A combined document prepared under this section must clearly identify— (a) the provisions of the document that are the regional policy statement, the regional plan, the regional coastal plan, or the district plan, as the case may be; and (b) the objectives, policies, and methods set out or described in the document that have the effect of being provisions of the regional policy statement; and (c) which local authority is responsible for observing, and enforcing the observance of, each provision of the document. (9) A combined document prepared under this section— (a) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1; and (b) when approved by a local authority is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a plan or regional policy statement separately prepared and approved by that authority for its region or district, as the case may be. (10) Subsection (9)(b) applies whether or not the combined document is approved by any of the other local authorities concerned. (11) Clauses 30 and 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 apply to the appointment and conduct of any joint committee set up for the purposes of preparing, implementing, or administering a combined document under this section.

201

ATTACHMENT 2

Wairarapa Combined District Plan Joint Committee Terms of Reference

Function To exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Carterton, Masterton and South Wairarapa District Councils under the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Responsibilities include: The Committee will act as the governance advisory through the review period of the District Plan project and in preparing a new plan and act as the hearings panel for the submissions to the formal notification process.

The scope of the review includes:  Giving effect to new or revised national policy statements and the revised Wellington Regional Policy Statement  Aligning the Plan with recent national environmental standards  Giving effect to the proposed national planning standards making any adjustments needed to the structure, definitions and zoning appellations  Giving effect to the proposed national planning standards to make the plan align with requirements for electronic plans and address any consequential amendments required  Rezoning areas to accommodate growth pressures and/or modify existing zones and standards to enable growth and conversely, if needed, to tighten up protection of resources of important values  Aligning the Plan with recent council strategies  Revising objectives and policies in response to any issues arising from their implementation or to respond to any statutory amendments (for example, the two new section 6 matters of national importance since 2009)  Revising any rules and supporting requirements in response to any implementation issues since 2009

Membership Membership of the Joint Committee includes:  2 members from each of the 3 councils appointed by each Council (with the ability for each council to appoint an alternate member to cover absences)  2 Iwi representatives (1 member representing Rangitāne o Wairarapa and 1 member representing Kahungunu ki Wairarapa) appointed by the four iwi entities (Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui ā Rua Trust, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust) and  an appropriately qualified Commissioner as an independent Chair appointed by the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee will appoint one of its members as the Deputy Chair.

The Mayor of each Council is also a member of the joint committee as afforded by Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002.

Quorum The quorum of the Joint Committee will be five members and include at least one member of each territorial authority but does not include the Mayors (unless appointed as 1 of the 2 council appointed members or alternate member). 202

Frequency The Joint Committee will determine the frequency of its meetings which are likely to change to suit the course of the review.

Delegated authority The Carterton, Masterton and South Wairarapa District Councils have delegated to the Wairarapa Combined District Plan Joint Committee all its functions, powers and duties under the First Schedule to the Act, in accordance with Section 34 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The removal of the office of Chair and Deputy Chair is within the powers of the Joint Committee.

203

098/20 To: Your Worship and Council

From: Angela Jane, Strategic Planning Manager

Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject Electoral System for the 2022 Local Government Election

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council: a. Receives report 098/20 in relation to the Electoral System for the 2022 Local Government Election b. Agrees to [either] i. Continue with the status quo, First Past the Post electoral system; [OR] ii. Change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system for the next two triennial elections and for this decision to be publicly notified by 19 September 2020; [OR] iii. Undertake a poll of electors on the electoral system to be used for the next two triennial elections. c. Notes that the community will be publicly notified of its right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the next two triennial elections by 19 September 2020.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to give Council the opportunity to consider, in relation to the 2022 local government election, whether to continue to use the First Past the Post electoral system or to change to the Single Transferable Vote system or whether to hold a poll of electors on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used for the next two triennial elections. Executive Summary The Local Electoral Act 2001 (the LEA) provides for local authorities and their communities to choose either First Past the Post (FPP) or Single Transferable Vote (STV) as their electoral system for local elections (Section 27). Electoral systems can be changed by either a resolution of council or by a poll either demanded by electors or initiated by council resolution. The LEA also sets out timeframes for these decisions to be made. It isn’t mandatory for Council to make a decision however, if Council wish to change the current electoral system it must resolve to do so by 12 September 2020, so the resolution and a statement that a poll is required to countermand it, can be publicly notified by 19 September 2020. 204

If Council decides to retain FPP as the electoral system to be used, the right of electors to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used still needs to be publicly notified by 19 September. Context Electoral Systems The FPP and STV electoral systems are described in Sections 5A and 5B of the LEA. (See Attachment 1). FPP is the most commonly used electoral system for local authorities, used by 67 of the 78 local authorities in the 2019 elections. Voters may vote for the number of vacancies on an issue (e.g. in the last election voters could cast 10 votes for the Masterton District Council At Large issue). Candidates with the most votes are then declared elected. When an FPP result is announced, candidates are listed in order of the votes received so it is easy to see who won and lost.

STV was used by 11 local authorities in the 2019 local election and is also used for DHB elections. The STV system requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters can rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. To get elected candidates need to reach a quota of votes, which is worked out with a formula based on vacant positions and total votes received.

A guide initially prepared for the Department of Internal Affairs in 2008 and updated for the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) in 2017, The Local Government Electoral Option 2017 sets out the advantages and disadvantages of each system: “No electoral system is perfect, and different people will have different views on what is ‘fair’. Both FPP and STV have advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of FPP relate to the simplicity of the process including the ways votes are cast, counted and announced. The disadvantages of FPP relate to: • disproportional election results, including the generally ‘less representative’ nature of FPP councils • the obstacles to minority candidate election • the number of wasted votes. Overall, the advantages of STV, on the other hand, relate to the people who get elected using STV. The system potentially achieves: • broad proportionality (in multi-member wards/constituencies) • majority outcomes in single-member elections • more equitable minority representation • a reduction in the number of wasted votes. The disadvantages of STV relate to: • the public are less familiar with the system and possibly find it harder to understand 205

• matters of process such as the way votes are cast and counted (for example perceived complexity may discourage some voters) • the information conveyed in election results. Deciding which electoral system is best for your community may come down to deciding which is more important: process, or outcome. Unfortunately, neither electoral system can claim to achieve well in both.”

More detail on the differences between the two systems and their advantages and disadvantages are in Attachments 2 and 3.

Masterton District Council has used FPP in its elections to date. Council last considered the matter in 2014 for the 2016 elections and at that time resolved to continue with FPP. Council is not required to make a decision but needs to be aware that the option to make a change exists.

Masterton District Council’s Electoral Officer has advised that running an STV election would cost around $10,000 more than a FPP election due to the nature of the vote processing.

In the 2019 election, Masterton District voters used FPP for the Mayoral, Council, Masterton Community Trust, Masterton Trust Lands Trust and Montfort Trimble Foundation elections, and used STV for the Greater Wellington Regional Council and DHB elections.

Legislated Process and Timetable The LEA provides three ways for changing the electoral system:

• By council resolution (Section 27) • By poll demanded by 5% of electors (Section 29) • By a poll resolved by Council (Section 31)

Council resolution Council has the option to resolve to change the electoral system for the next two triennial elections. Any resolution to this effect needs to be made by 12 September 2020.

A resolution to change the electoral system would take effect for the 2022 and 2025 elections and continue in effect after that until either another resolution is passed or there is a poll of electors.

The Council resolution can be countermanded by a poll demanded by 5% of electors.

Poll by Demand of Electors Council is required to give the public notice of the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the elections of the local authority by 19 September 2020 (Section 28).

If Council has passed a resolution to change the electoral system, the public notice needs to include notice of that resolution and a statement that a poll is required to countermand that resolution.

206

Five percent of electors enrolled as eligible to vote at the previous general election of the local authority may demand that a binding poll be held on a proposal that a specific electoral system be used at the elections. For the Masterton District, that would be 936 electors (5% x 18,725 electors on the 2019 roll).

Whether an electoral system change resulting from a poll takes effect from the next triennial election, or the one after that, depends on when the demand for a poll is received (LEA Section 33).

Poll by Council resolution Council can also resolve, no later than 21 February 2021, that a poll be held on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used for the next two triennial elections.

Masterton District Council’s electoral officer has advised that the cost of a poll for the Masterton District would be around $75,000-$80,000.

Discussion and Options As stated above, detail on both electoral systems and their advantages and disadvantages is set out in Attachments 2 and 3. Options i Council could decide to retain the status quo and simply give public notice by 19 September 2020 that electors have the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the next two triennial elections. If no demand for a poll is received the status quo remains and FPP will continue to be used for future elections until a resolution for change is passed, or a successful poll of electors on a proposal for change takes place. ii Council could make a decision to change the electoral system to STV and give public notice of this and electors right to demand a poll on the decision by 19 September 2020. If no poll is demanded to countermand council’s decision the electoral system would change to STV for the 2022 and 2025 elections and continue after that until a further resolution is passed or a poll takes place. iii Council could make a decision (before 21 February 2021) to hold a poll of electors on the issue (the poll would need to be held no later than 21 May 2021). The result of the poll would apply to the 2022 and 2025 elections and continue after that until a resolution of council is passed or another poll takes place.

Supporting Information Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications Council has the option under the LEA to decide which electoral system is to be used for local elections.

The principles in the LEA are designed to implement the following: Section 4 (1) (aa) representative and substantial electoral participation in local elections and polls: 207

(a) fair and effective representation for individuals and communities: (b) all qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to— (i) cast an informed vote: (ii) nominate 1 or more candidates: (iii) accept nomination as a candidate: (c) public confidence in, and public understanding of, local electoral processes through— (i) the provision of a regular election cycle: (ii) the provision of elections that are managed independently from the elected body: (iii) protection of the freedom of choice of voters and the secrecy of the vote: (iv) the provision of transparent electoral systems and voting methods and the adoption of procedures that produce certainty in electoral outcomes: (v) the provision of impartial mechanisms for resolving disputed elections and polls.

Section 4 also provides that (2) Local authorities, electoral officers, and other electoral officials must, in making decisions under this Act or any other enactment, take into account those principles specified in subsection (1) that are applicable (if any), so far as is practicable in the circumstances.

Significance, engagement and consultation A decision to change Council’s electoral system would not amount to a significant decision in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as there is likely to be only minor community interest in the decision and, although any decision would be in place for the next two triennial elections, the decision is not irreversible.

Financial considerations The cost of running an STV election would cost approximately $10,000 more than a FPP election. The cost of a poll has been estimated at approximately $75,000-$80,000. There is currently no budget provision for either of these amounts.

Treaty considerations/implications for Māori There are no direct Treaty considerations or implications for Māori. One of the potential benefits of the use of STV in elections is more diversity which may benefit Māori, however The Local Government Electoral Option 2017 guide notes that “until a greater variety of people stand for local body election and a wide diversity of people vote, no representation system will be able to improve the diversity of representatives elected.”

Communications/engagement plan If Council resolves to change the electoral system, or to have a poll of electors, a communications plan will be required.

Environmental/climate change impact and considerations There are no environmental/climate change impacts or considerations arising from the electoral system to be used by Council. 208 209 ATTACHMENT 1

EXTRACTS FROM LOCAL ELECTORAL ACT 2001 5A General description of First Past the Post electoral system For local electoral purposes, the First Past the Post electoral system,— (a) in the case of an election, has the following features: (i) voters may cast as many votes as there are positions to be filled: (ii) where a single position is to be filled, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected: (iii) where more than 1 position is to be filled, the candidates equal to the number of positions who receive the highest number of votes are elected: 5B General description of Single Transferable Voting electoral system For local electoral purposes, the Single Transferable Voting electoral system,— (a) in the case of an election for multi-member vacancies, has the following features: (i) voters express a first preference for 1 candidate and may express second and further preferences for other candidates: (ii) a quota for election is calculated from the number of votes and positions to be filled: (iii) the first preferences are counted and any candidate whose first preference votes equal or exceed the quota is elected: (iv) if insufficient candidates are elected under subparagraph (iii), the proportion of an elected candidate’s votes above the quota is redistributed according to voters’ further preferences, and— (A) candidates who then reach the quota are elected; and (B) the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded: (v) the excluded candidate’s votes are redistributed according to voters’ further preferences: (vi) if insufficient candidates are elected under subparagraphs (iv) and (v), the steps described in subparagraphs (iv) and (v) are repeated until all positions are filled: (b) in the case of an election for a mayoral or single member vacancy, has the following features: (i) voters express a first preference for 1 candidate and may express second and further preferences for other candidates: (ii) an absolute majority of votes for election is calculated from the number of votes and positions to be filled: (iii) the first preferences are counted and, if a candidate’s first preference votes equal or exceed the absolute majority of votes, that candidate is elected: 210

(iv) if no candidate is elected under subparagraph (iii), the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded and that candidate’s votes are redistributed according to voters’ further preferences:

(v) if no candidate is elected under subparagraph (iv), the steps described in subparagraph (iv) are repeated until a candidate is elected:

Electoral systems for elections 27 Local authority may resolve to change electoral systems (1) Any local authority may, not later than 12 September in the year that is 2 years before the year in which the next triennial general election is to be held, resolve that the next 2 triennial general elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any), and any associated election, will be held using a specified electoral system other than that used for the previous triennial general election. (2) A resolution under this section— (a) takes effect, subject to paragraph (b), for the next 2 triennial general elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any), and any associated election; and (b) continues in effect until either— (i) a further resolution under this section takes effect; or (ii) a poll of electors of the local authority held under section 33 takes effect. (3) This section is subject to section 32. (4) In this section, and in sections 28 to 34, associated election, in relation to any 2 successive triennial general elections of a local authority (and its local boards or community boards (if any)), means— (a) any election to fill an extraordinary vacancy in the membership of the body concerned that is held— (i) between those elections; or (ii) after the second of those elections but before the subsequent triennial general election: (b) an election of the members of the body concerned called under section 258I or 258M of the Local Government Act 2002 that is held— (i) between those elections; or (ii) after the second of those elections but before the subsequent triennial general election.

28 Public notice of right to demand poll on electoral system (1) Every local authority must, not later than 19 September in the year that is 2 years before the year in which the next triennial general election is to be held, give public notice of the right to demand, under section 29, a poll on the electoral system to be used for the elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any). (2) If the local authority has passed a resolution under section 27 that takes effect at the next triennial election, every notice under subsection (1) must include— (a) notice of that resolution; and (b) a statement that a poll is required to countermand that resolution. 211

(2A) Despite subsections (1) and (2), if, on or before the date referred to in subsection (1), the local authority has passed a resolution under section 31 and has specified a date for the holding of the poll that is on or before 21 May in the year before the next triennial general election, subsection (1) does not apply. (3) This section is subject to section 32.

29 Electors may demand poll (1) A specified number of electors of a local authority may, at any time, demand that a poll be held on a proposal by those electors that a specified electoral system be used at the elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any). (2) This section is subject to section 32. (3) In this section and sections 30 and 31,— demand means a demand referred to in subsection (1) specified number of electors, in relation to a local authority, means a number of electors equal to or greater than 5% of the number of electors enrolled as eligible to vote at the previous general election of the local authority.

30 Requirements for valid demand (1) A demand must be made by notice in writing— (a) signed by a specified number of electors; and (b) delivered to the principal office of the local authority. (2) An elector may sign a demand and be treated as one of the specified number of electors only if— (a) the name of that elector appears,— (i) in the case of a territorial authority, on the electoral roll of the territorial authority; and (ii) in the case of any other local authority, on the electoral roll of any territorial authority or other local authority as the name of a person eligible to vote in an election of that local authority; or (b) in a case where the name of an elector does not appear on a roll in accordance with paragraph (a),— (i) the name of the elector is included on the most recently published electoral roll for any electoral district under the Electoral Act 1993 or is currently the subject of a direction by the Electoral Commission under section 115 of that Act (which relates to unpublished names); and (ii) the address for which the elector is registered as a parliamentary elector is within the local government area of the local authority; or (c) the address given by the elector who signed the demand is— (i) confirmed by the Electoral Commission as the address at which the elector is registered as a parliamentary elector; and (ii) within the district of the local authority; or (d) the elector has enrolled, or has been nominated, as a ratepayer elector and is qualified to vote as a ratepayer elector in elections of the local authority. (3) Every elector who signs a demand must state, against his or her signature,— (a) the elector’s name; and (b) the address for which the person is qualified as an elector of the local authority. (3A) If a valid demand is received after 21 February in the year before the next triennial general election, the poll required by the demand— 212

(a) must be held after 21 May in that year; and (b) has effect in accordance with section 34(2) (which provides that the poll has effect for the purposes of the next but one triennial general election of the local authority and the subsequent triennial general election). (4) The chief executive of the local authority must, as soon as is practicable, give notice to the electoral officer of every valid demand for a poll made in accordance with section 29 and this section. (5) This section is subject to section 32.

31 Local authority may resolve to hold poll (1) A local authority may, no later than 21 February in the year immediately before the year in which the next triennial general election is to be held, resolve that a poll be held on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used for the elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any). (2) A resolution may, but need not, specify a date on which the poll is to be held. (2A) The date specified for the holding of a poll must not be a date that would require deferral of the poll under section 138A. (3) The chief executive of the local authority must give notice to the electoral officer of any resolution under subsection (1),— (a) if no date for the holding of the poll is specified in the resolution, as soon as is practicable: (b) if a date for the holding of the poll is specified in the resolution, at an appropriate time that enables the poll to be conducted in accordance with section 33(3). (4) This section is subject to section 32.

32 Limitation on change to electoral systems Sections 27 to 31 do not apply if— (a) a poll on the proposal described in section 29 or section 31 held under section 33 took effect at the previous triennial general election of the local authority or takes effect at the next triennial general election of the local authority: (b) another enactment requires a particular electoral system to be used for the election of members of a local authority.

33 Poll of electors (1) If the electoral officer for a local authority receives notice under section 30(4) or section 31(3), the electoral officer must, as soon as is practicable after receiving that notice, give public notice of the poll under section 52. (2) Despite subsection (1), if an electoral officer for a local authority receives 1 or more notices under both sections 30(4) and 31(3), or more than 1 notice under either section, in any period between 2 triennial general elections, the polls required to be taken under each notice may, to the extent that the result of those polls would take effect at the same election, and if it is practicable to combine those polls, be combined. (3) A poll held under this section must be held not later than 89 days after the date on which— (a) the notice referred to in subsection (1) is received; or (b) the last notice referred to in subsection (2) is received. (3A) Subsection (3) is subject to subsection (2), section 30(3A) and section 138A. 213

(3B) Voters at a poll held under this section decide the proposal or proposals that are the subject of the poll by voting for one of the electoral systems named in the voting document or, as the case may require, expressing a preference in respect of each of the electoral systems named in the voting document. (4) Every poll under this section that is held in conjunction with a triennial general election or held after that election but not later than 21 May in the year immediately before the year in which the next triennial general election is to be held determines whether the electoral system to be used for the next 2 triennial general elections of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any) and any associated election is to be— (a) the electoral system used at the previous general election of the local authority; or (b) the electoral system specified in any resolution under section 27; or (c) the electoral system specified in any demand submitted within the appropriate period of which the electoral officer has received notice under section 30(4) and, if notice of more than 1 such demand is received, one of the systems specified in those demands and, if so, which one; or (d) the electoral system specified in any resolution of which the electoral officer has received notice under section 31(3). (5) Every poll under this section that is held at some other time determines whether the electoral system to be used at the next but one triennial general election of the local authority and its local boards or community boards (if any) and any associated election is to be— (a) the electoral system used at the previous general election of the local authority; or (b) the electoral system specified in any resolution under section 27; or (c) the electoral system specified in any demand submitted within the appropriate period of which the electoral officer has received notice under section 30(4) and, if notice of more than 1 such demand is received, one of the systems specified in those demands and, if so, which one; or (d) the electoral system specified in any resolution of which the electoral officer has received notice under section 31(3).

34 Effect of poll (1) If a poll is held under section 33 in conjunction with a triennial general election or held after that election but not later than 21 May in the year immediately before the year in which the next triennial general election is to be held, the electoral system adopted or confirmed must be used— (a) for the next 2 triennial general elections: (b) for any associated election: (c) for all subsequent triennial general elections, elections to fill extraordinary vacancies, and elections called under section 258I or 258M of the Local Government Act 2002, until a further resolution under section 27 takes effect or a further poll held under section 33 takes effect, whichever occurs first. (2) If a poll is held under section 33 at some other time, the electoral system adopted or confirmed must be used— (a) for the next but one triennial general election and the following triennial general election: (b) for any associated election: (c) for all subsequent triennial general elections, elections to fill extraordinary vacancies, and elections called under section 258I or 258M of the Local Government Act 2002, 214

until a further resolution under section 27 takes effect or a further poll held under section 33 takes effect, whichever occurs first. Electoral systems for polls 35 Electoral systems for polls (1) Every poll conducted for a local authority must be conducted using an electoral system adopted by resolution of the local authority— (a) for the purposes of the particular poll; or (b) for the purposes of 2 or more polls that are to be conducted at the same time. (2) If a poll is to be conducted for a local authority and there is no applicable resolution, that poll must be conducted using the electoral system commonly known as First Past the Post. Voting methods 36 Voting method for elections and polls (1) Every election or poll conducted for a local authority must be conducted using 1 or more methods of voting adopted by resolution of the local authority— (a) for the purposes of a particular election or poll; or (b) for the purposes of more than 1 election or more than 1 poll, or both, that are to be conducted at the same time. (2) If an election or poll is to be conducted and there is no applicable resolution under subsection (1), that election or poll must be conducted by postal voting. (3) Despite subsections (1) and (2),— (a) if any election or poll is to be conducted in conjunction with the election of 1 or more territorial authorities in the same local government area, the voting method to be used for that election or poll within the district of each territorial authority is the voting method or methods to be used for the election of that territorial authority: (b) if 2 or more elections or 2 or more polls are to be conducted within the district of a territorial authority separately from any election of that territorial authority, and, as a consequence of the operation of subsection (1) or subsection (2), those elections and polls are required to be conducted using different voting methods,— (i) the local authorities concerned must determine which of those voting methods must be used to conduct the elections and polls; and (ii) if no agreement is reached under subparagraph (i), those elections and polls must be conducted by postal voting. (4) Subsection (5) applies if— (a) regulations authorise the use of a voting method, for the purpose of conducting a trial of that method, by a specified class of elector in any specified class of election or poll or in any specified election or poll; and (b) the local authority adopts that voting method for the specified class by resolution in accordance with those regulations. (5) The voting method to be used by the specified class of elector in the election or poll must be the method adopted by resolution under subsection (4). (6) If, under subsection (5), any election or poll of 1 or more territorial authorities in which a voting method is to be used by a specified class of elector is to be conducted in conjunction with 1 or more other elections or polls, that voting method is to be used by the specified class of elector in each of the elections or polls. 215

(7) If subsection (5) or (6) (or both) apply to an election or a poll, the voting method or methods to be used for other electors in the election or poll must be determined in accordance with subsections (1) to (3).

37 Consultation (1) Before passing any resolution under section 36(1) or (4) that will apply to elections or polls conducted for any other local authority, the local authority concerned must consult that local authority. (2) In determining what resolution is to be adopted under section 36, the local authority concerned must have regard to the results of any consultation under subsection (1). 216

1. The Choice: First Past the Post (FPP) or the Single Transferable Vote (STV)

(a) How do the two electoral systems work?

FPP STV FPP: casting a vote STV: casting a vote • You place ticks equal to the number • You cast one single vote regardless of vacancies next to the of the number of vacancies. candidate(s) you wish to vote for. • You cast this single vote by consecutively ‘ranking’ your preferred candidates beginning with your most preferred candidate (‘1’) your next preferred candidate (‘2’) and so on. • In multi-member wards/ • In multi-member wards/ constituencies you cast one vote for constituencies you cast a single vote each vacancy to be filled, as above. by ranking as few or as many candidates as you wish, as above. • In single-member wards/ • In single-member wards/ constituencies you cast one vote. constituencies you cast a single vote by ranking as few or as many candidates as you wish.

FPP: counting votes STV: counting votes • The candidate(s) with the most • The candidate(s) are elected by votes win(s). Each winning reaching the ‘quota’ (the number of candidate is unlikely to have a votes required to be elected).2 majority of votes, just the largest • Vote counting is carried out by number of votes cast. computer.3 • First preference votes (‘1s’) are counted. Candidates who reach the quota are ‘elected’. The ‘surplus’ votes for elected candidates are transferred according to voters’ second preferences. Candidates who reach the quota by including second preferences are ‘elected’. This process repeats until the required number of candidates is elected.4

2 The quota is calculated using the total number of valid votes cast and the number of vacancies. 3 The New Zealand method of STV uses the ‘Meek method’ of counting votes. Because this method transfers proportions of votes between candidates, it requires a computer program (the STV calculator). 4 If at any point there are no surpluses left to transfer, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded and the votes redistributed according to voters’ next preferences. For further information on the details of vote counting, see, for example, STV Taskforce, ‘Choosing Electoral Systems in Local Government in New Zealand: A Resource Document’, (May 2002). 217

FPP STV • In multi-member constituencies, despite voters casting only a single vote, a voter may influence the election of more than one representative (if their vote can be transferred to other candidates according to voters’ preferences)

FPP: announcing results STV: announcing results • FPP results can usually be • Because vote counting is multi-part, announced soon after voting ends. it is likely to take longer than for FPP election results. • Results are announced and • Results are announced and published showing the total votes published showing elected received by each candidate. candidates in the order they reached the quota and unsuccessful candidates in the reverse order they were excluded. All elected candidates will have the same share of the vote.

(b) What are the most important differences between the two electoral systems?

To understand the important differences between the two electoral systems it is helpful to think about what happens to ‘wasted votes’ in both cases. A ‘wasted vote’ is a vote that does not help to elect a candidate. This might be because the candidate was very popular (so did not need all the votes received), or was very unpopular (and had no chance of being elected).

Let’s imagine that you vote in a local government FPP election to fill two vacancies, with four candidates standing for election. You vote for Candidates A and B. Imagine Candidate A wins by a landslide and Candidate B is the least popular of all the candidates. The vote for the other candidate to be elected is very close between Candidates C and D; in the end Candidate D wins the second vacancy by a very small margin. Candidate D is your least preferred candidate.

You might think to yourself, once you see the results, ‘I wish I had known that Candidate A didn’t need my vote to win, and that Candidate B didn’t have a chance of being elected as I would have voted differently. I may have still voted for Candidate A, but would have voted for Candidate C instead of Candidate B.’

218

Now imagine you vote in the same election using STV. You have a single transferable vote even though there are two positions to fill. Again Candidate A wins by a landslide and Candidate B is the least popular candidate. Candidates C and D are very close on first preference votes and so second and subsequent preferences become important.

You cast your vote by ranking the candidates according to your preferences; you rank Candidate A as ‘1’, Candidate B as ‘2’ and Candidate C as ‘3’. You don’t rank candidate D at all because you don’t want that candidate to be elected. Under STV: • Candidate A is very popular and is elected on first preferences • Candidate A has votes surplus to the number required to reach the quota and these are transferred according to voters’ second preferences • the surplus portion of your vote for Candidate A is transferred to your second preference, Candidate B • both Candidates C and D are very close to the quota at this point and Candidate B is least popular • Candidate B is excluded and the proportion of your vote for this candidate is transferred to your third preference, Candidate C • when preferences are counted again Candidate C reaches the quota and is elected.

Under STV, unlike the FPP election, your ranking of the candidates made your vote more effective and avoided it being ‘wasted’ on Candidates A (who had a surplus of first preference votes) and B (who was excluded once surplus votes from Candidate A were transferred). In other words, despite Candidates A and B being your most preferred candidates, under STV you were also able to influence the race between Candidates C and D because you showed a preference between them on your voting document.5

These election results reveal an important difference between FPP and STV electoral systems. Think again about your FPP vote. You voted for two candidates to fill two vacancies. If you are part of the largest group of like-minded voters, even if that group is not the majority, you could determine the election of both candidates. Other voters (from perhaps only slightly smaller groups) won’t have gained any representation at all.

In the STV election, however, you cast only one single transferable vote, even in multi- member wards/constituencies. That vote is used to greater effect as long as you rank all the candidates you like in order of preference. Because your vote is a single vote that can be transferred in whole or in part according to your wishes, you and other voters will not be over-represented or under-represented. This is why STV, unlike FPP, in multi-member wards or constituencies, is called a proportional representation system. The outcomes potentially better reflect community views.

5 These scenarios oversimplify how the vote count actually works under NZSTV, in order to explain the principle of vote transfers. The STV calculator uses a complex mathematical set of rules to ensure that the appropriate proportions of votes are transferred between candidates. 219

From the Department of Internal Affairs Website: https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-STV-Information- Index?OpenDocument

FIRST PAST THE POST

Under the FPP (First Past the Post) electoral system, the candidate with the most votes wins. This is a very simple method of electing candidates and is widely used throughout the world. It was used in New Zealand for Parliamentary elections up until the introduction of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) in the 1996 general election.

Although FPP is very simple, some people have argued that the results of an FPP election may not always reflect the wishes of the majority of voters. The following examples show how results of FPP elections may vary.

Where one candidate has a clear majority of votes, it can be seen that the majority of people did support the winning candidate.

Number of Votes Percentage of Votes

Candidate One 140 70%

Candidate Two 20 10%

Candidate Three 20 10%

Candidate Four 20 10%

Total Votes = 200 Total = 100%

In this example, the winning candidate received 70% of the total votes

However, the winning candidate might receive more votes than any other one candidate, but receive fewer votes than the other candidates put together.

Number of Votes Percentage of Votes

Candidate One 80 40%

Candidate Two 60 30%

Candidate Three 40 20%

Candidate Four 20 10%

Total Votes = 200 Total = 100% 220

In this case, the winning candidate got 40 per cent of the total votes, the other candidates received 60 percent of votes. It could be said that the election result did not reflect the wishes of the majority.

Some people have also argued that even when the winning candidate gets the majority of the votes, many people’s votes are "wasted".

This is a typical voting form for a local authority election held under the First Past the Post method.

In this case, there are three vacancies in the ward and voters can tick up to three candidates. 221

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

Under an STV electoral system, voters rank candidates in their order of preference. A good example to consider is an election to select three councillors for a ward in a council election. Under STV, you would write '1' next to the name of your favourite candidate, '2' next to your second favourite candidate and so on.

STV means that you have one vote, but can indicate your preferences for all the candidates. Under FPP, you would place ticks next to the names of up to three candidates, which means you would have three votes.

The number of vacancies and votes determines the quota a candidate must reach to be elected. The formula for deciding the quota is total number of valid votes, divided by the number of vacancies plus one. This process is illustrated in the diagram below.

Who used STV in 2019?

Dunedin City Council Kaipara District Council Kapiti Coast District Council Marlborough District Council New Plymouth District Council (1st time) Porirua City Council Ruapehu District Council (1st time) Tauranga City Council (1st time) Wellington City Council Greater Wellington Regional Council Palmerston North City Council

222

This is how a voting form might look for a local authority election held under the Single Transferable Vote method.

There are three vacancies in this ward. Instead of a tick you rank candidates in the order you prefer - '1' beside your first choice, '2' beside your second choice, '3' beside your third choice and so on. You can rank as few or as many candidates as you wish.

Here's how STV works Candidates must reach a set number (quota) of votes in order to be elected. By numbering your preferences you are saying:

"The candidate I most want to represent me on the council is Sam Jones. He's my number one choice - but if he gets more votes than the quota, then part of my vote is to be transferred to my second choice, Ngaire Smith, and maybe this will help to get her elected. On the other hand, if Sam has so little support that he can't possibly be elected, transfer my vote to Ngaire..."

223 ATTACHMENT 3

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system?

No electoral system is perfect. Both FPP and STV have advantages and disadvantages.

Overall, the advantages of STV relate to the people who get elected using STV. 6 The system potentially achieves: • broad proportionality (in multi-member wards/constituencies) • majority outcomes in single-member elections • more equitable minority representation • a reduction in the number of wasted votes.

The disadvantages of STV relate to: • the public being less familiar with the system and possibly finding it harder to understand • matters of process such as the way votes are cast and counted (for example perceived complexity may discourage some voters) • the information conveyed in election results.

The advantages of FPP, on the other hand, relate to the simplicity of the process including the ways votes are cast, counted and announced.

The disadvantages of FPP relate to: • the results of the election, including the generally ‘less representative’ nature of FPP councils • the obstacles to minority candidate election • the number of wasted votes.

Deciding which electoral system is best for your community may come down to deciding which is more important: process, or outcome. Unfortunately, neither electoral system can claim to achieve well in both.

6 For further discussion, see Graham Bush, ‘STV and local body elections – a mission probable?' in J. Drage (ed), Empowering Communities? Representation and Participation in New Zealand’s Local Government, pp 45–64 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2002). 224

More detailed advantages and disadvantages

FPP STV FPP: casting votes STV: casting votes • FPP is a straightforward system of • STV is a less straightforward system of voting. voting. • FPP is familiar to most people. • There is a need for more information for people to understand the STV ranking system of candidates. • ‘Tactical’ voting is possible; votes can • It is virtually impossible to cast a be used with a view to preventing a ‘tactical’ vote under STV. As a result, candidate from winning in certain voters are encouraged to express their circumstances. true preferences.

FPP: counting votes STV: counting votes • FPP is a straightforward system for • STV vote counting requires a computer counting votes. program (the STV calculator). • Votes can be counted in different • Votes must be aggregated first and then locations and then aggregated. counted in one location. • Election results are usually announced • Election results will usually take a little soon after voting ends. longer to produce.

FPP: election results STV: election results • Official results show exactly how • Official results will identify which many people voted for which candidates have been elected and candidates. which have not and in which order. They do not show how many votes candidates got overall, as all successful candidates will have the same proportion of the vote (the quota). This information, at stages of the count, can still be requested. • Results are easy to understand. • Results can be easy to understand if presented appropriately. • A ‘block’ of like-minded voters can • STV moderates ‘block’ voting as each determine the election of multiple voter casts only one single vote, even candidates in multi-member wards/ in multi-member wards/constituencies. constituencies, without having a majority of the votes, thereby ‘over- representing’ themselves. • The overall election results will not be • The overall election results reflect the proportional to voters’ wishes, and will wishes of the majority of voters in not reflect the electoral wishes of the proportion to their support for a variety majority of voters, only the largest of candidates. group of voters who may not be the majority. 225

FPP STV • In single-member elections, the winner • In single-member wards/constituencies, is unlikely to have the majority of the winner will have the majority of votes, just the largest group of votes. votes (preferences). • There will be more ‘wasted’ votes • Every vote is as effective as possible (votes that do not contribute to the (depending on the number of election of a candidate). preferences indicated) meaning there are fewer ‘wasted votes’ and more votes will contribute to the election of a candidate than under FPP.

7 Local Government Commission, ‘Report to the Minister of Local Government on the review of the local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001: Special topic paper: Representation’ (February 2008), p 14 8 Local Government Commission, ‘Report to the Minister of Local Government on the review of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001: Special topic paper: Representation’ (February 2008), p 13 226

101/20

To: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillors David Hopman, Manager Assets and Infrastructure From: Angela Jane, Manager Strategic Planning Endorsed by: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject: Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council a. Determines that it has followed consultation requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 and Local Government Act 2002; b. Having considered the requirements under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limit 2017 and the Local Government Act 2002, adopts the amended Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules (Attachment 1 to Report 101/20) noting the following: i. the variable school speed limit areas are set at 40 km/h and differ from the resolutions made at Council deliberations on 17 June 2020; and ii. the proposed change to the school variable speed zone (100 km/h to 60 km/h) for Langdale Road (Whareama School) has been approved in principle by the New Zealand Transport Agency subject to Council funding the implementation costs associated with this speed limit change.

Purpose This report seeks Council’s adoption of the amended Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules (Attachment 1).

Context

Masterton District Council (MDC) commenced Stage 1 of its Speed Limit Review in 2019. This review is about ensuring that our speed limits are appropriate for the type of roads within our roading network and making our roads safer for all users.

The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed limits Rule 2017 allows councils to review, propose and set speed limits for its local roads (not state highways). This includes permanent, holiday and variable speed limits. The Rule is about: • giving effect to a nationally consistent and evidence-based approach to speed management • providing a mechanism for councils to set speed limits for roads in their jurisdictions • requiring councils, when reviewing speed limits, to decide which speed limit is safe and appropriate for a road 227

• encouraging councils to prioritise the review of roads where achieving travel speeds that are safe and appropriate is likely to deliver the highest benefits.

Stage 1 has focused on speed around schools, speed in areas with high numbers of vulnerable road users (such as pedestrians and cyclists) and speed limit changes relating to growth and changes in land use.Supporting information for why changes to the speed limits were proposed for these areas are available in the Statement of Proposal:SLR Statement of ProposalThe table below outlines the review process undertaken for Stage 1 of the Speed Limit Review:

Stage 1: Speed Limit Review 2019/20 – Timeline August 2018 Council workshop held where proposed reductions in speed on roads were discussed, with the target being “safe and appropriate for the type of road” speeds. September 2019 Council approved the proposed speed limit changes for public engagement and consultation on 25 September 2019. November 2019 Engagement with key roading stakeholders (NZ Automobile Association, Road Transport Association, and New Zealand Transport Agency) in November 2019. Following targeted engagement with key roading stakeholders, additional changes were proposed.

February 2020 Council adopted the Speed Limit Review Statement of Proposal for consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure (as per section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002), as well as proposed consultation timeframes and approach on 19 February 2020. A copy of the Statement of Proposal is available here: SLR Statement of Proposal

March 2020 Community consultation was undertaken from 16 March 2020 through to 20 April 2020, and 121 submissions were received as part of this process. The submission results reflected a majority of support for all of the proposed speed limit changes.

May 2020 Hearing held on 6 May 2020, with seven submitters who were heard by Council. A copy of Hearing Agenda is available here: Hearing Agenda - May 2020

June 2020 Deliberations held on 17 June 2020. A copy of the Deliberations Council meeting agenda is available here: Deliberations Agenda - June 2020

In order to conclude the formal decision making aspects of Stage 1 of the Speed Limit Review, Council is now in the position to adopt the speed limit changes. The speed limit changes that are adopted by Council are updated in the speed limit schedule of the Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019, Part Eleven: Speed. All three Wairarapa District Councils maintain separate bylaw schedules for their respective districts. 228

Changes to the Speed Limits

Further changes to the speed limits have been proposed following consideration of submissions received; submissions heard; discussions at deliberations; and advice received from the NZTA. These further proposed changes are outlined in the table below:

Proposed Speed Limit Changes: Summary

Changes Rationale

Amendments to Amendments have been made to the Further minor amendments to the location to/from location to/from descriptors for the location to/from descriptors have descriptors following areas: Upper Plain area, been made to provide specificity School Variable Speed Zones, School around where signs and markings Fixed Speed Zones, North will be installed. Lansdowne, and Coastal Settlements.

Inclusion of route The inclusion of route positions for The inclusion of further route positions1 Bruce Street, King Street, Park positions helps to specify the Street, Lincoln Road, Church Street, location of where a speed limit Perry Street, Bannister Street, starts. Jackson Street were included following the Hearings and ahead of the Deliberations.

Further proposed All settlement roads within the There was support for reducing the speed limit Riversdale urban traffic area speed limit to 30 km/h as these changes (post including Riversdale Terraces: from areas have high foot traffic and consultation) 40 km/h to 30 km/h unattended children. A further reduction of 10 km/h is supported by officers as it provides safety benefits for pedestrians. We have no programme of works to separate these users, sharing the road at safe speed is the most economic and safest option. The speed limit change difference from what was included originally in the Statement of Proposal to what is being recommended now is still within the review scope of intent as

1 Route positions or RP’s is the “address format” for describing a linear positions (e.g. indicates the distance in km from the start of the street/road. 229

it is still about making our roads safer for all users. Riversdale Road: Move urban traffic There was support for moving the area further out on Riversdale Road urban boundary along Riversdale to Route position 2.420m in Road. conjunction with advanced speed The installation of advanced gated slowing warning sign to indicate a advisory speed warning signs will change from 100 km/h to 30 km/h help to reinforce and indicate a change from 100 km/h to 30 km/h ahead. Signage will be installed to make sure drivers are aware of the change ahead and slow down to the appropriate speed. Requests for further traffic calming measures at Riversdale have been made. Staff will assess these requests once other speed limit changes are put in place.

All settlement roads within There was support for reducing the Castlepoint urban traffic area: from speed limit to 30km/h as these areas 40 km/h to 30 km/h have high foot traffic and unattended children. A further reduction of 10 km/h is supported by officers as it provides safety benefits for pedestrians. We have no programme of works to separate these users, sharing the road at safe speed is the most economic and safest option.

Masterton Castlepoint Road: There was support for moving Tauweru Township signage to the eastern point of the speed reduction at the rise in the road at about RP 11.10km for primary school children crossing the road to the bus pull over area and will also assist with limited visibility near rise. Staff have recommended to move signage to 10.80 and use gated advisory speed warning signs to help 230

reinforce and indicate a change from 100 km/h to 80 km/h ahead.

Tauweru Township: from 60 km/h to There was support for reducing the 50 km/h speed limit to 50 km/h as these areas are within the township.

Variable School Speed Zones

At the Deliberations meeting on 17 June 2020, variable speeds around schools were discussed and members supported reducing the variable 40 km/h limit to a safer variable 30 km/h. A motion was proposed to change the variable speeds around schools from 40 km/h to 30 km/h (excluding Whareama School, Langdale Road).

Following subsequent dialogue with the NZTA, staff have been informed that the only variable speed limit that has been approved for use in urban areas is 40 km/h outside schools. Without the agency approval, 30 km/h variable speed limits will not be legal or enforceable, and Council opens itself up to the legal challenges under provisions clause 2.10 in the Rule. It is anticipated that the traffic rule will change soon to allow 30 km/h outside schools. Council engineers will future proof any purchased signs so that they will be able to be changed once this happens.

Staff have received advice from the NZTA about the proposed variable speed limit for Whareama School on Langdale Road. The NZTA have approved this in principle subject to MDC meeting the full implementation costs of the speed limit change. If Council approve this, the NZTA will progress a gazette notice.

Key Actions

The Speed Limit Review informed a number of key actions for staff to progress. These were noted by Council during the Deliberations meeting on 17 June 2020 and are listed as follows: • forward to NZTA submissions received that included comments about SH2; • investigate a gateway treatment for the 80/50 threshold for Chamberlain Road, Tauweru Township, Castlepoint, and Fernridge School; and • complete a stocktake of all roads raised by submitters to be considered for inclusion in the second stage of the Speed Limit Review.

Options Considered

A summary of the options considered is included in the table below.

Option Advantages Disadvantages 1 Adopt proposed Updating the Masterton May not reflect the views of amendments to the District Council Part 11: Speed some of the community Masterton District Bylaw Schedules helps to 231

Council Part 11: Speed address the reasons why the despite following the special Bylaw Schedules speed limit changes were consultative procedure. proposed (refer Analysis and Advice section). 2 Do not adopt proposed Could allow further Not adopting any of the amendments to the consideration of speed limit proposed amendments delays Masterton District changes. implementing the programme Council Part 11: Speed of work (e.g. markings, Bylaw Schedules signage) and will impact on resource capacity for Stage Two of the Speed Limit Review.

Further consultation will take additional time and resource. 3 Maintain status quo No advantages identified. Not adopting any of the proposed amendments delays changes proposed. The reasons why the changes have been proposed are outlined in the Analysis and Advice section.

Recommended Option

Option 1 is recommended. This supports Council to: • implement Stage 1 of the Speed Limit Review that focuses on speed around schools, speed in areas with high numbers of vulnerable road users (such as pedestrians and cyclists) and speed limit changes relating to growth and changes in land use; • prepare for Stage 2 of the Speed Limit Review; and • ensuring that our speed limits are appropriate for the type of roads across our roading network and making our roads safer for all users.

Summary of Considerations

Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications

Section 86 of the LGA 2002 requires Council to use the Special Consultative Procedure, as prescribed in Section 83 of the LGA, when making, amending or revoking a bylaw. This includes adoption of a Statement of Proposal, making this available and providing an opportunity for people to present their views. MDC followed the Special Consultative Procedure (refer Significance, Engagement and Consultation section for more information). 232

Sections 82 and 83 require Council to provide opportunities for people to present their views. A formal Hearings process is one way of enabling that. A Hearing was held on 6 May 2020, with seven submitters heard by Council.

Significance, Engagement and Consultation

Targeted engagement with key roading stakeholders and community consultation following the Special Consultative Procedure were undertaken for Stage 1 of the Speed Limit Review 2019/20. Further information about engagement and consultation are available in the Statement of Proposal SLR Statement of Proposal and Deliberations Agenda: Deliberations Agenda - June 2020

Financial Considerations The cost of proposed changes to the Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules via the marking of roads and installation of signs will be programmed and funded within the existing 2020/2021 roading budget.

Implications for Māori

There are no specific implications for Māori arising from the decision to adopt the amended Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules.

Environmental/Climate Change Impact and Considerations

There are no environmental/climate change impacts or considerations arising from the receipt of this report.

Next Steps

Next steps involve: • implementing a programme of work in the 2020/21 financial year to complete the marking of the roads and installation of signs to support speed limit changes; • publishing the Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules on the MDC website; • notifying amendments to the Masterton District Council Part 11: Speed Bylaw Schedules via public notice, as required under section 157 of the LGA, as well as including it as a news item on the MDC website homepage and Facebook page; • investigate a gateway treatment for the 80/50 threshold for Chamberlain Road, Tauweru Township, Castlepoint, and Fernridge School (Refer Report 075/20); • complete a stocktake of all roads raised by submitters to be considered for inclusion in the second stage of the Speed Limit Review (Refer Report 075/20).

Stage two of this work will be a 2020‐21 Regional Speed Limit Review, to be undertaken jointly by NZTA, the three Wairarapa District Councils, and the Wairarapa Road Safety Council. 233 ATTACHMENT 1

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL PART 11: SPEED BYLAW SCHEDULES

SCHEDULE A1 – 10km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 10km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force (Nil sites)

SCHEDULE A2 – 20km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 20km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S2/01 20km/h Memorial Drive, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and the Dixon St Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection to the Bylaw 2019 District Council south eastern end of Consolidated Bylaw Memorial Drive 2012 S2/02 20km/h All roadways, parking 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and areas and public Consolidated South Wairarapa places contained Bylaw 2019 District Council within the Henley Consolidated Bylaw Lake site area 2012 bounded by Te OreOre Road, Colombo Road, the Ruamāhanga River and Waipoua River

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 1 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

234

SCHEDULE A3 – 30km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 30km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S3/01 30km/h All the roads within 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Riversdale and Consolidated South Wairarapa Castlepoint urban Bylaw 2019 District Council traffic area marked on Consolidated Bylaw the map “Speed 2012 Restriction Plan Masterton District” numbered MDC 1095/2020 and identified in the legend as closely populated localities or an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 30km/h S3/02 30km/h Queen Street, from a 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and point 72m northeast Consolidated South Wairarapa of Bruce Street Bylaw 2019 District Council intersection to a point Consolidated Bylaw 32m northeast of 2012 Worksop Road intersection S3/03 30km/h Bruce Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to Dixon Consolidated South Wairarapa Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/04 30km/h King Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to SH2 Consolidated South Wairarapa Chapel Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/05 30km/h King Street Service 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Lane in its entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/06 30km/h Park Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to Dixon Consolidated South Wairarapa Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 2 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

235

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S3/07 30km/h Lincoln Road, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to SH2 Consolidated South Wairarapa Chapel Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/08 30km/h Church Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to Dixon Consolidated South Wairarapa Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

S3/09 30km/h Church Street Service 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Lane in its entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/10 30km/h Perry Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to SH2 Consolidated South Wairarapa Chapel Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/11 30km/h Cricket Street in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety, from Dixon Consolidated South Wairarapa Street to Dixon Street. Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/12 30km/h Bannister Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to Dixon Consolidated South Wairarapa Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/13 30km/h Jackson Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Queen Street to SH2 Consolidated South Wairarapa Chapel Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/14 30km/h Queen Street, from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Crayne Street Consolidated South Wairarapa Intersection to High Bylaw 2019 District Council Street (Kuripuni CBD) Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S3/15 30km/h First Street, from SH2 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Opaki Road to Cooper Consolidated South Wairarapa Street Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 3 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

236

SCHEDULE A4 – 40km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 40km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S4/01 40km/h Intermediate Street, 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and from a point 38m Consolidated South Wairarapa northwest of the Bylaw 2019 District Council Intersection with SH2 Consolidated Bylaw High Street to a point 2012 40m northeast of the Pownall/York Street intersection S4/02 40km/h Lowes Place in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S4/03 40km/h Daniell Street in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S4/04 40km/h Cole Street, from a 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and point 40m northwest Consolidated South Wairarapa of the Pownall Street Bylaw 2019 District Council intersection to a point Consolidated Bylaw 20m northeast of 2012 Essex Street intersection S4/05 40km/h Kummer Crescent, in 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and its entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 1 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

237

SCHEDULE A5 – 50km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to be urban traffic areas that have a speed limit of 50km/h, except for those roads or areas that are: a. Described as having a different speed limit in the appropriate schedule of this Bylaw; or Shown on a map as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this Bylaw.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S5/01 50km/h All the roads within 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and the area marked on 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa the map “Speed Bylaw 2019 District Council Restriction Plan Consolidated Masterton District” Bylaw 2012 numbered MDC 1095/2020 and identified in the legend as closely populated localities or an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 50km/h, except for State Highways and those roads or areas marked on the said map and identified in the legend as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this Bylaw S5/02 50km/h Masterton Castlepoint 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Road, form a point Consolidated South Wairarapa 90m north of Otahome Bylaw 2019 District Council Road intersection to a Consolidated point 66m south of Bylaw 2012 Otahome Road intersection S5/03 50km/h Mace Street in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety (Tauweru Consolidated South Wairarapa Township) Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S5/04 50km/h Duncan Street in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety (Tauweru Consolidated South Wairarapa Township) Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 2 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

238

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S5/05 50km/h Old Main Road in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety (Tauweru Consolidated South Wairarapa Township) Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S5/06 50km/h Gilligan Street in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety (Tauweru Consolidated South Wairarapa Township) Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012

SCHEDULE A6 – 60km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 60km/h. Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S6/01 60km/h Upper Waingawa 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Road, Unsealed Consolidated South Wairarapa section, 1.47km Bylaw 2019 District Council northwest of the Consolidated Bylaw intersection with 2012 Falloon Settlement Road to end of road S6/02 60km/h South Road from the 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and South Belt Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection, to the Bylaw 2019 District Council south-western end of Consolidated Bylaw South Road 2012 S6/03 60km/h Te OreOre Road from 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and a point 240m south Consolidated South Wairarapa east of Gordon Street Bylaw 2019 District Council to a point 135m east of Consolidated Bylaw the Te OreOre Road- 2012 Bideford Road intersection

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 3 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

239

SCHEDULE A7 – 70km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 70km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S7/01 70km/h Willow Park Drive, 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and from the State 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa Highway 2 Bylaw 2019 District Council intersection to the Consolidated north-eastern end Bylaw 2012 of Willow Park Drive S7/02 70km/h Ngaumutawa 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and Road from a point 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa 360m northeast of Bylaw 2019 District Council the intersection Consolidated with Upper Plain Bylaw 2012 Road to the intersection with Akura Road S7/03 70km/h Akura Road from 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and the intersection 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa with Ngaumutawa Bylaw 2019 District Council Road for a Consolidated distance of 500m Bylaw 2012 measured in a northwesterly direction S7/05 70km/h High Street from a 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and point 320m west 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa of South Belt to Bylaw 2019 District Council the northeastern Consolidated abutment of the Bylaw 2012 Waingawa River Bridge

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 4 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

240

SCHEDULE A8 – 80km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 80km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S8/01 80km/h Gordon Street from a 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and point 475 metres 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa measured north- Bylaw 2019 District Council easterly from the Consolidated Roberts Road Bylaw 2012 intersection to the north-eastern end of the road S8/03 80km/h Upper Plain Road from a 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and point 70 metres 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa measured north- Bylaw 2019 District Council westerly from the Consolidated Kibblewhite Road Bylaw 2012 intersection to a point 1400 metres, measured north-westerly from Kibblewhite Road S8/04 80km/h Ngaumutawa Road from 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and the intersection with 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa Upper Manaia Road to a Bylaw 2019 District Council point 45m southwest of Consolidated the intersection with Bylaw 2012 Cornwall Street S8/05 80km/h Te Whiti Road from a 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and point 90m south of the 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection with River Bylaw 2019 District Council Road to a point 500m Consolidated southwest from the Bylaw 2012 intersection with Homebush Road S8/07 80km/h Boundary Road in its 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and entirety from the 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection with Upper Bylaw 2019 District Council Manaia Road to the Consolidated intersection with West Bylaw 2012 Bush Road S8/08 80km/h Donalds Road in its 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and entirety from the 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection with Bylaw 2019 District Council Boundary Road to the Consolidated intersection with West Bylaw 2012 Bush Road 80km/h Chamberlain Road from 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and a point 480m southwest 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa of the intersection with Bylaw 2019 District Council Upper Plain Road to the

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 5 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

241

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force intersection with West Consolidated Bush Road Bylaw 2012 S8/10 80km/h Lees Pakaraka Road in 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and its entirety from the 2013 Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection with Bylaw 2019 District Council Masterton Stronvar Consolidated Road to the intersection Bylaw 2012 with Te Whiti Road S8/11 80km/h Tararua Drive in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S8/12 80km/h Evans Road in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S8/13 80km/h Skeets Road in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S8/14 80km/h West Bush Road in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety from the Consolidated South Wairarapa intersection with Bylaw 2019 District Council Ngaumutawa Road to Consolidated the intersection with Bylaw 2012 Skeets Road S8/15 80km/h Totara Park Drive in its 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S8/16 80km/h Upper Manaia Road in 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and its entirety Consolidated South Wairarapa Bylaw 2019 District Council Consolidated Bylaw 2012 S8/17 80km/h Masterton Castlepoint 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Road from a point 30m Consolidated South Wairarapa northwest of the Bylaw 2019 District Council intersection with Mace Consolidated Street to a point 600m Bylaw 2012 northeast of the intersection with Te Parae Road

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 6 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

242

SCHEDULE A9 – 90km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 90km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force (Nil sites)

SCHEDULE A10 – 100km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 100km/h.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Legal into Force Instrument S10/01 100km/h All Masterton District 1 September Wairarapa Masterton and Council roads outside an 2013 Consolidated South urban traffic area listed Bylaw 2019 Wairarapa in schedule 5 have a District speed limit of 100km/h Council except for roads or areas Consolidated which are: Bylaw 2012 a) Described as having a different speed limit in the appropriate schedule of this Bylaw; or b) Shown on a map as having a different speed limit as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this Bylaw.

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 7 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

243

SCHEDULE A11 – Variable Speed Limits

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a variable speed limit as specified in this schedule.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S11/01 40km/h Upper Plain Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Fernridge School) Consolidated South Wairarapa from a point 1000m Bylaw 2019 District Council northwest of the Consolidated Bylaw intersection 2012 Kibblewhite Road to a point 530m southeast of the intersection Evans Road S11/02 40km/h Ngaumutawa Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Solway School) from Consolidated South Wairarapa a point 67m south of Bylaw 2019 District Council the intersection Consolidated Bylaw Upper Manaia Road to 2012 a point 130m north of the intersection SH2, High Street S11/03 40km/h Johnstone Street 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Childcare and Makora Consolidated South Wairarapa College) from a point Bylaw 2019 District Council 140m southeast of the Consolidated Bylaw intersection Colombo 2012 Rd to a point 50m southeast of the intersection with River Road S11/04 40km/h South Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Masterton Primary Consolidated South Wairarapa School), from a point Bylaw 2019 District Council 25m northeast of the Consolidated Bylaw intersection Short 2012 Street to a point 90m northeast of the intersection with Millard Ave S11/05 40km/h Te OreOre Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Lakeview School) Consolidated South Wairarapa from a point 60m Bylaw 2019 District Council northwest of the Consolidated Bylaw intersection Colombo 2012 Road to a point 85m southeast of the intersection with Churchill Ave

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 8 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

244

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force S11/06 40km/h Colombo Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Lakeview School) Consolidated South Wairarapa from the intersection Bylaw 2019 District Council with Te OreOre Road Consolidated Bylaw to a point 250m 2012 southwest of intersection with Te OreOre Road S11/07 60km/h Langdale Road 5 August 2020 Wairarapa Masterton and Variable (Whareama School) Consolidated South Wairarapa from a point 390m Bylaw 2019 District Council northeast of the Consolidated Bylaw Homewood Road Gazette 2012 intersection to a point Notice (NZTA) 500m northeast of the Waimimi Road intersection

SCHEDULE A12 – Holiday Speed Limits

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a holiday speed limit as specified in this schedule.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force (Nil sites)

SCHEDULE A13 – Minimum Speed Limits

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a minimum speed limit as specified in this schedule.

Reference Speed Description Date Speed Legal Previous Legal Number Limit Limit Comes Instrument Instrument into Force (Nil sites)

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 9 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

245

MAP SHOWING SPEED LIMITS - SCHEDULE A

Wairarapa Consolidated Bylaw 2019 Page 1 0 Masterton District Council Speed Bylaw Schedule Last Updated: July 2020

246

102/20

To: Your Worship and Elected Members

From: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 5 August 2020

Subject Water Reform Memorandum of Understanding

DECISION

Recommendation: That Council a) agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Crown to receive COVID-19 stimulus funding for three waters services infrastructure b) requests staff to prepare a realistic Delivery Plan c) delegates to the CEO authority to enter into a Funding Agreement with the Crown.

Purpose For the Council to consider entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Crown to receive COVID-19 stimulus funding and participate in the review of three waters services. Executive Summary • The Government is pursuing an opt-in approach to the three waters service delivery reform programme incentivised by a grant. • To access the grant funding, councils must agree to work constructively together to support the objectives of the three waters service delivery reform programme. • The period to sign a MoU for funding ends on 31 August 2020.

• To access funding a council needs to have a Delivery Plan that maintains, increases and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewals and maintenance and increases jobs (i.e. not just what Council were going to deliver during 2020/21).

• This is a substantial opportunity to access external funding, but there may be challenges delivering additional water related infrastructure as all councils look to bring forward investments. • On balance, given the quantum of funding on offer, the need for investment in our waters infrastructure, and the non-binding nature of the MOU, staff recommend Council opt into the Tranche 1 agreement.

247

Context Staff have regularly reported on the progress of the Government’s Three Waters Review. In June 2020 the Minister of Local Government announced that she was moving into the next phase (which includes designing and then establishing new water delivery entities) and announced $761million funding for three waters infrastructure to support economic stimulus post-COVID-19. The Government considers the case for change - reforming / transforming the delivery of three waters - has been made and the Minister has established an advisory committee of local government representatives (Mayors and Chief Executives) to work with Government officials to design the new entities. There will also be engagement with Maori/iwi on the design. The bottom lines (to date) are that the entities will be large (significant scale, most likely multi-regional), asset owning, publicly owned statutory entities, with input from iwi/Maori and communities. The immediate focus is drinking water and wastewater, with the ability to extend to stormwater. All councils around the country are being encouraged to engage directly in the design process through workshops and webinars. The first workshop was held on 23 July in Wellington and many Council elected members will be attending the Palmerston North session on 4 August. The workshop presentation can be accessed at https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/Slide- pack-from-July-Aug-2020-workshops.pdf and is attached for your convenience (Attachment 1). Currently the Government is pursuing an opt-in approach to the reform programme incentivised by a grant (based on a population and land area funding formula). Initial funding will be made available immediately to those councils that sign up to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and associated Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan for the first stage of the Three Waters Services Reform Programme. Signing the MoU commits councils to engage with the reform programme and share information but does not require them to continue with future stages of the reform. A copy of the MoU is attached (Attachment 2) and can be accessed at https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters- reform-programme/$file/three-waters-reform-memorandum-of-understanding.pdf. By agreeing to the Memorandum, a council agrees to work constructively together to support the objectives of the three waters service delivery reform programme (which are detailed in Attachment 2 and broadly cover safety and quality of drinking water and improved environmental performance, affordability, equity, financial sustainability, resilience and transparency). Councils will also be required to provide information, which should be available in our asset management plans, GIS and financial model and reports. Some information, however, may need to be created. At this stage the Government has not announced the amount of funding that each council would be eligible for (although it is anticipated that this amount may be known by the date of the Council meeting). It could be around $2M-$4M. To access funding, a Delivery Plan is required and needs to show that the funding (which can be operating or capital expenditure) on three waters service delivery: • will support economic recovery through job creation and • maintains, increases and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewals and maintenance. The MoU and funding is effective from the date of agreement until 30 June 2021, although it is anticipated that if projects are committed they may not all need to be completed by 30 June 2021. 248

It is expected that councils will bring forward infrastructure activities that are programmed for 2021/2022 and beyond (ie not for activities already budgeted in the current year 20/21 but could be applied to something that was going to be deferred because of COVID-19). The period to sign a MoU for tranche one of the reform programme runs until 31 August 2020. Additional funding will be subject to Government decision-making and reliant on being able to demonstrate substantive progress against the reform objectives. The indicative timetable produced by the government is as follows:

There is the potential for legislative reform to overtake the voluntary approach in between general elections. Given the significance of the water reform process and its impact on the local government, the Government is also considering expanding the role of councils in delivering community wellbeing. This will be covered in future reports to Council and is not addressed here.

Options, analysis and advice The Council has two options: to opt in or to opt out of the Tranche 1 funding. Detailed options analysis has not been possible in the timeframe and without further detail from central government. If further information is available before the Council meeting staff will circulate it in advance of the meeting if possible or address it at the meeting. Option 1: Opt in Opting in provides the Council the opportunity to invest additional, non-ratepayer funding in three waters related infrastructure, including preparatory work for future projects. Improvements to our infrastructure could then occur earlier than planned and at less cost to ratepayers. Council would support additional jobs and economic activity within the district (and wider Wairarapa) to assist with the COVID 19 recovery. Funding for Council input into reform programme and information provision to the review team could also be covered by the Tranche 1 funding (or if Council preferred this could be funded as part of our business as usual work). There are risks associated with bringing work forward, for example in securing professional advice and contractors to do the work in a timely manner (and cost effectively) in what is already a tight contracting 249

market. This could be mitigated to an extent by working with our neighbours on procurement and programming (i.e. timeframes for project starts and completion). Option 2: Don’t opt in Under this option no further work is required. There would be no external funding or acceleration of investment and project delivery. No additional jobs would be created. Given the potential quantum of funding on offer, the benefits of additional investment in our waters infrastructure, the potential for jobs and economic activity within the district and region, and the non- binding nature of the MOU, staff recommend that Council opt into the Tranche 1 agreement and that commence preparing a Delivery Plan.

Strategic, Policy and Legislative Implications The Government’s reform programme is currently an opt in process. Legal advice obtained by the Department of Internal Affairs confirmed that councils will not be bound to agree to be part of the next stage in the reform, which will be joining a new waters entity, if they sign the MoU.

Assessment of significance Legal advice has also been taken and confirmed that entering the MoU does not require consultation under the Local Government Act.

The matters for decision in this report are not considered to be of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Communications and Engagement Plan Not considered at this stage. Financial Considerations Funding can be used for both operational and capital expenditure but can not be used for projects already funded in Council’s 2020/21 Annual Plan. It will be grant to council on top of forecast income and expenditure. Impacts on Māori The MOU recognises the reform programme will give rise to rights and interests under the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Government has committed to Iwi/Māori involvement in the reform process.

Environmental impact and considerations The objectives of the reform include infrastructure that improving environmental performance

250

Next steps If the Council agrees to enter into the MoU then staff will progress the MoU formalities Funding Agreement and draft Delivery Plan. The draft Plan will be shared with Elected Members before being submitted to Crown Infrastructure Partners.

251 ATTACHMENT 1 Three Waters Reform Programme

A proposal to transform the delivery of three waters services

Webpage: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme Email: [email protected] 252 Quick overview

An opt-in reform Phased 3-year 1 programme 2 delivery 3 horizon

With an initial $761 million funding The reform programme will Subsequent phases will package from central government, and be undertaken in phases, occur over the next 3 designed to support economic recovery each informed by the years and will require close post COVID-19 and address persistent previous stage. collaboration, including with systemic issues facing three waters, by: input from iwi/Māori. The first phase requires • stimulating investment and job creation Councils to consider a non- to assist with economic recovery; binding MOU to share information and participate in • reforming water service delivery, into reform programme and larger scale providers, to realise does significant economic, public health, not require asset transfers. environmental, and other benefits over This is a good faith the medium to long term. agreement to work together.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 2 253 Background Central/Local Government Forum COVID-19 28 May 2020 Decision to outbreak and create Taumata response Government Arowai, new Inquiry into water services Havelock North regulator Drinking Water Central and local government agree partnership approach to progress three waters Central and local services delivery reform, in government work conjunction with infrastructure Central government together to respond to investment package – progresses three waters COVID-19, to support formation of joint Steering Three Waters Review regulatory reforms, and delivery of essential Committee. Both parties set up to address the agrees to support services to recognises the importance of challenges facing the voluntary changes to communities. Te Mana o Te Wai, and regulation and delivery service delivery involvement of the Treaty of three waters services. arrangements. partner in these discussions.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 3 254 Regulation • Taumata Arowai, new drinking water regulator, with a focus on compliance, monitoring and enforcement of new drinking water regime. • Water Services Bill to give effect to Cabinet decisions to significantly strengthen the regulatory framework. • Potential economic regulation to:  Improve transparency about infrastructure and investment  Protect interests of customers  Support efficiency

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 4 255 Investment challenges 1. Staying ahead of the significant reinvestment and renewals has been a challenge. 2. The cost of meeting drinking water and waste water standards will be high. 3. Funding, financing and affordability issues are only going to be exacerbated by the revenue challenges following COVID-19. 4. Pipes are 80% of the asset base, and are in addition to this.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 5 256

Estimated cost per rateable property for upgrades to wastewater Funding and plants that discharge to coastal and freshwater*

Average Highest affordability $16,000 challenges $14,000 The challenge is $12,000 greatest for small $10,000 councils with fewer $8,000 ratepayers to share costs. $6,000 $4,000

$2,000

$- Auckland Metro Provincial Rural

* Wastewater costs are driven by existing RMA consent requirements, not three waters changes

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 6 257 Parallel Conversation

There is a parallel opportunity for the local government sector to partner with the Government to ensure the sector is better positioned to expand their role in delivering community wellbeing.

• The Government is acutely aware of the significance of the proposed reform programme for the roles and functions of local government in supporting community wellbeing. • Over the last year DIA has engaged with local government on how to better promote community wellbeing. We have heard:  All parties would need to operate in a different, more seamless and sustainable way;  Needs a partnership between local government and central government, iwi, NGOs, and industry to better deliver community-led priorities.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 7 258 Proposal

The Government is proposing a programme for Economic stimulus Service delivery reform reforming three waters package Programme service delivery $761m in FY 2020/21. A phased, three-year arrangements, which would • • programme to reform three be delivered in parallel with • Funding provided to territorial waters services delivery an economic stimulus authorities who opt-in to a arrangements. package of Crown partnership process, before the investment in water end of August. • Supported by joint infrastructure. central/local government • Funding to be invested in three steering committee. waters infrastructure that support economic recovery. • Engagement with sector, Iwi/Māori and stakeholders • Further tranches will depend on throughout the Government decisions and programme. progress against reform objectives.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 8 259 Reform objectives

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 9 260 Reform design features

Design features that the proposed reform programme should examine, as a minimum:

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 10 261 Approach to aggregation

The potential size Potential to achieve scale benefits from the greater of the entities will Scale benefits scale of water service delivery to consumers at a need to be multi-regional level to ensure full benefits of scale are considered against achieved through a population/customer base. three principles:

Communities Alignment of geographical boundaries to encompass of interest natural communities of interest, belonging and identity including rohe/takiwā.

Relevant Relationship with relevant regulatory boundaries regulatory particularly to enable water to be managed from boundaries source to the sea.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 11 262 Indicative timeline

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 12 263

Questions?

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 13 264 Breakout session

Let’s break into small groups and discuss:

1 What are your thoughts on the proposed minimum design features and reform process?

2 What factors do you think the Steering Committee should consider as the reform programme progresses?

3 What guidance or support do you think would be helpful?

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 14 265 Next steps

What mechanisms and support will be made available to local authorities to participate in this process?

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 15 266 Memorandum of understanding

A model agreement Committed to… Does not… developed by the Steering Group for • Engage in the first phase of the • Legally commit Councils to each Council to reform programme. future phases of the reform enter into with the • Work with neighbouring councils to programme. Government: consider the creation of large scale • Require Councils to transfer entities. assets or establish new water • Principles and objectives of working entities. Legal opinion commissioned by SOLGM on behalf of the together with central government. • Exclude participation in later Steering Committee was • Openly share information and phases – Councils that provided by Simpson Grierson analysis undertaken on the state of choose to opt-in later can still that the MoU does not contain do so but will not have access any explicit triggers for the three waters asset base and consultation under the Local delivery system. to the initial funding package. Government Act 2002.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 16 267

Funding 1 Funding provided to maintain and accelerate three waters infrastructure investment • Funding provided as a grant. • Can be used for Capex and/or Opex. • Drinking water and wastewater priority.

2 Funding allocation to be determined shortly • Ministers working to confirm this shortly.

3 Planning implications Decision to opt-in to tranche Likely focus on renewals and bringing forward of BAU one required no later than the • end of August to access initial capital works programme. stimulus funding

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 17 268

Funding Funding Agreement

Agreement • Standard-form agreement between Crown and local authorities. Mechanisms for • Guides the release and use of funding. accessing the • Grant funding. Government • Sets out: funding package: o Funding amount. o Funding conditions. o Public Finance Act/ public accountability requirements. o Reporting obligations.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 18 269

Delivery Potential Delivery Plan

Plan • Short-form template submitted to Crown Infrastructure Partners for review and monitoring. Potential • Show that funding is applied to operating or capital expenditure that mechanism for supports economic recovery and maintains/increases investment in core accessing the water infrastructure. Government • Sets out: funding package: o A summary of works. o Estimated cost. o Location of the physical works. o Number of people employed in the works. o Reporting arrangements. o Assessment of how it supports the stimulus objectives. o Expected benefits/outcomes.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 19 270 What are we inviting local authorities to do before August?

Consider whether • Explore and design a pathway for reforming three waters service you will opt-in to a delivery arrangements in a way that will be beneficial for your partnership communities. process with the Secure an initial release of funding to stimulate economic Government to: • recovery and maintain, increase or accelerate planned investment in three waters infrastructure. NOTE: Decisions required no later than the 31 August to access initial stimulus funding.

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 20 271 Next Steps

Upcoming Future Engagement • Updated FAQs and guidance material following workshops (ongoing) • Webinar with CEs and Water Managers (early August) • Webinar for Legal and CFOs (early August) • Iwi/Māori engagement, in conjunction with Taumata Arowai (September/October) • Steering Committee communications and updates (ongoing) • Policy and Commercial discussions (post August)

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 21 272

Questions?

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 22 273 Breakout session

Let’s break into small groups and discuss:

1 What are your thoughts about the proposed MoU/Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan?

2 What further advice or information would your Council require to consider opting in to tranche one?

3 What guidance or support do you think would be helpful?

Three Waters Reform Programme: Workshop to discuss proposed investment and reform package 23 274

Ngā mihi Thank you

Webpage: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme Email: [email protected] 275 ATTACHMENT 2

MODEL Memorandum of Understanding Three Waters Services Reform

Between the [Sovereign in right of New Zealand acting by and through the Minister of Local Government] and [Territorial Authority]

Date

1 276 PURPOSE

This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) sets out the principles and objectives that the Parties agree will underpin their ongoing relationship to support the improvement in three waters service delivery for communities with the aim of realising significant public health, environmental, economic, and other benefits over the medium to long term. It describes, in general terms, the key features of the proposed reform programme and the Government funding arrangements that will support investment in three waters infrastructure as part of the COVID 19 economic recovery.

BACKGROUND

Over the past three years central and local government have been considering solutions to challenges facing the regulation and delivery of three water services. This has seen the development of new legislation to create Taumata Arowai, the new Water Services Regulator, to oversee and enforce a new drinking water regulatory framework, with an additional oversight role for wastewater and stormwater networks.

While addressing the regulatory issues, both central and local government acknowledge that there are broader challenges facing the delivery of water services and infrastructure, and the communities that fund and rely on these services. There has been regulatory failure, underinvestment in three waters infrastructure in parts of the country, and persistent affordability challenges, and additional investment is required to increase public confidence in the safety of drinking water and to improve freshwater outcomes. Furthermore, investment in water service delivery infrastructure is a critical component of a collective response to climate change and increasing resilience of local communities.

The Parties to this Memorandum consider it is timely to apply targeted infrastructure stimulus investment to enable improvements to water service delivery, progress reform in partnership, and ensure the period of economic recovery following COVID-19 supports a transition to a productive, sustainable economy. Additional funding will be subject to Government decision-making and reliant on the Parties demonstrating substantive progress against the reform objectives. The quantum, timing, conditions, and any other information relating to future funding will be advised at the appropriate time but will likely comprise additional tranches of funding and more specific agreement to key reform milestones.

The reform process and stimulus funding, proposed by Government, is designed to support economic recovery post COVID-19 and address persistent systemic issues facing the three waters sector, through a combination of:

• stimulating investment, to assist economic recovery through job creation, and maintain investment in water infrastructure renewals and maintenance; and

• reforming current water service delivery, into larger scale providers, to realise significant economic, public health, environmental, and other benefits over the medium to long term.

There is a shared understanding that a partnership approach will best support the wider community and ensure that the transition to any eventual new arrangements is well managed and as smooth as possible. This requires undertaking the reform in a manner that enables local government to continue and, where possible, enhance delivery of its broad “wellbeing mandates” under the Local Government Act 2002, while recognising the potential impacts that changes to three waters service delivery may have on the role and functions of territorial authorities.

2

277 PRINCIPLES FOR WORKING TOGETHER

The Parties shall promote a relationship in their dealings with each other, and other Parties related to the three waters services reform, based on:

• mutual trust and respect; and

• openness, promptness, consistency and fairness in all dealings and communication including through adopting a no-surprises approach to any matters or dealings related to the reform programme; and

• non-adversarial dealings and constructive problem-solving approaches; and

• working co-operatively and helpfully to facilitate the other Parties perform their roles; and

• openly sharing information and analysis undertaken to date on the state of the system for delivering three waters services and the quality of the asset base.

This Memorandum is intended to be non-binding in so far as it does not give rise to legally enforceable obligations between the Parties.

REFORM OBJECTIVES AND CORE DESIGN FEATURES

By agreeing to this Memorandum, the Parties agree to work constructively together to support the objectives of the three waters service delivery reform programme.

The Parties agree that the following objectives will underpin the reform programme and inform the development of reform options/proposals:

• significantly improving the safety and quality of drinking water services, and the environmental performance of drinking water and wastewater systems (which are crucial to good public health and wellbeing, and achieving good environmental outcomes);

• ensuring all New Zealanders have equitable access to affordable three waters services;

• improving the coordination of resources, planning, and unlocking strategic opportunities to consider New Zealand’s infrastructure and environmental needs at a larger scale;

• increasing the resilience of three waters service provision to both short- and long-term risks and events, particularly climate change and natural hazards;

• moving the supply of three waters services to a more financially sustainable footing, and addressing the affordability and capability challenges faced by small suppliers and councils;

• improving transparency about, and accountability for, the delivery and costs of three waters services, including the ability to benchmark the performance of service providers; and

• undertaking the reform in a manner that enables local government to further enhance the way in which it can deliver on its broader “wellbeing mandates” as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

3

278 In addition to these objectives, the Parties recognise that any consideration of changes to, or new models for, water service delivery arrangements must include the following fundamental requirements and safeguards:

• mechanisms that provide for continued public ownership of water service delivery infrastructure, and protect against privatisation; and

• mechanisms that provide for the exercise of ownership rights in water services entities that consider the interests and wellbeing of local communities, and which provide for local service delivery.

The Parties also recognise the reform programme will give rise to rights and interests under the Treaty of Waitangi and both Parties acknowledge the role of the Treaty partner. This includes maintaining Treaty settlement obligations and other statutory rights including under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002. The outcome of discussions with iwi/Māori will inform design of appropriate mechanisms to reflect Treaty interests. This will include clarity of roles and responsibilities.

The Parties agree to work together to identify an approach to service delivery reform that incorporates the objectives and safeguards noted above, and considers the following design features as a minimum:

• water service delivery entities, that are:

- of significant scale (most likely multi-regional) to enable benefits from aggregation to be achieved over the medium to long-term;

- asset owning entities, with balance sheet separation to support improved access to capital, alternative funding instruments and improved balance sheet strength; and

- structured as statutory entities with appropriate and relevant commercial disciplines and competency-based boards;

• delivery of drinking water and wastewater services as a priority, with the ability to extend to stormwater service provision only where effective and efficient to do so; and

• publicly owned entities, with a preference for collective council ownership;

• mechanisms for enabling communities to provide input in relation to the new entities.

The Parties acknowledge that work will also be undertaken to develop a regulatory framework, including mechanisms to protect the interests of consumers.

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

The Government has indicated its intention to provide funding to stimulate investment to enable improvements in water service delivery, support economic recovery and progress Three Waters Services Reform. The quantum of funding available for the Council (and each participating Council) will be notified by Government prior to signing this Memorandum.

4

279 Funding will be provided as soon as practicable following agreement to this Memorandum and the associated Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan will need to show that the funding is to be applied to operating or capital expenditure on three waters service delivery (with the mix to be determined by the Council) that:

• supports economic recovery through job creation; and

• maintains, increases and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewals and maintenance.1

The Delivery Plan will be based on a simple template and will include a summary of projects, relevant milestones, costs, location of physical works, number of people employed in works, reporting milestones and an assessment of how it supports the reform objectives set out in this Memorandum.

The Delivery Plan will be supplied to Crown Infrastructure Partners, and other organisations as agreed between the Parties, who will monitor progress of application of funding against the Delivery Plan to ensure spending has been undertaken consistent with public sector financial management requirements.

Agreement to this Memorandum and associated Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan are required prior to the release of Government funding. The Council will have the right to choose whether or not they wish to continue to participate in the reform programme beyond the term of the Memorandum.

FUTURE AGREEMENTS

The Parties may choose to enter other agreements that support the reform programme. These agreements will be expected to set out the terms on which the Council will partner with other councils to deliver on the reform objectives and core design features, and will include key reform milestones and detailed plans for transition to and establishment of new three waters service delivery entities.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

The Government will establish a programme management office and the Council will be able to access funding support to participate in the reform process.

The Government will provide further guidance on the approach to programme support, central and regional support functions and activities and criteria for determining eligibility for funding support. This guidance will also include the specifics of any information required to progress the reform that may be related to asset quality, asset value, costs, and funding arrangements.

TERM

This Memorandum is effective from the date of agreement until 30 June 2021 unless terminated by agreement or by replacement with another agreement related to the reform programme.

1 Maintains previously planned investment that may have otherwise deferred as a result of COVID-19.

5

280 INTERACTIONS, MONITORING, INFORMATION AND RECORDS

The Parties nominate the following representatives to act as the primary point of communication for the purposes of this Memorandum and any other purpose related to the reform programme.

Government’s Council representative

[As delegated] [Chief Executive of the Council]

It is the responsibility of these representatives to:

• work collaboratively to support the reform objectives;

• keep both Parties fully informed;

• act as a first point of reference between Parties and as liaison persons for external contacts; and

• communicate between Parties on matters that arise that may be of interest to either party.

If the contact person changes in either organisation, the other party’s contact person must be informed of the new contact person immediately and there should be an efficient transition to ensure the momentum of the reform process is not undermined.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Neither of the Parties is to disclose, directly or indirectly, any confidential information received from the other party to any third party without written consent from the other party, unless required by processes under the Official Information Act 1982 or the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (whichever applies), or under a Parliamentary process- such as following a Parliamentary question, in which case the relevant party is to inform the other party prior to disclosure. Protocols will be established to enable exchange information between Councils where that is consistent with progressing reform objectives.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Any dispute concerning the subject matter of this document is to be settled by full and frank discussion and negotiation between the Parties.

6

281

…………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………

SIGNED on behalf of the Crown SIGNED by [insert name of the Mayor of the Territorial Authority signing - DELETE TEXT] on by [insert name - DELETE TEXT] behalf of [Territorial Authority]

[Sovereign in right of New Zealand acting by and through the Minister of Local Government]:

…………………………………………………………………

SIGNED by [insert name of the Chief Executive of the Territorial Authority signing - DELETE TEXT] on behalf of [Territorial Authority]

………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….. Witness signature Witness signature

Witness name [insert name - DELETE TEXT] Witness name [insert name - DELETE TEXT] Witness occupation [insert occupation - Witness occupation [insert occupation DELETE TEXT] - DELETE TEXT]

Witness address [insert address - DELETE Witness address [insert address - DELETE TEXT] TEXT]

7

282

104/20 To: Your Worship and Members

From: Kathryn Ross, Chief Executive

Date: 27 July 2020

Subject: Chief Executive’s Report

FOR INFORMATION

Recommendation: That Council notes the information contained in the Chief Executive’s report 104/20.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update (as at 27 July 2020) on Council operations and changes in the national and regional context for Council since the last CEO report to Council dated 12 June 2020. Chief Executive’s Overview Announcements by the Minister of Finance at Hood Aerodrome this month were a definite highlight. $10 million was announced for Hood Aerodrome, which will enable the widening and extension of the runway, realigning the road, extending the taxiway and apron, upgrading the lighting, improving effluent, water and power on site, increased security and improvements that would enable CAA certification. A further $1.3M was announced for improvement works to the Masterton skatepark, a community led-Council supported project. These projects represent many hours of work by staff to get the projects and applications developed. My thanks go to all involved.

In the lead up to the national elections there is a raft of business before the House and major announcements being made by Government. On this agenda is a separate report on the three waters review and service delivery. The Water Services Bill has been introduced. It contains significant implications for all councils, irrespective of any new service delivery arrangements, with new duties for drinking water suppliers, including to: • provide safe drinking water and meet drinking water standards, along with clear obligations to act when drinking water is not safe or fails to meet standards • ensure that there is a sufficient quantity of drinking water to support the ordinary needs of consumers, with clear obligations to act where supply is interrupted or restricted for any reason • register drinking water supplies with Taumata Arowai, and keep essential details relating to supplies updated each year • have a drinking water safety plan that contains a multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety. The Bill also imposes a duty on officers, employees, and agents of drinking water suppliers to exercise professional due diligence similar to requirements contained in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, 283

with new offences where a supplier (for example a council) exposes consumers to a serious risk of death, illness, or injury through negligent or reckless conduct. The Bill also contains new national-level reporting, monitoring, and advisory functions for wastewater and stormwater and new responsibilities for territorial authorities to ensure that their communities continue to have access to drinking water. This includes new responsibilities on councils for when supplies fail or are at risk of failing.

Council officers will prepare a submission for Council consideration.

National / regional context

COVID-19 updates

The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 came into effect on 9 July 2020. The June 2020 CE Report provided detailed information about the purpose of the Act, some of the projects that have been listed for fast track resource consenting and work that Masterton District Council has underway. For more information, refer Report 088/20.

Consumer Spending trends during COVID-19 Recovery The latest Paymark data released by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) shows that in the four weeks to 12 July 2020, total spending in the Masterton district was 8.8% higher than during the same four-week period of 2019.

The following graph shows the trend in total consumer spending for Masterton since February 2020. The graph also plots the four COVID-19 Alert Levels.

Carterton district experienced a similar increase in the four weeks to 12 July 2020 (up 8.1%) while South Wairarapa was up 22.6%. Wellington region and New Zealand as a whole were both up 2.2%.

The following graph shows the trend in four-week consumer spending change from last year for the Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa districts, through to 12 July 2020.

284

Recovery The Wairarapa COVID-19 Joint Recovery Committee met on 27 July and endorsed the communications strategy to promote the coordination efforts of the team and committee. The first stage of operationalising the communications strategy has been to appoint someone to a part time communications role which is being overseen by Masterton District Councils’ Communications and Marketing Manager. Recovery branding and awareness has commenced with an awareness advertisement appearing in the Wairarapa Times Age Midweek edition and a Wairarapa recovery website has been set up and linked to each Council’s own website to promote each Council’s recovery work.

Regional Visitor Data A report was recently released by Data Ventures commissioned by Tourism New Zealand that uses the aggregated and anonymised mobile data from the major telecoms companies, along with Statistics NZ expertise, to create population estimates of residents and visitors in New Zealand every hour down to suburb level. The data in this report showed that the Wairarapa has consistently every weekend since lockdown attracted the same or greater – and growing, number of visitors to the region compared to the two weekends prior to lockdown. In addition to this, the Wairarapa had the greatest increase in visitor numbers over the recent school holidays ‘vs’ the same school holiday period last year – in the North Island. These results are encouraging and corroborate the consumer spending trends we are seeing from the MBIE paymark data.

285

Further information can be found here: https://reports.dataventures.nz/population/20200720-tourism- new-zealand-school-holidays-report-20th-july-2020.html

Planning Updates

Resource Management Reforms The September 2019 (Report 198/19) and February 2020 (Report 016/20) CE reports have provided updates on the Resource Management and Development reforms space. Report 016/20 flagged that the Resource Management Amendment Bill work was underway. It has now received royal assent. Any changes to the Act will be considered as part of the District Plan Review.

A summary of the changes is available on the Ministry for the Environment website: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/RMA/Final-overview-of-changes-introduced-by-the- resource-management-amendment-act-2020.pdf

Climate Change/Environmental Updates

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020 The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020 came into effect on 22 June 2020. The purpose of the amendments to the Act is to have reforms in place that help New Zealand reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The changes will provide more certainty for businesses, make the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme more accessible, and improve its administration. Regulations are expected to be published by the end of the year.

These changes are relevant to organisations that are enrolled in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). For Masterton District Council, the ETS will be relevant if we are to undertake any native regeneration or native planting on land greater than 1 hectare.

Further detail on the specific reforms is available on the Ministry for the Environment website: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/overview-reforming-new-zealand-emissions-trading-scheme

Climate Change Adaptation As part of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, the Minister for Climate Change and the Climate Change Commission can now request information about climate change adaptation from local councils and other organisations.

The first national climate change risk assessment is due to be released by the end of the year. It will identify the most significant risks New Zealand faces from climate change. It will be followed by the national adaptation plan.

The Ministry for the Environment has signalled that they plan to engage with councils over the coming months on how the councils are responding to and preparing for climate change.

Regional greenhouse gas emissions estimates The Ministry for the Environment are supporting Statistics NZ’s regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates. The estimates will form part of Stats NZ environmental-economic accounts and will provide regions with high-level, annual, and easily accessible estimates consistent with national emissions statistics. 286

These estimates will provide us with data that is consistent with national methodologies and tell us how the greater Wellington Region is tracking towards achieving national GHG emission targets.

National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity The proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) requires councils to be more proactive in protecting biodiversity. The timeframe for the delivery of the proposed NPS-IB (delayed due to COVID-19) has been extended to April 2021. One of the requirements in the draft NPS that will likely have impact on Masterton District Council is requiring 10% indigenous vegetation in each urban area and district. Until the NPS is gazetted, the extent of implications for Masterton District Council will not be clear.

Other legislative updates

Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 (and related legislation) The Ministry of Health are reviewing the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and related legislation and are inviting submissions until 31 October 2020. This consultation document sets out a range of options for modernising the legislation relating to death, burial, cremation and funerals in New Zealand. Areas of interest include consideration of a new burial and cemetery management framework. Three options have been presented for a new burial and cemetery management framework. Option Two would see a number of burial and cemetery management functions shift from central government to local government. Local government would take on a more significant role in the provision and oversight of cemeteries, in a manner consistent with modern understandings around public health and land-use issues. A couple of examples include: • duty to keep records of cemeteries and burials within the district, to be accessible by the general public – This provision would only apply to the Mauriceville West Lutheran burial ground and the Mauriceville North Church burial ground, as they are managed independently. We currently keep records of cemeteries and burials only for those cemeteries that are maintained and operated by Masterton District Council. • Obligation to assume responsibility for failing non-local authority cemeteries, or where a designated cemetery manager renounces their role – It is likely that this provision would apply to the Mauriceville North Church cemetery. We do not currently maintain and operate all of the cemeteries (particularly all of the rural cemeteries) within the Masterton District. A legal obligation to do so if the need arose would impact on current levels of service.

These proposed changes will not affect the administration of urupa, which are taken care of under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

Further work will be undertaken by staff to more fully understand how the proposals in the review document will impact current levels of service for our cemeteries function. A copy of the consultation document is available on the Ministry of Health website: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/death-funerals-burial-and-cremation-review-burial-and- cremation-act-1964-and-related-legislation

287

Regional Funding

Jobs for Nature: Funding for improving freshwater In July 2020, the Government announced $62 million funding for 22 quick-start projects to improve freshwater quality. Two of Greater Wellington Regional Council applications have been approved and both projects are Wairarapa based.

The fencing/planting in the Te Kauru (upper Ruamāhanga) catchment project received $2.5 million and Wairarapa Moana Wetlands Project $3.5 million, with predicted creation of 50 and 100 jobs respectively.

Masterton District Council is one of the organisations that provide support to the Wainuioru Community River Care Group through membership on an advisory body, soon to be formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding.

Rural Roads and tree removal maintenance

The last CEO report touched on the successful $1m funding announcement for rural roads and tree removal maintenance https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/60m-nationwide-job-creation and also covered in Times-Age http://readnow.isentia.com/Temp/141637-63736145/1288235336.pdf ).

Since then work on six sites has been completed, some sites were completed ahead of schedule and under the original estimated budget. A further two sites are estimated to be completed by 3 August.

Social objectives that have been completed to date include employing several new employees, all of which have come to contractors via the Ministry of Social Development.

Training for employees is a strong focus, this includes first aid training, specialist on-job training, new staff being trained in traffic control and site set up, training and induction for working with a high production chipper.

Development is also underway for a formal training plan for each employee. A meeting has been scheduled with the Primary Training advisor to confirm the individual training plans and sign the new staff on to the New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) Level 2 certificate in horticulture. The plan is for all new staff to complete this qualification with the 6 months of this project.

Project updates

S17A Review: Economic Development Independent consultants Martin Jenkins have been commissioned by the three Wairarapa Councils to review the current arrangements for economic development delivery across the Wairarapa region. The review was originally commissioned prior to the lockdown period but was unable to progress until we moved to Alert Level 1. The work is being completed under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting community needs for good quality infrastructure, local public services and local regulation.

Martin Jenkins held a workshop with the three Mayors and the Chair of Greater Wellington Regional Council on 12 June 2020, together with Brett O’Riley, Chief Executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association and former Chief Executive of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development. Brett is providing an external peer review role for this project. Following this initial 288

workshop, Martin Jenkins have undertaken a series of stakeholder interviews with local and regional stakeholders, including each of the three Wairarapa District Council Chief Executives, representatives of WellingtonNZ and Greater Wellington Regional Council, Destination Wairarapa, Business Wairarapa and local business leaders. The engagement phase is still underway, with further interviews to be held, including with iwi.

The consultants have also looked at examples of local economic development agency structures from elsewhere in New Zealand and have identified a range of potential options that could be considered for the Wairarapa region. Work is underway to assess each of these options against a set of appropriate criteria, which consider factors such as practicality, affordability, and suitability. These options will be presented and discussed with each of the Councils on the 12th and 13th August before a recommended option is identified and put forward for agreement later in August.

Five Towns Trail Master Plan Targeted stakeholder consultation is now underway to further plan and assess potential trail route(s). A series of stakeholder workshops are being held in each of the three Wairarapa districts at the end of July. The purpose is to identify potential alignments between existing recreation trails as well as opportunities for connections between the five Wairarapa towns. A particular focus of the Masterton workshop will be to explore potential routes to connect Masterton with Carterton and Gladstone. A combined regional workshop is also being held. Attendees will include Mayors, the Elected Members on the Wairarapa Trails Action Group, Greater Wellington Regional Council, the Department of Conservation, Sustainable Wairarapa, Sports Wairarapa, Destination Wairarapa, tourism promotion groups, Federated Farmers, trail development groups, the Wairarapa Road Safety Council, and representatives from cycling/recreation based businesses. Biketober A plan is being developed between the three Wairarapa District Councils on plans for Biketober – a Wairarapa-wide celebration of cycling for the month of October. Biketober includes community events that can be run by clubs and schools. Biketober will form part of the Greater Wellington Bike Festival and will include safety campaigns being developed with Wairarapa Road Safety Council.

Traffic Management Requirements for Cycling Events Concerns have been raised by some cycling clubs and race directors about issues they face in the completion of Traffic Management Plans for their events. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is required when the activity is competitive and participants are unlikely to obey the road rules, or for events that vary the normal operating conditions of the road. The Regional Trails and Cycling Co-Ordinator has met with relevant staff from the three Wairarapa councils to discuss the issues raised, and assistance is being provided to race directors to help ensure they can meet the TMP requirements.

Wairarapa Healthy Homes Programme The Wairarapa Healthy Homes (WHH) programme was established in 2004 as a community-based home insulation initiative. The programme is a partnership between the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA) and a number of Wairarapa Community Funders (three Wairarapa Councils, Wairarapa District Health Board, and Trust House Foundation) through the insulation provider Energy Smart (Terra Lana). 289

Through this programme almost 2,800 Wairarapa low income homes have received 100% subsidised home insulation. Many of those homes are in the Masterton District. Masterton District Council have contributed to the scheme for the last 16 years.

Warmer Kiwi Homes that the WHH receives subsidy from is a Government programme offering insulation and heating grants for low-income homeowners (owner-occupiers). From April 2020 the subsidy is 90% EECA and 10% community funding. Further information is available on the Energy Wise website: https://www.energywise.govt.nz/tools/warmer-kiwi-homes-tool/

Masterton District Council are in the process of formalising the relationship between the Wairarapa funders through a Memorandum of Partnership and are seeking new funders to maximise on the opportunity of the Government’s 90% subsidy.

Projects of interest this month

Please refer to Attachment 1 for a dashboard update on key Council projects of interest. These will continue to be reported in this format in future CEO reports to Council.

At Hood, sewerage, water and power connections are now complete for the new hangar sites at the end of Moncrief Drive and the base course for extending Moncrief Drive is going in. Next month, security fencing options for Moncrief drive will be consulted on to improve safety. The second hangar build will start shortly and given the significant activity occurring (and planned) for Hood staff will be providing a regular email newsletter to all Hood stakeholders, users and operators.

Communications and Marketing

Overview The Hood Aerodrome and skatepark announcements, dog registrations, air quality, Annual Plan adoption and the opening of events and community wellbeing grants were the items of focus over June and July.

Significant efforts to make residents aware of the 31 July deadline for dog registrations, including incentives and digital advertising, supported a higher percentage of dog registrations being paid up than in previous years. The team also injected some light-hearted messaging to help minimise negative perceptions of “yet another bill”. Refer to the Animal Services section of this report for further information on this.

Work with the policy team, Greater Wellington Regional Council and NIWA, also resulted in proactive media engagement around air quality. The campaign included:

- Proactive media around new air quality system, enabling council to front-foot efforts for improvement - Refreshed website content, linking to NIWA animations - Partnership with local wood supplier to give away a free load of wood through an online promotion (125 entries received) - Monthly reporting of Masterton’s air quality in existing comms (Monthly Wrap).

The adoption of the Annual Plan in June enabled proactive communication about rates increases. This included: 290

- Key messaging in existing communications and the inclusion of a letter with rates notices outlining the Council’s key decisions as part of the Annual Plan, and response to COVID-19. - New rates animation has also been developed and “soft launched”. Animation has achieved initial success; previous rates videos have generated significant negative commentary on social media; at time of writing the animation post had reached 1,200 people with 2% engaging in the post and no negative comments.

The approval to go ahead with the lower Queen Street redevelopment attracted strong media interest and engagement on social media: it was the most popular post on our MDC Facebook page over the reporting period and achieved high-profile coverage in the Times-Age. Direct emails to databases, updating contacts of the development, also achieved strong engagement.

Publicity of the Events Fund and Community Wellbeing Grants this year included one of the team voicing radio ads, bringing a fresh voice to MDC advertising, alongside traditional and digital comms.

Work has also started on developing materials to improve awareness of Masterton’s parking spaces, including a static map showing carparks, distance to walk and estimated time to walk to the library and the “heart” of town (Queen/Bannister intersection). This is being repurposed into an interactive map that will be situated on the website. A plan for ensuring awareness of these tools is in development.

We are also preparing to increase signage and marketing of Masterton’s Recreational Trails, with the first phase implemented by summer, and will be upgrading street flag infrastructure (to improve the ease of changing flags) in August.

The draft Communications and Engagement Strategy will be coming to the next Council meeting, following a discussion session with Elected Members.

Digital communications The website improvement project is underway and participant interviews have started – involving them to undertake tasks on the website and observing participant activity. Community groups and organisations have been engaged to ensure a representative spread of people within our community.

The website had more than 10,000 visits in June with the most popular pages continuing to be rates, online maps and the combined district plan. The “was this helpful” tool, prompting users to give feedback, drew a 93.4% positive rating.

On social media, over June, our six published posts reached 17,651 people, created 771 engagements (clicks, likes or shares) resulting in a very high engagement rate of 4.6% (well above industry benchmark of 2%). Audience is sitting at 3,260 for the MDC Facebook account – strong growth from 2,887 in January – and taking our total audience (across MDC and My Masterton to almost 11,000).

Efforts to increase the email database are ongoing, with the most recent push taking our total subscriber list to 700 (exclusive of the rating database). Both the June and July email version of the Masterton Monthly Wrap achieved very strong engagement from the 2,500 audience; more than half continue to open, and around 20 per cent click on a specific story – much higher than benchmark engagement rates for local government.

291

Media The Government’s announcement of $11.3 million in funding for development at Hood Aerodrome ($10m) and the revamp of Masterton’s skatepark ($1.3m) was the media highlight, with both the Times- Age and the Dominion Post covering the issue. We assisted both with photographs at Hood taken by Council staff appearing in both publications.

Issues covered in the period since the last report include water quality, with Masterton’s supply meeting Department of Health requirements, in contrast to Carterton and South Wairarapa.

Seven media releases were distributed, as well as information and photographs relating to the theft of plants from a traffic island, and photographs of the inspection of Masterton’s war memorial in Queen Elizabeth Park by internationally renowned conservators.

The Council’s Matariki celebration, at the Library Learning Centre facilities, was the subject of a photospread in the Times-Age.

Since beginning June there have been more than 140 news articles referencing the Council, published mainly in the Times-Age and Midweek, and more than 50 Letters to the Editor. Media enquiries to the Council average around two a day.

Environmental Services Activity

Environmental Services Bylaws

BYLAWS COMPARISON BY MONTH JUNE 2020 450 386 400 350 300 250 226

200 162 158 142 141 150 131 104 114 100 81 71 53 58 60 63 32 38 31 31 50 23 25 27 30 17 0 Vehicle Related Stock/Animal Overhanging Water Litter/Rubbish Other Trees/Long Grass Wastage/Waterways

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 1 Bylaw Service requests by category from 1 July to 30 June compared to the same period in the previous years. 292

Vehicle related calls are continuing to increase compared to previous years, with 16 vehicle related service requests lodged in June. Service requests for vehicle related issues include abandoned vehicles, parking and vehicles causing damage/nuisance.

The parking in the metered area of the CBD remains free until 31 August, however the wardens are now enforcing the two-hour time limit to increase the vehicle turnover and parking space availability.

Stock and Animal service requests include wandering stock, bees, the keeping of more than three cats in the urban area and welfare for animals other than dogs. There was a total of six service requests in June. Stock calls remain consistent over June with four calls about wandering stock, the majority of these wandering stock calls were alerted to Masterton District Council afterhours requiring the on-call team member to attend the job out of normal working hours.

Service requests from the community regarding trees overhanging into public spaces from private land remained consistent over June. Staff follow up on overhanging trees throughout the year.

The Water Wastage/Waterways category includes obstruction of a watercourse and water restrictions. There was a site-specific issue in 2017/18 which resulted in a spike in service requests for waterways.

The Litter and Rubbish category relates to requests for service in relation to fly-tipping and illegal dumping. The number of service requests is up compared to last year but is still lower than the previous two years. There were no service requests in June raised by members of the public that required investigation from the team.

Animal Services

SERVICE REQUESTS FOR ANIMAL SERVICES COMPARISON BY MONTH JUNE 2020

1400 1266 1227 1186 1200 1002 1000

800

600 460 400 235 163 140 157 178 164 200 88

0 Service Request P1 Service Request P2 Service Request P3

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 2 Dog Service requests by category from 1 July to 30 June compared to the same period in the previous years.

P1, P2 and P3 reflect the priority/urgency of the requests for service received. • P1 – The most urgent calls, for example dog attacks, police assistance. Attendance within one hour. • P2 – Barking and wandering. Attendance within 24 hours. 293

• P3 - Non‐urgent requests, for example changing details on a dog account. Response within 5 working days.

The priority 1 calls which are targeted to be actioned within 60 minutes are slightly higher for this time period than the previous two years. There were 12 priority 1 calls that required attendance in June. This kept the team extremely busy over the month, ensuring they are attending the jobs within the hour and then the follow-up investigations that relate to the jobs.

There continue to be service requests for barking dogs in June. There were however only 11 service requests made in June compared to 21 in May.

Overall, the Animal Services team have received 1,640 requests for service across P1‐P3 categories compared to 1,578 requests in the same period last year. The majority of requests have been P3, which require action within 5 working days. The increase in P3 requests has continued over the past three years. The team will be promoting the arrangement of payment plans for dog registration fees and expect to have an increase in service requests relating to this.

Registrations Year to Date Mid-July saw more than 50% of dog owners had registered their dogs. To encourage dog owners to get in early and register their dogs there were six prize packs to win if dog registration was paid before 30 June. All dogs that are registered before 31 July can win their owner their registration fee back. There are six registration fee refunds to be won.

Picture 1. Mayor Lyn Patterson holding one of the six prize packs. 294

Follow-ups with unregistered dog owners will start in August. Penalties for non-registration will be issued on 31 August. If owners have failed to register their dog by October, they will be issued a $300 infringement per dog for failing to register.

There are less impounded dogs, unwanted dogs that are not claimed for collection and fewer euthanised dogs. The team are still finding and issuing notices to register to owners of unregistered dogs.

ANIMAL SERVICES COMPARISON BY MONTH JUNE 2020

300 279 270

250 238

200 189

150 150 121 103 100

53 50 39 34 41 34 50 30 29 26 17 8 0 6 0 Dogs Rehomed Notice to register Infringements Issued Dogs Euthanised Dogs Impounded Dogs

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 3 Dog result activity by category from 1 July to 31 June compared to the same period in the previous years.

Environmental Health Activity Environmental health planned work includes food verifications, alcohol and other premises inspections, and water and consent monitoring. Requests for service and noise complaints are unplanned work that is required to be fitted in around scheduled work. 295

FOOD/ALCOHOL COMPARISON BY MONTH JUNE 2020 250 207 200 184 185 161 150 100 89 92 100 78 71 77 64 60 55 56 54 55 57 50 50 33 37

0 Food Verifications Food Alcohol Applications Alcohol Premises Other Premises Reinspection/CARS Received Inspections/CPOs Inspections Follow Up

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 4 Environmental Health verification and inspections by category from 1 July to 30 June compared to the same period in the previous years.

Food Act Verification and inspections Food verifications and premises inspections do not remain on track. The team are continuing with catch up for verifications and inspections deferred due to COVID-19. There is still a back log that we are steadily working through. On a positive note, the waiver for registration application fee has been very well received by new businesses.

There continues to be a number of new businesses setting up. Over the past 12 months, there have been 72 new applications received and processed, these relate to new premises opening or an existing premise being taken over by a new owner. New Food Registrations are required to be verified within six weeks of opening. This has led to verifiers and administrators having an increased workload.

The new applications were made up of:

• Food Registration - 31 • Beauty Therapy premises - 5 • Hawkers Licence - 2 • Club Licence - 1 • Off-licence -1 • On-licence - 6 • Manager Certificates - 26

As expected, special licence applications are being received again for upcoming events, after having no applications for the previous two months. This year there have been 40 special licence applications processed and inquired into.

296

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPARISON BY MONTH JUNE 2020 1200 967 965 1000 937 897

800 607 593 599 600 481

400 331 231 205 200 63 0 Noise Complaints Requests for Service Water & Consent Monitoring Sampling (sites analysed) (10s)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 5 Environmental Health Service requests and monitoring by category from 1 July to 30 June compared to the same period in the previous years.

Service requests and monitoring Noise complaints remain comparable to the previous two years. Most noise complaints are registered out of office hours and contractors attend the address in question.

Service requests continue to increase this financial year. For example, there have been 68 service requests relating to enquiring about alcohol licensing such as how to apply for new alcohol licence or planning an event where a special licence is required compared to 24 alcohol enquiries for this time period last year. There have been 129 service requests that relate to food business enquiries such as opening a new business and COVID-19 related enquires compared to the 46 for the previous time period.

Water and Consent Monitoring Sampling has decreased this year, but this is directly related to the effect COVID-19 has had on the business as usual activities.

Building Control Services Activity

Building Activity Building consent Numbers for June

Applications We received 53 building consent applications during the month of June as well as eight Amendments, one Certificate of Acceptance and one Exemptions. In comparison for the same period last year we received 53 building consent applications, nine Amendments and two CoA’s. 297

Granted

Building Consents granted in June by category (62 consents)

6% 5% 6% 7%

76%

Com1 Com2 Com3 Res1 Res2 Res3

Consents Granted - monthly comparisons

120

100

80

60

40

20

- 2018 2019 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Code Compliance Certificates 235 Code Compliance Certificate Decisions were made in June. 64 CCC’s were issued with four breaches of the statutory time frame 171 CCC’s were refused.

Inspections 337 onsite inspections were booked in June 2020. The Inspection results report is printed below and includes tabletop inspections carried out during June. 298

LIMS 40 LIM applications were received in June, 29 of which were urgent requests.

LIM Applications Received in June 2020 (total 40)

28%

72%

Urgent Non-Urgent

Planning Activity There is a lot happening in the planning area with 79 resource consents received since January, with subdivision consents resulting in 158 new allotments, the majority of which are urban infill. In addition 299

to this we have other housing developments that do not result in subdivision, for example Kandahar who are developing 12 units in Stage 1 of their 50-unit development.

An application for a 9-lot subdivision in Iorns Street North, containing 40 dwelling units, has been publicly notified with submissions closing on Friday 14 August 2020.

It is pleasing to see that the community are taking the time to consult with us on ideas that they have for subdivision and development as this may save them time and money.

Land Information applications have picked up since the COVID-19 lockdown and from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020 we have processed 152 LIMs.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development The National Policy Statement on Urban Development has been gazetted and comes into effect on the 20 August 2020. The NPS-UD requires Councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations. This includes • Ensuring urban development occurs in a way that takes into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. • Ensuring that plans make room for growth both ‘up and out’ and that rules are not unnecessarily constraining growth. • Developing, monitoring and maintaining an evidence base about demand, supply and prices for housing and land to inform planning decisions. • Aligning and coordinating planning across urban areas.

300

Community Facilities and Activities

Library and Archive The Community Development and Events Team partnered with the library to celebrate Matariki. With a series of events spread over two hours in the library building and newly completed Library Learning Centre, an evening of storytelling, crafts, made on-site souvenirs from the Maker Crate and entertainment was enjoyed by over 360 people. Although an event was put together at short notice, the Māori Community were extremely appreciative that this event was put on with a targeted approached to educating on Matariki. Originally a combined approach was planned but due to the uncertainty of COVID-19 the 2020 event was cancelled. Conversations have begun between marae and hapū to have a more combined approach for 2021 e.g. early morning ceremony at Riversdale or Castlepoint lead by Tūmapuhia-a-rangi and/or Te Hika a Papauma, Te Ore Ore holding their annual kaumatua lunch.

We are continuing to watch the detail coming through after the government announcement in May of a two year $60 million investment into public libraries to fund and upskill librarians so they can provide greater support for library users and help bolster reading and digital literacy, extend the Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa (APNK) public internet service and waive National Library subscription charges. The library has already received the fee waiver on services subscribed to through the National Library which amounts to $12,000 over two years.

Belgravia Leisure and Recreational Services - Contractors At Alert Level 1, like most businesses, it is back to a very near normal for our contractors managing the Recreation Centre, Mawley Holiday Park and maintaining our Parks and Open Spaces.

• Recreational Services - worked extremely hard towards the end of the financial year to deliver an impressive amount of unscheduled work within budget, catching up from the effects of lockdown. The first year of the new contract is drawing to a close with work underway to identify the annual price review for inflation (estimated 1.5%) and a one-year contract review taking place to review learnings and identify initiatives for the next financial year. An annual report will be shared at the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting.

• Trust House Recreation Centre and War Memorial Stadium - during June facility visits increased by 522 compared to the same month in 2009 (7242 vs 7764) in part boosted by Masterton Intermediate School using the stadium for basketball. Conversely Belgravia Leisure has reported a drop-in membership of 54 persons, attributed to the effects of lockdown.

As agreed, the back pool is now closed. Some complaints have been received from senior aqua class participants following closure of this pool. Belgravia is developing additional and different classes to meet the needs of those displaced.

301

• Mawley Park - had an excellent June compared to last year, with an increase in revenue of $16,000. Domestic interest is continuing into July.

Parks and Reserves At COVID-19 Alert Level two, four weeks were allocated to bringing urgent and high-profile areas up to standard and then the focus changed to post drought repairs and upgrades. In a short period of time Recreational Services achieved the work program on time, within budget.

Autumn turf renovations were reviewed due to COVID-19 and the turf is now playing well with positive feedback received from the winter sports codes, mainly on improvements to Douglas Villa and additional junior fields.

The Recreational Services horticultural team replanted four traffic islands. At Castlepoint the coastal gardens were replanted and in the Masterton township, two traffic islands were replanted with “what’s our welcome species”. Ngaumutawa Road is to be completed with similar species once the site has been handed over from the engineers. Queen Elizabeth Park rejuvenation gardens have been planted with infill plantings in several reserves.

The Winter tree program has started, planting of street tree replacements, Norris Reserve and the Recreational Trail near Colombo Road were completed. The remaining trees will be completed by mid- August.

Work continues at Taranaki Reserve to meet our October opening with further turf renovations being completed, and entrance gardens of feijoas planted. We are in communication with Masterton Primary School as the reserve will become an overflow sports field, recreation and learning space for the school, while remaining open to the public.

Archer Street Cemetery’s new ash berm was completed and within two months, one third of the plots were sold and interments have started.

Assistance has been provided to our many community groups as the planting season has commenced. This commenced with the Henley Trust planting 3,000 daffodils under the English oaks. Support has been provided in Matariki Tu Rakau funding with our urban groups, project management for the Lansdowne Residents Association’s planting and the sand dune committee planting.

Shift Wairarapa The Shift Foundation Wairarapa has delivered to four Just Shift It groups, two LeadHership groups, one Intermediate group, two individuals for Shift Your Mind and one Te Tauoranga group, totaling 106 young women. Out of those, 69.8% live in Masterton, 17.5% life in Carterton, 9.5% live in South Wairarapa and three young women who board at Solway College are located in Napier.

We reached a range of ethnicities whereby 1.5% Asian, 11.1% Pasifika, 42.9% Māori and 46% Pakeha. Regarding the effectiveness of Shift, and noting that the evaluation forms that are completed at the beginning/middle/end of the programme, can be subjective, we found that either their sleep, happiness/mood and/or activity had increased over the course of the programs delivered as well as their confidence, connectedness and/or wellbeing (WHO five wellbeing index) had also increased. Terms 3 and 4 we have new groups of young women, and new Schools/Colleges reached that we hope to deliver to shortly, giving more opportunities to more young women in the Wairarapa. 302

Kaitakawaenga Iwi Governance Forum - Review A review of the Iwi Governance Forum and Memorandum of Partnerships (MoP) has been initiated with Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and have agreed that it is a good time to review. The Terms of Reference and their respective MoP and been sent to them for review and were also asked about the inclusion of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tamaki Nui a Rua Treaty Settlement Trust (Wairarapa only), they are in favour of this to occur through Ko Wairarapa Tēnei.

Marae Development Fund (MDC) Staff are revising and updating the necessary documents for the Marae Development Fund. The documents are currently being reviewed by the Chairs of Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and will open before the end of the month.

This fund is available to the eight (8) Marae within the Masterton District.

• Te Rangimarie • Te Ore Ore • Akura • Motūwairaka • Hiona • Okautete • Tūmapuhia-ā-rangi

Marae Renovation Fund (PDU) The final application was submitted to the PDU and three of the six maraes in the Masterton district have applied:

• Te Ore Ore • Motwairaka • Tūmapuhia-ā-rangi

Two conditions of Marae applying for the fund is that they must be gazetted as a Māori Reservation for the purpose of a Marae and that they must be shovel ready projects that do not need consent. Three of the eight Masterton Marae do not have physical buildings but still actively meet as a Marae Ope (group), that would require consent and Te Rangimarie is not gazetted as a Māori Reservation therefore was not eligible for the funding.

Ko Wairarapa Tēnei Ko Wairarapa Tēnei are meeting regularly and will be going out to engage with the wider Wairarapa Māori Community over a one (1) month period. A funding proposal has been developed and approved with an expansion of the budget. An approach has been made for the research into the effects of COVID-19 Level 3 & 4 Rāhui on whanau.

The Wairarapa Māori Reset Plan template has been developed and will be included in the engagement. 303

Iwi, Hapū, Marae and Hapori Māori Engagement Framework From the rāhui period of Alert Levels 3 and 4 the success of Ko Wairarapa Tēnei meant different relationships were created. Depending on the outcome of their Reset Plan it would form a different MDC relationship with Iwi, Hapū, Marae and Hapori Māori which would be more beneficial for the MDC. The proposed engagement framework will be developed in association with the Wairarapa Māori Reset Plan.

Makora Road This project is a matter of correcting the spelling of the road from “Makora” to “Mākoura” and has been supported by both Iwi. The next step will be to consult with the residents and rate payers of Makora Road.

Mākoura College first corrected the name in 1991, it was a significant achievement especially to the students and parents of the college that fought for this correction.

Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori preparation will begin this week for the 2021 event. At this point we are uncertain of the theme, however we will begin preparations early.

Compliments & Complaints

From 12 June through to 24 July:

• Two official complaints have been received, both have been investigated and completed. • 22 compliments have been received, ranging from the roading team being fantastic to deal with and quick to respond. Library staff going out of their way to ensure that a severely disabled client of Wellington MS society has full access to the online library app, using her voice activated technology. The Archives staff for providing an amazing service. The building department for being helpful, patient and quick to respond to queries.

Service Requests

Over the 12 June to 24 July period, Council has received 886 service requests. 308 of these remain open. Eleven of the total number of service requests have come via Elected Members and the remainder came from the public.

In general, the service requests cover the full range of Council activities such as footpaths, water meters, roading (in particular potholes), water leaks, dogs etc.

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act Requests

During the month of June, Council received two Local Government Official Information Act (LGOIMA) requests, both of these requests have been closed with zero withdrawn. None have been transferred to another organisation or resulted in a complaint to the Ombudsman. The average response time for the month of June is 14 working days. Requests and responses are in the process of being made available on the Council website https://mstn.govt.nz/council-2/official-information-act-requests/

304

Period

No. Responded Ave time > 20 days No. Working outstanding days April 2020 6 (note some 100% 15 1 0 information was only able to be retrieved from sites after entering Alert Level 2) May 2020 6 (note some 100% 10.1 1 0 information was only able to be retrieved from sites after entering Alert Level 2) June 2020 2 (note there 100% 14 0 0 was an additional request that was received in June however the request was amended on 8 July, therefore it will fall into the next round of reporting).

People

Performance Appraisal Framework The new performance appraisal framework was launched in early July. The new system has been designed to assist in growing and supporting people in their roles, with a focus on delivering against 305

clear and measurable key performance indicators and identifying training and development opportunities.

Health, Safety and Wellbeing COVID-19 and the alert level system has resulted in increased awareness across the organisation in workplace health and safety matters. We are working to maintain momentum and build on the increased engagement.

In June, ten MDC Health and Safety Committee members completed Level 1 and 2 representative training. The objective of the course was to enable our reps to be more confident and effective in their functions, and to better understand the Council context and Health and Safety systems.

In August, our Strategic Leadership team will complete Health and Safety due diligence training which is designed to enhance leaders understanding of SLT's role as champions in the risk management process, and other core elements of the Health and Safety system.

Council Project Delivery Programme 306 Summary of current status of all projects within Project Delivery Work Programme. Note: Detailed status report provided for highlighted projects only. As at: Friday, 31 July 2020 Current Status & Next Milestone At a Glance Status

Ref Profile Stage Business Unit Project Name Completion Date RAG Executive Summary Commentary Scope Schedule Financial Resource Quality Benefits RAID P|001 High Pre‐initiation CF&A Civic Centre 2026 works need R The Civic Centre (Town Hall & Municipal Building) has been closed since 2016 RRGGGGACouncillors visited 7 civic/events facilities throughout the lower North Island on the 14th and to be completed due to earthquake damage. There have been numerous suggested 15th of July. This was a valuable experience and has provided some insights and inspiration on the existing replacements for the traditional style Town Hall with options focusing on a and has put us in good stead to make some decisions in order to progress the project. Next building to remedy multi‐use, fit for purpose, modern events centre with the capacity to host a step is for Councillors to come together and discuss the recent visit and revisit the objectives earthquake variety of events. With no similar capacity venues in the surrounding region set out in 2018 and agree whether these are still the guiding principles. Following that damage this is an opportunity for Masterton to design and construct a new facility discussion we should be able to have more detailed discussions to workshop through the which will benefit the immediate and surrounding communities now and for specific facilities that the venue needs to include, and ultimately who the facility is being the future designed for. Without this information scope, schedule are at risk and are therefore red.

P|002 High Initiation CF&A Town Centre Q3 2021 first G Creating a vibrant and thriving town centre that will attract residents and GGGGGGACouncil have approved the procurement and construction of Queen Street redevelopment phase lower visitors. A revitalised town centre will also encourage further private and asked Council staff to explore external funding opportunities for Park Street. Detailed Queen Street investment in the area. This is a staged programme of works with Lower Queen design is finalised and tender quality design documentation has been completed for both completed St being the first of a 10 street development. Lower Queen and Park Street. The project team is working with CF Projects to finalise tender documentation for advertisement of the Queen Street contract which will occur mid‐August. It is MDC's intention to award the contract mid‐November to allow us sufficient time to engage with businesses in order to develop a construction plan and programme that ensures business interruption is limited. Currently the project has no key issues or concerns.

P|003 High Initiation Environmental Animal Shelter Q3 2021 G The Masterton District Council Animal Shelter does not currently fully meet the GGGGGGATender documentation has been prepared for the first stage of procurement which is design Services legislative requirements and it is essential that the facilities are upgraded. services. This will include architectural and generalist and specialist engineering. The tender Improvement is necessary for the welfare of staff, the animals under their care is due to be issued to a number of architects by the end of July, with a recommendation to and visiting public retrieving their animals. Council in the months following. We have sought advice from other Councils that have completed similar work recently to discuss their recommendations and experiences with particular architects. The work that Stellar Projects was engaged to do has concluded and the investigative report and its findings have formed the basis of our requirements and tender documentation. Currently the project has no key issues or concerns.

P|004 High Initiation CF&A Skatepark Revamp Q2 2021 G The skatepark needs refurbishment and the community has led the GGGGGGAPGF approved for $1.3m. A concept design has been finalised and there is a meeting with the development of this project and how the skatepark could be improved. The working group on 1 August to enable Rich Landscapes to progress to detailed design. Rich revamped park will proved new experiences for our local families, a safe, Landscapes are currently very busy so our timeline is dictated by their availability. We have welcoming environment for our rangitahi, an option for those not into team reviewed the timeline with them and the final design package for tender is due mid‐Jan 2021. sports, minimise damage to public and private property (by providing a challenging environment for those wanting one), as well as becoming a regional attraction for visitors, with spin off benefits as visitors spend money within the community. P|010 High Pre‐initiation CF&A 5 Towns Trail TBC G A trail linking the five Wairarapa towns, Featherston, Martinborough, GGGGGGGThe project is being managed by Wairarapa Trails Action Group. There is a meeting on 27/07 Greytown, Carterton and Masterton. The Trail will be a significant new to discuss the next stage of the project which is investigating and assessing possible FTT experience readily accessible from Wellington City and offering a great route alignments and options. Following this meeting MDC will have a better idea about experience of the Wairarapa. Bridge infrastructure is key to crossing various what the scope of our involvement is and next steps. rivers and some other trail work and road alignment will be required.

P|011 High Pre‐initiation CF&A Hood Aerodrome 2025 G The Hood Aerodrome is a 5 year multi‐stage project which includes security AGGGGGGPCF has been approved for $10m. The next stage is to stand up the Strategic Advisory Group upgrades, infrastructure upgrades to allow for expansion and to support before any detailed planning and overarching strategy work can commence. David Hayes is current hangers, widening and eventually lengthening the runway leading this work and is engaging with the chair and potential group members to establish. A ToR for this group has been approved. From an infrastructure perspective there is immediate works happening on a wet well with a design finalised and ready for tender. The current issue is that without the SAG established work to progress planning is unable to occur. It is imperative that a strategy is developed and agreed to.

P|017 High Initiation CF&A Henley Lake Water 2020 G The previous resource consent for Henley Lake water take has allowed water GGGGGGGIt has been agreed that the current resource consent application will be modified to take Consent to be take below the 'minimum flow'. The lake is dependent on the water water from the Ruamahanga river above minimum flow initially. There will be scope to taken from the Ruamahanga river however changes to national and regional review plans to make changes to the lake to make it more appealing in the summer months policy statements mean that the likelihood of future consent that would allow when lake levels drop. water to be taken at low flow is unlikely.

Attachment 1 2020 Project Delivery Summary Dashboard.xlsx 31/07/2020 Summary dashboard Page 1 At a Glance307 Status

Ref Profile Stage Business Unit Project Name Completion Date RAG Executive Summary Commentary Scope Schedule Financial Resource Quality Benefits RAID P|018 Med Initiation CF&A Henley Lake Dump Feb‐21 G There is currently only one dump station in Masterton and this is located at GGGGGGGWe have explored the location options at Henley Lake and the preferred option is adjacent to Station Mawley Park. The Mawley Park dump station does not operate 24/7 and has the toilets. This has been done in conjunction with Kevin Beange from the NZMCA. The next constraints for access and turning for larger motorhomes. Henley Lake is an step is for the MDC roading team to overlay and check turning circles before we can progress unofficial freedom camping site and currently people are illegally dumping to construction. behind the toilet block which is a H&S hazard and problematic for the Council. The new dump station would operate 24/7 and would provide for more motorhomes to travel to the region.

P|019 Med Pre‐initiation CF&A Queen Elizabeth Park 2023 G The current consent is due to expire in 2023. We will need to explore GGGGGGGDiscussing with GWRC the option to align the requirements under the current consent to Lake alternative water sources and the option for lining the lake as part of this 2023 (there are currently two parts with the first due September 2020 however it makes project sense to combine). We will need to look to set aside budget allocation for design and investigative work as part of the LTP.

Attachment 1 2020 Project Delivery Summary Dashboard.xlsx 31/07/2020 Summary dashboard Page 2