NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the Invercargill City Council to be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill on Tuesday 27 January 2015 at 4.00 pm

His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt JP Cr D J Ludlow (Deputy Mayor) Cr R L Abbott Cr R R Amundsen Cr K F Arnold Cr N D Boniface Cr A G Dennis Cr I L Esler Cr P W Kett Cr G D Lewis Cr I R Pottinger Cr G J Sycamore Cr L S Thomas

EIRWEN HARRIS MANAGER, SECRETARIAL SERVICES

A G E N D A

Page

1. APOLOGIES

Cr L S Thomas

2. PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 HEALTHY FAMILIES INITIATIVE

Jared Cappie will be in attendance to speak to this item.

3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 7 9 DECEMBER 2014

4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INNER CITY WORKING 19 GROUP HELD ON 8 DECEMBER 2014

5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CIVIL DEFENCE 21 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GROUP HELD ON 7 NOVEMBER 2014

6. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL APPROVED 27 PRODUCTS POLICY HEARINGS HELD ON 15 DECEMBER 2014

7. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SHARED SERVICES 29 FORUM HELD ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2014

8. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES

8.1 KENNINGTON SEWERAGE EXTENSION 35

Appendix 1 37

9. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

9.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY 39

Appendix 1 41

9.2 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT FOR PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE 43 OWNERSHIP OF SOUTHLAND OUTDOOR STADIUM (RUGBY PARK)

Appendix 1 47

10. REPORT OF CR D J LUDLOW

10.1 INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL EVENTS COMMITTEE TERMS OF 51 REFERENCE

Appendix 1 53

11. REPORT OF CR P W KETT

11.1 EVENTS COMMITTEE GRANTS 57

12. REPORT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE

12.1 AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS 59

Appendix 1 61

13. MAYOR’S REPORT 63

Appendix 1 65 Appendix 2 67

14. URGENT BUSINESS

15. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting; namely

(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Council - 9 December 2014 (b) Report of the Director of Works and Services (c) Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services (d) Performance Review of the Chief Executive

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

General subject of each Reason for passing this Ground(s) under matter to be considered resolution in relation to Section 48(1) for the each matter passing of this resolution

(a) Confirming of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Minutes of the Public holding the information to Excluded Session of carry on, without prejudice Council – or disadvantage, 9 December 2014 negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

(b) Contract 726 Street Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Lighting Upgrade holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

(c) Don Street Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(i) Investment Property holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

Remuneration of Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(h) Invercargill City holding the information to Holdings Limited carry out, without Directors prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

(d) Presentation by Enable any local authority Section 7(2)(h) Mike Stenhouse holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

To protect the privacy of Section 7(2)(a) natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗

6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL, ON TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER 2014 AT 4.00 PM

PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor Mr T R Shadbolt Cr D J Ludlow – Deputy Mayor Cr R L Abbott Cr R R Amundsen Cr K F Arnold Cr N D Boniface Cr A G Dennis Cr I L Esler Cr P W Kett Cr G D Lewis Cr I R Pottinger Cr G J Sycamore Cr L S Thomas

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R W King – Chief Executive Mr C A McIntosh – Director of Works and Services Mrs P M Gare – Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr D J Johnston – Director of Finance and Corporate Services Mr R Pearson – Roading Manager Ms E Harris – Communications and Secretarial Services Manager Mrs M Short – Strategy and Policy Manager Miss K Graber – Policy and Planning Analyst Mr M Morris – Legal Advisor Mr A Murray – Water Manager Mr M Loan – Drainage and Solid Waste Manager Mr D Booth – Manager Financial Services Miss D Peterson – Senior Solid Waste Officer Mr P Casson – Chief Executive Officer – Venture Southland Ms L Kuresa – Committee Secretary

1. APOLOGIES

Nil.

2. PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 Presentations

2.1.1 Presentation to Long Service Staff Member

Deirdre Chisholm, Senior Customer Services Officer was presented flowers for her long service with the Council of 49 years. The Mayor thanked Mrs Chisholm and wished her well on her retirement.

2.1.2 Presentation to Long Service Staff Member

Helen Williams, Manager of the Bluff Service Centre was presented flowers for her long service with the Council of 52 years. The Mayor thanked Mrs Williams and wished her well on her retirement.

7 2.1.3 Friendly Brand Business Registration to Splash Palace

The Mayor and Cr Ludlow, Chairman of the Child, Youth and Family Friendly Sub-Committee, presented the Friendly Brand Designation Certificate to Splash Palace Manager, Peter Thompson and Assistant Manager, Daniela de Garnham. Splash Palace was the first business to complete the assessment template.

2.2 Southern Wild Food Festival

Mr Ronald Dickens, President of The Rotary Club of Invercargill was in attendance to speak to this Item.

Mr Dickens thanked the Council for its financial support for The Southern Wild Food Festival. A video was viewed by Council on the success of this event which was held at the Southland Indoor Stadium in February this year.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

• We expect it will take a year or three to get the momentum on this event so that it can be an annual event. It will be held again on 28 February 2015. It’s a win-win situation for people to get involved and the community to enjoy. • There are some one-off expenses we won’t have again but we want to spend more on advertising because we want to go further afield to Dunedin and Central Otago. • We want to see more non-profitable organisations participating in stalls so that they are making some of their own money out of it. The intention is for stall holders to do well, the public to have a great day and to have some margin to give to charity. • We may approach Council for funding again but we have not decided on that.

Cr Ludlow said an application was received by the Events Committee to consider, and the Committee granted a one-off grant of $20,000 to allow the event to show its viability.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Dickens for a lively report. It gave Council a great insight into the event which was most appreciated.

2.3 Bluff 2024 Rejuvenation Trust

Mr Steve Mitchell, Chairman of the Bluff 2024 Rejuvenation Trust was in attendance to speak to this Item.

Mr Mitchell said the 2024 Urban Rejuvenation Committee wanted to update the Council and acknowledge its support with regard to funding that the Group had received. He said Bluff was the oldest town in New Zealand and that the Bluff bicentennial was ten years away. The Port contributed a lot of value to the export led Southland economy. He updated the Council on what the Group had worked on to date for the good of Bluff. He said during a clean-up that was carried out in August, he noted that the first volunteer was Mayor Shadbolt who was not looking to shake hands or be photographed because of the lead up to the elections. It was an outstanding example of leading by doing. He said the Group had completed the first stage of the first major project with regard to the landscaping of the entrance to Bluff.

8 They had tried to capture the hours that the volunteers had put in but there were a lot of people who attended the working bees, but did not attend the Committee meetings to complete timesheets. There were several hundred hours of volunteer work that had been completed to date. He tabled photos of the work the Group had been working on and took the meeting through them. He acknowledged the support of Council staff such as Robin Pagan and Cheryl Ashton who did a wonderful landscape design for the Group. The Group was very appreciative of their support and there had been a lot of community support and positive feedback on the work they had completed. He acknowledged businesses that had donated equipment towards the project. He said the funding the Group received from Council would be put towards the next stage of the project which was to install the new Bluff entrance sign. He tabled a sketch of the Bluff entrance sign and said the Group hoped to have it installed before the Oyster Festival. He acknowledged the support of Pamela Gare, Councillors Neil Boniface, Rebecca Amundsen and the assistance of Mary Napper who had given the Group an enormous amount of time, wisdom and knowledge.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

• There’s an informal arrangement with the company that owns the Ocean Beach Freezing Works building for the use of the carpark overlooking Foveaux Strait. Dave Corbin, who we deal with, has given us a lot of assistance in developing that carpark and they are happy for the public to use it. They were thinking about closing it before we got involved because they were having issues with people leaving rubbish there. The arrangement is a hand shake arrangement that’s working well. • We are hoping there will be enough money left in the budget to get some solar powered lights for the Bluff entrance signage. • The Established 1824 signage will remain at the entrance. The claim that Bluff makes is that it’s the longest, continuously settled location to become a town.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Mitchell for updating Council on the progress made by the 2024 Urban Rejuvenation Group.

2.4 Niagara Sawmill Road Closure

2.4.1 Willie and Loretta Fraser

A written submission was tabled.

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the submission be received.

2.4.2 Michelle de Grantham

A written submission was tabled.

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the submission be received.

9 2.4.3 Rex Chapman and David Blue

Mr Chapman and Mr Blue were in attendance to speak to this Item.

Mr Chapman said he and Mr Blue were in attendance to speak in support of the decision that was made by the Infrastructure and Services Committee last week. He outlined the decision and said the Company was fully in favour of the decision being discussed with the community. He said the Company had been working closely with the Council to solve noise issues at the Plant and he was pleased to report that the Company was now compliant with the District Plan in relation to the six residents on Kennington Road most affected by the noise issues from the Plant. There had been work carried out there and attention had been shifted to the main build where noise had effect on the Kennington Township and the Company needed to comply with the District Plan. One of the mitigation steps that had been identified in consultation with Council staff was to erect a bund which had been successful in minimising noise. The Company needed to do the same on the other side of the Plant that had limited room and it had been suggested that the road could be used for the purpose of erecting that bund and if that was the case then the road would need to be closed. He reiterated that the timing around this request had been driven by the imperative to solve the noise problems and the request had come to the Council as a result of an agreement with Council staff about a programme for a variety of steps leading to full compliance. There were two choices for the Council with regard to accepting the Company’s proposal that the road be closed. One was the Local Government Act and the other was the Public Works Act. He explained the difference between the two Acts and said the Company accepted that the community would have views about the closure of the road and they did not want the Council to ignore those views. He said there would be a process where various stakeholders and the community needed to be consulted. The Council would listen to those views to the extent that some of those concerns related to traffic safety or convenience then the Council would be in a positon to make a decision as to whether or not those concerns were valid or outweighed the benefits to closing the road. He took the meeting through the benefits of closing Kennington Road in relation to the noise issues. He said as part of the proposal that the Company had put to the Council, it had already sold some land to Transit to make some improvements on the corner and was prepared to donate other land on the other side of Kennington Road to enable further improvements.

Mr Blue reiterated what he had said at the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting that the Company had spent several hundred thousand dollars over the last couple of years to try and mitigate noise, not for the good of their health but for the good of the community’s health. This road closure was critical in trying to put the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle together. It was up to Council to step up and support this proposal. There were 350 jobs at stake and Council had an enforcement order on the Company with the Environment Court, and if they did not perform, they did not have any other options left.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

• If we don’t get the road closure we won’t comply with the noise issues. We’ll get to a level and then we’ll have to apply for resource consent for a Plan change, but we need to exhaust all possibilities to get to that level and at that stage we’ll be getting buy-in from the community to accept. Nobody in the community has told me that they want to close the Plant.

10

• The Company has just completed the sound proofing of the south wall which involved an acoustic blanket being put in and wooden firewall behind that. Once you’ve done that, you’ve exhausted the amount of encasement of noise. Even with the bund, there will be some noise excess in the District Plan that we will require a Plan Change or resource consent for. Without the bund, that gap will be much larger and it will be a larger hurdle for the Company to achieve. • Having the bund erected will work because the Company has already had experience with the bund on the other side of Kennington Road. The Noise Consultants are clear that this is not going to eliminate all the noise but it means that whatever excess there is left, it can probably be dealt with by way of a resource consent or Plan Change. • It won’t eliminate the noise by having a bund, but it will reduce it. We have looked at properties that we could put a bund on but the community don’t want to be looking out their windows and seeing a bund. We’ve made a conscious decision to try and build a bund close to the source so that it can be effective. • The Company can’t initiate this process. Only the Council can close the road, so we are in your hands as to which process you adopt. The Public Works Act process still relies on the Minister to have a look at the process that the Council has gone through and decide whether it’s appropriate to use the Public Works Act to close the road. That doesn’t preclude you from consulting with the community and taking their concerns into account. It you use the Local Government Act then effectively it’s not Council that controls the process. It will be those persons who seek to engage in that process and it could go to Environment Court. We could be three years away from getting a decision from the Court and getting this matter resolved. • There are 30 log trucks that use Kennington Road a day. Because of the timing of this process we haven’t engaged with NZTA about the road closure. We accept that has to happen but it’s imperative that we first put the proposal through to the Council for consideration.

His Worship the Mayor thanked Mr Chapman and Mr Blue for their presentation to Council to clarify issues around this matter.

2.4.4 Submission by Dean Evans

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Kett and RESOLVED that the written submission by Dean Evans be received.

3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2014

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

4. MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 31 OCTOBER 2014

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

11 5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 18 NOVEMBER 2014

Moved Cr Lewis, seconded Cr Amundsen and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

6. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 26 NOVEMBER 2014

Moved Cr Kett, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

7. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON 2 DECEMBER 2014

The minutes were tabled.

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Amundsen and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

8. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BLUFF COMMUNITY BOARD HELD ON 17 NOVEMBER 2014

Cr Esler said with regard to Item 4.1, the wording should be, “…turned the first solid up there last week as reported in The Southland Times”.

Moved Cr Amundsen, seconded Cr Esler and RESOLVED that the minutes be received with amendment.

9. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

9.1 Community Services Committee 24 November 2014

Moved Cr Abbott, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

9.2 Regulatory Services Committee 25 November 2014

Moved Cr Ludlow, seconded Cr Boniface and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

9.3 Infrastructure and Services Committee 1 December 2014

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Dennis and resolved that the minutes be approved with the exception of Item 2.1.

Cr Thomas said he wanted to speak to Item 5.1.1.

Cr Thomas said he was of the understanding that there was no public consultation under the Public Works Act.

12 Mr Morris said there was no requirement to hold any public consultation under the Public Works Act. There was a requirement to have public consultation under the Local Government Act. It was always possible to have discussions with the community and informing the Council before making its application to the Minister to stop the road under the Public Works Act. It was not a requirement and Council could decide to proceed to the Minister directly without any consultation.

Cr Arnold said she was present at the meeting and moved the recommendation as set out in the minutes. She said one of the key points in the recommendation was that discussions would be held with the community on this matter. Mr Chapman had commented on the fact that the Company was not averse to talking to people on this matter. The submissions that were received did not relate to the Council choosing to use the Public Works Act or the Local Government Act, the submissions were about closing the road. She said she was satisfied that the Company was open to discussing and getting resource consent where at all possible.

Cr Ludlow said Council needed to be clear that it was not Niagara Sawmill that would be consulting with the community, it would be Council. Once Council adopted this recommendation, a meeting needed to be organised to inform the residents of the rationale behind this. It needed to be done before Christmas.

The Council discussed the matter further for clarification.

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Dennis and RESOLVED that Item 5.1.1 be adopted by Council.

9.4 Finance and Policy Committee 2 December 2014

Moved Cr Boniface, seconded Cr Abbott and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

10. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE INNER CITY WORKING GROUP HELD ON 22 OCTOBER 2014

Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

11. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WASTE ADVISORY GROUP COMMITTEE HELD ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Pottinger and RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

12. REPORT BY COUNCILLOR PETER KETT

12.1 Events Committee Grants

The report had been circulated.

Moved Cr Kett, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

13 13. REPORT BY THE WASTENET REPRESENTATIVE

13.1 Kerbside Recycling and Rubbish Collection Policy

The report had been circulated and Cr Pottinger took the meeting through it.

Cr Ludlow said the Policy was commendable and it was not acceptable for workers to be subjected to the risks as outlined in the report. He reminded Council of a visit from the residents of Hedgehope a few years ago where they dumped a load of rubbish in the Council Chamber. He said it was a staged approach that the WasteNet was adopting. They were offering a chance to educate people before they took the service away.

Cr Boniface said he agreed that this was a serious issue. He said a lot of thought had gone into this Policy but it was always the implementation of the “three strikes and you’re out”, type thing. The problem was the implementation of it because there were different circumstance that needed to be taken into consideration, for example people moved house every week which meant that the next person would end up getting penalised for it. He said it needed to be managed with delicacy. He wondered about the robustness and legality of it.

The Committee discussed this matter further and Cr Pottinger asked Miss Peterson to outline information on other councils using this Policy and outcomes they saw.

Miss Peterson said there was a lot of discretion when it came implementing such a Policy. Cr Boniface had highlighted that there were a lot of tenants that needed to be managed throughout the region. She said when it came to first strike, Council would be contacting the people concerned and if they gave a reasonable answer and could prove tenancy within a short period of time, they were happy to reset the clock back to a clean slate. She said it had been working well in Oamaru and Christchurch. She took the meeting through the three strikes level. She said education came first because while it was simple for people who had been involved with recycling and waste separation for a long time, it could be a new concept for some people. Especially migrants who had not dealt with recycling and waste separation before. It was about education first and potentially about 2% to 3% were people who did not care.

Moved Cr Pottinger, seconded Cr Thomas and RESOLVED that the Kerbside Recycling and Rubbish Collection Policy be adopted as an operational activity outside of the Solid Waste Bylaw.

14. MAYOR’S REPORT

The report was tabled.

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the report be received.

15. URGENT BUSINESS

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Dennis and RESOLVED that the matter with regard to Contract 724 – Prime Range Meats Tradewaste Sewer Connection and Pump Station be taken in Public Excluded Session, under Urgent Business.

14 Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the matter with regard to the Inner City Window Graphics be taken under Urgent Business.

15.1 Inner City Window Graphics

The report was tabled and Cr Sycamore took the meeting through it.

Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Cr Ludlow that Council approves a budget of $17,500 from the City Centre Rejuvenation Rate for the installation of City Centre Window Graphics.

In response to questions, the following answers were given:

• The signs will be attached to the windows. The reason being is that each window will have an individually made-to-measure sign. You can have separate signs but the problem with that is that you’re restricted by the size of the mounting material to back it on. It needs to also be attached to the window and with a certain amount of heat they end up buckling, falling off or the tape holding it on doesn’t last. • The biggest cost is the photography and we’ve negotiated a very good deal to do the photographs. • We have negotiated a good deal with Carla Forbes from Market South. She said it’s a very attractive deal on what she’s done in her professional life. • A Council staff member has identified the shops. The other thing that came up was that Cr Amundsen approached the Committee about the Heritage month and they are also looking at doing windows so we’ve covered that off and made sure there was no conflict there. We are going to focus on the inner areas and work outwards. • One of the Committee Members suggested that maybe companies will want to sponsor these and perhaps put an advertisement on them, so there’s an opportunity there to grow, not at Council’s cost but someone else’s cost.

Examples of what could be used were shown to Councillors.

The motion, now being put, was RESOLVED in the affirmative.

16. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved His Worship the Mayor, seconded Cr Ludlow and RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

(a) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of Council 28 October 2014 (b) Receiving of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Infrastructure and Services Committee 1 December 2014 (c) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Finance and Policy Committee 2 December 2014 (d) Confirming of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Inner City Working Group Committee 22 October 2014 (e) Receiving of Minutes of the Public Excluded Session of the Waste Advisory Group Committee 25 September 2014 (f) Report of the Director of Works and Services (g) Report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services (h) Report of the Chief Executive

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

General subject of Reason for passing Ground(s) under each matter to be this resolution in Section 48(1) for the considered relation to each matter passing of this resolution

(a) Confirming of Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Minutes – authority holding the Council information to carry on, 28 October without prejudice or 2014 disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(b) Infrastructure Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) and Services authority holding the Committee information to carry on, Minutes – without prejudice or 1 December disadvantage, 2014 negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(c) Finance and Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Policy authority holding the Committee information to carry on, Minutes – without prejudice or 2 December disadvantage, 2014 negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(d) Inner City Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Working Group authority holding the Committee information to carry on, Minutes – without prejudice or 22 October disadvantage, 2014 negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(e) Waste Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Advisory Group authority holding the Committee information to carry on, Minutes – without prejudice or 25 September disadvantage, 2014 negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

16

(f) Contract 725 – Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Branxholme authority holding the Water information to carry on, Treatment without prejudice or Upgrade disadvantage, Engineering negotiations (including Design commercial and Consultancy industrial negotiations) Services

Contract 724 – Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Prime Range authority holding the Meats information to carry on, Tradewaste without prejudice or Sewer disadvantage, Connection negotiations (including and Pump commercial and Station industrial negotiations)

(g) Remuneration Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) of Invercargill authority holding the City Holdings information to carry on, Limited without prejudice or Directors disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

(h) Southland Enable any local Section 7(2)(i) Outdoor authority holding the Stadium Trust information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗

17 18 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE INNER CITY WORKING GROUP HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2014 AT 5.30PM

PRESENT: Cr G Sycamore – Chairperson Ms J Bryce Mr J Green Mr A R Hesselin Mr G Muir Mr W Watt Mr D White Mr G Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr R Amundsen Mr C A McIntosh – Director of Works and Services Mrs P Gare - Director of Environmental and Planning Services Mr R Pearson – Roading Manager Ms E Harris – Manager – Communications and Secretarial Services Mrs J Paterson – Committee Secretary

1. APOLOGIES

Mr J Jubb Mr G Mulvey Mr R Innes Mr N Andrews Mr M Presbury

Moved Mr Watt, seconded Mr Hesselin and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted.

2. PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 Yarn Bombing

Ms Angela Newell and Mrs Lyndal Ludlow were in attendance to give a presentation on Yarn Bombing. Copies of the Power Point presentation were circulated at the meeting.

Ms Newell advised that yarn bombing is a type of street art that employs colourful displays of knitted or crocheted yarn or fibre rather than paint of chalk. For the Southland Festival of the Arts Community project 2015 would like to create yarn bombing in Esk Street during the Festival in May for 7-10 days.

2.2 Inner City Window Graphics

Ms Carla Forbes from Market South was in attendance to give a presentation on a concept for the Inner City window graphics and circulated a concept proposal at the meeting.

19 3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 OCTOBER 2014

Moved Mr Watt, seconded Mr White and RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.

4 INNER CITY WINDOW GRAPHICS

Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Mr Green and RESOLVED that the Working Group recommend to Council that this project proceed with a focus on the CBD shops as a priority.

5. EVENT – YARN BOMBING

Moved Mr Muir, seconded Ms Bryce and RESOLVED that the Inner City Working Group recommend to Council that they fully support the Yarn Bombing initiative as part of Southland Festival of the Arts Community Project 2015.

6. RESIGNATION OF WORKING GROUP MEMBER

A resignation from Mr Adrian Barclay has been received and an email was tabled by Cr G Sycamore.

Moved Cr Sycamore, seconded Mr White and RESOLVED that the resignation of Mr Barclay be accepted with regret.

AND

That a letter of thanks be sent to Mr Barclay for his time on the Working Group.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

7.1 Earthquake Prone Buildings Survey

Mrs Gare advised the meeting that there have only been a small number of returns for the survey which was circulated with the recent CBD newsletter and asked Working Group members to encourage retailers and building owners to complete the survey which is available on Council’s website.

7.2 Project Update

Mr Pearson advised that the Contractor would be establishing the site during the week commencing 12 January 2015 and a newsletter would be sent to retailers advising them of this.

The next meeting of the Inner City Working Group will be held in February to discuss next stages of the project.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 6.20pm.

∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗ 20 Minutes of the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group (Te Manatu Arai Mate Ohorere o te Tonga) Meeting, held in the Council Chamber, Regional House, cnr North Road and Price Street, Invercargill, on Friday, 7 November 2014 at 10.00 am ______

Present: Cr NMG Cook (Environment Southland)(Chair) Mayor T Shadbolt (Invercargill City Council) Mayor T Hicks (Gore District Council)

In Attendance: Mr N Cruickshank (EMS Manager) Mr R Phillips (Environment Southland) Mr B Halligan (Southland District Council) (for Mr S Ruru) Mrs D O’Donnell (Minutes)

1 Welcome (Haere mai)

Cr Cook welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2 Apologies (Nga Pa Pouri)

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Mayor Shadbolt that apologies for absence be recorded on behalf of Mayor G Tong (SDC), Cr L Abbott (ICC), Mr S Chambers (MCDEM) and Mr S Ruru (SDC).

Carried

3 Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations (He Huinga tuku korero)

There were no public forums, petitions or deputations presented at this time.

2014 November 7 - Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group.docx Environment Southland is the brand name of the Southland Regional Council 21 Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Meeting – 7 November 2014

4 Confirmation of Minutes – 13 June 2014 (Whakau korero)

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Cr Cook that the minutes of the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group meeting held on 13 June 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Notification of Extraordinary and Urgent Business (He Panui Autaia hei Totoia Pakihi)

5.1 Supplementary Reports

There were no supplementary reports tabled for inclusion in the agenda.

5.2 Other

There was no other business tabled for inclusion in the agenda.

6 Questions (Patai)

There were no questions raised at today’s meeting.

7 Chairman’s Report (Te Purongo a Tumuaki)

Cr Cook did not present a Chair Report to today’s meeting.

8 Report – 14/SCDEMG/128

 Item 1 – Co-ordinating Executive Group (CEG) Chairman’s Report

This item reported on the matters discussed and agreed upon at the CEG meeting held on 27 August 2014.

Mr Cruickshank addressed the key points in the report as follows:

 Recovery Plan – this had now been published .

 Submission on the National CDEM Plan – the CEG was awaiting the outcome of submissions made, especially those in respect of risk reduction.

Page 2

22 Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Meeting – 7 November 2014

Resolved:

Moved Cr Cook, seconded Mayor Shadbolt that the SCDEMG note the report.

Carried

 Item 2 – Long-term Plan Considerations

Emergency Management Southland (EMS) was seeking an increase in funding to:

1. enter into a contract for the purchase of a public alerting platform; and 2. to recruit a 0.5 FTE for an Enhanced Administration Support position within the Emergency Management Southland office.

Mr Cruickshank suggested that the Business Case Admin support position be taken as read.

Public Alerting Platform

Mr Cruickshank outlined the process that had been undertaken to date, the costs, what the alerting platform would provide and how it would work. It was an effective mechanism for quick messaging.

Public alerting was a very dynamic field of IT. GNS Science had release a report, providing an update on different alerting technologies available.

There was a need to be aware that Southland had limited 3G coverage and that any alerting system needed SMS coverage as well.

The system would need to be marketed, as it required people to sign up to it. Communications staff from all the Councils would be involved in this.

A limited term contract would be entered into, because of the rapidly changing technology in this area. In addition, a national system was being considered by the Ministry, although it was likely to be at least another two years before this was finalised.

Mr Halligan supported the adoption of the system.

0.5 FTE Enhanced Administration Support Position

Mr Cruickshank explained that the Welfare component of work for EMS staff was to be increased – this was a flow-on effect from the Christchurch earthquakes. Therefore, there was a need for more administrative support so that the EMS Advisors could concentrate on the additional Welfare work.

Cr Cook noted that Mayor Tong had supported this concept, but had asked the Committee to consider if the funding could come from the EMS budget surplus.

Page 3 23 Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Meeting – 7 November 2014

Mr Cruickshank noted that the surplus had been increasing, in past years. However, since the hazard management work in Milford Sound had commenced that had not been the case.

Mr Halligan advised that the surplus had been discussed at the Operational Sub-committee meeting. The consensus had been that part of the surplus should be used before increasing rates to fund the work.

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Shadbolt, seconded Mayor Hicks that the SCDEMG approve:

1. the purchase of a public alerting platform, subject to agreement of the contract.

2. a 0.5 FTE Enhance Administration Support position for Emergency Management Southland;

3. funding of $30,929 per annum for the 2015-2018 years, inclusive, into the Emergency Management Southland budget to fund recommendations 1 and 2.

Carried

 Item 3 – Emergency Management Southland Annual Report

The Emergency Management Southland Annual Report had been distributed with the agenda for today’s meeting.

Mr Cruickshank explained that it had been a quiet year, in terms of emergencies. A number of actions had been undertaken, especially in regard to planning, community engagement and training. Three major plans had been completed – Lifelines, Public Information Management and Recovery.

The budget showed a deficit of $57,000 for the year, which related to commissioning of a GNS Science report for Milford Sound.

In terms of the work programme, most of the KPIs had been achieved. Most work programme items were progressing well.

There was some discussion regarding earthquake prone buildings in the city and the possibility of a heritage zone, such as existed in other parts of the country. These zones made allowances for heritage buildings, in terms of the building code requirements. However, it was noted that this Committee needed to consider all risks to the community and plan accordingly (as required by the Act). Any decisions to make exceptions to the building code requirements would need to be backed by sound scientific opinion. There was a 30% chance of the alpine fault rupturing in the next 50 years and this would definitely have an impact on most of the South Island. The risk to Invercargill and Gore was uncertain and needed to be further investigated.

Page 4 24 Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Meeting – 7 November 2014

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Mayor Shadbolt that the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group approve the 2013/14 Annual Report from Emergency Management Southland.

Carried

 Item 4 – Next Meeting

Given there is no urgency to hold another meeting of this Group in the short-term, it is suggested that the next meeting be held in approximately six months’ time, the exact date to be finalised after considering representative availability.

Resolved:

Moved Cr Cook, seconded Mayor Shadbolt that the next meeting of the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group be held in approximately six months’ time, the exact date to be finalised after considering representative availability.

Carried

9 Extraordinary and Urgent Business

There was no extraordinary or urgent business considered by the meeting.

10 Public Excluded Business

Resolved:

Moved Cr Cook, seconded Mayor Hicks, that the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting.

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

Page 5 25 Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Meeting – 7 November 2014

Reason for Passing the Grounds General Subject Matter Resolution Under S. 48(1)

To protect information S7(2)(c)  Item 5 – Research subject to a confidence Report Update – where its disclosure Milford Sound threatens similar information in other forums or would damage the public interest.

It is further moved that staff present (Neil Cruickshank, Rob Phillips, Bruce Halligan and Deborah O’Donnell) be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded.

Carried

 Resumed in Open Meeting

Termination

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 10.55 am.

Page 6 26 Ref: A1265887

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL APPROVED PRODUCTS POLICY HEARINGS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 101 ESK STREET, INVERCARGILL ON MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 2014 AT 11.00 AM

PRESENT: Invercargill City Council Representatives Cr K F Arnold (Chair) Cr L S Thomas

Southland District Council Representatives Mayor G Tong

Gore District Council Representatives Cr C Bolger

IN ATTENDANCE: Invercargill City Council Mrs P M Gare (Director of Environmental and Planning Services) Mr J Youngson (Environmental Health and Compliance Manager) Ms M Rusike (Environmental Health Team Leader) Southland District Council Mr M Sarfaiti (Environmental Health Manager) Mrs S Wilson (Environmental Health Officer) Gore District Council Mrs F Shepherd (Senior Regulatory Officer/Licensing Inspector)

1. APOLOGIES

Cr G MacPherson (Southland District Council) and Cr A Gover (Gore District Council).

Moved Cr Thomas, seconded Cr Arnold and RESOLVED that the apologies be accepted and that the quorum for the meeting be one representative from each of the three Territorial Authorities.

2. Cr Arnold took the Committee through the Amended Local Approved Products Policy (Psychoactive Substances) for the Districts of Gore, Invercargill and Southland. Amended Policy 1: Location by Broad Areas was discussed and the Committee agreed to replace “allow” with “require” in the policy.

Moved Cr Arnold, seconded Mayor Tong that the Amended Draft Local Approved Products Policy (Appendix 1) be approved, subject to “allow” in Policy 1 being replaced with “require”

AND THAT the Decision on Submissions (Appendix 2) be approved.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.08 am.

*****

27 28 Notes of the Shared Services Forum Meeting S held in the Council Chamber, Environment Southland cnr North Road & Price Street, Invercargill, on Friday, S 5 September 2014, at 10.35 am F ______

Present: Mr J J Grant (Chair) Cr M G Miller (Environment Southland) Mayor J T Hicks (Gore District Council) Cr C Bolger (Gore District Council) Mayor G Tong (Southland District Council) Cr G Y Sycamore (Invercargill City Council) Cr N Boniface (Invercargill City Council) Mayor B Cadogan (Clutha District Council)

Also Present: Mr M Skerrett (Te Ao Marama Inc) Mr P Casson Venture Southland

In Attendance: Mr G A Alsweiler Director of Corporate Services Mr B Halligan Acting Chief Executive - SDC Mr R King Chief Executive – ICC Dr A Fox for Chief Executive GDC Ms E Ryley Secretarial Support - ES

1. Welcome

Mr Grant welcomed members to the meeting, and particularly welcomed Paul Casson from Venture Southland.

2. Apologies

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Cr Miller, that apologies for absence be recorded on behalf of Chairman A M Timms and Cr E R Currie – Environment Southland; Mr R Phillips – Chief Executive, Environment Southland; Mr S Hill – Chief Executive, Clutha District Council; and Mr S Parry – Chief Executive, Gore District Council.

Carried

(\\Esprodcore\D$\Objective\ECM\Temp\Rns\A159263-6\Minutes - 2014 September 5.Docx)

29 Shared Services Forum – 5 September 2014

3. Notification of Extraordinary or Urgent Business

There were no items added to the agenda.

4. Public Forum, Petitions and Deputations

There were no public forums, petitions or deputations presented.

5. Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of 9 June 2014 had been pre-circulated with the agenda. Mr Grant noted that the items on the Action Sheet had been completed, or would be discussed via the agenda today.

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Mayor Tong, that the minutes of the Shared Services Forum meeting, held on 9 June 2014 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

6. Chairman’s Report

The Chairman did not present a report.

7. Financial Report

The financial report for the period ended 30 June 2014 had been circulated with the agenda.

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Mayor Tong, that the financial report for the period ended 30 June 2014 be received as information.

Carried

8. Our Way Southland Project

Included in the agenda papers was a report from Mr Alsweiler about the Our Way Southland (OWS) Project and a Final Report on the review of OWS from Nick Taylor of Taylor Baines & Associates. The report provided three options for the future of this project: change or no change; regional strategic framework; and organisation change.

Page 2

30 Shared Services Forum – 5 September 2014

Mr Alsweiler explained that OWS had achieved some good outcomes and he referred to the first sentence under the conclusions and recommendations within the Taylor Baines report that “OWS clearly provides an important service to the region…” He felt it was important not to end OWS until the Regional Strategy was in place and everyone was aware of how that would operate and impact on the project, and the support that may be required for that work.

Mr Grant advised that in discussions regarding funding reduction by both SDC and ICC, the CE’s Shared Services Subcommittee had discussed the Taylor Baines report and agreed that as part of the Regional Strategy, aspects of the OWS work would be addressed. In particular he referred to the Annual Survey work that was undertaken.

Cr Miller was concerned that the project was disappearing and noted it was one of the first Shared Services projects undertaken successfully. She felt there should be continuity with the Parenting, Leadership and Youth projects, and that if there was no driver of those programmes the gains that had been made would decrease, and lead to duplication of effort, or no effort at all. She also noted that the survey work uncovered important issues and this had been a conduit that could have commenced the Strategy for Southland. She asked what the future direction would be.

Mr Grant advised that the same level of input could not be achieved when there was a reduction in funding. Discussion had been held by the CE’s Subcommittee and Mayoral Forum about continuing the project through Venture Southland and that would be further considered via the Regional Strategy. He felt however there would be a gap between the processes.

Mayor Hicks expressed sadness that there would be a gap at this point however he felt if the work in this project was picked up by the Regional Strategy he would be comfortable with that. The question to consider was, what that would look like. Mr Grant suggested the Shared Services Forum recommend this as a priority to ensure it was part of the Regional Strategy. Mayor Hicks agreed with that view.

Dr Fox felt this was in effect the demise of OWS as it required someone dedicated to carry out high standard research work. He cautioned the Forum against deferring this work. If the group felt that was merit in the work, then it needed to be continued and resourced. Dr Fox advised that the community engagement networks and linkages that had been developed would be useful but if left for another six months would not be there. There was some urgency to this matter.

Mayor Tong reported on a recent meeting with the Police and District Health Board and he advised that some parts of this would fit into their portfolios, e.g. safe places for a caring society and well educated school communities. They were considering employment of a full- time person for this work. Mr Casson agreed that linkages with Central Government agencies were important.

Cr Sycamore explained that the ICC was the first to withdraw funding from OWS and would also be the first to support the Regional Strategy. The reason the ICC withdrew funding was because it felt there was too much duplication and that the work could be better carried out

Page 3

31 Shared Services Forum – 5 September 2014 by other means. He felt there would be support for the project if it was part of the Regional Strategy.

As a result of the discussions it was agreed that parts of OWS should be integrated into the Regional Strategy work, and that this matter should be referred back to the CE’s Subcommittee for that group to report back further on how this matter should be progressed, based on the discussions today.

Mayor Cadogan congratulated Southland on its courage to analyse its communities in a unique way.

9. IT Shared Services

Mr Grant referred to the Project update which was included on the agenda today. He noted that it had been agreed that work stream three – the disaster recovery work, would be progressed as a priority. There was no discussion arising out of this item.

10. Regional Strategy

Mr Grant noted that the review of Shared Services, undertaken by Peter Winder, had resulted in the recommended development of a Regional Strategy for the region. Whilst that work-stream had been developed, the group had identified that other organisations were already considering similar work streams. As a result of discussions held to date progress had been made as follows:

 recommendation to the Mayoral Forum, and support from same received, to undertaken a Regional Development Strategy.  formation of a Governance Group of 10-15 members with an independent chair, to oversee the work to be carried out, as agreed by the Mayoral Forum and the Shared Services Forum.  RFP developed to seek an independent consultant.  a Steering Group that will sit beneath the Governance Group to provide support and information to the Governance Group, so that ultimately four or five priorities will be identified within the Strategy.  Mr Casson of Venture Southland and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce will participate.  Governance Group will meet five times over five months with its recommendations to be presented to the Mayoral Forum and Shared Services Forum.  Work developed from that (and hopefully securing Government funding through MBIE) to drive the Strategy and work programmes including that of Shared Services going forward.  CE’s Shared Services Forum agreed in principle to consider resourcing future work of Shared Services at a higher level via a dedicated resource rather than leaving individual staff members and individual councils to drive the process.

Cr Sycamore suggested the timing of the Regional Strategy was appropriate as there was growing awareness on behalf of the Government of the need for regional development.

Page 4

32 Shared Services Forum – 5 September 2014

New Zealand was facing the problem of being too Auckland centric. He talked about a similar situation being carried out in England.

Cr Miller thanked Mr Grant for the good report. She asked if the councils’ partners had been involved in all these discussions, e.g. Iwi. Mr Grant advised that at this stage the proposal was in terms of a Governance Group that Ngai Tahu and youth would be involve, and that so far it appeared the gender balance and age was reflective of the future rather than the past.

Mr Grant advised it was important to find the right person to chair the Governance Group and he asked members to inform him if they knew of anyone appropriate for the role. It would be preferable if it was someone outside of the Council system to ensure that the project did not become council-centric, although there were to be two council members represented on the group.

Cr Bolger referred to Dr Fox’s earlier note of caution about not delaying the process for some months. Mr Grant advised this would not wait for months but would be reported back to the next Chief Executives Subcommittee meeting for further progression.

Mr Casson advised that at the end of June the Economic Development Association of New Zealand held five workshops around the country. He had presented a proposal that Southland needed to be part of the Regional Development Strategy. The driving force was to give the incoming Government a briefing paper on regional development. That document was near completion and he advised he could provide a copy of it to the group next week. It would define what regional development was, who would be involved, how it would work etc.

Mr Grant advised that generally at this time there would have been discussion about the next 12 months of Shared Services Forum. He suggested, and it was agreed, that this should be delayed until the Regional Strategy was completed.

11 Extraordinary and Urgent Business

There was no extraordinary or urgent business considered by the meeting.

12 Public Excluded Business

Resolved:

Moved Mayor Hicks, seconded Cr Miller, that the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government

Page 5

33 Shared Services Forum – 5 September 2014

Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the Passing of the resolution are as follows:

Reason for Passing the Grounds General Subject Matter Resolution Under S. 48(1)

12.1 – Confirmation of Minutes To prevent the disclosure or S.7(2)(j) – Public Excluded Section – use of information for 9 June 2014 improper gain or advantage.

It is further moved that staff present (Graham Alsweiler, Bruce Halligan, Richard King, Aaron Fox, Paul Casson and Liz Ryley) be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded.

Carried

Resumed in Open Meeting

13 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as Friday, 8 December 2014, at the Southland District Council, commencing at 10.30 am.

Closure

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 11.05 am.

Page 6

34 TO: COUNCIL

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

KENNINGTON SEWERAGE EXTENSION

Report Prepared by: Malcolm Loan, Drainage Manager

SUMMARY

Following complaints of failing onsite wastewater disposal systems within the Kennington community Council staff completed a Sanitary Survey which was presented to Council in May 2014. A number of public meetings with the community have been held to discuss options for the remedy of this issue. The community requested Council to develop options for public sewerage reticulation in preference to onsite disposal systems, and further requested Council to consider partial funding of the system. Plans have now been advanced for a reticulation system, and it is proposed to hold a further public meeting of residents on Thursday 29 January 2015 to advise residents of progress ahead of the release of the proposed Long Term Plan for public consultation. Budgets have been included in the proposed Long Term Plan, anticipating that the sewerage scheme will be partially funded from sewerage budgets, with the remainder of funding to come from residents who will connect to system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That this report be received,

AND

That Councillors note that the funding split proposed within the report is included in the proposed Long Term Plan.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Provision has been made in the proposed 2015/16 Long Term Plan. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No.

35

5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Yes - Several public meetings have been held with residents. Further public meetings are planned and consultation will take place as part of the Long Term Plan consultation process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding has been proposed within the Long Term Plan

KENNINGTON SEWERAGE RETICULATION

Following complaints of failing septic tanks within the Kennington community, and discharges of sewerage to the Waihopai River, staff from Council’s Environmental Health team undertook a Sanitary Survey of the community and presented this to Council in May 2014. The survey identified that a majority of onsite disposal systems in the area were failing creating health risks and that ground conditions were not suitable for onsite disposal of household sewage in some cases. A number of meetings have been held with residents, resulting in a request for Council to develop a sewerage reticulation proposal for the area and to consider partial funding of this proposal, with residents also being expected to part fund the system. Council staff have now completed a preliminary design of a sewerage system which would provide gravity connections for most of the community, and approximately eight properties requiring onsite pumps. The proposed reticulation is shown in the attached plan (Appendix 1).

The budget price for this proposal is $1 million for the public reticulation, including connections to each property boundary. Onsite costs to connect to the system and upgrade house drainage systems if necessary will be additional and at the cost of individual property owners. The Long Term Plan proposes that Council will fund 63% of the budgeted cost and property owners be required to contribute the remaining 37% of the cost. This would be consistent with the funding split for the Moore Road sewerage extension undertaken in 2005. The Kennington sewerage reticulation would require a pumping station to connect to the Kennington rising main.

CONCLUSION

A public meeting is proposed at Kennington on Thursday 29 January 2015 to inform residents of progress with the Kennington sewerage reticulation proposals ahead of the release of the proposed Long Term Plan for community consultation.

∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗

36 Appendix 1 Legend

Connection Type 16 GRAVITY PUMPED Existing_Rising_Main Proposed Foulsewer Scheme HIBBS ROAD

15

EAST ROAD

CLAPHAM ROAD

FIFTH STREET

KENNINGTON ROAD

DISTRICT ROAD MATHESON ROAD 14

20 17 FIRST STREET 8 4 1 13

11

10

7 2SECOND STREET 5 MCLEW ROAD 9 12 6

0

18 3 19

RIMU ROAD

Kennington Area Foulsewer Scheme Proposal 37 January 2015 38 TO: COUNCIL

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY

Report Prepared by: Melissa Short – Strategy and Policy Manager

SUMMARY

Council needs to adopt its Development Contributions Policy for inclusion in the Long Term Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Development Contributions Policy is adopted for consultation.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Will assist in development of the Long Term Plan. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? Under the Local Government Act 2002, Council is required to consult on the Development Contributions Policy in a manner that gives effect to section 82 of the Act.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No financial implications arise from this report.

39 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY

During the Long Term Plan workshops held during 2014, Council indicated to staff that investigating the use of “special rating areas” and retaining a policy of not charging development contributions or financial contributions to address the cost of providing infrastructure to growth areas was its preferred option for inclusion in the Long Term Plan.

The Development Contributions Policy must go through a process of public consultation prior to its adoption by Council. Staff recommend a two week consultation period, with notice of the policy review included in The Southland Times and the policy available on Council’s website. Staff also recommend that a copy of the policy and a submission form are sent to those parties who submitted on the Development Contributions Policy during the 2012 Long Term Plan process.

40 Appendix 1

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY Reference Number: A1252152 Authorised by: Effective Date: TBA Supersedes: Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2012. Policy Owner: Invercargill City Council Purpose: Establishes Council’s approach to charging Development This defines the statement of Contributions under the Local Government Act 2002 and to intent of the policy. charging Financial Contributions under the Resource Management Act 1991.

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY

It is Council’s policy not to charge Development Contributions (Local Government Act) or Financial Contributions (Resource Management Act).

Monitoring & Auditing: The policy is monitored and audited through the Annual Report This section describes who and process. how the application of the policy will be monitored. Effective Date: 1 July 2015 Review Period: This Policy will be reviewed every three (3) years unless earlier review is requested by Council. Associated Documents / The Invercargill City Council Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025 References:

41 42 TO: COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

SOUTHLAND OUTDOOR STADIUM (RUGBY PARK)

Report Prepared by: Melissa Short – Manager Strategy and Policy

SUMMARY

This report sets out the legislative requirements involved in making a decision on what engagement to undertake for the Southland Outdoor Stadium (Rugby Park) decision and concludes that a consultation process, involving issuing consultation materials, holding a community consultation clinic, and receiving and hearing submissions, is most appropriate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report is received and Council endorse undertaking public consultation that involves issuing the consultation materials attached to this report, holding a community consultation clinic, and receiving and hearing submissions.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? No 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy? No, this matter is not significant under the Council's Policy on Significance, although it has a relatively high degree of significance. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? This process will allow Council to better understand the Community’s views before making its decision. It is not considered necessary to gather additional information on the community's views about what type of consultation should be undertaken.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No financial implications arise from this report. The financial implication of any particular decision to be made by Council is outlined in the consultation document.

43 DECISION-MAKING UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) establishes requirements for councils when making decisions. These requirements are set out in sections 77 – 79.

Section 77 – Requirements in relation to decisions

Council must seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision and must assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. Three reasonably practicable options for responding to the circumstances surrounding the Southland Outdoor Stadium have been identified.

Option 1 - Status Quo – no Council involvement in the Southland Outdoor Stadium.

Option 2 - Council offers the Community Trust of Southland $400,000 in full and final settlement of the debt owing by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust. The Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust transfers ownership of the Stadium to the Council in exchange for Council taking over the debt of approximately $740,000 currently owing to Rugby Southland under the management contract.

Option 3 - Council makes a one-off grant of $400,000 to the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust to settle the Community Trust debt. Council also makes an ongoing grant of $290,000 per year to Rugby Southland for the ongoing running and maintenance costs of Rugby Park. Rugby Southland would take over ownership of the Stadium.

A full analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option is included in the consultation document, which is appended to this report.

Section 78 – Community views in relation to decisions

Council must give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the decision about whether to take over ownership of Rugby Park. The implications of this decision could have an affect on all members of the community. In order to obtain the views of the community, staff are recommending an intensive consultation period, beginning with a Community Consultation Clinic and concluding with Council hearing any submitters who wish to speak to their submission. The recommended process is discussed in more detail below.

Section 79 – Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions

Council has the discretion to make judgements about how best to achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78, although compliance should be largely in proportion to the significance of the matter concerned. In particular, Council has discretion to make judgements about the extent to which different options are to be identified and assessed, the degree to which benefits and costs are to be quantified, the extent and detail of the information to be considered and the extent and nature of any written record to be kept of the manner in which it has complied with sections 77 and 78. When making these judgements, Council must have regard to the principles relating to local authorities established in section 14 of the Local Government Act, the extent of Council’s resources and the extent to which the nature of the decision or the circumstances in which a decision is taken, allow Council scope and opportunity to consider a range of options or the views and preferences of other persons.

44 Consultation Method

Staff considered two options for how the Council might comply with its obligations in section 78 on this matter. The first option was to undertake public consultation via the Long Term Plan process. The second option is to undertake some form of public consultation other than use of the special consultative procedure, but which complies with the consultation principles in section 82 of the Local Government Act. These principles are as follows:

(a) that persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be provided by the local authority with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons; (b) that persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be encouraged by the local authority to present their views to the local authority; (c) that persons who are invited or encouraged to present their views to the local authority should be given clear information by the local authority concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be taken following the consideration of views presented; (d) that persons who wish to have their views on the decision or matter considered by the local authority should be provided by the local authority with a reasonable opportunity to present those views to the local authority in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons; (e) that the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration; (f) that persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions, which may include, for example, reports relating to the matter that were considered before the decisions were made.

One of the reasons that staff do not prefer the first option, involving consultation through the Long Term Plan process, is because the Council is not required by the Local Government Act to undertake such an extensive process. Staff considered section 97 of the Local Government Act which establishes when a decision can only be taken if provided for in the Long Term Plan. Section 97 applies if it is a decision to alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of Council, including a decision to commence or cease any such activity, or if it is a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the local authority. The Southland Outdoor Stadium is not considered a strategic asset as defined in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy:

“Strategic Asset, is an asset or group of assets that Invercargill City Council needs to retain if it is to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that it has determined to be important to the current or future wellbeing of the community.”

Council’s capacity to deliver on its Community Outcomes would be maintained if it did not take over ownership of the Southland Outdoor Stadium. As neither of these circumstances applies in this instance, Council is not legislatively required to undertake an amendment to the Long Term Plan and consult in this manner.

If the Council preferred the full Long Term Plan process, this could not be undertaken with sufficient time remaining for Council to debate and determine if they would like to take ownership of Rugby Park prior to ownership falling to the Community Trust of Southland through the mortgage they hold over the property. However, the other public consultation option, which does not involve use of the special consultative procedure but complies with

45 the principles in section 82, could allow for the Council to make a decision before the end of February.

Staff consider that the second option for public consultation, not using the special consultative procedure but complying with the principles in section 82, would afford the community sufficient opportunity in which to have their views considered.

The recommended consultation process is outlined below:

• The Consultation Document (as appended) is made available on Council’s website and at the Civic Administration Building, the Central Library and the Bluff Service Centre, immediately once approved. • The proposal is publicly advertised in The Southland Times on Saturday 31 January. • A Community Consultation Clinic is held between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm on Wednesday 4 February at Rugby Park. At this meeting Council staff will be available to answer questions and explain the process. Advertising the Community Consultation Clinic begins immediately once the proposal is approved for consultation. • Submissions are invited on the proposal and can include posts to Council’s Facebook page. These should be received no later than 5.00 pm on Friday 13 February. • Council hears those submitters who wish to speak to their submission on Tuesday 24 February.

Significance and Engagement Policy

The method of engagement outlined above would meet the tests described within the Significance and Engagement Policy. Specifically, the policy provides that where circumstances exist that a failure to make an urgent decision would result in an inability to achieve the intended outcomes or result in the loss of an opportunity, Council will tailor it’s decision-making process to include as much consultation and evaluation as is practicable within the time-frame. By hosting a Community Consultation Clinic where members of the community who have an interest and would like to ask questions have the opportunity to do so, Council would be effectively mitigating the comparatively short submission time frame.

CONCLUSION

Effective and timely engagement that will enable the Council to comply with its obligation under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 can be achieved by undertaking a public consultation process that involves issuing the consultation materials attached to this report, holding a community consultation clinic, and receiving and hearing submissions.

∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗

46 Appendix 1 CONSULTATION DOCUMENT FOR PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP OF SOUTHLAND OUTDOOR STADIUM (RUGBY PARK)

BACKGROUND TO PROPOSAL Background

For a number of months Council has been meeting with representatives from the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust, the Community Trust of Southland (Community Trust), and other key parties in an attempt to secure the future of the Southland Outdoor Stadium (Rugby Park).

The Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust is facing cash flow difficulties due to the impending repayment of a loan to the Community Trust and the upcoming maintenance requirements on the stadium. The debt owed by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust includes $750,000 to the Community Trust (which the Community Trust has resolved to reduce to $400,000) and a debt to Rugby Southland of approximately $740,000 which has been incurred under the Management Contract. If the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust is unable to meet its expenditure requirements and folds, and the debt owing to Rugby Southland is removed from Rugby Southland’s balance sheet, Rugby Southland itself will become insolvent.

If Council were to agree to take over ownership of Rugby Park, then it is critical that Rugby Southland, as the ‘anchor tenant’, remains financially viable in the long term. The Community Trust has assisted with this by informing Council that it has no current intention to discontinue its annual financial grant to Rugby Southland.

Without an acceptable solution to secure the future it is likely that not only will the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust be wound up, but also Rugby Southland. If Rugby Southland becomes insolvent, it would cease to exist. This would mean that there would be no Southland team in the ITM Cup or in the Heartland Competition. This would also mean that there would be no community rugby in Southland and we would be reliant on the New Zealand Rugby Union to reinstate community rugby in Southland. If Rugby Southland and the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust cease to exist, ownership of Rugby Park will pass to the Community Trust. This is because the Community Trust have their loan registered as a first mortgage over Rugby Park.

Council is of the belief that Rugby Park is an important Southland regional facility. At present the stadium and grounds are utilised by rugby, rugby league and football. It is also used for the ‘Relay for Life’ and the Kids Tryathalon. At Southland provincial rugby matches, public attendance averages around 4,500, but for Highlanders’ games this can increase to approximately 7,000. Council recognises the importance that rugby has played in Southland’s history and notes that we have one of the best records of any provincial union in New Zealand.

The parties to the negotiations are of the belief that the most appropriate and effective solution would be to transfer ownership of Rugby Park to the Invercargill City Council. In New Zealand, the majority of outdoor stadiums are either owned or funded by local councils. Council is considering three different options for addressing the future of Rugby Park. Before making a decision on this matter, Council would like public input.

47 OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL

The three options being considered by Council are: 3 options

Option 1 - Status Quo – no Council involvement in the Southland Outdoor Stadium.

Option 2 - Council offers the Community Trust of Southland $400,000 in full and final settlement of the debt owing by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust. The Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust transfers ownership of the

stadium to the Council in exchange for Council taking over the debt of approximately $740,000 currently owing to Rugby Southland under the management contract.

Option 3 - Council makes a one-off grant of $400,000 to the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust to settle the Community Trust debt. Council also makes an ongoing grant of $290,000 per year to Rugby Southland for the ongoing running and maintenance costs of Rugby Park. Rugby Southland would take over ownership of the stadium.

The Council has considered what, if any, other options it might have to address this issue. Council believes that Rugby Park and Rugby Southland are important for the province and that there should be a significant regional contribution. At this time, no solution has been reached with any of the other local councils. Council is therefore satisfied that there are no other reasonably practicable options available to Council in the circumstances.

ANALYSIS OF THE COUNCIL’S OPTIONS

Option 1 - The advantage of the status quo (Option 1) is that Council does not incur Option 1 any costs in relation to Rugby Park. The disadvantage of the status quo is that the future of Rugby Southland is jeopardised and it is likely that it will become insolvent. This will have an impact on rugby in the Southland region. Ownership of Rugby Park will be transferred to the Community Trust and it is not yet known if the Community Trust would run Rugby Park or if it would be sold to recover the outstanding loan.

Option 2 - Under Option 2, Council offers the Community Trust of Southland Option 2 $400,000 in full and final settlement of the debt owing by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust. The Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust transfers ownership of the stadium to the Council in exchange for Council taking over the debt of approximately $740,000 currently owing to Rugby Southland under the management contract. In exchange for free office rental, Rugby Southland would reduce the $740,000 debt owing at the rate of $35,000 per annum. Attached to this would be the provision that should Rugby Southland cease to exist in the future, any remaining debt would be written off.

The advantage of Option 2 is that Council will secure a community facility for future generations. Under Council ownership it is likely that Rugby Park would be marketed to a new group of users for additional corporate and entertainment events. There is an opportunity to expand on the current use of the venue and have the facility available to more members of the community.

The disadvantage of Option 2 is that Council will incur an initial expense of $400,000 to settle the debt owed to the Community Trust. Council will also assume the debt of $740,000 owed to Rugby Southland, which will be reduced at the rate of $35,000 each year. In reducing the debt, Council will not be receiving any rental from Rugby Southland for their use of the stadium. Council would still charge a game day rental for the use of the grounds and facilities. Council will also then assume the ongoing costs of the administration and operation of the stadium. The cost of operating the stadium, including capital maintenance, will be approximately $290,000 each year. Council already collects a rate for regional facilities ($100,000 per year) that could be utilised for Rugby 48 Park. This means that an additional $190,000 would be required each year.

A further disadvantage of Option 2 is that it requires the agreement of third parties. The Community Trust has already resolved that it would be willing to accept the $400,000 offered as full and final payment of the debt owed to it. The decision of Council to take over ownership of Rugby Park is also contingent on the Invercargill Licensing Trust agreeing to provide a grant to extinguish the debt (owed by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust) of

Pacific Dawn Limited which is estimated at $130,000 and, if necessary, the debt owing to the Southland Amateur Sports’ Trust of $19,500. The Council will also expect agreement from the Invercargill Licensing Trust that it will consider any future application from Council for a grant toward

the capital maintenance requirements of the stadium.

Option 3 - The advantage of Option 3 is that Rugby Park remains out of public Option 3 ownership.

A disadvantage of Option 3 is that the cost to Council is the same as under Option 2, but it does not acquire a further asset. As Rugby Southland will be the owner of the stadium, there is no long term security for the stadium and there is no guarantee that they would permit the same level of community use. A further disadvantage to this option is that it is not Rugby Southland’s preferred option.

COUNCIL’S SUGGESTED OPTIONS Suggested Option

The suggested option to most effectively address the current and future interests of the community is Option 2. Council believes that the initial and ongoing cost of ownership and maintenance of the stadium is outweighed by the community good that will arise from securing the stadium for future use and enabling a greater use of the stadium by different groups.

In summary, Council is consulting on taking over ownership of Rugby Park to secure its future.

This will mean that:

 Council will pay $400,000 to the Community Trust of Southland in full and final settlement of the debt owed to it by the Southland Outdoor Stadium Trust.  Council will assume responsibility for the ongoing running and maintenance costs of Rugby Park at approximately $290,000 per year.  Council will assume responsibility for the debt owed to Rugby Southland. This debt is approximately $740,000 and will be reduced in exchange for free office

rental at a rate of $35,000 per year.  Council will be the owner of the Southland Outdoor Stadium.

CONSULTATION PERIOD

Community Consultation Clinic Consultation Period

Council staff will be available to answer questions and explain the proposal at a community consultation clinic to be held on Wednesday, 4 February, between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm at Rugby Park, Invercargill. Submission forms will be available at this meeting and Council staff will be available to assist you with completing a submission.

Making a Submission Make A Submission

Submissions are invited on this proposal. Submissions must be received by Council no later than 5.00 pm on Friday 13 February 2015.

Submissions should clearly show the submitter’s name, address and contact phone number. (Submission forms may be obtained from all Council offices and libraries and on the Council’s website www.icc.govt.nz). 49 Submissions can be:

Posted to: Invercargill City Council Submission – Rugby Park Private Bag 90104 INVERCARGILL 9840

Delivered to: Help Desk, Invercargill City Council, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill

Emailed to: [email protected]

If you do not wish to make a formal submission, but would still like to comment on the proposal, you may post a comment on the Invercargill City Council’s Facebook page. Please note if you choose to make a comment via our Facebook page, you will not receive the opportunity to speak to the Mayor and Councillors and you will not receive formal notification of the decision on this proposal.

Hearing of submissions

Council intends to hear those submitters who indicate that they wish to speak to their submission on Tuesday, 24 February 2014. Please ensure that if you wish to be heard in support of your submission you clearly indicate this on the submission form and give a daytime phone number. Providing Council with an email address gives us another way of ensuring we can contact you with the time that you will be heard.

50 TO: COUNCIL MEETING

FROM: CR DARREN LUDLOW

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2015

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL EVENTS COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Report Prepared by: Richard King, Chief Executive

SUMMARY

Updated terms of reference for applications to Events Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council adopt the new Terms of Reference for the Invercargill City Council Events Committee.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A

EVENTS COMMITTEE – TERMS OF REFERENCE

In conjunction with Rex Capil from Venture Southland, I have recently completed a review of the Terms of Reference for applications to the Council’s Events Committee (see Appendix 1).

It was felt the Terms of Reference needed to be tightened up to make sure that events that are being funded have a genuine economic impact to the city, or provide community and lifestyle benefits to Invercargill residents.

51 We also needed to clarify eligibility of events that were being organised as fundraisers, as the funding from this Committee could become the default contribution to the fundraising beneficiary. The Committee is also coming under increased pressure to fund more events, as the Invercargill Licensing Trust and Community Trust of Southland are not funding events to previous levels.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

52 Appendix 1

Events Committee

Terms of Reference

ICC Iconic Events Fund ICC Event Development Fund

Effective December 2013 (Reviewed December 2014)

r/13/11/16852 53 Invercargill City Council Events Committee Terms of Reference and Application Guidelines

ICC EVENTS COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Background At 6 March 2012 Finance and Policy meeting Council confirmed the Events Position Paper objectives and approach and endorsed the establishment of a Venture Southland/ Invercargill City Council Events Advisory Group to determine the Terms of Reference and implement accordingly.

This Position Paper confirmed that Venture Southland and Invercargill City Council work in partnership with the event sector to support Invercargill and Southland’s growing desire to be an attractive destination for events.

Invercargill City Council Vision Creating an exciting, innovative, safe, caring and friendly city offering lifestyles based on a healthy environment and diverse growing economy.

ICC Event Support The Invercargill City Council recognises the positive contribution events make to the city. As part of its vision to support vibrant and strong communities and contribute to a thriving economy the Council has funding available to support events that have a citywide focus.

Specific community and citywide events are seen as important for creating a strong sense of pride in place and a positive Invercargill identity. The city’s cultural diversity is recognised as a strength to be protected and promoted in ways that celebrate the different community identities and aspirations.

This investment in events is made in partnership with event organisers to enhance social, community, economic, environmental and city image outcomes in Invercargill that deliver a memorable community experience, and may be further enhanced by the support of other community funders.

Purpose and Objectives The Invercargill City Council Events Committee will: • Develop an understanding of the events sector and the benefits of involvement for the City. • Consider applications, determine and approve grant funding allocations from Invercargill City Council Event funds – i.e. Event Development Fund, Iconic Events Fund and Civic Theatre Support Fund. • Develop and use an Event Evaluation and Assessment Framework to assess funding applications. • Progress action on recommendations from the Southland Events Strategy - An Approach to Events August 2011. • Liaise and communicate with event stakeholders in Southland. • Consider options to progress developing and implementing a regional approach to event delivery in Invercargill and Southland. • Evaluate economic and community benefits of the event sector for the city and region.

r/13/11/16852 3 54 Invercargill City Council Events Committee Terms of Reference and Application Guidelines

Committee and Advisory Group The Invercargill City Council Events Committee, having delegated power to determine and decide applications and allocations is: • Mayor Tim Shadbolt. • Cr Peter Kett (Chair). • Cr Darren Ludlow.

The Advisory Group for the Events Committee, having the role and responsibility to receive, administer and advise the Committee on funding applications is: • Venture Southland, Group Manager, Community, Tourism and Events - (Chair). • Liz Williams • Richard King

Logistics and Management Support (a) Meetings The Committee is to meet six weekly as scheduled.

(b) Administration Invercargill City Council, EA, Carol Smith is to act as management liaison person and will forward all applications to Liz Williams (Venture Southland Conference and Events Team Leader) for administering. The Advisory Group will assess and evaluate each application in providing advice to the Committee.

Event Support Funds (1) Invercargill City Council Iconic Events Fund Council approves $100,000 per annum to be available for allocation to events that: - Generate significant direct economic, community and lifestyle benefits to Invercargill. - Attract a significant proportion of participants/spectators from outside of the city. - Has a high profile outside of the city. - Iconic Events are to be reviewed on a five yearly basis. - Retrospective funding is not available.

(2) Invercargill City Council Event Development Fund Council approves $100,000 per annum to be available for allocation to events that - Are new events (1-3 years old) and require initial catalyst funding support. - Are one off events that bring economic and community benefit to the city. - Assist in increasing the profile of the city and benefit residents. - Provide evidence of significant economic impact for the city. - Events are not able to be fundraisers for charities. - Retrospective funding is not available.

r/13/11/16852 55 56 TO: COUNCIL MEETING

FROM: CR PETER KETT

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2015

EVENTS COMMITTEE GRANTS

Report Prepared by: Richard King, Chief Executive

SUMMARY

Details of grants made at the Events Committee meeting held on 18 December 2014.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the information be received.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council’s Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A

EVENTS COMMITTEE GRANTS

At the Events Committee meeting held on 18 December 2014, three applications for funding and a request to uplift a guarantee against loss were considered:

The following grants were made from the Creation/Promotion Events Fund:

 Highlanders Trust – Investec Super Rugby Fixture – Highlanders vs Chiefs - $8,000  Heritage South – Heritage Month - $4,000  Duco Events – The Joseph Parker Heavyweight Fight Night - $50,000

57 The following guarantee against loss was uplifted from the Creation/Promotion Events Fund:

 ILT Stadium Southland – Wellington Ukulele Orchestra - $795.74

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90